Also, I’m still a bit conflicted about Tony being the MC. I strongly feel Cap is. Oh and yeah, Zemo is definitely the protagonist. He’s almost always at the beginning of the next act. Basically at the points where we would expect story drivers. Zemo appears, or an effect created by him occurs, then all hell breaks loose. That drives the characters toward something. The story goal in this case which is Obtaining. Where I differ a bit is in my choice of MC. I chose Cap as the MC and Tony as the influence xter. Although Cap is in Fixed attitude for sure.
Two quick things:
-
I come back to this very basic question: do we select the domain by referring to the types of events taking place or by the source of the conflict within it? Here’s an example: let’s say there’s tons of manipulation going on in the OS as everyone tries to manipulate everyone else, but they’re doing this in response to bombs going off around the city. So the bombs are the source of the problem, but the reaction is that everyone is concerned with using that fact to manipulate others. So is the domain in Manipulation because that’s what the throughline largely consists of? Or is it in Activity because that’s the source of the conflict?
-
Absolutely, public speaking can be an activity. Would you say that it can’t be manipulation (in the Dramatica sense – not the general sense)? Can a scene of public speaking not be in Fixed Attitude? Everything characters do is an action in one form or another, but we don’t place all OS throughlines in action. For this reason, saying that even public speaking can be an action needs something more: a means of assessing why this scene of public speaking is an activity rather than an expression of manipulation, fixed attitude, or situation.
Hope that makes sense!
I can easily get behind your four acts, by the way (again, assuming that at some point someone tells me that the throughline domains are determined by what they consist of rather than the sources of conflict within them), but I would note that your progression is different from Jim’s, and I can’t speak to why yours is right and his is wrong other than on impressions – which is what I think we’re trying to get away from.
2 Likes
[quote=“mlucas, post:84, topic:719”]
if the “humanity stuck in the matrix / battery pods” situation was the Domain, the film would’ve had to try to resolve that situation somehow.[/quote]
It’s been forever since I’ve seen it, but doesn’t Agent Smith or some representative of the machines address this? I’m pretty sure there’s a conversation about how they tried to change the situation by providing the humans a Paradise within the Matrix, but the humans all started dying. It’s only when given the opportunity for inequity within the Matrix that the humans thrive.
This sets up the machines as having a problematic external process (keeping the humans alive, providing a matrix they don’t try to escape from). It also shows that being stuck in a pod isn’t an inequity for the humans (they’ve been provided with the best possible Matrix simulation in order for them to thrive). being stuck only looks like an inequity once they realize they are stuck. If they accept the situation (take the red pill, or whatever color) the problem goes away. It’s the attempt to escape from the Matrix, or, as the official analysis puts it, “Finding ‘The One’ Who’ll Save Humanity” that creates a source of conflict for the humans.
Well said Sébastien. Lets crystallize the sources of conflict.
-
Act1: The Bombing in Lagos. Wanda saved Cap, but in so doing, a lot of innocent people died. These are a series of problematic activities. They’re Physics based things. External Processes. These led to the creation of the Accords. So the Accords are a result of past Activities that wreaked havoc on society irrespective of motives. The Accords are a storytelling tool to illustrate the signpost of Understanding. The characters need to understand the consequences of their actions and that things won’t be the same as they once were.
-
Act 2: Doing
Cap could have just buried Peggy and be done with it. But his MC issues come into play here. Coupled with the second Bombing at the signing of the Accords. Yet another External Process. Cap went to save Bucky, thus branding him a criminal (conflict). The activity of Bombing made T’challa engage in a chase or hunt if u will for Bucky. The beef between himself and Bucky. Cap now has one extra enemy. If u remember when Bucky and Panther fought at the hangar, Bucky claimed he was innocent, but Panther asked “then why did u run?” Bucky engaged in the activity of running >>>conflict.
Recently I bought Mel’s Learn characters in a day. How I got the objective thing better was to picture the movie without sound. What can we describe when we see it that way? It’s a whole bunch of activities. A Bombing here, a chase there, some fighting etc. The sound helps us to understand what it feels like to be a foot soldier. It helps us inside. Hence the whole “subjective” #.
This is where the chain of causes can be confusing for me: why was the bomb set? To manipulate everyone into believing the Winter Soldier was responsible. Lets say there was still a bomb, but no attempt to frame Bucky (i.e. manipulation) – what happens? Well, there would be an investigation, certainly, but no sudden escalation of the conflict between the characters in the story. So yes, the bombing is clearly an activity, but what is it other than the means to frame Bucky? If Zemo could have achieved the same result by just spreading a nasty rumour, he’d’ve done that and we’d get the same result. I’m happy with either answer, but if it’s about the source of conflict, then I need a way to distinguish between the two.
