I hate to admit it, but I’m still not getting it. Is the problem that their plans can hurt the people around them, or is the problem that they’re plans demonstrate a willingness to hurt the people around them?
As in, what is the instant in which the plans become problematic in the Dramatica sense?
Neither.
It’s the process of planning, or integrating, that creates problems.
Scheming to get drugs and reimagining one’s concept of oneself appears to indicate a State of Being gay (Lester (Kevin Spacey) from Col. Fitts (Chris Cooper) point-of-view). Climbing the ladder of real estate and conceptualizing a better life involves engaging in an illicit affair (Situation) for Carolyn (Annette Benning). Figuring out where one fits into the high school social system alienates Jane (Thora Birch) from Angela (Mena Suvari) through Sense of Self. Remaining catatonic in order to fit into suburbia with an obviously gay husband creates acceptable Circumstances for Fitts’ wife, Barbara (Allison Janney).
Each of these seems to be a pair with things that look like actions to me: climbing the ladder, engaging in an illicit affair, . . . etc. So is it only in the domain of manipulation and with a concern of developing a plan if we literally see the characters on the screen talking (or jotting down notes) about their plans?
No. Talking about or jotting down notes about plans doesn’t describe an inequity. It describes planning, but it doesn’t show planning being specifically problematic.
The affair (activity) isn’t problematic in and of itself–its not like they’re having trouble actually doing it, it’s the using of the Real Estate King (Peter Gallagher) to climb the ladder that is proven to be problematic.
Yeah, I don’t get it either. I didn’t really mean to think I was giving a good example, but I got a like and got excited, tried to go 2 for 2 and retroactively lost half a point 
.
So my questions are:
In Jims elf example (with the schedule, and trolls, and being shot), who has a problematic manner of thinking? Just the elves, or the elves and Santa?
How can the problematic manner of thinking be described? (For example, is it the “let’s give him what he wants” attitude of cutting quality, or maybe the overall misunderstanding or what the schedule means?)
What makes it problematic? (If Santa has the problem, is it that the elves are misunderstanding, or that they are dropping quality? If the elves have the problem, is it being shot?)
Since I was wrong, I don’t know that this will be helpful to the discussion, but the way I think I would’ve explained the difference between planning to burn the elves and burning the elves would be that planning is about how he thinks of the elves. It’s acceptable to use the elves as fuel. Santa’s well being is more important. In burning the elves it’s about what’s he’s doing to them. He’s running out of fuel for the fire. The elves are less concerned with how Santa thinks of them and more concerned with being consumed by flame.
Planning is not inherently problematic in the same way that walking is not inherently problematic.
To make it work, you wouldn’t write about his plan to burn Elves, rather how difficult it is to actually plan. Planning something requires figuring out what goes where, how much or how little, who to bring in to help, who to leave out, when to schedule and how fast to schedule–all these concerns show how difficult it can be to plan something.
If you can’t call into question–or Issues–of State of Being, Situation, Circumstances, or Sense of Self–chances are you haven’t quite nailed Conceptualizing yet.
Because you have to look at the whole story holistically to understand the structure (storyform) I don’t think this question has an answer.
You could look at the First Story Driver, but there might not be an instance of problematic planning that’s communicated to the Audience at that exact moment of the film. Only by experiencing the whole story can you really see the commonality between all these people’s thought processes, and that it is Conceptualizing that best describes the nature of the difficulties within those thought processes.
How strange… I’ve spent the last two nights watching What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? and American Beauty trying to get my head around Psychology/Conceptualizing stories and I happen to log on to find this discussion. Envision that! (I don’t think that’s Dramatically correct…)
Anyway, I don’t have anything to add to the discussion right now, other than to advise those struggling with the term to watch similarly-storyformed movies with a concern of Conceptualizing (as Jim suggested in another thread). I think I’ll need to watch a few more before I totally ‘get it’, and even then I might be slightly off-base. However, these two movies have the same OS Domain/Concern/Issue/Problem, yet the way they handle the concern of Conceptualizing could not be more different.
My eyes have been very firmly opened beyond ‘Manipulation’ and ‘Developing a Plan’, so it’s definitely a worthwhile endeavour, even if I do feel like the guy that flew through the star gate in 2001.
What would having a plan that, by its nature, drive others away preventing some other goal from being met, as with the examples of elves leaving to keep from being burned and making it more difficult for S to give toys to kids.
If conceptualizing is the problematic process of comin up with a plan, what is the problematic state of having a plan? I would guess that’s somewhere in Fixed Attitude.
Is reimagining problematic in that it makes Lester appear to be gay? Would scheming to kidnap elves to use as fuel for the furnace be problematic in that it makes one appear to be a monster?
I don’t know. Running, scamming with a teenage boy, and lifting with your shirt off is probably not comparable to planning how to use elves as fuel…as that truly makes one a monster (I assume that’s the way you’re going with it).
There’s a misunderstanding in the American Beauty example that leads to death. I’m not sure of any misunderstanding in your example, nor of any problem with simply planning to use cute little elves as kindling.
Reimagining Lester as gay is a misunderstanding (Understanding Consequence). Trying to relive your teenage years (reconceptualize your life) wrecks your marriage, alienates your teenage daughter, and sends mixed signals to your closeted neighbor next door.
It’s okay to burn elves. They don’t have any feelings. Haha.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen American Beauty. Wasn’t trying to compare the problems directly. Suppose I was just looking at the similar word order.
What I was really getting at is that I’m wondering if it’s the process part that’s tripping me up, as opposed to a state. Anyway, I’ll drop it and go watch American Beauty or some other movie with a conceptualizing throughline.
That’s the best way I know how to understand these terms. Another great one is A Simple Plan because, you know, it’s about planning something “simple”, that gets less and less simple as the film goes on.
Excellent film, and on Netflix, too , I believe. Or was.
So I’m looking for movies I’m very familiar with in Manipulation. Not sure of the strength of the argument, but how is Captain Jack Sparrow as a Manipulation character in Curse of the Black Pearl?
Almost impossible to tell without the context of the other three Throughlines. My guess would be no…isn’t he dead? (Situation…)
Captain Barbossa and crew are cursed by Aztec treasure to be ghosts in the moonlight.
Captain Jack seems very manipulative and has trouble conceiving, or getting others to conceive, of himself as a Captain. He’s always adding Captain to his name when others only say Jack Sparrow. Some say he’s the worst pirate they’ve ever seen while others say he’s the best. As he manipulates his way through stealing a boat, one character wonders if he has a plan or makes it all up as he goes along.
I’m still not sure I’ve got a handle on Developing a Plan, but I saw that movie not too long ago and I’d say:
That sounds like a Consequence of Becoming to me. And everyone’s quest to get the medallion is the goal (Obtaining), which puts it in Physics and lines up with all of the sword fights, etc. I’m not sure if Sparrow is IC, but he’s definitely not MC. Not sure where everything else would line up since I haven’t seen it in a while (also I’m not a Dramatica Expert… yet).
I think this analysis would probably qualify for its own thread.
I was looking at the Captain thing as more of a personal issue, I guess, along with an attempt to influence others to conceive of him as a captain. But you’re right, as far as problems go, he’s not a manipulation character at all because his manipulations really seem to solve all his problems.
While I would love to see that, it’s become clear to me even the most basic concepts in this theory are way out of my reach to the point it’s become frustrating. I’m not going to start that thread because I’d end up steering it in the wrong direction, but I would love to read it from the sidelines.
Guess, which way I work, go on…I dare ya. HAHAHAHA!