I don’t want to make a new thread on this if there isn’t enough interest, but has anyone seen Annihilation and want to make a crack at finding a storyform in there? That film intrigues me so much!
Wow, I can’t believe how long it’s been since I commented here. Sorry everyone!
Hmm, I haven’t seen that movie, but maybe others on the forums have. (If I ever get the chance though, I am always open to discussing!) Maybe it would still make the most sense to make a separate topic so more people would have the chance to see the topic.
I think the final storyform for Hunger Games Book 1 is fantastic! After reading through everything, I totally see Peeta as the IC now. The Domain of Psychology is perfect for him (e.g. playing the part of a tribute at the parade and during the interview with Flickerman). Overall, I think we hit the nail on the head with this story.
2 Likes
Glad you had a chance to circle back @RailwayAdventurer and that we’re on the same page!
Thanks to everyone BTW for jumping in on this.
For me, this analysis really highlights the value of Dramatica’s precision and the need to be open minded about any possible preconceptions you might have about a story. I had strong ideas about Katniss’ resolve going in because she was the first character I ever heard described as “Steadfast” (on non-Dramatica websites) before I knew anything about Dramatica. This idea was, I think, what led me to Google the term and discover Narrative First. I remember being disappointed that there was no official Dramatica storyform for Hunger Games.
So there’s the irony – Steadfast Katniss who led me to Dramatica turned out to be Changed after all.
2 Likes
I just asked Siri to remind me to watch Hunger Games Friday night…let’s see if I listen to her 
5 Likes
Just finished and still trying to digest it. My initial reaction is that it’s missing something. Also, maybe the OS is Universe-I can definitely see where that comes from-but it didn’t feel like an OS Universe to me. It felt like someone wanted it to be a Universe story or thought they were writing a Universe story, but it didn’t work out that way.
The goal also seems to change about halfway through. Maybe this is a byproduct of just being part 1 of a larger series, but the first half seems to be largely about making sure that Panem (isn’t that an airline?) never has to deal with the districts rising up in revolt again, but somewhere in the middle it becomes about making sure they put on a good show.
2 Likes
Is the problem the Story Judgement? Unfortunately, I still haven’t had a chance to rewatch the movie, so I’m working from the book, which I first read this summer, and I was pretty sure they were the same.
But I was very surprised when @mlucas suggested the movie has a judgement of Good. I can imagine how that might mess with the feeling of the film.
So this was part of why I initially thought that there was a collective IC in the form of the Capitol. I still think it’s possible that it shares the role with Peeta (especially as I am now convinced of Katniss’ change).
So:
OS Universe/Past: “Everyone needs to participate in commemorating the victory of the Capitol in order to keep our system going.”
MC Physics/Understanding: “I just need to figure out how to fight through this to survive and come home to my sister.”
IC Psychology/Conceptualizing/State of Being vs. Sense of Self: “As long as you have to do this, you might as well put on good show” (Capitol); “It doesn’t matter if you survive; you can’t let them change who you are” (Peeta).
1 Like
It may be different in the book, which I started rereading but just couldn’t get through again. Just not a fan of the authors writing style. And maybe I need to rewatch or take more time to digest the movie, but I couldn’t tell you what the MC perspective is, let alone the IC perspective. There are hints that Katniss might be dealing with a dead father or protecting her family, but those don’t really carry through to the end. Is her willingness to eat poisonous berries telling us something about her need to protect her family or how she deals with having a dead dad? Seems more like a refusal to play by the Capitals rules or a refusal or to let them win.
I’m having a hard time seeing anything other than mixed messaging. Much of the story is focused on the Capital preventing another uprising. They say that very thing with the film they show at the introduction of the Reaping or whatever it’s called. And then it’s implied in the scene where Snow talks to the guy that planned the games this year and tells him that too much hope is a bad thing and to not let that happen. And there’s some scenes later, I think, where the people in the district were starting to riot if I remember right. But once the games start, they mostly don’t bring up preventing an uprising, other than maybe once because they’ve suddenly decided that the games are now about giving the people a good show. The only time the uprisings are brought up again that I remember are in the context of giving them a good show.
