| |
"Dramatica
and the
Grand Argument Story"
by Katharine E. Monahan
Huntley
"I can't
write." said Chance.
Steigler smiled
deprecatingly. "Of course-but who can, nowadays? It's no problem.
We can provide you with our best editors and research assistants.
I can't even write a simple postcard to my children. So what?"
"I can't
even read." said Chance.
"Of course
not!" Steigler exclaimed. "Who has time? One glances at
things, talks, listens, watches."-Jerzy Kosinski
"I'm
not concerned how close the adaptation is. It's whether it's a good
movie or not."-Elmore Leonard
"'Well,
there are never enough entertaining movies. . . . But there's entertainment,
and then there's engagement. And ideally both can happen."-Todd
Solondz
The Dramatica narrative
theory, created by writer/director Melanie Anne Phillips and film and
television software developer Chris Huntley, suggests for a movie to entertain
and engage its audience, its story contain, at the very least,
sound structure and dynamic storytelling.
The impetus for developing
Dramatica came about after Phillips and Huntley, then University of Southern
California cinema school students, made a film that failed commercially.
To discover why, they chose to study the nature of literature using films
as texts. Phillips and Huntley's endeavor can be compared to narratologists
who undertake to "discover the langue of narrative, the underlying
system of rules and possibilities of which any narrative parole
(text) is the realization" (Lodge 25). Developed over the course
of 16 years, Dramatica addresses all components of a story-from the underlying
deep structure to an audience's reception of its meaning.
As in structuralism,
Phillips and Huntley perceive a literary work as a construct "whose
mechanisms could be classified and analysed like the object of any other
science" (Eagleton 106). According to Chatman, the basis of structuralism
is "that each narrative has two parts: a story (historie), the content
or chain of events (actions, happenings), plus what may be called the
existents (characters, items of setting); and a discourse (discours),
that is, the expression, the means by which the content is communicated"
(19-20).
Formulated apart from
major theoretical paradigms, the Dramatica theory may prove compelling
for academic scrutiny. It is not the intention of this paper to analyze
existing narrative and screenwriting theories, its purpose is simply to
intrigue scholars to further peruse the theory of Dramatica for its potential
use in story creation and analysis (screenplays, teleplays, novels, short
stories, and so forth). As an exposition of the entire theory is beyond
the scope of this paper, the focus is confined to one basic aspect of
the Dramatica theory's foundation-the four throughlines of a grand
argument story.
First, the basis of
the Dramatica theory, what Phillips and Huntley call the grand argument
story, will be introduced. Next, its four throughlines will be defined.
Finally, applying the fundamental concept of the four throughlines to
two works each of three different authors will serve to explicate what,
and what not, constitutes the framework of a Dramatica grand argument.
Grand Argument Story
The grand argument
story is a specific type of work that is conceptually complete and emotionally
and logically comprehensive. Qualities that substantiate a grand argument
appear in the story's structure (the underlying relationships between
the parts of a story), dynamics (the moving, growing, or changing
parts of a story), and the manner in which the grand argument is relayed
through character, plot, theme, and genre.
Critical to the grand
argument story is the idea of the story mind. Phillips and Huntley
assert that every complete story is a model of the mind's problem-solving
process. The story mind does not work like a computer, performing operations
in sequence to arrive at a solution. Rather, like a human mind, it works
holistically to bring many disparate considerations to bear on the problem
at hand. In a grand argument story, the author investigates all significant
approaches to resolving the story's specific problem-and provides the
most appropriate solution to solve it.
Four Throughlines
The four throughlines
are the objective story throughline, main character throughline,
obstacle character throughline, and subjective story throughline.
They are four different perspectives that delve into the issues presented
over the course of the story.
The objective story
throughline is the story's overall, dispassionate viewpoint-it contains
the action and events of which all the characters take part. An objective
character is defined as a specific collection of dramatic characteristics
that remain consistent throughout the story. Objective story characters
may be archetypal, e.g., the classic protagonist and antagonist, or complex.
The main character
is the character to whom the audience emotionally relates-the heart of
the story is what is explored in the main character's throughline. The
main character may additionally fulfill the protagonist function in the
objective story, for example, Luke Skywalker in Star Wars. He is in pursuit
of the objective story goal to destroy the Empire's powerful new battle
station, the Death Star. The audience observes Luke's heroic quest, and
at the same time identifies with his personal issues of trust, and concerns
with the progress he is making as a Jedi knight. An example of a main
character that is not the protagonist is Scout in To Kill a Mockingbird.
