Foolishly, I’m sure, I’m going to throw my hat into this discussion ring. I’m sure I’m about to get my ass handed to me.
My take on just part of the storyform. Putting Tony in as the MC.
MC Resolve: Steadfast - I don’t think at any point does Tony swap to – “Yeah, the accords are a bad idea.”
MC Growth: Start - Jim I know you say stop, but that isn’t what I was waiting for. I was waiting for Tony to start owning his own culpability in the damage and destruction. But he doesn’t want to do that, that’s why he pushes so hard for the accords so he never has to take ownership or responsibility.
MC Approach: Tony is a do-er Yay we agree
MC PS-Style: Linear. Yay more agreement
Driver action Check
Limit: Optionlock Check
Outcome: Success Check
Judgment: Bad – Tony never has that looksie within that would let him know he cannot pass off responsibility to anyone – something he soundly knew in the first Iron Man when he refused to give the government access to his work. There is a melancholy feel to the end of this film, you don’t feel like Tony had a win…or like anyone is in a better place. And the only thing that saves from feeling downright morose is that fact that Cap reaches out to him.
So…if you JUST set those things it limits the OS to either Fixed Attitude or Manipulation.
For reason, I can’t articulate, for me it falls into Manipulation with the RS falling into Activities.
This is a fascinating discussion and I keep agreeing with both sides, which makes me even more confused. But I’m with you about Zemo. I’m having difficulty seeing him as the Protagonist, when, like you said, pretty much every villain has his/her own goal. @jhull What sets apart Zemo in this film and makes him the Protagonist?
You mentioned Braveheart, and the Silence of the Lambs analysis is another one that I have trouble with – I don’t see how the OS is Situation when the source of the problems stems from a serial killer abducting/killing women. Everyone seems to be concerned with finding and capturing/killing the serial killer, which would suggest an OS of Activity.
[quote=“mike.d, post:82, topic:719”]
I don’t see how the OS is Situation when the source of the problems stems from a serial killer abducting/killing women. [/quote]
Forgive me for jumping in when this was aimed toward Jim (and for talking in depth about SOTL instead of CA:CW, i’ll bet these posts get moved to a new thread!). But I think the answer would be something along the lines of, if everyone quit looking for the killer, there would still be a killer out there. The act of finding and capturing/killing the killer isn’t the source of the problem. It’s a response to the problem. Instead, the problem that everyone deals with is the presence of this serial killer.
For the serial killer, killing is an action but it is not a source of inequity.
Being killed is a source of inequity for the victims, but I think it’s also part of a Situation for them rather than an Activity. This part gets a bit harder, but I think that it’s not the act of being killed, but the situation of being abducted and left in a hole where a creepy man tells them to rub lotion on their skin, etc that is the source of inequity. So being killed is an activity and a source of inequity, but I think it would also be part of the Situation the victims are in rather than the inequity in and of itself.
And finally, people being killed isn’t the source of inequity for the FBI agents. If the killer were to stop killing, it wouldn’t solve the problem for the FBI because there would still be a killer out there that needed to be found. So again, it’s the presence of this killer on the loose that is the inequity for them.
So finding, capturing, killing, etc are all activities. But those are all part of the Situation of “Killer on the loose” that everyone is dealing with.
Another way to say this is that everyone is concerned with changing the Situation from “killer on the loose” to “killer incarcerated” or “killer dead”. Again, these concerns look like activities, but within the narrative, they are in response to a Situation and are about changing the Situation.
When you say “concerned”, finding, capturing and killing aren’t sources of inequity and therefore are not Concerns in a Dramatica sense. Dramatica Concerns for this story would be the killers progression to the next victim and the lack of progression in finding the killer, the Future of the next victim, and so on. So all of the “little c” concerns you mentioned, again, are responses to the Situation and attempts to change the Situation rather than being problematic Activities themselves.
I hope I don’t muddy the waters jumping in on a question addressed to Jim, but I had this exact thought myself today – why isn’t The Matrix OS in Situation? What helped me is to realize that once Neo is freed, none of the characters in the film are stuck in the virtual reality anymore. In fact they all use it to their advantage (to DO problematic things). The “humanity as batteries” situation is just backdrop; those humans aren’t characters.