For the part of the film that seems to be about preventing an uprising, the Concerns I saw were all about getting people to like them, people getting ideas about them, fulfilling roles, playing to the crowd, etc. the parts about putting on a good show were partially about those, but also partially about forcing Katniss to face the other tributes and changing the rules to get Katniss and Peeta to work together and then changing them back.
Again, it’s possible the entire franchise has a storyform about the uprising. If there is a storyform in this franchise, Like with Harry Potter, I I suspect you would have to take in the entire series to receive it rather than just a single episode.
It would be great if it did, but having read them all this summer I doubt it (at least not all one). The second two books seem come more from Psychology I think – the whole idea of Katniss becoming the Mockingjay (symbol of resistance, which could be more Psychology) is played up in the second and third books. (I think the riots aren’t mentioned).
I wonder if we’re looking at different levels. In the the context of the Situation of Panem that started 74 years in the Past, I don’t think it’s about manipulations per se as much as it is about who controls whom? Who can “play God”, who controls your Fate/Destiny (“may the odds be ever in your favor”). “Playing to the crowd” could be Psychology – or it could be debasing yourself to try to get sponsors to Intervene on your behalf. At the Element level, the Capitol is focused on keeping things even keel (Equity) even as people keep responding by throwing things out of balance, changing the rules, etc. (Inequity).
1 Like
It could be, yeah. Without being able to discern an MC or IC perspective to lock everything in, I can see how it could be anything. The reasons I kind of steer away from Universe/Situation is because it seems like there wasn’t any conflict prior to the uprising and it doesn’t seem as if there would be any if it weren’t for the capital trying inspire the districts away from further uprisings.
Think about how the overall story here compares to something like Shawshank Redemption with its OS Universe of a corrupt prison. Panem and Shawshank don’t feel like the same kind of place to me. In Shawshank, prisoners are beaten and murdered because the guards and warden are corrupt. Prisoners are thrown in the hole and walked out into the yard and assassinated to keep secrets because there is corruption. Panem doesn’t have these issues. They don’t beat and kill people randomly out of corruption (at least not in the first movie, maybe later). They don’t hold the Hunger Games because they are corrupt or to hide secrets. They hold them because they want to suppress rebellious behavior. That makes it feel a lot like 1984 (I should probably look and see if there’s an article discussing the storyform for 1984, I don’t recall seeing it with the other analyses).
Without being able to lock in all four perspectives I could see and accept conflict coming from anywhere. It could be a state of past rebellion, or the act of rebellion, or the idea of rebellion. It just seems that the intent for at least part of the movie was leaning toward the behavior of rebellion. And Katniss’ part in the story, especially when considering later installments in the franchise, seems to be to facilitate a rebellion through playing the part of mascot.
Since I couldn’t discern an MC or IC perspective, I didn’t look much at the Elements.
I found that if you focus on the Hunger Games themselves, the tradition of them, and how that tradition is used to oppress the districts, the context of this single story becomes clear. (Which is funny, because I went into the movie totally thinking that @Lakis was wrong about OS Universe and that Concerns would be in a different quadrant.)
And I know @Lakis already mentioned this, but when you said it’s missing something, I totally agree with you. I think trying to shoehorn the Judgment to Good kind of messes with the whole story – its message, and every part of the story.
Actually, this feels a LOT like Panem to me – at least the poor districts. People in the districts are forced to work dangerous, menial jobs for the benefit of the Capitol – jobs that get them killed (like Katniss’s father). Children are forced to hunt and steal day-old bread to get by, because there is oppression.
1 Like
So you didn’t find this convincing? I don’t know how you get a much more classic IC moment than this:
I actually read 1984 last year and have thought about it a bit. I actually wonder if it’s a complete story (but that’s a separate conversation).
I agree. In 1984 you have all this stuff about thought crimes, memory holes, changing language, etc – all Psychology stuff. In the Hunger Games you don’t get much of that. There’s not a lot about people internalizing oppression – more about the hopelessness of getting it rubbed in your face through this barbaric ritual which reminds you that you have no control of your life.
