Consequences of consequences

[Seener]

I know enlightenment is not a pair with knowledge but… it happened to me few days ago.

I’ve been working on a short story. Everything was in place: storyform, throughlines, plot points, outcome. And still after two scenes it wasn’t as good as in my imagination. It was dull. Something did not work. What is wrong with me?

After a lot of thinking (that made my family suspicious) my vote went to tension. Characters are doing things that are logical but have not much meaning and I don’t think like wanting to know what they will do next.

I did try few things. Justification workshops – not happy with the result. Justification machine is still available somewhere on the Internet, but I think articles were removed from NarrativeFirst as not necessarily correct. Moreover, I’m bad at it.

I did try some non-Dramatica advice about ‘raising the stake’. Wasn’t so bad but looking for ‘tension on every page’ I went into inconsistency. On a scene level the tension was ok (more or less) but on a whole story level this was pieces of different puzzles in one bag.

I have reviewed ‘Generating Dramatic Tension Within Each Act of Your Story’ series on NarrativeFirst. I like it so much. I know number of acts and, I know which story point could be a subject of tension for each of them. But still wasn’t sure what would be a glue for the whole story.

And then… out of the sudden…

Armando’s Instant Dramatica winked at me from around the corner.

This is usually my first test for every idea. Can I write four sentences about it: driver + consequences, goal + requirements, etc. Even if there is no storyform yet and driver, goal, consequences are not present as Dramatica storypoints, still it helps me a lot.

But I’ve never thinking to much why Armando put it that way. It works, he’s smarter, I will follow. But this time I saw the light shining on me from the first act design: driver + consequence.

Why we believe what character is doing makes any sense? Why we believe it is ok a young, athletic, physically fit, martial arts trained man should hunt and ultimately bring about the death of an older guy burdened with traumas and physical imperfections? Why we believe it is ok innocent teenager kills older guy? Moreover, we want it so bad. Well because in the first case it is Batman vs Joker and in the second case it is Potter vs Voldemort.

People in real life are usually driven by two forces: things they wand and things they are afraid of. They are chasing the first and escaping the second. If you look on any given elections, it is usually mix of promises. I will give you this and I will protect you from that. And fears are much stronger. Ok, maybe it is possible to win elections with promises only, but I bet it is not possible to have good story without… consequences.

Consequences is what justifies every action and puts a meaning into goal and tension. Joker is going to poison the whole city; Voldemort is going to build a world of injustice. Yeah, we can do them whatever we want, we can bring terror, violence and cruelty – but we need to have a good reason.

In other words: story with no consequence is like football game without ball. We can run here and there but… who cares.

Consequences needs to be played in the right way of course. Who would care of 620M$ of some fictional Asian corporation? The real problem is Hans is ‘just’ killing people. Moreover, one of these ‘people’ is John’s wife.

In Dramatica theory and in storyform consequence is just a single term: future, changing one’s nature, and so on. It is up to us to make it matter. World could be at stake, group existence, particular life. I guess in failure/good stories consequence may be what we opt for, and goal may be something we fear, but… I don’t know.

And consequences must be played carefully with forewarning.

I see some patters in many stories.

Consequences must be foreshadowed during the first act. Shrek meets Donkey, Hagen explains why position of the family may be lost, first kill in Nakatomi Plaza (John is not aware of it, but audience is).

Lock in at the end of the first act makes consequences personal to main character (but main character does not have to be personal to consequences). Creatures invade Shrek’s swamp, Michael’s father is almost dead, policeman John sees Hans ‘just’ killing Takagi. It does not have to be personal; it may be something that main character takes personal.

I think in so many stories MC starts to be personal for consequences at midpoint or because of midpoint. Michael is ‘civil’ till the assassination of ‘Turk. After that he is a target. John starts to be a target more like at first pinch point but arriving FBI and especially missing detonators puts him at the top of priority list. Shrek rescues princess, so it is just time to bring her to Farquaad, but this is also the time to learn love.

At the end of act two, the low point, it is often the last step before consequences. At least in success/good stories. Family accepts the deal to have a peace, but it will lead to the worst-case scenario, John is losing detonators, and Hans can follow his plan. Shrek… well he succeeds but he does not want it any longer.

Armando describes this part as limit + forewarning and I think in most cases it is right to use forewarning there, but I think in some cases consequences would be a choice. And in other cases, even goal can be an option, maybe in failure/good stories.

