I don’t know what else to say. 
I think we have fundamental disagreements about the story and I’m not sure either of us has succeeded in swaying the other.
I know Jim is going to have to read through all this after he sees the movie, so I don’t want to add too much more reading to his weekend.
I’m going to drop off until Jim chimes in. Have a good weekend, buddy!
He doesn’t “decide” the will is valid. He’s not a judge. There was no option for him to say “no, the will is not valid”. In fact, in the passage you quote, his assistant hands him a piece of paper and he says “oh, wow, yeah, not complex at all.” He’s stating the facts.
http://dramatica.com/questions/concept/story-driver/all
if “x” had not happened, is it likely that “y” would have happened anyway? If the answer is “yes,” then “x” is not driving the story forward.
If the lawyer had not stated those facts, would Marta have not inherited the money? No–assuming the will is valid, she still would have inherited the money. The driver is the unveiling of the will.
The fact that the family can’t accept that isn’t deliberation. They whole point is that they have no power.
A decision would be “the family decides to go to court over the will.” And then (next driver), “the judge weighs the evidence, and renders the verdict: the will is valid.”
Or if you want to keep as close as possible to the scene, maybe the lawyer shows up having read the will already (somehow). As he sits there, he must decide: do I tell the Thromby’s the truth, or do I decide to lie to them? You would have to show that deliberation somehow.
This isn’t what’s happening. There’s no A or B here.
I should probably clock out too. I accept that Action/Decision is a blind spot for me, so I shouldn’t get overconfident on that one.
But I also agree with @glennbecker that if we can’t agree on the basic dynamics or how to describe the OS, we’ll just go in circles. Hopefully Jim will have something useful to add!
I appreciate the conversation! Being force to think things through and articulate your position is always useful.
You too man. The debate has been frustrating and enlightening all the same.
Wait a tick…drivers aside… is Benoit actually the other handoff IC?
And we see his change when he yells at the family, interrupts Marta to change his mind about ruling it a suicide and all that? Moving from his cool collected self to the zany donut within donuts we see at the end?
Sorry Jim. 
Are you suggesting Benoit because he fits your storyform or because he has a challenging perspective?
In your storyform Control and Uncontrolled are also the problem and solution. Could that change in Ransom and Benoit you’re describing be entirely OS?
What’s the challenging perspective that he shares with Harlan and Ransom?
What major paradigm shift does this represent? (In non Dramatica terms if possible).
In Braveheart, Wallace stays Steadfast, and Robert the Bruce goes from avoiding conflict to going to war in Wallace’s name.
In The Fugitive, Kimble never wavers from his commitment to proving his innocence, while Gerard goes from not caring if Kimble is guilty or not to helping him.
In The Prestige, Angiers remains committed to having “the best trick” until he dies; Borden, who would never give up his secrets, agrees to sell “the transporting man” in order to save his daughter.
In Back to the Future Marty stays steadfast; but George McFly goes from being a total wimp to punching Biff in the face (and thereby changing the course of history).
[Sorry I couldn’t resist either @glennbecker]
Etc.
Probably confusing things. Nvm. It’s in Jim’s hands now.
I am literally on the edge of my seat waiting to hear what you think 
Just got out of my screening.
LOL…what a GREAT film!
And now we have a ridiculously hilarious illustration of PROJECTION as a Solution…
Storyform:
Changed
Stop
Be-er
Linear
Action
Optionlock
Success
Good
Psychology
Sense of Self
Speculation
Main Character: Marta
Influence Character: Thrombey family
Relationship Story: family -> adversaries (playing the game)
Overall Story: The Doughnut Hole inside of the Doughnut Hole
Protagonist: Benoit Blanc
Antagonist: Ransom Drysdale (and a bit of Harlan)
Wow!
Well at least I wasn’t too far off!
Turns out @JohnDusenberry was right initially about the RS. I would have put it squarely between Harlan and Marta (Friends -> Family)
For the rest I guess the key is to see whole family as IC (as @glennbecker and others suggested) rather than just Harlan/Ransom. With that it makes sense that they would have a Problem of Inequity.
