Is to tell the I perspective character that all along they’ve subjectively thought the story was having problems of Universe (or whatever) but objectively the problems have been Physics (or whatever). Basically to tell the audience where the actual source of conflict is coming from. Does this sound right, or no? Any thoughts?
1 Like
@Gregolas I believe it’s to expose the moral argument (RS Issue) . And show the extent of their power as an IC + Antagonist. I tend to use them to hammer at the critical flaw of the MC, while showing the competence of the IC’s UA. @ least that’s what I’m doing.
2 Likes
But that would mean that the villain would be the IC, no?
I have a couple of villain-like characters coming out of the OS throughline, along with the antagonist. It suits my story because the villain is the big THEY in a dystopian thriller.
This was done well in Whiplash, Batman Begins, and The Bourne Identity.
However, my first thought when I read the original post was that it is often done poorly. Many (most?) villain speeches and late exposition dumps are one or more of the following storytelling techniques:
- Bond villain speech - an idiot ball opportunity for the trapped hero to escape and learn vital info; famously lampooned by Austin Powers (this is so stupid. why are you explaining your plan? why such a complicated way to kill him? dad, just kill him!).
- villain reveal - an attempt for a big twist/reveal; I say attempt because they often induce eye-rolling due to lack of setup and/or forced messaging (i.e. non-dramatica Hollywood propaganda–the American was behind the villain all along! basically, victim blaming).
- the plot promised answers it couldn’t provide (i.e. confusing/non-sensical caper) - thus, a last ditch effort to make some sense of it. common in conspiracy & supernatural horror OS’s that ultimately don’t make any sense. see Eagle Eye and anything written by Oz Perkins.
1 Like
@whitepaws . Strictly speaking from a Dramatica standpoint, yes. A villain = IC + Antagonist. Hero = MC + protagonist , in a single player respectively.
1 Like
oh dear, lol!
I wish these little rules were gathered all in one place somewhere.
OK - it looks like I’ve assigned the antagonist role to an OS character in my story. So, I guess mine isn’t a traditional villain 
Unconventional bad guys can be assigned to other throughlines. Plus, the antagonist doesn’t have to be a person/people. It could be an environment, a condition, an organisation, a state of mind, etc.
So, maybe this is a topic for another thread
@whitepaws Lol sorry, but at least now you’re equiped with the knowledge. Something I learnt from Brandon Sanderson a while back is that everyone is the hero of their story (So subjectively that’s where your themeatic issues come in). From your Antagonists POV , he/she could still be a wicked bastard but their Subjective influence in making the MC change or remain Steadfast will be limited IF since they aren’t the IC. They would still have an effect on the MC from their designated role in the OS though. Objectively we’ll see it as a plot and character interactions.
1 Like
Which is why it’s mocked and parodied (the Incredibles is another movie that mocks this trope a couple times), but I still wonder how many times, structurally, these monologues come from, say, a villains need to be Understood, or a drive to Prove his own intelligence over that of the hero, even if it’s more related to Plot Sequence than source of the problem.
But many times, the point of the Villain monologue is to tell the MC how they (the villain) were really behind all the events of the movie. Even if poorly done, this can show the MC and the audience the effect the Villain has had on the MC throughout and sometimes puts pressure on the MC to change (even if he/she does not change).
The point of bringing the question up, though, is I’m hoping to find ‘shortcuts’ to finding the source of a problem. It’s too easy to look at what characters are doing and say it comes from this or that quad only to realize later that what the characters are doing is not the problem but is in response to the problem. It just sort of hit me that often, in a monologue, you have a villain telling a hero that the whole time they’ve been doing one thing, another thing has been going on behind the scenes and the behind the scenes stuff is really what the hero is reacting to.