The last act is to play directly with consequences, as near as possible. Few seconds on the ticking clock has left, the bomb is up to explode, no hope at all.

Consequences evolve during the whole story. At the beginning Micheal is safe. Then he sees the consequences but is not in danger personally. Then he is in danger personally. Then he feels responsible for the whole family business.

Anyway, consequences must be well played during the first act first. Without that nobody cares. I think…

[Seener]

The Godfather

Having ‘my discovery’ in mind I’m trying to break it down. Seems to be good as it is Success story, so the Goal-Consequences is played straight forward.

Storyform is available here: The Godfather - Analysis - Dramatica
Goal – Obtaining: Reclaim position of the family.
Consequences – Becoming: Loos the position, loose the power.
Forewarning – Progress.
Requirements – Doing.
Prerequisites – Being.

Ok, last two are due to this series of narrativefirst articles: Generating Dramatic Tension Within Each Act Of Your Story: Part One - Articles - Narrative First

But first thing first. Consequences and forewarnings. Progress leads to Becoming. Sounds good and reflects what we have in the story. Starting from attempt to assassinate Don we head to the final forewarning which is accepting a peace that is bad for Corleone family. Second of all, they have to accept the conditions that Don wanted to avoid at the beginning (accepting drug business and sharing political connections). First of all, showing weakness.

The progress is from superior family that sets the rules, to weak family that is forced to accept conditions.

But what consequences are in that story. In storyforms consequences are like Becoming, Future, Innermost Desires and so on. In a real story it must be specific. Becoming may have multiple faces: Family is losing position or even is destroyed in some way, members are death, etc.

And 1. Time to show what exactly consequences mean in this story. In The Godfather first act ends with unsuccessful assassination of Don Corleone. I saw multiple breakdowns pointing to Turk’s assassination, but it is enough to have a clock to understand it is middle point (if you consider it a joke it is allowed to laugh there). Confusion most likely arises from late Michael’s involvement into business. But there is a silent scene that, I think, is real Michael’s ‘departure. For Overall story we have the following act structure (in classical and not Dramatica sense): Act 1 – peace, Don’s assassination attempt, Act 2 – war, boss meeting, Act 3 – peace. For Main Character it is like: Act 1 – It is not me, Michael eats last meal with Key, Act 2 – protecting father, and himself, and his wife, boss meeting, Act 3 – new boss. It is this small scene in a hotel room when Michael decides to focus on his family (as a social organization, focus on Family as a crime unit is a subject of Act 3).

Actual this scene is more like plot device. I think there is not much logic in it. Ok, father was shot and there is a war. But Michael is considered not to be a part of crime organization, so taking care of his father is not in conflict with having relationship with Key. Yet still it shows his move toward a goal.

That was long. Let’s talk about consequences once again.

Act 1. It is Stop story so we could think of it as a story with consequences already present. I think it’s not the case. For that story I see it more like consequences will take a place if goal is not achieved. First act is split into three parts and the consequences are shown in incremental order in each of it. Progress is more like part of the last one.

Part first – wedding.

The very first scene with Bonasera. Indirect appreciation.

Bonasera wants revenge because his daughter was hurt by some boys. And now we learn he was in court of justice, and there was no justice. So, we are in parallel world where ‘an eye for an eye’ is a rule. Potential consequence of wrong decision is death. Don does not reject request to kill because it is wrong, he reject’s it because it is not justice in this world. They beat her so they will be beaten – that’s justice.

It’s worth to mention audience buys it without a word of protest. They hurt her and are not going to be punished by court? Court is corrupt? Don Corleone, punish them, make them suffer, kill them. For hurting her, for corrupting the court, for everything wrong in this world.

Don Corleone rejects the request of killing but accepts “an eye for an eye” solution. Now we know the violence is not a killing frenzy, it is powerful tool used precisely, carefully and with consideration.

After first seven minutes of the movie, we know what the rules in this world are, we accept it, moreover – we want it. Contract with audience signed.

Consequences foreshadowed indirectly and in light version.

Scene with Michael telling Key the story of Johnny Fontane.

‘My father assured him that either his brains or his signature would be on the contract.

Another indirect foreshadowing of consequences.

At this stage none of the characters suffers personal consequences . We just learn what consequences could look like. Dramatic question in first scene is more like ‘Does Bonasera get the revenge?’, or something like that.