The protagonist is instead her father, Atticus Finch. Atticus is defending
a black man unjustly accused of rape-the entire town is involved in the
story of his trial. The audience, however, is emotionally connected to
Scout's main character throughline-her attempts to understand prejudice
and face her own preconceptions, particularly those of neighborhood bogeyman,
Boo Radley.
The obstacle character,
wittingly or unwittingly, has the most impact on the main character. Unlike
the antagonist who is directly attempting to stop the protagonist, e.g.,
Bob Ewell in To Kill a Mockingbird, the obstacle character throughline
offers an alternative approach to the main character's-compelling the
main character to change their essential nature or remain steadfast in
their own philosophy. In To Kill a Mockingbird, main character Scout's
obstacle character is Boo Radley-the character who ultimately compels
Scout to face her individual bias.
The story's passionate
exchange is articulated in the subjective story. The subjective story
throughline examines what happens between the main and obstacle characters-fastening
attention on the pressure that intensifies within the relationship until
one ultimately defers to the other's way of thinking.
Taken together, the
four throughlines comprise the author's argument to the audience. Whether
or not the audience is in agreement depends upon the individual, however,
as long as the argument is made completely and consistently, it cannot
be dismissed on its own terms. An author's statement that accommodates
a full exploration of a problem becomes a full-fledged argument-a grand
argument made manifest in the story mind.
Being There: Novel
and Screenplay
Jerzy Kosinski's novel
Being There affords only two points of view key to a grand argument-compared
to that of the film that does furnish the objective, subjective, main
and obstacle character throughlines. One point of view in the novel is
that of main character Chance, a slightly retarded adult who has grown
up insulated in a rich man's home and garden: "I have always been
the gardener here. I have worked in the garden in back of the house all
my life. As long as I can remember" (14). His knowledge of the world
is what he has gleaned from watching television:
The thought that he
might have to leave did not upset him; he knew that eventually he would
have to go but that, as on TV, what would follow next was hidden; he knew
the actors on the new program were unknown. He did not have to be afraid,
for everything that happened had its sequel, and the best that he could
do was to wait patiently for his own forthcoming appearance.
(32)
The other standpoint
in the novel is explored in the objective story throughline-the world
Chance encounters after his benefactor dies. Upon venturing out, Chance
is hit by a chauffeured limousine that belongs to the immensely wealthy
and influential financier Benjamin Rand-a powerful man who has the skills
and abilities to manipulate presidents and stock markets. Once Chance
happens into the Rands' life, he ingenuously effects political and economic
change.
All that communicate
with Chance attribute greater meaning to his pronouncements than they
actually warrant: "I have seen ashes and I have seen powders,"
said Chance. "I know that both are bad for growth in the garden."
"Hear, hear!" the woman sitting on Chance's right cried out
. . . "Mr. Gardiner has the uncanny ability of reducing complex matters
to the simplest of human terms." (88)
In adapting his novel
to the screen, Kosinski further develops the character of the doctor who
treats Chance after the auto accident, into a viable obstacle character-thus
expanding the throughlines contemplated by the grand argument story. In
the novel the private practitioner is dismissed from the story after one
scene. In the film, directed by Hal Ashby, he is given the name Dr. Allenby
and he remains throughout the course of the story, questioning Chance
and ascertaining if Chance is a threat or not to the Rands and society
at large.
The conflict addressed
in Chance and Dr. Allenby's subjective story is ultimately resolved when
the good doctor is finally appeased that Chance is a well-intentioned
innocent.
DR. ALLENBY
You've become
quite a close friend of Eve's [Rand], haven't you, Chance?
CHANCE
Yes, yes.
I love Eve very much.
DR. ALLENBY
And you really
are a gardener, aren't you?
CHANCE
I am a gardener
. . .
DR. ALLENBY
I understand,
I understand.
Kosinski's esoteric
novel is a modern parable open to interpretation. With the addition of
an obstacle character and therefore subjective story in the screenplay,
Being There evolves into a grand argument more accessible to its audience.
Out of Sight
and Get Shorty are slick film adaptations of Elmore Leonard novels,
both written for the screen by Scott Frank. The storyweaving for both-the
method of revealing exposition and blending symbols to affect an audience-plays
out in high style. In Out of Sight, all four points of view are fully
developed. Get Shorty attends to its objective and main character throughlines,
however, the obstacle character and subjective story throughlines are
only vaguely indicated.
