I would say that the “Regime” concept no longer applies (in regard to identifying IC and Relationship). I think it’s safe to say that Norfolk is our IC – as Jim suggests, we’ll be better equipped to identify any hand-offs once we’ve pinned down the Throughlines.
Thank you so much…the fact that Henry promised, and then did not keep his promise completely escaped me.
On the run here, and I’ll read the full post later, but just have to share…the Riche character convinced me of the brilliance of the dramatica story theory because I always saw him as the perfect example of the contagonist character. When I read the theory book, I finally understood this character that had haunted me for over 30 years. Of course this is strictly in my humble opinion, etc.
Historically, there is mention that Henry’s father (henry 7) had persecuted More’s father, who had been a judge and lawyer. Holbein had done paintings/sketches of Thomas More’s father, his daughter Catherine and her husband Roper who were in the movie, his whole family, along with his famous Thomas More portrait, plus all those of Henry’s father, him, his son, and many of his court all the way to Catherine Howard. They might have had some relationship and/or encounters as Henry was growing up. He was only a second son that was being prepared for a church career, don’t forget, until he was 10. Then his father more or less ignored him, and he became king at 17. It was a small noble world, so he and More must have encountered each other.
Be seated. No courtship, Thomas. You’re my friend, are you not?
Your Majesty.
Thank God I have a friend for my chancellor. Readier to be friend, I trust, than he was to be chancellor.
Okay, sounds good – I’m very happy with Norfolk as IC (with possibly some hand-offs that we’ll figure out later).
I’m going to suggest “Be-er” for More which I don’t think will surprise anyone. The line from the Theory help in the software says a Be-er “would rather adapt their environment to themselves through strength of character, charisma, and influence” which fits More perfectly. Every challenge he faced, he dealt with by mentally consulting his conscience first. Then if necessary he explained his conscience-centred thinking to others, trying to influence them to see his perspective. He was also often shown “thinking hard” several times, like when he was mulling over the gift/bribe of the cup, or when something Henry said put him at a loss. And this:
An oath is made of words. It may be possible to take it.
That line shows how ready he was to mentally twist himself into taking an oath as long as his conscience (informed by his view of what was right by God) would allow it.
He was definitely less comfortable when forced to face problems externally. Think of his having to walk home all night because there were no boats available, or how the time in prison wore down his body (though it failed to wear down his resolve).
I’ll read all this later, but Norfolk would work as IC. Henry has enough to do as antagonist, and maybe that is handed off, too.
Right, he sure wasn’t hustling to become Chancellor.
Do you think the Thomas MC is holistic, even though he is a logical legal person? He does try to solve and change how his mind deals with things, as they come up (if that makes sense).
Thomas’ tendency to adjust to things that come up, as you say, is more reflective of his Approach than his Problem-Solving Style in my opinion.
I agree that he is a Be-er. He does a lot of ‘wait-and-see’ on how others act - he prefers to navigate the world as it is, rather than coercing it to his will:
I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety’s sake.
I am inclined to say that Thomas More’s PS Style is Linear. If he were of the Holistic camp, I think he would have considered more options for himself – he would have balanced the demands of his conscience with his other needs and responsibilities, i.e. Norfolk’s call for ‘fellowship,’ England’s need for stability, his family’s means and social standing, etc. But all of that cannot sway him because there is a line that he will not cross, one step he will not take.
This is demonstrated early on in the conversation with Cardinal Wolsey:
WOLSEY: I think we might influence the decision of his Holiness.
MORE: By argument?
WOLSEY: Argument certainly. And pressure.
MORE: Pressure, applied to Church houses, Church property?
WOLSEY: Pressure.
MORE: No, Your Grace, I’m not going to help you.
People frequently try to bring More to their side by getting him to weigh costs and benefits, but he decides only on the basis of what is right, what his conscience will allow.
I agree with Linear. When trying to explain his position to others, he seems to make very logical step-by-step arguments, to try and get them to understand. Imagine a Holistic spiritual yogi-type person in the same situation – he would tell you that it just feels wrong to go against God, that sort of thing. But More is constantly making logical and legal arguments to support his position.
As an example, to paraphrase an important argument he made to Meg: “First, imagine your soul is like water. Second, understand that when you take an oath, it is like holding your soul in your hands. Third, the fastness of your hands is like your grip on your conscience. Do you see that if you let go of your conscience then, your soul will be lost like water dripping away?”
Of course he used a lot less words thanks to Bolt’s almost poetic dialgoue, but that’s how I pictured it in my head, anyway.
Listen, Meg. When a man takes an oath, he’s holding his own self in his hands … Iike water.
And if he opens his fingers then, he needn’t hope to find himself again.