Part two – visit to California.

Here we know what a goal and dramatic question is. Will Tom succeed?

And we see potential consequences. Dead horse head. Indirect but visible this time.

Part three – the deal.

Here are few important scenes and consequences are replied.

Tom discuses the consequences of rejecting the deal for the Family. Spoken foreseeing – straightforward.

Don explains his reasoning to The Turk. And because of Sonny we are afraid something bad is going on.

Luca Brasi is killed. Consequences in pure picture but not on most important character.

Few moments later there is assassination attempt. We have fresh killing in head and see these guys approaching the Don. We know it is not about convincing him with verbal arguments.

Summary: number of ways to show the consequences, grading. Main tension is in many places because we are afraid of consequences. Even if it is based on prerequisites (or requirements later) according to narrative first articles, the main fear is about well-known consequences.

Main character is not affected directly. He is aware of irreversibility of consequences now, but his life is not in danger. His not a direct target.

[Seener]

Act 2. First part in classic terms. From Don’s assassination attempt to The Turk’s assassination. Looks like a lot of assassinations in plot points…

Progress as a forewarning starts to play a role. Superior position of the family has just been questioned. A lot of things are changing. Still consequences are faced multiple times.

Sicilian message – Luca is dead. It’s just reaffirmation. We saw it in first act, now we have scene to recall our memory.

Paulie is killed. There is another attempt to kill Don, Bruno Tattaglia is killed (just information) and finally The Turk is killed.

And all of it is mixed with forewarnings of Progress. House is changed into fortress; the Family does not earn money.

At this stage Michael is affected by consequences indirectly. He cares of family, father especially, and he wants to do something, but as a ‘civil’ he is not considered as target. Noone wants to kill him. It is clearly stated few times.

Act 3. In terms of Dramatica. In classic notation it is act 2b. From midpoint to crisis.

The Turk has been killed. Policeman has been killed. Everyone knows who’s behind.

The war is on another level and Michael had to hide in Italy, because now (finally) he is a target. Till that point he could do nothing to be safe. Now he must hide.

There are less consequences (I think) in this act, but the impact is stronger. Santino is killed and Apollonia is killed. Michael is almost killed. It is once again mixed with forewarnings of progress. Family does not earn money; Michael’s location is discovered.

The most interesting part seems to be end of act – meeting of bosses and deal that forces the Family to accept the conditions they refused to accept at the beginning. Noone dies, and we have peace, but the Family starts to lose position. Someone less experienced (like me) would put here death of Don Corleone or something like that. But this would be good for action packed meaningless C-class movie. Michael and his friends take guns and get a revenge in kill’em all style. But the movie is subtle. Death is just a moment. Suffering is eternity. There is a time to study the fall.

Armando makes this act as limit + forewarning. I think it is possible to be creative here and find good solution with limit + consequences (or maybe not, that’s another discussion) or limit + success, possibly for success/bad or failure/good stories. Yet most stories that I know it has forewarning here.

So, in this act Michael is directly affected by consequences. He must protect himself.

Act 3 (classic) or 4 (Dramatica). Whatsoever, last act.

This act is built on forewarning and Goal vs consequences is left for the end.

A lot of progress. We have peace again and we are back to business, but the Family is not the same as in first act. Michael is new don; old don is semiretired and weak. There are no other successors. Michael did not prove his abilities and is not respected yet. Hagen feels bad because his role has changed. Tessio and Clemenza want to have own families. Family is no longer respected. Clemenza complains he is losing position. Mo Green says “The Corleone family don’t have that kind of muscle anymore. The Godfather is sick. You’re getting chased out of New York by Barzini and the other families, and you think you can find easier pickings here. I’ve talked to Barzini”. Everything goes worse and worse.

Finaly Don Corleone dies. It is not consequence as it is natural death, so I would vote for forewarning. Yet all the promises made to him are no longer in play. And then Barzini wants to talk. We know where it’s going to go. Micheale will be killed and with him the Family will be finished. And then we are about to face the consequences, and then – ta-dam – the goal is reached.

So, fourth act is played mainly on forewarnings. Finaly consequence for overall story and for main character story is left for a climax.

Summary:

The Godfather is four act story – according to Narrativefirst article linked above.

Act 1

Dramatic tension: Prerequisites – being (temporary adopting lifecycle).