Yes, there’s a brief period when some get stuck again due to the traitor, but that’s not the whole OS.
Bonus: 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. Instead the Domain-level resolution is when Neo renders the Agents’ problematic activities _un_problematic (whatever they do can’t hurt him).
Regarding the main debate, @decastell I wonder if you are seeing everything accurately but applying it at the wrong level in Dramatica. Like everything you see with choosing sides and the conflicting beliefs about the Accords is more at the Issue level (Self Interest in Jim’s form – “my way or the highway”), etc.
I feel like I’ve entered a strange world where suddenly everyone wants to argue for their own interpretation of story, instead of trying to actually learn what Dramatica is trying to say.
Eventually I’ll figure out a way to explain this but just so everyone knows—pretty much everything Sebastien is saying about Dramatica and the storyform for Captain America: Civil War is so completely inaccurate that I’m worried his skills with writing will end up confusing the Hell out of everyone.
But I’ll keep trying…
using your oft-used axiom that the domain “describes how people are stuck”, would you say that the overall structural domain of The Matrix is that: “Humanity is trapped inside a virtual reality”.
No, because this doesn’t describe the Inequity for Agent Smith. You’re once again—seeing structure from the eyes of the characters—which obviously works for you in writing novels, but is not remotely close to what a Dramatica storyform sees.
The OS Domain in the Matrix never feels like the problems arise from what people are doing (though you could reach for the rather poor offering of “robots are doing all this to use humans as batteries”), but rather from the situation of being trapped inside the Matrix?
It’s not what structure feels like, it’s what structure is.
Again, you’re describing what it feels like to the characters, not what the story’s problem actually is.
Again, I’m fine being told I’m wrong on this,
Good, because you are.
but I need a clear way to differentiate between an OS Domain of Activities vs one of Situation, especially when so often the explanation for an OS choice of Situation is given as “everyone is stuck in this [prison, burning building, poverty…etc]”
I’ve been trying to explain the difference to you for years, and usually it ends up with “well, we’ll have to agree to disagree” or “I guess it’s all in how you look at it.”
Which again, is a way to maintain an opinon of structure from a feeling, which obviously is totally working for you…
…but it’s not Dramatica.
You really have to find someway of stepping outside of the characters and what the Authors were trying to communicate if you really want to understand Dramatica. Sometimes Authors communicate something quite different than what they intended.
Dramatica deals with what is there.
I really need to explain the concept of inequity and how it forms the basis of all conflict. Sometimes the inequity appears as an external state, sometimes it appears as an external process.
You have to look at what’s there within the context of that story.
It can help to look at the initial story driver as that sets the inequity in motion. The Matrix starts with Morpheus’ decision that Mr. Anderson is the One. This upsets the balance of things and forces both sides to take action (Decisions forcing Actions). The conflict that rises from that inequity consists of problematic Activities, like fighting, punching, kicking, and shooting. There is no problematic Situation that arises from Morpheus’ decision.
Couldn’t it as easily be “the Future” or even “The Past” (if we don’t break with what we’ve been doing – not getting together – then nothing will change)?
If you really want to understand the answer to this question, I would highly suggest you watch the 2.5 hour video analysis where I answer this question specifically.
If you can’t be bothered, you could look to the 300+ analyses and start to develop an understanding of what a Goal of the Past looks like vs. a Goal of the Future.
If you can’t be bothered by that I could once again remind you that you’re looking at structure from the point-of-view of the characters and that you’re arguing for a story point in isolation—in exclusion of all the other considerations that go into determining a Story Goal like the three other Concerns for the other Throughlines.
If you can’t be bothered by that it’s simple—there’s nothing wrong with the past, there’s nothing wrong with the future THROUGHOUT the entire story. There is survival. And when it comes to survival the problem is the here and now.
if the story goal is The Present, shouldn’t there be something about “right now” that is vital to the story goal?
Only if you’re looking at structure from the point of view of the characters.
I don’t think this is how I wrote it, but for the sake of clarity, I’ll rephrase: If the Avengers are forced to suppress their innate heroic responses , then they’ll be forced to play the role of soldiers.
Being forced to suppress their innate heroic responses is not Impulsive Responses, it’s Doing.