Cool. Let’s say you’re watching the movie without sound and most of what you see are people talking. Does that mean the OS cannot be in Activity or Situation but must be in Fixed Attitude or Manipulation? Are the domains are delineated by what types of movement we see on the screen (bodies moving versus mouths moving)?
Oh I see the confusion boss. As writers we are plagued with needing to know the character motivations. This is where we need to separate the two. From a structural stand point, we need not go too far down to be overwhelmed with details. Structure, while being thorough, is a broad strokes thing. Call it the skeleton if u will. The nerves, the muscle fires etc is all storytelling,which is where you excel at Sébastien. From a broad strokes perspective (using the sound method I employ) we see people fighting, then a bomb goes off, then some argument. We can infer that the argument they are having must’ve been as a result of the effects of the Bombing. As for the reasons, this is where the storyteller in you is free to create any reason u deem fit.
- With the sound off, it could be anything. But I like to think of the sources of conflict with these tags.
States and Processes.
States are : Universe and Mind. (Situation and Fixed attitudes).
Processes are: Physics and Psychology.
Two are external and two are Internal.
Mind is an internal state. Stubbornness, dogged essay, Conviction, Prejudice etc. It could even be Madness, as it is a State, not a Process.
Psychology is an internal process. It is dynamic. Here we consider things, try to manipulate things, psyche ourselves up, think we are the shit or think poorly of ourselves. It has to do with our process of thinking.
So for example if I see an angry mob chasing a person , say zombies, in my mind I know the zombies have nothing to say, but the main characters do. They’ll have to flee often and scavenge for supplies, fight to survive. These are external processes, hence the Throughline of Physics for me.
If I keep watching and notice one character having more screen time, I’ll try to see what the context of the scenes are. Are they depressed? Happy? See how they interact. This could inform my decision of Throughline for them. For example in The Dark Horse. The MC suffers mental illness. His personal conflict cannot come from an external state. So I naturally negate the Universe domain. I think of his mental challenge and know it has to do with his mind. So I pick mind. Fortunately Dramatica deals with dynamic pairs so the other one’s the other one.
Hope this helps?
I’ll be honest, I’ve forgotten large parts of this film already, so maybe need to hush until I can watch again, but wouldn’t “setting the bomb to manipulate others” be part of the revenge plot that @jhull has mentioned? And wouldn’t “getting revenge” be an Activity, even though part of getting revenge is manipulating others? So without the manipulation of framing Bucky, the bomb is still set to get revenge.
So the problem that everyone is dealing with is the activity of Zemo trying to obtain/achieve revenge. So if he doesn’t set the bomb for manipulation, he sets it for obtaining revenge, an Activity. If he stops trying to get revenge through setting bombs, the other problems go away. Would that work?
Greg,
I think the question becomes, then, is revenge ALWAYS and ONLY activities?
Can’t you manipulate someone for revenge? (a la The count of Monte Cristo)
Or couldn’t someone’s Fixed Attitude of revenge be a story? Someone who just couldn’t let a slight go?
Or the flip side of that Someone caught in a situation of revenge (a la Fatal Attraction)?
Each of these would have activities that would be causing problem but the source of the inequity shifts as you shift domains, doesn’t it?
I was thinking the same thing and editing my post above as you posted.
First thing to note is that my previous post wasn’t supposed to be definitive, I was “talking it out” and assuming Activity per jhull’s Storyform as well as kind of asking if that’s how it should be seen.
Second, I think that revenge, as you said, can be seen in all four quads. This is where I think looking at what the story “consists of” may be helpful. Setting bombs is an activity, people getting killed is an activity, arresting people is an activity, fighting team mates is an activity. Activities (problematic ones) flow throughout for everyone.
Are there manipations that flow throughout? Or fixed attitudes? And if so , do they come from something not related to Zemo’s revenge? (I’m not just trying to make a point with this question, I’m also honestly asking).
I also think that this revenge may be in Activity because the story is about Zemo trying to obtain it and not how he is fixated on it, or how revenge is a problematic behavior for him, or how anyone is stuck in a state or revenge.
The final point to note here is that once you go below the character/problem level, things revert back to the top, Situation, Activity, Fixed Attitude, Manipulation, right? So you’ll see things that look like all of these in all four quads at some level, right?
