Incongruous Behavior

Incongruous behavior is a classification of implausibility that relates to the way characters behave in the context of their own reality (Another category of plausibility problem is LSOC). Rather early in most scripts the parameters of the fantasy we are supposed to accept are well established.  We chose to willfully accept the impossible for the sake of the story, we intentionally suspend disbelief and immerse ourselves in the world of the author; usually following characters along some imaginary dramatic timeline.  However it often comes to pass that the characters of the story behave in ways that defy logic even in the context of their own reality.  The problem is NOT that the consumer of the story has insufficiently suspended disbelief, the problem is that the author does not fully understand the implications of various choices that she has made regarding the universe of her own creation and therefore her characters show evidence of behaving in ways that are inconsistent with the reality that they live in.

The instant that this happens the viewer's mind becomes fixed on the inconsistency and struggles to resolve it.  The overwhelming feeling is that of having missed some key point that would make everything right.

Examples:

#1 Minority Report.

The suspension of belief:  We are all willing to accept that psychics are doing a good job of predicting murders and the story offers evidence for this: there have been NO murders in Washington D. C. since the Pre-Crime program was implemented.  The most egregious precognition paradoxes are dealt with head on in a satisfactory manner.

The incongruity:  We are lead to worry about the ethics of Pre-Crime by a character from the Justice Department and certainly his concerns are compelling.  How do we know that all these people are going to actually be killers?  Could it not be that some of them would NOT have killed?  Faced with this question and the evidence of Pre-Crime's success the solution to the problem is entirely obvious: just run the Pre-Crime with an emphasis on prevention and evidence gathering, not prosecution.   Simply hold the suspects in some sort of detention and if evidence of pre-meditation can be found, run a normal trial based on that evidence.  This solution is entirely obvious and there is no logical reason why this would not occur to the people running Pre-Crime.  

The reason:  The writers were interested in showing us a "1984" type world where Big Brother (Washington D.C. city government) instantly abuses any good idea that comes along.  However the fact that the Justice Department was suspicious of the Pre-Crime program indicates that Big BIG Brother (The Justice Department) actually cares about political ethics.  If the entire US had become a crazy Animal Farm dictatorship then we might be able to accept that any excuse to imprison people would have been welcomed by all, but even in the context of the story that had not happened.

#2 Star Trek 

The suspension of belief: We all accept that an easy method to change settings is very important in a science fiction drama that involve zipping around the galaxy from planet to planet.  There simply has got to be an easy way to get from the spaceship to the planet and there has got to be an easy way of getting from ship to ship.  Since the first days of Star Trek we have always permitted the transporters to do this job.  It is quick and easy and not really a big problem.  Despite the fact that transporter technology is probably the most unlikely of all the technologies seen in Star Trek, we are happy to let the authors use it to help the story move along.

The incongruity: Usually the authors are quite sensitive to the implications of transporter technology and on many occasions care is taken to emphasize that the "transporter is blocked" or "communication is disrupted" or "there is a shield" that prevents Kirk and company (or any member of the "Away Team" in later versions of the series) from easily escaping some situation by just beaming up (Note: this handling leads to its own inconsistencies.  See the marvelous and exacting commentary here).  In other words no-one anxiously yells "Beam me up Scotty"  until after the drama has concluded and the escape is never trivial even though transporters exist.  However trivial escapes are not the only implication of transporter tech.  There have been several episodes where transporter tech has been used to rebuild people disease free, younger or even duplicate them completely (Examples form Star Trek - Next Generation: Lonely Among Us, Haven, Symbiosis, Unnatural Selection, Bloodlines just to name a few cases where the transporter has cured disease or done other extremely useful things).  In these circumstances we are immediately lead to ask, "If they can do THAT, why isn't EVERYBODY young?"  Certainly it shouldn't take an ordinary crew on an ordinary starship to figure out that the transporter can be used to preserve youth, reconstruct the dead and bootstrap our way to immortality?  From the moment the writers allow the transporter to be exploited for ANYTHING other than moving people around relatively quickly we are entitled as viewers to demand explanations as to why transporters are not ALWAYS used for such tasks.  

The reason: Well, the writers are always looking for new subjects and by now they have exploited more or less every nook or the Star Trek Universe.  The writers know that their fan base is profoundly loyal and no longer feel constrained by any sense of logic or reason or consistency. 

#3 Simone

The suspension of belief: We are willing to accept that Al Pacino is able to create a virtual movie star and that this actress becomes famous even though she is never actually seen by anyone other than on screen.  Not a problem, there is no particular reason not to explore the fact that movies are becoming so heavily loaded with effects that someday actors themselves may become superfluous.  I am happy to laugh at the superficial nature of Hollywood any day. In this version of that exploration we accept that Simone's virtual nature is supposed to be a secret.

The incongruity: Well regardless of what Simone is the other actors in this story are normal people and the rest of the world is supposed to be rather normal, except for Simone.  It is simply inconceivable that actors would be willing to co-star a movie with Simone without her present.  Simply being a one-hit wonder would not supply enough credibility  for Simone to demand such treatment.  The other actors simply would not behave that way.  Interestingly this concept was explored much more ingeniously in the past by Steve Martin and Eddie Murphy in the near-perfect comedy Bowfinger.  Because that  movie was a comedy, the rules of plausibility are voided, but regardless  there the missing actor  was only missing for the rehearsals, not the actual filming, and the missing actor had a career's worth of credibility AND the supporting actors were washed-up or young and they accepted with Bowfinger's explanation out of desperation or naiveté.  In other words, a complete comedy dealing with the same issue went to great length to maintain plausible behavior of the characters but the writers of Simone didn't even bother.  "Simone" was not enough of a comedy for us to completely let go an accept that actors would accept Pacino and Simone's methods up front.  Paul Clinton, CNN critic who reviewed Simone, says it this way:

"...So far, so good -- until Niccol insults the intelligence of his audience.

No one has ever accused Hollywood of being a major brain trust, but really.

After the release of the film [the one that launches Simon's career and save Pacino's], Simone is suddenly a major star, and Taransky proceeds to get the studio to green-light a new, multimillion-dollar film starring this new leading lady that no one has ever met. The beyond-lucky director then convinces all her co-stars in the new movie that Simone's "process" is to work completely alone, and then she'll be inserted later, so all the other actors involved have to interact with a blue screen instead of a real person. Come on. Hey, it's not like I missed Niccol's point that Hollywood will make any concession for a star with big box-office appeal, and fame is really just an illusion in the end, but there IS a limit. "

Clinton is talking about an incongruity of behavior: given the conditions of the story, people would NOT behave the way the writers have them behave.