Uh…
I watched the whole thing, and read much of above…
And realize that I’ve only seen the movie (and don’t have the backing of the book)…
But that thing was a disaster.
I’m not saying there isn’t the Storyform you suggest in the book, but placing it in the upper left quadrant is way off.
Just in a general sense, knowing isn’t really an issue (Knowledge). I can maybe see Ability (upper right), but my guess is the closest thing is Desire (future, obtaining, becoming, subconscious).
Projection of bread? Ehhhh…
There was a lot of support and oppose, control and uncontrolled — I didn’t notice above any reference to her inability to make friends etc. Help and hinder show up a lot and obviously pursuit and avoid.
Her decision to eat together die together is the first time she speaks up — felt like Oppose, but again the story was all over the place (esp with that whole pageant thing)
All in all, I feel like I would need to read the book to understand what is going on.
I’ll let that be a lesson to me about making assumptions about adaptations in different media, though it’s possible that you’d say the same thing about the book 
.
The book is in first person, so we’re inside her head, getting her take on things the whole time. We also don’t see a number of the things that the filmmakers chose to show, so that may affect things.
That was in the book …
To be honest, this is a little abstract for me. Would “knowing your place” or “making sure people know their place” count? Or is there some other rough litmus test?
I really felt like the Issue quad under Past was really strong – Fate (“may the odds…”), Interdiction (playing God), etc. as well as the Elements under Interdiction – Ability, Equity, Inequity, Desire … was that just in my head, or was it just muddled/missing in the movie?
Hmm… well, thanks for checking it out 
.
1 Like
This is very strange to me, because I went into re-watching the movie with that notion (that upper-left couldn’t be correct), but after watching it, was 100% convinced that it was upper-left.
I suppose what must be going on, is that those of us who have read the book (even if it was quite a while ago, like for me) are able to fill in the missing gaps in the film.
But again, this all feels very strange because the intent and message of the film are super clear to me! Every throughline is perfectly clear and aligned with the others. Double checking with the Subtext Premise confirms it. (And the similarity to Harry Potter’s structure feels 100% on point as well.)
Putting storyform analysis aside, did you like the movie? I thought it was pretty darn great – did NOT expect to enjoy it so much the second time.
1 Like
We could start with Past.
What is the method of Past-ing that creates conflict here? What is it about the Past that is hidden, or needs to be revealed? How does it affect everyone in the story?
With stories in the Past, you’re usually revealing something, and that revelation plays a significant part in creating conflict in the present—for everyone.
How does a process of Past-ing play out in the pageant? How does the Past play out amongst all the contestants during the game?
Yes, there was a rebellion decades ago, but what about it wasn’t “known” that is now creating chaos?
1 Like
The Past-ing source of conflict in this story is tradition-ing. Conflict is generated through adhering to, and breaking from, the traditions that the Capitol uses to subjugate and quell the districts.
I don’t think a Concern of the Past always has to be about what’s secret or is not known. In this story, it’s more about what is known that is wrong (from Author’s perspective), and that creates the Universe conflict. Everyone knows you can’t fight the Peacekeepers. Everyone knows that kids from District 12 can’t compete. Everyone knows that you don’t volunteer to enter the Games. Everyone knows that to win the Games you have to kill. etc.
During the Games there is all this conflict from adhering to tradition and breaking it. The Capitol is stuck adhering to their traditions, because they created them, even when the District 12 contestants are becoming too popular. They try changing the rules, but it has consequences for everyone (including them). All of these rule-changes affect everyone (contestants, gamemakers, Snow, even the general populace) cause conflict are instances of Past-ing – breaking with tradition or holding to tradition.
1 Like
A couple of illustrations that popped up on Subtext that circle what I think we’re talking about:
“Getting over an idealized past”
“Reliving Someone’s Glory Days”
“Being Punished For Past Transgressions”
The whole reason the Games are in existence and are being perpetuated is to continually punish the Districts for their past transgression (of rebellion).
2 Likes
The flipside is the Consequence of Memory: fail to overturn this barbaric tradition and you’ll continue to be reminded of your “transgressions” by having to live through these Games year in and year out.
1 Like