The comment I added the other day from Armando’s Dramatica, (Do All Signposts (all signpost scenes) have to occur before Act Driver?)
Has got me wondering…can anyone direct me to some breakdowns for how this works in practice, not just theory?
…examples from film, or links to plot analyses where the storyform is shown next to the presentation where it creates suspense or mystery because of plotting-presentation decisions.
I’d love to explore this too if anyone can think of some good examples.
Hmmm… stories and films based on historical figures, the audience knows what is going to happen, I.e. Nelson, Trafalger ship, mast, then down goes Laurence Olivier on the deck, in a never to be forgotten moment but us knowing it was to come, but not the characters of the movie.
Lucky Number Slevin might be a good example of the major characters knowing something the audience only finds out at the very end. It’s worth watching if you haven’t seen it, yet. Don’t read about it on Wikipedia, since the plot is spelled out in detail. (until you’ve seen it, of course)
So in the case of Slevin, does the narrative actually start at Midpoint, moving through Understanding to Obtaining (Revenge), then we rewind to learn about the Doing and Learning? The storyform calls this a Bad ending for the MC.
THE OVERALL STORY THROUGHLINE: The Overall Story
Overall Story Synopsis:
DRIVER: Decision
LIMIT: Optionlock
OUTCOME: Success
JUDGMENT: Bad
DOMAIN: Activity
CONCERN: Doing
ISSUE: Enlightenment vs. Wisdom
PROBLEM: Unending
SOLUTION: Ending
SYMPTOM: Result
RESPONSE: Process
CATALYST: Experience
INHIBITOR: Ability
BENCHMARK: Gathering Information
SIGNPOST 1: Doing
SIGNPOST 2: Gathering Information
SIGNPOST 3: Understanding
SIGNPOST 4: Obtaining
GOAL: Doing
CONSEQUENCE: Playing a Role
COST: How Things are Changing
DIVIDEND: Impulsive Responses
REQUIREMENT: Gathering Information
PREREQUISITE: Conceiving an Idea
PRECONDITION: The Present
FOREWARNINGS: Contemplation
MAIN CHARACTER THROUGHLINE: Main Character (Slevin)
Main Character Synopsis:
MC RESOLVE: Change
MC GROWTH: Start
MC APPROACH: Be-er
MC PROBLEM-SOLVING STYLE: Linear
DOMAIN: Fixed Attitude
CONCERN: Impulsive Responses
ISSUE: Worth vs. Value
PROBLEM: Unending
SOLUTION: Ending
SYMPTOM: Expectation
RESPONSE: Determination
UNIQUE ABILITY: Worry
CRITICAL FLAW: Security
BENCHMARK: Contemplation
SIGNPOST 1: Contemplation
SIGNPOST 2: Memories
SIGNPOST 3: Impulsive Responses
SIGNPOST 4: Innermost Desires
INFLUENCE CHARACTER THROUGHLINE: Influence Character (Goodkat)
Influence Character Synopsis:
IC RESOLVE: Steadfast
DOMAIN: Situation
CONCERN: How Things are Changing
ISSUE: Fantasy vs. Fact
PROBLEM: Cause
SOLUTION: Effect
SYMPTOM: Result
RESPONSE: Process
UNIQUE ABILITY: Threat
CRITICAL FLAW: Confidence
BENCHMARK: The Present
SIGNPOST 1: The Past
SIGNPOST 2: How Things are Changing
SIGNPOST 3: The Future
SIGNPOST 4: The Present
RELATIONSHIP THROUGHLINE: The Relationship
Relationship Story Synopsis:
DOMAIN: Manipulation
CONCERN: Playing a Role
ISSUE: Thought vs. Knowledge
PROBLEM: Unproven
SOLUTION: Proven
SYMPTOM: Result
RESPONSE: Process
CATALYST: Desire
INHIBITOR: Skill
BENCHMARK: Conceiving an Idea
SIGNPOST 1: Developing a Plan
SIGNPOST 2: Conceiving an Idea
SIGNPOST 3: Playing a Role
SIGNPOST 4: Changing One’s Nature
Slevin has a big twist, but it’s not exactly the “typical” pattern that @ArmandoSaldanamora seems to be talking about in Ch 22 of Dramatica for Screenwriters.