Consequences shown indirectly till the end of act, where it is shown directly.

Not sure how to mix it. Michael seems to be ‘temporary” out of family business. In the book there is a tension while Brasi pretends to be unhappy.

I feel more tension from foreshadowing of consequences.

Will Don accepts Bonasera’s request?

Will Tom make a deal in California?

Is The Turk going to kill someone?

O, first two still can play as ‘tension by being’.

Act 2

Dramatic tension: Requirements – doing. A lot of potential in this storypoint.

Consequences personal to MC.

Hiding, hunting, protecting father, all the story with meeting with The Turk (will they accept Michael’s plan, will they find out the place, will he succeed). Still consequences strongly in play mixed with forewarnings.

Act 3

Dramatic tension: Prerequisites – being (temporary adopting lifecycle).

MC personal to consequences.

A lot of foreshadowing of consequences here. Kills, kills, kills. Michael temporary adopts life in Sicily, marrying Apolonia. Sony tries (unsuccessfully) stay hidden and protected.

Act 4

Dramatic tension: Requirements – doing.

Forewarnings leads to final consequence.

A lot of doing as well.

Well, not sure yet what it finally means. I’ll try to break down some other stories to see if kind of pattern can be confirmed here.

Anyway, I’ve started to think about stories I have in mind in a little bit different way. What consequences means exactly in this world. How it can be affirmed directly and indirectly. What is a way to foreshadow it. Well, not sure what about stories but I feel more tension inside. And I’m curious

[Seener]

Blade Runner

It is another great movie, and it is worth to review how consequences and forewarnings are used to build tension. It is especially interesting example because of failure as an outcome. Well, consequences are about to happen. Will see.

Goal: Obtaining – retire replicants.

Consequences: Becoming – well, here is the trick for this story. At first it seems like to be killed, but there is more.

Forewarnings: Preconscious (impulsive responses)

Prerequisites: Being

Doing: Requirement

And we have impulsive responses leading to changing nature. Perfect.

According to narrativefirts we have three act structure here (bump-slide-bump) and tension may be built with prerequisites-requirements-consequences.

Act 1

I think it ends up with a scene at eye’s lab. For MC story one scene later.

First scene is Leon’s VK scene. We don’t know Leon is replicant. But few minutes later we learn meaning of this scene. Blade runner hunts for replicants and can be killed at work. Leon’s impulsive responses are proof he is a replicant and to avoid consequences he shoots blade runner. First meaning is for average audience, the second is for Dramatica believers

Tension in this scene is less from being – after audience does not know at this moment Leon is replicant and life is at risk. It is more like disconnection between Leon and Blade runner, his constant questions that show different perception of the same situation. Another factor is V.K. test – questions based on statements that provoke emotional reaction. Not only in Leon but in audience as well.

Anyway, basic version of consequences sold. MC may be killed at work. Becoming. And sandbagging at the same time.

Deckard accepts the deal and completes V.K test on Rachel. Here is a major swing that shows us the same relationship Human – replicant in a mirror. We again don’t know Rachel is replicant. We again have full of tension V.K. test. But this time Rachel smiles nicely at Deckard at the beginning, they are connected and focused on test. And she attracts. And we are surprised she’s replicant too – as well as Deckard is.

Contrasting consequences of the same kind. On one side killing machine that we want to be death. On the second side charming person that we are attracted to.

I think this is the trick in this movie. Initial consequences are what we are afraid of, but second incarnation of consequences is what we hope for. Goal starts to be a problem now.

Next part is whydunit classic – looking for evidence. This time at the hotel.

And at the finale of the act, we have Roy and Leon. First, we see clenching hand that shows ticking clock of replicant’s life. Second, Leon tells Roy police was in hotel room – that shows another risk of death. We have strongly stated motivation and consequences for replicants.

At the end of this act Roy and Leon visit Chew. There is a lot of consequence-based tension. We are not afraid if replicants find a way to extend their life span. We are afraid of Chew’s freezing to death life. In the movie it is not clear what is the outcome, but tension remains.

We are ready to start act 2. Replicants must meet Tyrell, Deckard must find replicants with pictures – because he has no other hint to follow.

So, we have the following tools to build the tension: consequences, forewarning and prerequisites. Becoming, preconscious, being.

Leon’s V.K. – being, but consequences are announced for later use.

