I'm working on a new project right now and I'm finding myself avidly trying to AVOID "The hero's journey."

I feel that the hero's journey in it's very specific Campbell based form has maybe overinfluenced our movie culture to the point that most films have become a cliche - even well intentioned movies. I have been in some discussions lately about why - despite the beautiful imagery in cinema now - the overall feeling is becoming more and more bereft of emotion. Some blamed it on the visual effects - but I think that' not going deep enough.

I think the studio generation has been brought up in an era where cinema has been figured out. And if they are older than I am, perhaps they've simply joined the bandwagon.

Once something is figured out - you can manufacture it. "I really feel that we need a little more punch at the opening and by page 10 or so I really think we need to have established our...." Do these people really feel these things or does this feeling come from the assumption that these things are right?

I suspect the awards thrown upon Crash are an awareness of this. There are examples all the time of movies that break the classic rules and truly stand out. There are examples of breaking them and failing miserably.

So what is it when they work?

Each scene has a dynamic fulcrum and all these scenes are unified by a common theme or thread. Unlike the rigid Unities by Aristotle, perhaps cinema unity simply need a uniting idea (Crash = Racism) or uniting event, person, theory, problem. but we don't watch movies, I believe, as much as we watch a series of moments.

You can make the heros journey, but if you're successful, it's not because of that formula, it's because of the ingredients - the scenes with the fulcrum were compelling. If you just fill out the "hero's journey" form - the story is going to feel flat.

What do you think?