Deus ex machina (question) ?

[Randall_Oelerich]

With regard to deus ex machina, would I be committing that 'unpardonable sin' of writing, if at the climax the hero fights the antagonist, and at the moment for the kill uses a beast to kill the antagonist (rather than say thrusting a dagger into the antagonist)? For example, suppose the hero and antag battle and a lion lunges to attack the hero, and the hero uses to his advantage, flipping the antag into the way so that the antag ends up in the jaws of the lion, and in so doing is defeated. Would that be considered deus ex machina? Or is that an acceptable way for the hero to defeat the antag, the lion in a sense being used as a weapon, along with the hero's cunning mind?

 

[kylekmd]

By his own hands, the hero must secure his fate.

You can bring in the cavalry to help, but the hero must finish the job himself. If not, the reader/audience feels cheated bigtime.

 

[Randall_Oelerich]

But what does 'by his own hands' really mean, or what I am really asking is what is the boundary of how far that can stray? For example, a hero defeating the antag with a weapon, a gun, did not kill the antag by his own hands. So could a beast be used, if the hero e.g. shoves the antag into a pit where the beast kills the antag-- in that sense the hero caused the death of the antag. Or, is it a matter of how personal the killing is-- a knife stab or strangulation for example is considered much more personal even by police (or as stated by the assassin Leon in The Professional [Luc Besson's film]), whereas letting a beast do the killing removes the killing more from the hero, leaning towards deus ex machina?

EDIT: I am trying to think of examples where the antag is taken out quasi deus ex machina. Raiders of the Lost Ark -- literally in this case it is Deus, God, who takes out the antagonist, or we could say God's angels. But yeah as I reflect on this I think Kyle you are right, that the protag should more directly and personal, if at all possible, defeat/kill the antag. I am working on a horror story, sequencing it, picturing possible climax hero-defeats-antag scenes.

By his own hands, the hero must secure his fate.

You can bring in the cavalry to help, but the hero must finish the job himself. If not, the reader/audience feels cheated bigtime.

 

[TimCollins]

To me, it sounds like it the protag should do the slaying himself. No beast involved (at least not for that killing) just protag and antag battling it out one on one. Or perhaps the beast could be an equal obstacle for both of them but doesn't decide the overall fate of the hero. So, like Kyle said, the audience doesn't feel cheated. The last thing you want to do is carefully build up to a climax and have the ending be a let-down.

 

[kylekmd]

Yes, absolutely! Throw him into the pit to be torn to shreds! As long as the hero's kicking ass before that, it's this act--the final assault--that results in his death. It's the proximate cause.

It's the same idea when the hero pushes the bad guy off a cliff, or down an elevator shaft, or into the screaming propeller of a plane, or into spinning implement tines, or whatever... you get the idea.

 

[Randall_Oelerich]

For sure, I would have the hero and antag duking it out for quite some time before that final kill, it is just that I am trying to figure the environment and the nasties therein into the kill, without getting too deus ex machina; another film comes to mind-- Anaconda, where the giant snake ultimately takes out the evil Jon Voight's character, in that case we have the monster (one antagonist) taking out the other monster/antagonist.

I thought if maybe the hero plays a key role in directing the antag into the jaws of a beast (lion, etc) that is part of the environment for the final battle (much like a cliff is just 'there' for the using, so the hero can throw the villain off the cliff) that is a danger to both hero and antag, using cunning and wit to do so, maybe that is not exactly deus ex machina. Although I see that perhaps a more direct mano a mano kill from hero to antag would be more direct; perhaps I could have the hero stab the antag, thus killing the antag, and as the antag is bleeding out, the hero pushes the antag into the mouth of a nearby beast? The hero thus did land the final blow, but the audience also gets to see the antag die in an even more gruesome (and visually interesting) fashion during the antagonist's last few seconds of life before bleeding out completely from the knife wound?

Yes, absolutely! Throw him into the pit to be torn to shreds! As long as the hero's kicking ass before that, it's this act--the final assault--that results in his death. It's the proximate cause.

It's the same idea when the hero pushes the bad guy off a cliff, or down an elevator shaft, or into the screaming propeller of a plane, or into spinning implement tines, or whatever... you get the idea.

 

[10s]

You might have the hero/protag saved by the tiger with the hero/protag thinking he's off scott free, only to have the villian/antag kill off the tiger like it was a light snack before the main meal. With this the villian/antag becomes even mightier as the hero shrinks. Doom is guaranteed at this point for the hero/protag. So with abandonment using his last ounce of effort left the hero/protag throws himself at the villian/antag and defeats him with an unknown and untapped explosion of primal rage.

 

[Randall_Oelerich]

I like that.

You might have the hero/protag saved by the tiger with the hero/protag thinking he's off scott free, only to have the villian/antag kill off the tiger like it was a light snack before the main meal. With this the villian/antag becomes even mightier as the hero shrinks. Doom is guaranteed at this point for the hero/protag. So with abandonment using his last ounce of effort left the hero/protag throws himself at the villian/antag and defeats him with an unknown and untapped explosion of primal rage.

 

[Eximious]

In "Hook", Captain Hook is killed off by a "dead" crocodile! It's one thing to defeat a villain, and another to kill him / her. Pan bests Hook at swordplay in the movie, but Hook's last-ditch deceptive ploy catches Pan off guard, who narrowly manages to drive Hook's deadly prosthetic into the dormant crocodile, who finishes the job.

In theory, I think you'll break no laws by having the lion finish off your villain. I think you'll just have to be careful with the execution. If your hero's actions cause the villain and lion to engage in their deadly dance, then the only real conceit is the lion's presence, which I'm assuming you've previously established, and hopefully established well.

I say go for it!

Edit: Also, from my perspective, hidden reserves of energy or skill, unless motivated by a proper cinematic element, feel more artificial than the situation you described in your original post. A hero's creative use of cunning or the environment has often felt more satisfactory to me.

 

[Ezekiel667]

I'm pretty sure as long as said lion doesn't just fall from the sky or jump out of a passing car, the protagonist killing the antagonist by way of brutal slaughter by carnivore wont be seen as Dues Ex Machina.

 

[10s]

A big part of having the hero finish off the problem/villian rather than having the Gods solve the issue is that this is a key final moment where the hero actually goes beyond his old limitations and is reborn as someone new and more powerful, or he becomes a confirmed total failure, as in a tragedy. Having the Gods come to the rescue denies this key consumation of the new self which is needed to seperate the old hero from the new hero. While sometimes writers go over the top and make it too fantastic and thereby reduce audience believability, if it's done properly it becomes a poweful transformative revelation for all, hero and audience.

The hero can finish off the villian through others, but it is the hero who is the causative factor not some power beyond the control of the hero. In the Shawshank Redemption, Andy the Hero, sends the incriminating evidence he collected, prepared and planned that sets in motion the Police to come after the Warden. This causes the Warden to shoot himself and Andy prevails with life in the sun while the Warden lies cold dead and disgraced.