To be clear, I’m with @decastell in that finding a storyform feels more like guesswork than an objective process a lot of the time. I’m defaulting to @jhulls storyform and trying to find where the source of the inequity is in hopes of then finding a way of definitively, objectively stating “this is why the OS is in Activity and not Fixed Attitude or another throughline”.
A thought occurred to me this morning regarding this request for “steps” to correctly identify a storyform and a “coherent process.” I believe someone else mentioned storyforming felt more of a guessing game, and that perhaps these steps would help ease the discovery process.
The problem with focusing on the Prerequisites is that it makes the quality of your Analysis DEPENDENT upon the quality of those steps and the way in which they are presented in order to arrive at success. Looking for steps creates a co-dependent relationship between the analysis process and those “essential steps”.
When I suggest immersing oneself into the 300+ analyses, and the Users Group podcasts and videocasts, and the hundreds of articles and analyses I’ve written on my own site, I’m suggesting a Strategy for learning Dramatica–a strategy that worked for me and has worked for many others. Strategy and Analysis sit in a DYNAMIC pair relationship meaning they can tear each other down, OR in this case, make each other better (1+1=3).
For example, in the Mentorship Program I take students through the entire model by looking at films that share similar elements of structure. In this way, the student develops an intuitive understanding of narrative structure within the context of Dramatica. I suppose in some respects it is a juggling process–especially when it comes to balancing out four different perspectives at once–but that’s where I’ve found having that intuitive sense helps you figure out an accurate storyform quicker.
This is why I prefer discussing an overall Strategy for learning Dramatica, rather than simply listing out Prerequisites. (For those new to Dramatica, the ideas of Strategy, Analysis, and Prerequisites sit under the Concern of Gathering Information–or Learning–which is essentially what we are engaging in here. You can find a model of their relationships here: Dramatica Table of Story Elements
For the sake of clarity, I was thinking I should split this discussion up into a couple of different topics. Please try and keep comments and posts limited to the topic as best as you can. I know sometimes you might have to refer to the other topics, but at least this way it might be easier for someone to follow along and hopefully learn something about Dramatica.
This one will remain solely about the Main Character Throughline of Captain America: Civil War. The others will be:
- Domains and Throughlines of Captain America: Civil War
- Protagonist and Antagonist of Captain America: Civil War
- Goal and Consequence of Captain America: Civil War
- Relationship Story Throughline Captain America: Civil War
Let me know if I have missed anything, and I’ll create new topics.
2 Likes
OK. So Main Character.
(and I’ll get back to The Dark Knight, Contender, and Serenity examples later).
In my estimation Tony Stark is the Main Character of Captain America: Civil War and his personal issues surround the guilt and responsibility he feels for creating Ultron and for killing many innocent people in Sokovia and most importantly–the guilt he feels for not saying goodbye to his parents before they were killed.
The character I believe who impacts and challenges Tony to think a different way and adopt an alternative perspective is Mr. Goody Two-Shoes Steve Rodgers (Captain America). I refer to him that way because I believe the story is specifically positioning him in a place where his Fixed Attitude impacts and challenges everyone else to reconsider their point-of-view.
I believe it his Feelings for Bucky as a friend (though occasionally it seems to border on something else. Google “shipping Bucky and Steve”…) that drives Steve’s throughline and eventually is the thing that forces Tony to stop Avoiding conflict and start Pursuing.
If you have an argument for another arrangement, please list it below and be sure to include references to where you see the Domain, how that Domain works in context of the Throughline, and the particular Problem at the core of that Throughline.
I’ll step back on this one and let others put forward their arguments for or against as I’m really keen to get your take on the issue of main characters knowing things the audience doesn’t as applied to Dark Knight, Contender, and Serenity, and I think that’ll have a strong impact on informing who the main character for Civil War is.
Actually, it would be great if you could put out your arguments for Main Character and Influence Character because that will lead into my explanation for your Dark Knight and Serenity examples.
OK so I’ll get to it. I think Cap is the MC. Tony is the IC.
Starting from the beginning, I feel the roles need to be flipped. Cap is still Fixed Attitude and Tony Situation.
Cap isn’t actively trying to get anyone to do anything. He just cares about his friend.
Tony on the other hand shows the team a digital dossier on the murdered boy I Sokovia. To influence their decision. Widow see’s the sense in his argument and immediately takes sides.
And with the theory, the IC is usually bothered with influencing the MC the most. Which is why Tony keeps going on about Cap signing the Accords at least once every act. Cap refuses, and Tony gets frustrated,and so he tries again and again. Steadfast resolve.