Mystery: A dramatic effect where the characters are aware of something the audience doesn’t know. —Achieving Mystery By Hiding The Plot Progression Of A Whole Throughline
Irony: A dramatic effect where the audience is aware of something the characters don’t know. —Achieving Irony By Changing The Order Of The Story’s Drivers
Suspense: A dramatic effect where both the audience and the characters are unaware of what’s really going on.—Achieving Suspense By Hiding The Static Story Points of A Whole Throughline
I can’t get my head around what happened in Slevin. And the reviews make note of how borderline confusing it was. Which makes me think that maybe it didn’t fall in line with Dramatica theory.
I haven’t seen Slevin. Do you have a link to that storyform? I couldn’t find it.
Have you seen the first season of Westworld? I think that might be an example, but it would take some time to pull apart the throughlines, and there’s more going on there.
The more I think about it, the more I think that we’re unlikely to find a “pure” example of these techniques the way that Armando uses them in existing stories.
Well, more than a pure example, I’d like to see ANY example broken down with an explanation of the technique. The storyform for Slevin (above) is one I tried to decode in light of the idea of it starting midway.
But it might be that the entire STORY starts midway, making it a complex mystery. Or maybe just the MC, IC, RS start midway. But we are not aware of not knowing, so it also isn’t much of a mystery. We only wonder, “What’s going on, anyway?”
I would think Memento would be a good example of this, just by its sheer execution. It’s less about a “whodunit” and more of a “whydunit.”
The Usual Suspects may also be another to analyze, as well as Sixth Sense. A lot of these seem to have Understanding as the 4th overall story signpost.
This is way beyond my ability to analyze. If the judgement is changed to good would things be better? It seemed good in the film.
How about the movie, The Swimmer, with Burt Lancaster? It was powerful in hiding what was really going on. I don’t know if it fits this post or another, but bringing it to mind in general, here. The husband keeps quoting from it, over the years, and it seems to fit a lot of things.
What does it mean - generally - to “hide” the plot progression of a whole throughline, as in the case of Mystery?
I’m mystified …
I understand it means to leave it out of the story, or hint at the results of the actions without the actual actions being understood.
Like a random murder of the sister of the MC as the only hint that something else is going on, but we don’t know anything about the details or causal elements.
In the caper example Armando gives in his book, the MC is an aging thief planning a heist. The IC is his ex-lover who has gone straight and is trying to convince the thief to do the same. Through the first two acts, the story reveals the OS, MC and IC signposts – the OS throughline of planning the heist, the IC throughline of the influence of the woman he’s still in love with, and the MC throughline of the thief who is maybe too old for the job.
It’s only at the end though that the RS throughline–which is in Psychology (Manipulation)–is revealed and we see that the thief and his lover were actually in cahoots–Planning, Playing a Role, (not) Becoming ex-thieves, in order to throw the other characters off the scent (Conceiving).
I think this is an instructive but not perfect example. First of all, it’s not really “a mystery” though it technically fits the definition of the characters knowing more than the audience. But then that creates a problem in that the MC player knows things that the audience doesn’t, which might or might not feel like cheating.
Having thought about this subject a bit, I now think it’s probably more useful to take a holistic/organic approach and recognize that you can separate the “storytime” events in the signposts and choose to reveal them in a variety of ways, at different times, in different orders, to create different emotional impacts on the audience.
For me, this means creating two outlines – one that describes the linear progression of the signposts and another that describes the order in which events revealed to the audience. (At the moment I’m doing this in revisions, not upfront).