Is is reasonable to assume that the Grand Argument Story starts with the Inciting Incident? For The Fugitive that would mean that the first 10 minutes or so of the movie is not part for the Grand Argument Story.
Generally-speaking, yes, though it depends on how you use the term “Inciting Incident”.
If by Inciting Incident you mean the equivalent of Dramatica’s inciting event, which is the first instance of the Story Driver, then they are the same.
However, if by Inciting Incident you mean the moment when the main character (or perhaps protagonist) becomes engaged in the story, then MAYBE. It depends on how the story is written.
In The Fugitive, the first ten minutes or so are the lead up to what may be considered the inciting incident / inciting event – the decision that Dr. Kimble is guilty (before the trial), followed closely by the trial itself. There is a some setup/backstory intermingled during those ten minutes as well. If you consider the story driver of Decision as DELIBERATION, then the softness of the lead in makes more sense and could be considered part of the Grand Argument Story. Practically-speaking, it doesn’t matter so long as the audience understands what the story is about, particularly as it relates to the storyform – even if they have no awareness of what a storyform is.
Interestingly, the script begins with the setup/backstory and follows the story linearly without flashbacks. This linear presentation identifies the TRUE inciting event – Dr. Kimble’s scheduled appointment with Dr. Lentz for the next morning about the RDU90 trial drug problems, which is why Dr. Nichols (the antagonist) decided to send the assassin to Dr. Kimble’s house that night. Only the ironic circumstance of being called in to an emergency operation on an RDU90 patient/victim led to Dr. Kimble’s absence during his wife’s attack – an attack meant for Dr. Kimble.
1 Like
I have a different view on the Inciting Incident in The Fugitive, for me it’s Kimble’s escape. IMHO the guilty verdict doesn’t kick start the story, if Kimble wouldn’t have escaped he would have spent the rest of his life in prison and there wouldn’t have been a story. I see the Inciting Incident as the event that commits the Main Character. I’m asking this question because it hadn’t occurred to me before that The Fugitive’s story form may only start 10 minutes in.
This is the distinction between Dramatica’s inciting event and the more traditionally used Inciting Incident.
Deciding Dr. Kimble’s guilt establishes the OS inequity (Situation), which is why it is the first Decision Story Driver.
The decision to help the prisoner faking the epileptic attack leads to the bus crash and free Dr. Kimble to begin his search for the one-armed man is the Inciting Incident.
I see the distinction between the two as significant. I usually think of the Inciting Incident as the moment when all four throughlines click into place. One may choose to see this moment also as the Inciting Event, because at that point the story cannot go backward, but it isn’t necessary from a theory perspective.
I think it’s relevant to note that Syd Field coined the inciting incitent. It doesn’t have a long history, though it’s treated as fairly sacrosanct.
On the other hand, Lajos Egri has a completely opposite approach: all moments of a person’s backstory are relevant and force the story to occur this particular way. Seen this way, what started The Fugitive? Was it the guilty verdict, the escape from the bus, the decision to got to medical school, the A+ Kimble got in biology class in high school…
This is why looking at just what kick starts a story can be dicey. Everything Lajos Egri is talking about is relevant, but it implies that a story is just “any section of a person’s life” which isn’t really accurate. (And I don’t think he would agree with that statement anyway.) Syd Field is really talking about a moment where things ratchet up – and while those moments are important in stories, they do not define the shape of a story.
I think it’s worth looking at this link to get a good take on the inciting incident: http://coreymandell.net/blog/screenwriting-advice/why-story-structure-formulas-don’t-work-part-one/
All in all, I think anyone who uses Dramatica should expunge Inciting Incident from their vocabulary. My ultimate reason is this: it defines a point. It tends to be linked to a feeling in the audience, not a structural facet of the story. The beauty of Dramatica and dramatica thinking is that stories are seen as networks of tensions and events and meanings – things are bound together. Thinking only of inciting incidents and plot points and whatnot is not holistic enough to have meaning when looking at a story as a whole.
2 Likes
Ok, let me elaborate why this question has been bugging me. The first OS theme of the first act accouding to the plot sequence report is Truth. Truth could either be the start of the movie where it already becomes clear that Kimble is not guilty or it could be Gerard’s first scene at the train wreck where he confronts the guard and the sheriff with the Truth (leg irons without legs in them.)
Theme is conflict between characters. Gerard’s first scene has an nice conflict between the characters about Truth, the first part of the movie also has a conflict: Kimble is innocent yet convicted.
This brings me to my earlier remark: if Kimble wouldn’t have escaped there wouldn’t have been a story. So maybe the inequity of the story is not the unjust verdict but the escaped prisoner. After all, everything in the movie revolves around an escaped convict that won’t give in.
So forget about inciting incident, let me rephrase my question: when does the Grand Argument Story in The Fugitive begin?
My own personal use of this theory is to start the grand argument from minute 1. If my story needs some setup before the inciting incident then i will illustrate that setup within the theme of my OS signpost 1.
I try to get the inciting incident in as soon as possible though so it could very well be a part of my OS signpost 1.
Since your looking at the PSR you want to keep in mind that’s what it looks like from the Character’s eyes. The signpost is Past which has 4 different issues underneath it. So what does the Truth look like from fugitive’s perspective versus the court/sheriff/police. I think we get a sense of that right from the beginning.
A Grand Argument Story, by definition, is when all four throughlines are working together. If at least one of your throughlines is not represented in your very first sentence, then you’re wasting words. This is why Mike and Chris steer away from the term “inciting incident” because it’s a little overly simplistic when you are looking at a Grand Argument Story. (I, however, still use the term because it’s convenient – and when I do use it, it’s strictly to refer to when the OS Plot kicks off, as in when the problem becomes apparent in the overall world, thus defining the Story Goal, pitting Protagonist vs. Antagonist, etc.)