And with the RS being in psychology it makes sense. It has to do with Friendships. Tony and Cap predominantly. We see the downward spiral here. Cap and Bucky had no deviation or drama per se, so it isn’t so much about them.
Also for a movie so grand, we do have much more screen time with Cap. Usually it’s the IC that stays offscreen the most.
We see Tony directly influencing Spiderman. Cap was never shown trying to convince anybody. Night wing called on his behalf.
Hope this lends some clarity?
Sure, no problem. I’ll preface here by saying I’m going to include in my reasoning things that hopefully align with Dramatica principles but also things that are possibly completely irrelevant from a Dramatica point of view. This will allow for separating out the non-Dramatica considerations (or re-stating them more accurately within the Dramatica model.)
1. In this movie, MC and IC are sometimes muddled.
I’m starting here because I think it helps explain in part why there’s so much debate about this. Despite being called “Captain America: Civil War”, you could just as easily (and possibly more accurately) call it “Avengers: Civil War”. The Avengers movies, like the comics from which they’re derived, tend to be that most dastardly of things, “ensemble” stories.
In some scenes in the movie, the main character appears to be Steve Rogers: when he’s at the table seeing the footage that makes Scarlet Witch start to cry, “Enough,” he says, both troubled by what he’s seen and trying to look out for his people. We’re not watching Cap through Tony’s eyes, we’re right there along with him. The “I” is Steve Rogers. What is Tony doing here? Pressuring him to change his approach: “I can live with whatever restrictions they want to put on us. Why can’t you?”
Other times, the main character appears to be Tony: when he’s confronted by the woman who’s son died because of the Avengers. We’re seeing the story through his POV in that moment, wrestling with what Tony’s wrestling with.
So, all I’m saying here is that it sometimes appears as if the MC throughline ends up being a handoff between Steve and Tony as we varyingly switch to their POV’s. It creates confusion – not just in terms of analyzing the story, but sometimes just when watching the movie. I think this is actually intentional on the part of the Russo brothers: they want to make it difficult for us to empathize too strongly with the point of view of either character, so they obfuscate who it is by constantly switching the sense of who’s experiencing the problems first-hand and who’s pressuring the other to change the approach (i.e. “I” and “you” seem to get swapped around)
2. If I’ve got to choose, then Steve Rogers is the MC and Tony is the IC
Here are reasons, some dumb, some hopefully not:
-
We spend most of the movie with Cap, not with Tony. This is a function of pure math of onscreen time (i.e. “turn off the sound and what do you see?”)
-
Jim mentioned the idea that the audience knows what the MC knows. While I have issues with this (based on Dark Knight, Serenity, and The Contender), it seems to me that Tony keeps a lot more secrets from the audience than Steve does. Tony’s manipulated all these things in the background such as having Vision subtly hold Scarlet Witch prisoner (we don’t find this out until Vision is forced to admit it – Tony hides it from us), Tony puts together a plan to stop Steve from escaping with Bucky which we don’t know about until he suddenly ambushes them at the airport – unlike Steve who’s told us his plan to steal the Avengers quinjet to get them out of the country.
-
The movie’s called “Captain America: Civil War” and in every one of those movies, the main character has been Captain America. It ain’t called “Tony Stark: Guilty Conscience”. Of course, a filmmaker can set out to make one movie but end up making another, but having unintentionally made Tony the main character would have to be seen a colossal failure to achieve their intent. This isn’t Sherlock Holmes – we’re not watching Steve through Tony’s eyes.
(by the way, I know this is a weak point and contradicted by the whole ensemble thing, but I wanted to include it for the sake of completeness)
- Cap isn’t trying to force Tony to change his position. He constantly says to him, “I understand why you feel that way, why you’ve made that decision. I just can’t make it with you.” It’s Tony who consistently pushes back, unwilling to accept anything less than Steve changing his approach. Isn’t this the actions of an influence character?
3. MC Domain of Activity, IC Domain of Manipulation
Let’s start with the internal/external: Steve is a do-er. I really don’t think there’s any possible way to view him other than as someone who tries to solve the problems by enacting his will on the external world. He doesn’t try to adapt to the Accords by “getting over himself” or changing how he thinks. He continues to do what’s right instead of what others try to force him to do.
My sense is that the MC is in Activities. I’m tempted to say the concern is in Doing, because Steve’s conflicts all come from the things he does: the fighting, running, helping Bucky escape . . .etc. However a strong case could be made that his overriding concern throughout the movie is to prevent Bucky from being captured and killed. We see that in most of Steve’s scenes from the moment we know Bucky’s in danger right up until the end of the movie.