I don’t feel like you read or understood a single thing I wrote about Impulsive Responses and the examples of calm and panic and anxiety. You completely disregarded that entire explanation in your 10,000 word response which is super frustrating. You’re redefining Dramatica’s terms to suit your own understanding, instead of taking the time to learn the basic terminology.
It’s funny, because usually when someone steps in with their own version of Dramatica, when they don’t take time to address what is said, and it feels like they’re not even reading what’s being written—I usually boot them. It’s usually once a year. Usually in the Summer. And it’s super frustrating because there’s NO WAY I’m booting you LOL.
Look, terminology and models aside for a second, nobody watching Captain America: Civil War, thought that Tony Stark was the main character.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. You want to totally toss aside Dramatica’s terminology and model for your own. What’s the point for us debating this if you’re not even going to take into consideration the basic concepts of Dramatica.
Do you want to learn Dramatica or do you want to make up your own story theory?
One of the simplest concepts from Dramatica is the idea that the Main Character represents the I perspective. As in I know everything I know.
Cap as a character knows Bucky’s secret.
We as the Audience do not know this secret.
Therefore we are not Cap.
It’s the simplest formula I can come up with right now to describe this super simple concept of Dramatica.
That is, if you actually want to learn Dramatica’s take on story.
I’ll go through and address all the other inaccuracies tomorrow. For now, I must sleep.
I could certainly be applying everything at the wrong level – moreover I’d be delighted to find that being the case. I’d need two things: 1) a concrete way of identifying the right level at which something in a story operates relative to Dramatica’s model, and 2) a reason to interpret Self Interest as being, of all the different elements at the variation (I think it’s variation) level as the one here. So many of the other elements at that level appear to more accurately describe what’s happening thematically that it’s hard to see Self Interest as the right one.
This has been extremely enlightening. One major lesson was clarity on the “I” perspective. Awesome lesson @jhull. Thankfully I didn’t make the mistake of switching the MC and IC perspectives for my WIP because I buried myself in similar storyforms like crazy. But this lesson of knowing the IC is the one with the secrets helps a great deal. So my lesson is first to NOT nail a storyform until I’ve examined the characters, their motives and possible story altering secrets. Great one guys. I’m seeing Civil War again. I’ll offer my take on it once I’m done.
Well, the good news is that you haven’t entered a strange world in which everyone wants to argue for their own interpretation of story. However that sense of frustration might be an indicator that we’re reaching the end of the utility of going back and forth on it.
So listen, for the good of the collective, I’m not going to keep butting heads over interpretation (or as you’re putting it, my “feelings” versus your rock solid and unimpeachable objective assessment of reality). Instead I’m just going to focus on questions or identifying where you’re presenting something as self-evident where I’m practically begging you to break that self-evident truth down to steps we can both observe.
Okay, so does that mean that if there’s one character in the story – or alternately one key character such as the antagonist – for whom the inequity isn’t described by the chosen domain that we must exclude that domain from our possible options in identifying the story form? Is a domain choice that “more or less” identifies the inequity a better choice than one that describes it better for most of the characters but not for one?
I’ve no doubt I’ve said the former, but not the latter.
Look, you keep countering my – self-admittedly likely wrong – assessments of story points with this constant refrain that I’m trying to maintain my “feelings” about a story form rather than learning what it is. Let me fully disabuse you of that notion: I write novels for a living. That’s it. I only get more successful by writing better books and the day my books get worse I’m in trouble. So when I spend a lot of time on Dramatica – or spend a lot of time going back and forth here – it’s not to stroke my ego or convince myself I’m right despite obvious facts. It’s in the hope that doing so will give me a greater understanding of Dramatica’s particular model of story. I’m not trying to become an expert nor an acolyte and certainly not a skeptic. None of those things do me the least bit of good. I’m just trying to figure out why what I’m seeing is different from what you’re seeing.
The problem we’re having is that you appear to think that what you’re seeing is so obvious that only someone who was either too lazy to read it or too self-delusional to understand it could possibly disagree.
So is the first scene of a movie always the one that defines the initial story driver? Or just in most cases? Or is there a different way to identify the scene that represents the initial story driver?
This is a good illustration of a question I feel like I keep asking: is the domain of a throughline defined by what types of story events take place within it? In other words, if we’re mostly seeing everybody punching, kicking and shooting, do we then infer – regardless of other considerations – that the OS domain is in Activities?