I should correct your thinking on one point about the Plot Sequence Report: In OS Act 1, the thematic terms Truth, Falsehood, Evidence & Suspicion are all working concurrently in that act. Just because it’s listed first, the PSR does not intend to imply that Truth is “first” – it’s not to be seen as a sequence, just a grouping. You can actually put it into any sequence you want. (Though I would recommend thinking in terms of “Truth vs. Falsehood” and “Evidence vs. Suspicion”.)
1 Like
@sandystone, does that mean that the GAS doesn’t start until the impact character is introduced? I’m sorry to keep asking these questions but I’m really trying to understand The Fugitive story form for the benefit of my own story.
No, what I mean is that the “argument” starts from the top of page 1, even if there’s only one throughline represented there, and then it gets more and more layered as the story advances and the other viewpoints (or “throughlines”) kick in. Looking at it that way, there is no single “moment” when the story “starts” (other than the opening frame) – only an interpretation of when the first beat of each throughline occurs.
As for “The Fugitive” specifically, I think you are seeing the vagaries of interpretation – when exactly does the OS Plot kick in and the thrust of the storyline become clear? We’re getting a variety of opinions on that. Is it when Kimble is wrongly convicted of murder, or is it when he escapes the train wreck and starts running? Well, the title of the film would imply the latter. But that moment occurs a full 20 minutes into the film – a little late, by most standards, to be the “inciting incident”. It’s much more of an act turn (but only in the OS and maybe the MC throughline). The “inciting incident” normally happens no later than 10 minutes in. In our storyform, it just works better to consider the accusation & conviction to be the first Decision-driven signpost of the OS Plot (though as Chris pointed out, it’s more accurately called “Deliberation”, from the moment he’s taken away by the cops to the moment the judge sentences him to death).
Even the first act turn is Decision-driven: After Kimble is assisted by the black guy after the train wreck, that guy says, “I don’t care which way you go, just don’t follow me.” Then we see Kimble make a “decision” to run, and which way, and we immediately see the OS enter the 2nd signpost of Progress. (And then right after that is when the IC throughline is introduced. That’s when the Subjective argument begins, but the “Grand” argument has already begun with 2 of the 4 throughlines.)
@sandystone Act two Progress does indeed start after Kimble’s escape which means that the GAS starts at the start of the movie. But what then happened to the MC, IC and M/I throughlines in Act one. Are the simply not being told?
I think you see the IC throughline duties variously expressed by the law enforcement officers and prosecutors in Signpost One as they manipulate the evidence against Dr. Kimble for their own purposes.
The MC throughline is explored through Dr. Kimble’s descriptions of what he was doing earlier in the evening (recent past) and evidence of the event itself as it effects his personal life.
Dr. Kimble’s relationship to law enforcement is explored by the clash of attitudes between them. Like Gerard, it’s not their job to determine guilt or innocence – that’s up to the judge and jury. That’s why Dr. Kimble gets so exasperated by them because they don’t care about his life. All they care is about capturing a criminal.
BACK TO THE INCITING EVENT:
In theory, all four throughlines happen simultaneously, such as it appears in my illustration of the Dramatica Act Structure in my white paper comparing different paradigms: [http://dramatica.com/resources/articles/how-and-why-dramatica-act-structure.gif][1]
Practically-speaking, however, we do not express all that information simultaneously because it is confusing. We can stagger each throughline’s introduction and/or act break, as well as vary the length of time (and depth of exploration) of each signpost independently. If you want a visual explanation of what I’m talking about, check out this page I posted: [http://chrishuntley.com/acts/act-transitions.htm][2]
That’s why the definition of an inciting incident is so slippery. It depends on the storyweaving as to when it “happens.” If you narrow the definition of inciting incident to align to Dramatica’s inciting event, then it occurs with the establishment of the OS inequity and Story Goal and the “call to action” for the protagonist. Otherwise it may be tied to the “call to action” of the Main Character in the MC throughline or some other storytelling event potentially unrelated to Dramatica’s act structure.
RE: THE PLOT SEQUENCE REPORT (PSR)
The PSR is NOT an objective view of the story, so it is a poor reference for determining the Inciting Incident. The PSR is designed to be a subjective view of how the story looks from within the story subjectively, which is why it speaks to many writers as a way to approach creating scenes. It feels right. Just try not to mistake feeling right with objectivity.
[1]: http://dramatica.com/resources/articles/how-and-why-dramatica-act-structure.gif
[2]: http://chrishuntley.com/acts/act-transitions.htm
6 Likes
What he said. :-}
Actually, I was going to mention that while the so-called Impact Character (Gerard) is not introduced until immediately after the OS hits its 2nd signpost, it does seem that the IC “argument” is being expressed through proxy characters during the first 20 minutes. So the IC and RS throughlines are actually felt before Gerard enters the picture, in what we call a “hand-off”.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the signposts of the 4 throughlines do NOT normally occur in sync – they are almost always staggered, and how they are staggered is unique to each story (a matter of storyTELLING, not storyFORMING). The one “rule” is that no one throughline should get TOO far ahead of or TOO far behind the others, or else the story will feel wanky. (Or “hinky”, as one character – who happens to be one of my best friends – says in the film.)
Isn’t it Joe Pantoliano who brings up “hinky”?
Edit: it was Daniel Roebuck.
Yeah, it was Dan Roebuck. I believe his character name was “Biggs”.
When he was caricatured in Mad Magazine, I was never so proud…