Out of Sight, directed
by Steven Soderbergh, is populated with cons and cynics who do not second-guess
their decisions even as they repeat mistakes. There is an undercurrent
of doom-violence has no punchline, humor is gallows. Main character Jack
Foley is a gallant "famous bank robber" who makes a jailbreak
with no intention of returning. Standing directly in Foley's path is his
obstacle character Karen Sisco: "Like Cisco the Kid, except with
an S"-a federal marshal determined to follow the letter of the law.
Intermittent, casual conversation with her father clues the audience in
to Karen's personal issue, her basic drive for love, undermined by always
falling for the bad boys.
In the objective story
throughline, Foley, along with fellow ex-cons (a hapless stoner, whacked
out psychopaths, and Foley's spirituality seeking sidekick, Buddy), endeavors
to steal five million in uncut diamonds from Ripley, a Mike Milken type
who has done jail time as well.
In the subjective
story throughline, Karen and Jack focus attention on romantic interludes,
playacting roles to rationalize their illogical behavior. Wildly attracted
to each other, yet aware of outside obligations, Karen questions how it
all will end.
The burglary is a
success, but before making a clean getaway, Foley has an attack of conscience.
He sends Buddy and the jewels off with the understanding they'll meet
up later. He returns to protect the victims, Ripley and his mistress,
from certain brutality at the hands of his cohorts.
Facing off at the
scene of the crime, Jack and Karen can no longer ignore their different
ways of thinking. Resolute in his decision to remain at large, Jack pulls
a ski mask over his face, making it easy for Karen to pull the trigger.
How does a federal marshal, confronted with the perpetrator at the scene
of the crime, fulfill her duty to the law and yet remain true to her heart?
She shoots, shackles, and personally escorts him back to the slammer.
As her dad comments: "My daughter, the tough babe."
Riding with Foley
in the back of the paddy wagon is his future cellmate, hand picked by
Karen. An escape artist, certain to teach Jack how to make an "exodus
from an undesirable place."
Out of Sight is captivating,
particularly with its out-of-order snapshot style of storyweaving. As
a grand argument, it draws the audience in because it delivers a smart
story that is structurally sound and emotionally and logically fulfilling.
It contains believable characters to fear, and those to embrace.
Get Shorty, directed
by Barry Sonnenfeld, amuses with its animated cartoonish characters, witty
dialogue, and clever multiple plotlines. What is not offered, however,
is enough information to determine a grand argument.
The film opens with
main character Chili Palmer looking fixedly through a Miami diner window
at the movie theater marquee across the street-he may work for New York
mob boss Momo, but he'd rather be in showbiz. As the objective story throughline
commences, Momo unexpectedly dies of a heart attack and Jimmy Capp, Momo's
Miami counterpart, takes over the deceased's "book." Ray "Bones"
Buboni, who answers to Jimmy Capp, has ordered Chili to find Leo, a deadbeat
dry cleaner.
The unfinished business
with "The Martinizing King of Miami" is just the excuse Chili
needs to leave Miami vice for Hollywood via Vegas. As a favor to the casino
connection, and as an entrée into the film community, the loan
shark promises to lean on a high roller who has skipped on his marker:
"Hey, Chill, if you decide to go to L.A., this guy owes a 150,000
grand. Sixty days over-some movie producer . . . Harry Zimm."
Chili finds the Roger
Cormanesque Zimm holed up with scream queen Karen Flores, the actress
from Grotesque Part 2 and the Slime Creatures series. He
quickly dispenses with business, then pitches an idea for a movie to the
producer and Karen-based on his own adventures.
What happens after
that is Chili glides through the rest of the objective story with graceful
economy of movement, unfazed by minor (and some major) obstructions. Chili
Palmer takes power meetings with a Napoleonic actor and gets his movie
made. Because as one character avers: "What's the point of living
in L.A. unless you're in the movie business?"
Absent from Get Shorty
is a clearly defined obstacle character, essential to provide a different
worldview to that of the main character. The closest possibility is Karen,
whom he romances:
KAREN
What about
your story?
CHILI
I'm still
working on that one. I'm still getting the 'visual fabric' together.
But I have added to it. There's a girl in it now. She looks a lot
like you.