Bryan invitation – possibly being as well. Deckard does not want to take the job. This is low level tension part, more to spice up infodump.

Rachel’s V.K. – no being, no consequences. Preconscious, for me. First attraction.

Hotel room search – ‘discovering secrets’ tension. Possibly common for whydunits and many other.

Roy and Leon back on stage – consequences. They are desperate to save life. Chew’s life at risk.

I have no time to write more at the moment, but I will continue this breakdown.

Last comment. I see some similarities in both movies. Consequences are present in the very first scene. Another one is death. In Blade Runner it is direct Goal and on of the consequences. In The Godfather it rather indirect, more like tool. But in both movies easy understandable for audience.

[Seener]

Act 2 – to the midpoint.

Starts right after replicants visit Chew and ends with first kill.

According to narrativefirst good tool to build tension for this part is requirement of Doing – a lot of space for such storypoint.

First scene in this act is Deckard back to his flat, meets Rachel, explains her she’s replicant. And then he feels sorry and wants to make it better somehow, but she leaves.

I think there is huge similarities between The Godfather and Blade Runner and here is the scene of Armando’s Character Arc – Stop/Start.

In The Godfather Michael is sitting on a bench and thinking. Key is calling him and first he does not want to tell her he loves her. In the next scene in a hotel room, he does not want her to go with him to hospital, and he does not know when they meet again. His mind is another place. He disconnects.

In Blade Runner Deckard tells Rachel she’s replicant, but then he feels sorry. He emphasizes and wants to make it better. He connects.

In both movies the first scene of second act is like the first connection to final resolution of the character arc.

Tension? For me it is preconscious.

In the next scene Pris meets Sebastian for the first time.

Tension: Doing. But also, consequences. We are not only curious if she succeeds, we (at least me) take into consideration she may kill him. And he is so naïve.

Last scene of this sequence is Deckard examining the photo and discovering lady with tattoo on her face – Zhora.

Tension – let’s say it is doing, but I think it is just well-known trick in whydunits. Here is not in danger (physical or emotional). We do not see consequences in terms of the whole story or in terms of current scene. It is just curiosity that keeps our attention.

In the next sequence Deckard tracks Zora. Starting from curiosity based questioning manufacturers to visit in a club.

Tension – doing.

Short break for a call to Rachel.

Tension of Forewarnings.

And midpoint finale – meeting with Zora, sandbagging, almost being killed and killing first replicant.

Tension – mix of… everything. It may look like mix of doing and becoming. Will he find her. Will she kill him. Will he kill her? But when she is chased on the streets and hit, and falls – well Deckard and audience must challenge mixed feelings. Human or ‘any other machine’? Preconscious back on stage.

In The Godfather consequences started to be personal for Michael at the end of Act 1 – assassination attempt.

In Blade Runner near the middle of Act one. Deckard accepted the job risking life (potentially) and meet Rachel – risking emotional life.

Yet still in a midpoint main character started to be personal for the consequences. Leon saw Deckard. Bryant tells Deckard Rachel must be retired too.

TBC.

[Seener]

Act 2 – from the midpoint to crisis.

So, Zhora is retired… or dead.

In some movies single action in a midpoint tells everything that needed. In others there may be few echoes, and midpoint is more like sequence than point. In The Godfather Michael finally kills The Turk and all is clear. Now we have some time to take a breath. In other movies, like f.e. Predator there is an echo that shows more. As far as I remember, there are two close meetings with the alien, before Arnold can assure his mates and audience, they have to make a stand or there won’t be anyone left to make that chopper.

In Blade Runner we have just short scene of Deckard buying a bottle. And then: Bryant explains Rachel must be retired, Leon saw all of it and wants to kill him, Rachel (he surprisingly decided to meet Deckard) sees all of that and kills Leon. It all takes like seven or eight minutes and changes a lot.

Deckard started to be personal for consequences – Leon wants instant revenge.

Rachel killed Leon to protect Deckard. One replicant kills another replicant to protect human being. If initial Deckard’s statement would be true, then one machine killed another machine to protect human. But in fact, it looks like one person being in love makes desperate move out of expected measures to protect love interest. So… human.

But wait, now Deckard has a life debt on one side, and order to kill on the other side.

Really dens part with a lot of tension and not much time to take a breath.

Tension: everything. Mainly by consequences – at least three ‘life at risk’ moments; two are sold. But also, impulsive responses – can he kill her?