Oh, wow! Thanks for the “paraphrase”! It’s always driven me crazy that I couldn’t grasp what happened to the self with the open fingers. Duh! Linear sounds good. Does that make Norfolk, automatically, holistic?
Generally speaking, yes, the Influence Character has the opposite Problem Solving Style, and I think Norfolk demonstrates it:
I don’t know if the marriage was lawful or not…but damn it, Thomas, look at these names. Why can’t you do as I did and come with us for fellowship?
And who are you? A lawyer! And a lawyer’s son! We’re supposed to be the proud ones, the arrogant ones. We’ve all given in! Why must you stand out?
Norfolk looks at the balance of things, and he tries to bring Thomas along by the same line of thinking (to which Thomas regularly replies, “but if this, then that.” Linear).
Next item: Story Driver
In A Man For All Seasons, do Actions drive decisions, or do Decisions drive actions?
This one is tricky for me to nail down, but I would guess Decisions drive actions. King Henry VIII must have decided to divorce his wife, and how to do it, at some point – even though that decision is off screen. Cardinal Wolsey decided to nominate More as Chancellor. And More is shown many times contemplating and making decisions – e.g. after mulling it over he decided to throw the bribe-cup in the water, then decided to give it to Rich after it was retrieved. He decided not to give in to King Henry’s wishes, decided not to take the Oath, etc. In fact you could argue the whole movie is about his conscience-based decisions, why he makes them, and the fallout from them.
That said, as I’m still learning Dramatica, I can see one argument about an Action that drove things and was not itself driven by a Decision. Cardinal Wolsey’s illness and death was not a decision; and without that More would never have become Chancellor and had to face such pressure. Is this why the scene where Norfolk takes away the Chancellor’s chain is important, to show that a Decision was made to replace him, even before the Action of his death?
I imagine Action would have a little more action (thinking of the husband watching TV, here). The only action I can think of is More getting Norfolk to slug him, Henry stomping in the mud, and the intimated death at the end. More did study the oath, thinking maybe he could take it…remember? You are right in that he did decide to not take it, after a lot of consideration. It had to be a decision. Didn’t the movie start off with the stamp of a red seal, with Cornwall taking it out to be delivered? That seems to indicate a decision beginning.
Drivers can be tricky. It is important to remember that the presence of more actions than decisions (or vice-versa) does not make it the driver. The Fugitive and The Matrix are action-heavy films, but both are driven by Decision.
So a good question to ask is what kicks off the story’s troubles: an Action or a Decision?
If that’s hard to answer, then ask: which one brings the story to climax?
I would say King Henry VIII’s Decision to divorce Katherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn is what kicks off the story’s troubles. That disturbance is off screen, but its effects are shown when Cardinal Wolsey decides to summon More and ask him to help pressure the Pope into granting a divorce. (Wolsey’s decision is sort of shown through all the pomp and ceremony around the letter to More, which opens the film. As audience we find out afterwards, during the meeting with Wolsey, what these Decisions were all about.)
Also, I really can’t think of any Actions that were not driven by previous Decisions, so I think that’s a good sign that Decision is the Story Driver…
1 Like
I actually see the inverse. We are not shown Wolsey’s decision to summon More, we are only shown the action of it: a hand seals a letter, delivers it to several servants, than to the river messenger, etc., before it arrives at More’s estate. We do see More decide to respond to the summons, and then Wolsey and More argue and deliberate through the night about how to handle Henry’s “mucking” with Boleyn (decisions following actions).
Henry’s sending out the Oath (declaring him head of the church) forces the religious leaders of England to decide where their loyalties lie. More and his daughter Margaret deliberate about whether the oath can be taken without violating conscience.
In the ending, we do not see when Rich decides to perjure himself and indict More. Sure he stumbles a bit while carrying it out, but it’s clear that he’s already committed and is now acting on the plan. As a result, the jury finds More guilty and More decides to reveal what was on his mind all along.
So I could be wrong, but I think the Story Driver is Action. Any thoughts on this question, @Rod and @jhull?
I think the arguments for Decision as a Story Driver are stronger.
More’s decision not to pressure the Pope starts everything off.
At every turn, More is given the chance to decide otherwise and he doesn’t. The King comes to try and pressure him to change his mind, he makes the decision not to.
That giant council that decides to put King Henry in charge of the church – that’s a huge story driver.
Later More is given more opportunities to decide otherwise, he decides not to.
And then finally, the decision in court (most courtroom dramas are Decision drivers for obvious reasons) to have him executed – that ends it all.
That and More’s willingness to always “be” whatever is necessary to administer to the plot suggests a Willing Main Character (Tendency)
2 Likes