As a horror actress,
Karen dreams of reciting classic Bette Davis lines: "I'd kiss you
but I just washed my hair." Instead of pursuing this goal, she abandons
acting altogether and with Chili decides to produce Harry's script, diffusing
tension between the two. Without an obstacle character to set forth an
alternate worldview for the main character, a passionate argument cannot
play out in the subjective story. The main character throughline is well
defined, and as convoluted as the objective story is, it is a neat trick
resolved nicely at story's end.
Like its bright L.A.
setting, there are no shadows in Get Shorty. A delightful diversion that
lacks depth, in that all four positions requisite to present the issues
at hand are not considered.
Todd Solondz, an original
voice in the independent film world, creates family relationships that
are immediately-if not uneasily-recognizable. Welcome to the Dollhouse
is a grand argument story; Happiness is not, it is instead ". . .
five separate tales of modern alienation, romantic woe, and shocking transgression
into a merciless critique of American lifestyles . . ." ("That
Lovin' Feeling" 37).
The title Welcome
to the Dollhouse, serves as ironic commentary on main character Dawn Wiener's
throughline-neither welcome nor a pretty doll the eleven-year-old is put
in her place and must stay there. She is the quintessential middle child
of a middle class family in suburbia, New Jersey.
Dawn's main character
throughline is an exploration of her present situation. Ignored at home
and designated "dogface" at school, she is not accepted. Typical
conversation is "Why do you hate me?" "Because you're ugly."
Nevertheless, when confronted with a dilemma, Dawn takes immediate, external
action. In one scene, she shoots a spitball back at the boys who had antagonized
her. Unfortunately, it hits a teacher right in the eye. When she explains
to her parents in the principal's office: "I was fighting back!"-her
mother's response is "Who ever told you to fight back?"
The obstacle character
function is handed off between two characters-Brandon, a junior high classmate
of Dawn's, and Steve, lead singer of Dawn's older brother Mark's garage
rock band. They each contend with issues of image. Brandon puts on a cool
juvenile delinquent act; Steve is a longhaired wannabe rock star popular
with the girls-high school and junior high. Neither is onscreen at the
same time; both irrevocably impact Dawn.
In the subjective
story throughline, teen crush takes on new meaning when Steve, adored
by Dawn, humiliates her after weeks of encouraging the infatuation:
DAWN
I was wondering
if . . . Well, I've been thinking seriously of building another clubhouse,
and I wanted to know, would you be interested in being my first honorary
member?
STEVE
What are you
talking about?
DAWN
The "special
people" club.
STEVE
Special people?
DAWN
What's the
matter?
STEVE
Do you know
what "special people" means?
DAWN
What?
STEVE
Special people
equals retarded. Your club is for retards.
Dawn and Brandon continue
on in the subjective story throughline, learning the "mechanics of
the dance"-a courtship ritual that necessitates vicious dialogue
to protect their vulnerability:
DAWN
Brandon, are
you still going to rape me?
BRANDON
What time
is it?
DAWN
I don't know.
But I guess I don't have to be home yet.
BRANDON
Nah, there's
not enough time.
DAWN
Thanks, Brandon.
BRANDON
[Holding her
closely] Yeah, but just remember, this didn't happen. I mean no one
. . . because if you do, I really will rape you next time.
DAWN
Okay.
The objective story
throughline satirically addresses what happens to those who have ideas
about what makes them unique-ideas that differ from the accepted norm.
They fail. Steve goes off to New York:
MARK
He dropped
out of school and left town. He wants to try making in New York as
the next Jim Morrison.
MR. WIENER
Stupid idiot
kid. He'll never make it.
MARK
Yeah, that's
what I told him. He'll never get into a good school now.
MRS. WIENER
Oh, he won't
make it.
MR. WIENER
Never make
it.
MRS. WIENER
Never.
Brandon is unfairly
expelled for drug dealing (a crime he does not commit), and his father's
reaction is to send him to the reformatory. Instead, he ends the obstacle
character throughline by running away to New York, after first asking
Dawn to accompany him. An offer she cannot take.
DAWN
Wait-I'm so
sorry.
BRANDON
Well, it's
too late. I'm getting' outta here. And who knows, maybe I will deal
drugs now.
Dawn takes a trip
to New York as well, but unlike Steve and Brandon, it is not to make a
new start-it is a reaction to her little sister's kidnapping. She searches
for Missy to bring her desolate family back into balance-and hopes it
will finally give her the love and acceptance she desperately needs. The
Wieners barely notice her absence:
DAWN
Is mom really
upset?
