“We live in a fantasy world, a world of illusion. The great task in life is to find reality.”
–Iris Murdoch
In A Beautiful Mind, The Real Story Dictates The Inciting Incident, Not The Apparent Story
One of the challenges of analyzing a film is choosing which lens to view its story through. With so many theories and books available, it’s not surprising to find variations in story structure and their resulting interpretations when everybody’s playing from a different deck of cards.
Compounding the problem is when a story that’s structured in such a way that its apparent story—that which seems to be—ends up being something much different once the filmmakers pull the veil back and reveal certain truths to the audience. We’re essentially spoon-fed events that seem to set one story in motion, but we are only given a twist that plays against our expectations, turning the narrative on a dime. The challenge here is that while the underpinnings of what’s really going on remain masked, they have to make sense going both forward and in reverse while working within the context of the apparent story we were led to believe was being told.
Such is the case with Ron Howard’s award-winning A Beautiful Mind, where we follow young prodigy John Nash’s early life as a student in Princeton to his working as a secretive code-cracker for the Department of Defense—only to learn he’s actually been suffering from schizophrenia and many key characters in his life are delusions. This revelation forces us to re-examine everything that came before us to put this new information into context.
In short, it changes the story’s apparent structure, which, in turn, alters the story’s meaning; to do that, the spine it’s all hung on changes, starting with the inciting incident: the moment when the once-latent problem first emerged.
One of the more popular online resources for screenwriters, The Script Lab, offers a five-point breakdown for A Beautiful Mind. However, in reading their analysis, one gets the notion they were deliberating the inciting incident from the audience’s perspective as the story unfolds rather than from the required objective reading once the story has been wholly told:
In fact, this doesn’t feel like an inciting incident; it’s merely a stated goal of what Nash desires (which shouldn’t necessarily be attributed to the theory, either). Creating an equilibrium stratagem is his methodology for achieving a more universal need for purpose, meaning, and acceptance—attributes the audience can readily identify with—and a point that will be explored in a few moments.
This particular reading doesn’t capture the spine of the story, either. Had this been the actual inciting incident—what throws Nash’s life into a state of unbalance—the story would have been over at the end of the first act.
Structure: A Beautiful Mind – The Story Department
Likewise, The Story Department’s analysis points toward the same end:
As with the Script Lab’s analysis, if this were the event that throws Nash’s life into disarray, then the story’s central problem’s resolution comes at the end of the first act when the professor acknowledges Nash’s breakthrough and informs him he can have any placement he wants. Problem solved . . . right?
Naturally, completing that endeavor only leads to further complications, but we have to consider what those complications really are and where they stem from.
The concept of discovering a truly original idea is born on the rooftop. Still, it’s not the incident that throws Nash’s life into a state of inequity by any means—it’s merely the point where his desire is confirmed, leading him to seek a greater purpose of relevancy or “mattering,” as shown in this clip:
In this drive, Nash needed to discuss Charles and Charles’s arrival as “The prodigal roommate” in the scene after Nash rebukes Hansen, which is the story’s inciting incident. It’s not even “Charles” who barges into Nash’s quarters claiming to be his roommate—it’s schizophrenia, or rather its manifestation in “physical” form, that shows up, the effects of which Nash battles for the remainder of the story. Of course, this isn’t apparent to the audience at this point because the true story, what the film is really about, isn’t revealed until this scene nearly halfway through:
When we look at what’s really going on and analyze it against the scene on the rooftop, everything falls into place: while Charles is born with schizophrenia, he, just like William Parcher, becomes something representative of Nash’s desire (to matter). But as articulated by Nash in the rooftop scene, one has to first have someone to matter to:
Charles, in actuality a fragment of Nash’s fragile psyche, is in some regards his own self-conscious talking to him, later fracturing off to Parcher, who further fulfills the need of “mattering” as he instills Nash’s pseudo-work with a sense of important grandiosity – all in his head, of course – but none of that would exist had the schizophrenia not manifested itself in the form of Charles waltzing into Nash’s room, becoming his confidant and allowing the audience to hear first-hand Nash’s inner turmoil.