I ask because you wrote that "The conflict that arises from the inequity consists of problematic Activities. That “consists” implies that its the type of conflict we see on the screen that tells us the domain, rather than the source of that conflict.
This is a good point, and I shouldn’t have queried the Moonlight one because it’s been years since I’ve seen it and I haven’t watched the entire video analysis of it. My bad.
Man, I’ve invested a lot of time reading Dramatica analyses, using the filters to search for particular ones, comparing and contrasting them to try to see the parallels. I’ll absolutely cop to having failed to make the cognitive leap that would enable me to define the distinctions, but it ain’t for lack of trying.
Great. Let’s not do that. But instead of dropping off at your diagnosis of what’s wrong inside my head, it would be supremely helpful if you added a comma followed by "because what puts a situation in the Present isn’t the notion of ‘right now’ but rather X’
Again, could you enlighten me with something more than the declaration? If suppressing one’s innate heroic responses isn’t part of Impulsive Responses but rather of Doing, how does one reach that distinction?
The Dramatica dictionary tells me that Doing is “the process of being physically active”
The Dramatica dictionary then tells me that “When a story’s problem revolves around the unsuitability of someone’s essential nature to a given situation or environment, the central issue is Impulsive Responses”
Can you see why a reasonable person might (however incorrectly) think that the central issue in Civil War revolves around the unsuitability of the Avengers’ essential nature to the situation or environment?
What I’m looking for here is simply an operational means of excluding the above – not just a declaration that it’s obviously wrong, because I swear to you, it’s not obviously wrong. It might be wrong, but I need a means of identifying that.
I can imagine that must be frustrating, so I apologize. I absolutely read every word and I’d have no trouble taking it at face value. But you should know that I can’t find anything within the Dramatica books, dictionary, or software that indicates that Impulsive Responses means trying to go from panic and anxiety to calm or the reverse.
I’m hoping you can empathize with the frustration of being given these pretty definitive declarations but then not being how those declarations match up with the Dramatica terminology as given in the book and the software. That’s not coming from me failing to read what you’re saying or failing to consult the terminology – it’s coming from me doing both and not seeing the connection between the two.
I really don’t. What I’m trying to say is that the utility of Dramatica begins to dissolve if we reach the point where we insist that a concept like “main character” becomes the exact opposite of what both the writer and the audience understand. I know that what writers create is not always what they intend and I know that audience appreciation is different from structure. However when they’re literally thrown on their head – when the model applies a definition of main character that’s the opposite of what everything other than the model indicates it is, then the model risks losing its utility.
Fortunately, I don’t think that’s the situation here. So let’s dive one last time into Cap, and I’ll try to use examples from the analyses to explain why I’m not understanding the principle you’re espousing with regards to the MC:
In Serenity Mal is identified as the Main Character, but at key points throughout the story he knows things we do not such as his plan to escape the operative early on and, in fact, his means of defeating him in the climax of the movie. To apply this to your turn of phrase: “I” do not know everything that “I” know.
In The Dark Knight Bruce/Batman is identified in the analysis as the Main Character, but he knows tons of things we don’t, which only get revealed to us later. The biggest example of this is all through the movie he’s been planning to use cell phones to spy on Gotham as a means to find the Joker and he’s never revealed it to us.
In The Contender Layne Hansen is identified in the analysis as the Main Character. All through the story, she knows the single most important fact that everyone is arguing about: she’s not the woman having sex in the picture that’s being used to destroy her confirmation to be Vice President. It’s such a key point that in the last scene, the president (Jeff Bridges) asks why she didn’t tell everyone given that it would have avoided all these problems. She replies that she withheld that fact on principle.
In all three of those cases, the main character (and again, these are from the Dramatica analyses) is someone who knows something – something crucial to the story – that the audience doesn’t know. “I” know something “I” don’t know.
If you can see a distinction between those three examples and the one you give of Cap – who knows something that functionally has zero impact on the overall story (do you think the government would be less or more inclined to try to capture Winter Soldier if they knew – as they probably do anyway – that he killed Stark’s parents? No. Even Tony wasn’t affected by that lack of knowledge since he didn’t know and yet still did everything in his power to capture him) – then tell me what it is. But please do me the courtesy of not assuming I’m either being lazy or self-delusional here. I’m applying basic logic to the principle you’ve put forward and it’s entirely reasonable that I can’t see how it tests as valid in all cases.