The influence character through line is in Manipulation. We see Tony trying to manipulate people into choosing his side all the way through the movie (unlike Steve who often warns them that siding with him will get them in trouble.) He tries to manipulate Steve into signing the Accords with false promises (in the pen scene), he uses Spider-Man’s star-struckness to get him to join his side, he gets Vision to try and hide the fact that he’s actually holding Wanda prisoner.
If it’s Ok with you I removed the RS portion of your response and moved it to another post so we can focus the discussion to the topic at hand.
In your response you forgot to include the Problem at the core of each Throughline. This is key to understanding the relationship between the Main and Influence Character Throughlines.
In addition, your description of the Main Character Throughline:
My sense is that the MC is in Activities. I’m tempted to say the concern is in Doing, because Steve’s conflicts all come from the things he does: the fighting, running, helping Bucky escape . . .etc. However a strong case could be made that his overriding concern throughout the movie is to prevent Bucky from being captured and killed. We see that in most of Steve’s scenes from the moment we know Bucky’s in danger right up until the end of the movie.
This describes Steve’s function as an Overall Story Character.
The Main Character Throughline describes those issues unique to the Main Character that exist separate from the Overall Story throughline perspective. Steve is not the only one fighting, running, or dealing with Bucky, etc.
What personal baggage does Steve have that he could carry with him into any other story and how are these uniquely related to Activities and related to him alone?
The influence character through line is in Manipulation. We see Tony trying to manipulate people into choosing his side all the way through the movie (unlike Steve who often warns them that siding with him will get them in trouble.) He tries to manipulate Steve into signing the Accords with false promises (in the pen scene), he uses Spider-Man’s star-struckness to get him to join his side, he gets Vision to try and hide the fact that he’s actually holding Wanda prisoner.
This describes Tony’s function as an Overall Story Character.
The Influence Character Throughline presents a problematic alternative approach that challenges or impacts the Main Character to reconsider his or perspective. These can be through direct, or indirect manipulation that either influences the Main Character or influences people around the Main Character.
How do Tony’s attempts to manipulate specifically impact or challenge Steve to reconsider his point-of-view? What kind of problematic conflict arises in Steve or in the others because these manipulations?
Lastly, a Concern of Doing in the Main Character Throughline suggests a Concern of Playing a Role in the Influence Character Throughline. How do Tony’s manipulations specifically impact and challenge concerns with Being?
Okay, I’ll bite.
I think ZEMO is both protagonist AND Impact character.
He is the one affecting everyone else by manipulating them, by implicating Bucky and exposing him as Tony’s parents murderer.
He’s pushing Tony’s Buttons (and by extension Tony’s team)
He’s pushing Cap’s Buttons (and by extension Steve’s team)
He’s pushing Bucky’s Buttons
He’s pushing T’Challa’s buttons
He disrupts the accords
He murders willy-nilly, anyone and everyone is expendable
But ultimately he explains it to T’Challa, I couldn’t go toe to toe with the Avengers, all I could do was break them apart.
I still think Steve is the Antagonist trying to keep the status quo of with great power comes great responsibility and you can’t surrender your judgment or responsibility to anyone else. (I supposed you could make an argument that he is the impact character, because he’s the one pushing back against Tony.)
I think Tony is the MC: his is where the emotional heart is, and (TO ME) the thematic heart which is as I said before
Throughline wise I see it this way.
OS: Manipulation (Everyone is dealing with the fallout of Zemos revenge)
MC: Situation Tony is drowning in his own guilt and is looking for an external solution that will absolve him of his guilt. With his creation of ULTRON he IS the winter soldier, only worse because his hubris killed so many, he doesn’t have Bucky’s rational of not having a choice.
IC Fixed Attitude: If it’s Zemo, the bastards must pay. If it’s Cap, one cannot give up their autonomy, you have to follow your own conscience not someone else’s.
RS: Activities Tony vs Cap You bring yours and I’ll bring mine, let’s dance. (Big people hitting each other) Seriously, you could have left everyone else out of the airport fight and the effect would have been the same emotional note.
Anyway, that’s my take.
Forgot this one.
I never once said Steve was trying to “force” Tony to change his position, only that his particular problematic attitude impacted and challenged Tony’s drive to Avoid conflict.
The Influence Character’s impact does not have to be direct. But it does need to specifically target the Main Character’s Personal problem.