So, is there a way we can actually give this notion of an inciting incident a litmus test? As it turns out, it’s typically tied to the story’s midpoint and climax—creating “the spine.” Charles is present at the midpoint, as shown in the previous clip, but he’s absent, yet he’s the basis of the emotional climax for a reason.
Analyzing the climax, we see Nash receives validation from his peers via the pen ceremony in Princeton, but what’s important to keep in mind here is the scene’s purpose: to ensure Nash himself won’t “dance around the podium, strip naked, and squawk like a chicken” if awarded the highest distinction in his field: the Nobel Prize.
In other words, it’s the point where Nash’s genuine desire – to matter in the eyes of others—is within grasp. Still, it’s only obtainable because of his ability to acknowledge and live with his delusions under control. As he says, he still sees things that are not here, but has learned to choose not to accept them. In doing so, he’s established meaningful relationships and lived a more fulfilling life, culminating in his being awarded one of the highest distinctions possible.
Upon accepting the Nobel Prize, Nash’s short speech harkens back to Charles’ rooftop retort about mathematics not being the thing that will lead him to a higher truth. Nash acknowledges this point, stating he’s made the most crucial discovery of his career. In fact, the most critical discovery of his life.
His journey complete, Nash has gone from an isolated man who doesn’t like people to one who has not only achieved the highest distinctions but also a deeper understanding of what it truly means to matter to someone else , who, in turn, matters to him the most.
Written By: James P. Barker
10 Responses
I thought I had the whole “inciting incident” down, but now I’m getting confused. I assume you’ve been to Scriptlab. I have some bones to pick with some of their inciting incidents, especially The Godfather movies.
I’ve heard some people say the incident in the first movie is when Sollozo meets Don Corleone ( like you suggest here for A Beautiful Mind) . I argue that it is when Vito gets gunned down since that is the incident that unravels the status quo. Scriptlab says it’s when Michael tells the Luca Brasi story and tells Kay that’s his family, not him.
What are your thoughts?
I’d have to watch the movie again :). There are potentials for numerous inciting incidents depending on the number of subplots, story or through lines happening. I’m a fan of Dramatica and there are four through lines in every complete storyform in their theory. While they call them drivers, the function is similar so each one should have an incident “driving” it. Just as with Ordinary People, it can be rather difficult to identify each and keep them separate. My guess is some of the analyses for The Godfather identify inciting incidents that aren’t part of the central (or in Dramatica overall) story.
They have it wrong.
“That’s just my family, Kay, its not me” is Michael’s misconception, a thesis the whole story will spend proving fallacious.
The inciting incident is something outside the protagonists control, not something they do or say which is a response to that incident.
In the “Godfather” the inciting incident is the attack of Vito Corleone in the fruit market, the first domino to fall in Michael’s ascension to the throne of the family. How he reacts to the shooting, which is basically laying low until the hospital visit where they try to kill the Don is his first response, a reticent reluctant response at that, letting Sonny handle it.
However Sonny isn’t smart enough to protect their pop, and Michael suggesting the killing of Solazzo and the police chief is the first plot point.
Thank you, I knew I couldn’t be alone on this. The scriptlab people were on some military-grade acid when they wrote that.
No kidding there are potentials! I’ll go back to my books to see what they say, but at this stage I’m probably making a mountain out of a molehill. It’s always better to keep things simple (at least at the most basic level)
Trust me, you want the molehill! Too many people choose the obvious because it IS simple, but what they short-change themselves of is exploring all the possibilities for a greater understanding. In the end simple is a nicety, but you want something that’s going to be truthful – otherwise one little piece of the puzzle can throw the rest of it off (motivation, desire, need, purpose, drive, methodology, etc.).