Anyway here was my attempt:
OBJECTIVE STORY
(The Objective Story)
DOMAIN: Psychology
CONCERN: Conceptualizing
ISSUE: Circumstances vs. Situation
PROBLEM: Equity
SOLUTION: Inequity
FOCUS: Aware
DIRECTION: Self Aware
IC:
DOMAIN: Universe
CONCERN: The Past
ISSUE: Destiny vs. Fate
PROBLEM: Projection
SOLUTION: Speculation
FOCUS: Aware
DIRECTION: Self Aware
UNIQUE ABILITY: Destiny
CRITICAL FLAW: Truth
I really, really thought that the MC Unique Ability would turn out to be Falsehood and the IC Problem would be Projection – Harlan projects the future (thus leading to his own death).
However, I see that in your storyform that IC Crucial Element is still Projection.
Yes, they basically teach her the importance of Projection when you’re rich (Walts confrontation in the hallway about having the “right” lawyers).
Her mom coming into the country is an act of Speculation. Johnson is basically saying, immigrants if you want to win in this country you can still stay true to yourself, but you need to learn how the game is played.
Too bad she took it literally
Throwing this out there in the interest of learning.
I found myself with roughly the same storyform as @lakis going into the movie last night, but came out with a different one. I just want to explain my reasoning for the sake of seeing where I’m wrong.
Changed
Start
Doer
Linear
Action
Optionlock
Success
Good
For the Problem and Solution I picked Proaction and Reaction. My reasoning was:
The solution being getting Ransom to blow up (react) and Marta suppressing her natural reaction to lying.
That puts the Concern in Conceiving, which I could see as
That makes the Issue Need and Expediency, which felt really good.
So did the dividend of the Present (the inheritance) and the Requirement of Being (lying)
For IC I had The Family and Benoit. Interesting that appraisal is the Issue in that case as The Family’s appraisal of Marta is constantly changing and Benoit consistently appraising Marta a good person who will do the right thing. Acceptance seemed like a good fit with the family trying to convince her she’s one of them. @JohnDusenberry gets his Benchmark of Preconscious here.
For Marta, I had her in Universe for reasons listed previously. Mostly I couldn’t get away from thinking that everything in her perspective is about maintaining the current state of affairs, preventing her family from being broken up, etc. I took her inability to lie as her being physically incapable of “being”. To me, her Mother’s status was core to everything she was going through, and without it there would be no conflict in her throughline.
Finally, the RS, which falls into Learning. This was interesting because a lot of things feel right. I had sensed that the “Co-Sleuths to Friends” relationship was developing throughout the course of the story. But also, the issue of Strategy felt good when thinking about the game of Go between Marta and Harlan.
I don’t want to argue every single point in the storyform, so I’ll leave it there for now.
We can dive into it further, because I think it’s important to understand why, but stepping back–
Is Knives Out about:
The first is Universe to Mind. The second is Mind to Universe.
Honestly, I saw it as the first. The Family’s condescending attitude pushes her to take their money and literally look down on them at the end.
REALLY?!? That’s what the film is about??
OK.
Typically, the last shot or sequence of a film is what is known as Author’s Proof. Everything is resolved, and here I am, the Author, showing you what I just proved to you.
I would say that the way she is positioned, physically above them, is an indication of her move into Universe. She’s not an a–hole, by virtue of Benoit’s statement that she’s a good person, and stayed true to that.
She’s not a Thrombey…but she has Thrombey money now.
So the movie was about her learning to get money???
That just seems so on-the-surface to me. Didn’t fit in with the feel of the movie to me.
The last shot of the film, the Author’s Proof, seemed to be reinforcing that she did things her way. Yes, it’s his cup, but she gained the inheritance because she’s the only one who treated Harlan like “family.” The only one who actually cared. And she did it by doing things her way. Hence the “My House, My Rules” cup.
I felt like it was a win for Harlan, who wanted to change the family dynamic.
And it was a win for her personally because she didn’t have to turn into one of those monsters to do it. She maintained her effort to help the whole way through–even and especially when it created conflict.