You don’t need to boot me – you can just tell me to back off. I derive no benefit to my career and no satisfaction to myself whatsoever from the process of arguing – all of this is in an effort to reach clarity. If it looks like we’re not going to reach that clarity, then it’s time to stop.
Lastly:
I wouldn’t want that either. I’ve tried to be clear throughout that I’m not an expert on Dramatica, that you are an expert on Dramatica, and if it’s just down to picking one of two positions on Captain America: Civil War then the odds are extremely high that yours is correct and mine is wrong. What I’m trying to get to is a coherent explanation of why that would be the case, in a way that affords a shared understanding of the means to arrive at that determination.
But like I said, say the word and I’ll back off. No hard feelings on my end, no, “well, I guess Dramatica isn’t for me” – just a retreat from this particular debate in favour of leaving space for new topics that might be more illuminating.
@decastell Dramatica is for us all. What might help (as it did for me) is to study a lot of the other breakdowns;which I’m sure you’ve done. I just saw the movie again. I am very inclined to say that the OS is in the Physics Domain (sorry, I prefer old names). There is so much activity going on. This isn’t so much about fighting, as it is engaging in an activity of sorts,even Public speaking can be an activity. Cap is trying to help Wanda understand that these sad incidents come with the job. The progression I got from my own storyform is U-D-O-L. In the first Act, they are made to understand that there are consequences for their actions. The Accords are a way to checkmate this. (A storytelling tool). From Tony being made to understand that his grants can’t buy him peace of mind (The Sokovian casualty) to them realizing that “If they dont do this now, it’s gonna be done to them later” (transition from understanding to Doing).
Act 2 - Doing
Cap goes on to bury his ex Peggy. (this is a MC benchmark of memories because I see him as the MC). They all GO to attend the signing of the accords. (Doing). Cap chooses not to attend. Zemo bombs them all. Cap goes to see the video thats insinuating Bucky did it. He then goes on to track Bucky down. T’CHALLA attempts kill Bucky, but not before telling Widow not to bother. (to NOT do). Then there’s the car chase scene. That’s a lot of doing! Vision is seen cooking, then preventing Wanda from going out. That’s Doing again. They are captured and hauled into the office, where Zemo, UNDOES Buckys mental bonds. The delivery of the EMP is made. Tony even tells Cap “So far, nothings happened that can’t be undone”. On a side note, the RS between Tony and Cap is in Psychology. They argue based of different Manners of thinking. Tony laments on being incapable of changing. With Pepper, being a super hero, hence the need for backing the Accords. Cap being steadfast in his resolve. Oh and back in the OS, Black Panther does stuff to the Vibranium(storytelling but it works too).
Act 3. Obtaining.
We are greeted to a scene of the 1991 incident. MC signpost of memories. Cap gets a memory or info on the super soldier serum, thus ‘obtaining’ vital information.
The next scene Tony is seen with Ross scheming how they’ll find Cap and Co, because they’ve “Lost” them.
They two factions Obtain new recruits to join their team. Spidey, Ant man, Wanda etc. Cap, and the bird guy obtain their effects back. Shield, Wings, kiss lol. Etc. Tony almost loses War machine. Vision obtained a spec of human flaw for the first time. He lost concentration. Panther lost his chance yet again due to Widows interference.
Act 4 - Learning
The maid learns of the dead body.
Widow learns that T’CHALLA snitched on her and that she’s now a target.
Tony learns of Zemo’s true identity.
T’CHALLA learns the truth about who was responsible for the death of his father.
Tony learns of the treachery from Buckys past.
Zemo learns of the green in Caps eyes(storytelling lol).
The RS between Cap and Tony has them conceptualizing an enmity. “I thought I was your friend”.
T’CHALLA learns of Zemo’s game plan all along.
Tony learns Caps fight pattern.
War machine is seen Learning to walk. Etc.
Last scene, Tony learns of the breach at the Raft prison.
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.
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.
[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.
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?
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”.