All glued by doing.

Last part of this sequence is Rachel and Deckard dance of souls. She is shown there in so human way. She fears to be killed, and he states he is not going to hurt her. She plays a piano to verify if she can. She remembers lessons but is not sure if it is real memory or implant. But does it matter? She can play. And it’s art. In ’80 only human could make an art. And finally, Deckard accepts her body, and not only her soul. As this is his last appearance in this act, we can consider it as a final commitment to resolve.

This is also unspoken crisis for him, because now he is going to be hunted together with her and stay against law.

Mot of the tension comes from foreshadowing (impulsive responses). There is laso place for consequences. Not the first – no one dies. The second one – replicants are no longer like any other machine. Deckard, please don’t kill Rachel. Take care of her.

Last sequence of this act is a tragic story of Roy and Pris.

Sebastian’s hopes are devastated when Roy arrives. It is clear he was used. He is questioned and we are afraid of him. Actually, there is no threat expressed. Moreover, Roy did not kill anybody in the movie, but we know he is capable to. And then we move to Tyrell place. And again questions. And finally kills.

Tension is based on consequences (is h going to kill Sebastian/Tyrell?) or requirement of doing (will they get there?).

It is also worth to mention this are the only kills in this movie that seems to be act of madness. Leon kills to self-defend. His identity has been discovered. Rachel kills to defend Deckard. In some sense replicants were killing in a logical way. But here Roy understands there is no escape. The clock is ticking, and no one can stop it. Tyrell can’t help.

First of all, killing Tyrell is final commitment. Roy has no plan B. He is going to die. Maybe that’s his revenge on his creator? If I’m going to die, you die with me?

Second o fall, with this kill he is as little a human as possible.

And third of all – it is also a good low point for overall story. Police couldn’t stop the replicants before they reached their goal of getting into Tyrell’s corporation.

Not sure if my voice means something but… well done, master.

TBC

[Seener]

Act 3 – grand finale.

Consequences – according to narrative firs, and consequences and forewarnings in general. A lot of consequences, and it should not be a surprise for the last act of any movie.

We need to have in mind there are two versions of consequences in this story.

At the beginning of this act, we have few minutes to take a breath after tragic events just seen. Deckard learns about Sebastian, has a meeting with police patrol and some street guys. Small tricks to buy some time yet keeping attention. There is some tension in there, but I think it is local, and not connected to the whole story.

When he steps in into the building and then into Sebastian’s apartment, we have plain consequence-based tension. This is pure goal-consequence challenge.

Fight with Pris ends up with kill.

And then Roy appears. He has a motive, seems like he has some feelings for Pris, and she is dead now. And he knows who did it. And we just saw he killed Tyrell and Sebastian. And he is stronger, and he is faster. Bad time for Deckard.

Final confrontation develops with a lot of questions based on consequences. Will Deckard kill Roy. Will Deckard survive. Does Roy have enough time to kill Deckard before he dies.

Surprisingly Roy takes these last minutes of his life slowly. There is no hurry in killing. During final confrontation Deckard also has a time to experience last minutes of his life.

“Quite an experience to live in fear, isn’t it? That’s what it is to be a slave…” – Roy says. Now Roy is no longer a mad android killing to extend his lifespan. He does not want to leave as a slave. Livie in fear is an experience they both share at this very moment. They are the same. That is to understand by Deckard but also by Roy.

And he gets it. He saves life. Somone other’s life. He is emotionally human being. He also accepts he is mortal being which is so human.

Then there is a speech about tears in the rain and time for me to cry once again.

Tension builds on consequences mainly. At the very end a bit of forewarnings. We are sorry Roy has to die.

The last scene is escape with Rachel. Starts with afraid of their life but ends up with understanding, Gaff is not going to chase them. Unicorn and “It’s too bad she won’t live. But then again, who does?”. It is not bad because of the killing. It is bad she won’t live. This way it refers to natural end of the life as well. Seems like society starts to see replicants not like any other machine.

Tension in aftermath build more on forewarning. There is no direct risk of consequences show, however we think of it too.

And for sure the whole last act tension is pulsating consequences that MC must face in person.

PS. Maybe I’ll find a time for another breakdown after Christmas. I need to think of another good example.
PS2. Feel free to share your observations on how consequences or other storypoints that are used frequently to build a tension.