From here I ventured my attention towards fellow Cal Arts grad Don Cheadle and his portrayal of house

manager Paul Rusesabagina. From the beginning we see that this is a man who knows how to get things done - yet does little physically. He knows who to talk to and what to say to get them to do what he wants. It is this quality of character that in fact makes him vital to the story. My first idea of his throughline veered me towards the Psychology Domain. Paul exists in the world of manipulations. This made Paul a Be-er. A be-er is someone who would rather adapt themselves to their environment rather than try to force their environment into some different shape. Wearing the tie and suit of the Western world has become second nature for Paul. He changes himself to be more pleasing to those who can help him. This felt good too when compared to the Overall Story. With this sort of relationship, an Overall Story of Situation and a Main Character of Psychology, the Growth of the Main Character tends towards Start. More specifically, Paul will be either waiting for something to start or he will have a hole in his heart that needs to be filled. That felt right. As dangerous as the situation is, Paul seems to be waiting for something to start - whether it be a rescue by the Belgian officials, the U.N., or even the Americans - there is a sense that he is holding out for something to start. Naturally then, I began to think of his Resolve. He felt like a Steadfast character to me at first. The film portrayed this strong individual who stood up and refused to back down or give up even up until the very end. And that matched up well with him holding out for something to start. But I could not for the life of me figure out who his Impact Character would be. If Paul is Steadfast, then there would have to be some great Change in another character and I could not find that anywhere. Frustrated, I gave up on my analysis and decided to let it sit in my mind for a day or two. I woke up the next morning and knew the answer. Of course Paul is a Change Main Character. They set it up in the beginning - Pauls neighbors are accosted by Hutu soldiers and his wife wants him to act. Paul declines, stating that it is only family that matters - nothing else. Let the neighbors take care of themselves. Look at this picture to the left - it is his lack of acting that is shown to be problematic. Like Dickens Scrooge, Paul is not actively going out and causing harm, hes allowing harm to happen and is thus shown to have a hole in his heart. But then he fills that hole with something. Paul learns to deeply care about the people living in his hotel. From orphaned children to the elderly - these are people who cannot act to save themselves. They need someone like Paul. Paul is trapped in a great dilemma when his family is granted an exit Visa out of the madness. Can he really abandon these people? Isnt family all that matters?

Paul puts his family on the truck, then slams the door shut behind them. His wife shrieks as she realizes what is going on. The two grasp hands as the truck pulls out, but Paul knows he has to stay - these people need him - there is more than his family. His point of view has changed. The problem elements jumped out at me. Paul was plagued with Inaction - his lack of action was hurting his chances of survival - of figuring out some way out of all this. His solution was Protection.

Weaving the Main Character into the Overall Story

This fit in nicely with the Objective Story as well. If you have a Main Character who ultimately changes then the Objective Story will share the same problem element. The crisis in Rwanda unfolds because of a lack of action - a lack of action on the part of the Belgians, the Americans, and the world as a whole. Hotel Rwanda does a beautiful job of weaving the Main Characters Problem into the Overall Storys Problem. Tying the MC with the OS When tying the Main Characters personal issues with the Overall Story throughline, its best to show some sort of causal relationship between the Main Characters resolution/non-resolution of his or her personal problem, and the success or failure of the OS goal. Pauls Protection of the people at the hotel buys enough time for the Tutsi Rebels to launch their attack. Paul changes and the Overall Story ends in Success. Success here is not measured in terms of one army winning over the other. Instead it is more accurate to say that the Present Situation has been successfully brought back into balance.

Impact Character
At first I had difficulty in nailing down exactly who stood in Pauls way. I didnt feel it was his wife - there wasnt enough screen time with her. My mind then wandered towards his friend, General Bizimungu (Fana Mokena), Colonel Oliver (Nick Nolte) and to a greater extent, his friend in the warehouse, George Rutuganda (Hakeem Kae-Kazim). George was a very strong individual who had a considerable influence on Pauls growth. Towards the end, there is a particularly powerful scene of the two of them in the warehouse. Paul laughs and mentions to George that certainly he didnt think he would be able to kill all the Tutsis? George answers - Why not? as if he feels he and his Hutu friends have all the time in the world. Pauls reaction to this is clear - he knows he has to do something. But after a day or so I realized that this is really an Objective Story moment. His friend at the warehouse is a pawn in illustrating the Overall Story - the civil war in Rwanda. He exists to show the driving force of antagnoism in that story - that of the Hutu. No, the Impact Character had to lie somewhere else.

Relationship Throughline vs. The Overall Throughline

Then it dawned on me - his wife was Tutsi, but Paul was a Hutu. The objective conflict was mirrored by the emotional throughline of the relationship between he and his wife! Of course, it was so obvious. Hutu vs. Tutsi is shown both objectively and subjectively. You get both the cold-hearted logical viewpoint and the heartfelt emotional viewpoint. But what is great about the difference is that while the objective viewpoint is shown to be a destructive one, the subjective view is shown to be a positive source of conflict. Hutu and Tutsi come together to form something more than themselves. Taking us back to that moment when Paul fails to act in favor of his neighbors, it is his wife who tells him he has to do something. If a Main Character is avoiding something, the Impact Character will be the one that stands in his way - making sure that they cant avoid their issues. They continue this conflict later in bed when Paul makes his statement about how family is all that matters. Dramatically it is wonderful to see how this conflict in a personal relationship allows the conflict in the objective relationships to succeed. Without their marriage, Paul would not have been able to bide enough time for the Tutsi rebels to act.

Wrap-Up
From there it was a simple matter of filling in the blanks. An Optionlock exists in the Objective Story: there are only so many people Paul can turn to for help before he must turn to himself. At first it seems the U.N. will take care of things. Then, when the U.N. pulls out Paul calls on the Belgians who own the hotel to help him. When they sadly report they can do nothing, Paul turns to Bizimungu. Again, Pauls pleas are left unanswered. The dwindling number of options increases the tension in the story and brings about its ultimate conclusion. The Concerns took awhile for me to fully appreciate. The Objective Story Concern of Present was an obvious choice - the people in this crisis were not overly concerned with how things were going to be, or how things were in the past. They did, however, measure how things were changing to evaluate their present situation (which is why it fits nicely as the Objective Story Benchmark more on this later). The Main Character Concern of Conceiving fit in nicely as Paul was consistently trying to come up with an idea to save all these people. This was great except for the fact that it was completely wrong. I was doing what most people do when looking at the Main Character throughline - they confuse that throughline with the Main Characters role in the Objective Story. Pauls attempt to come up with some way to help these people represented his role as a Protagonist in the Overall Story. His throughline should be something that is uniquely him. In other words, if you picked up Paul and placed him in a completely different story, what kind of emotional baggage would he bring over with him?

It became apparent to me that Pauls personal concern was that of other people conceiving of him as a man of import - a man to be respected and a man of style. He does everything he can - dresses the part, smiles when hes supposed to, shores up favors when he can - in an effort to almost elevate his status in life. That scene when he falls to the ground and rips off his shirt and tie is a Main Character Throughline moment - he had done all that he thought was appropriate - but it was still not enough. Tatianas Concern was even more difficult - how did she repesent a Concern of Gathering Information? This was one of the reasons why I found it so difficult to label her as the Impact Characteruntil it dawned on me one morning while brushing my teeth (a place where all good ideas come). It was the concern that the Hutu army would Learn that she was Tutsi. The potential of this dangerous activity being realized is what has the mos