MARK
Not really,
actually. They found Missy this morning.
Todd Solondz' grand
argument against conformity concludes when, unlike Ibsen's Nora, Dawn
doesn't leave the dollhouse. She instead takes a school bus to Disneyworld-just
one of the Benjamin Franklin "Hummingbirds" numbly singing her
junior high school song: ". . . now put on a smile then wipe off
that frown . . ."
Solondz next film,
Happiness, is anything but. His disturbing depiction of American life
(carried over from Welcome to the Dollhouse) stings with caustic humor
as it attacks pretension and reveals bad behavior behind closed doors.
Happiness is fleeting, illustrated when one sad sack announces-"I
am champagne"-then later commits suicide.
Happiness is not a
grand argument story-it is an indictment against adults who are egocentric
and perversely afflicted. The objective characters are loosely related
to three sisters, Trish, Helen, and Joy, and not a jot of fun is to be
found in this family's dysfunctions. Solondz' denouncement of grown-ups
can be inferred from a scene in which Trish's husband Bill Maplewood,
a psychiatrist, allows to his psychiatrist:
BILL
My patients
are ugly. Their problems are trite. Each one thinks he is unique.
On a professional level they bore me. On a personal level I have no
sympathy. They deserve what they get.
The relationship between
Bill and his eleven-year-old son, Billy, has the makings of a subjective
story, but it is not fully developed. What is certain is an unhappy ending-Bill's
stoic countenance masks his anguish, as he admits his pedophilia to the
shattered boy.
Solondz does concede
a hint of hope for humans and their frailties, indicated in an exchange
between Kristina and Allen:
KRISTINA
(while eating
her sundae)
Anyway, so
then I had to cut up his body, plastic bag all the parts . . . I've
been throwing it out gradually ever since. There's still a little
left in my freezer.
ALLEN
So you cut
off his . . .
KRISTINA
No. I left
it attached. I didn't want to have to touch it again. . . . Can we
still be . . . friends?
ALLEN
Um . . . I
guess . . . Yeah . . . I mean, we all have our . . . you know . .
. pluses and minuses . . .
Happiness is a bold
statement-brave in its subject matter, however, it is not a grand argument
that examines the problems from the objective, subjective, main and obstacle
character points of view. Without these perspectives it remains just one
writer's provocative opinion.
Conclusion
The six stories reviewed
have all received some measure of critical acclaim and all, in this author's
estimation, are entertaining. From a Dramatica point of view, however,
the novel version of Being There is devoid of an obstacle character, therefore
has no subjective story; Get Shorty offers an obstacle character who has
an outlook similar to its main character, dissipating the conflict wanted
for a subjective story, and Happiness relays tales that are discrete-only
loosely connected by plot contrivance. What truly differentiates Being
There's screenplay adaptation from the novel; Out of Sight from Get Shorty;
Welcome to the Dollhouse from Happiness, is they provide the Dramatica
grand argument's four perspectives that permit the audience to simultaneously
engage in all sides of the story, in particular, the problems presented
and solutions considered and employed.
In applying the fundamental
concept of the four throughlines to a story, structure is clarified. For
the purpose of analysis, this allows insight vital to understanding author's
intent. For original story creation, it aids in constructing sound structure,
the foundation from which to build dynamic storytelling. For the audience,
they can participate in all four points of view necessary for a Dramatica
grand argument-an experience that conveys a familiar context within which
to find individual meaning in their own off-screen lives.
Works Cited
Abrams, M. H. A
Glossary of Literary Terms. 6th ed. Orlando: Harcourt, 1993.
Being There.
Dir. Hal Ashby. Screenwriter Jerzy Kosinski. FOX, 1979.
Chatman, Seymour.
Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca:
Cornell UP, 1978.
Eagleton, Terry. Literary
Theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis: U of MN P, 1983.
Ellis, Bret Easton.
American Psycho. New York: Vintage, 1991.
Hilary and Jackie.
Dir. Anand Tucker. Screenwriter Frank Cottrell Boyce. 1998.
James, Henry. Washington
Square. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1982. (Washington Square first published
in 1880)
Kosinski, Jerzy. Being
There. Orlando: Harcourt, 1970. 87.
Lee, H. To Kill
a Mockingbird. London: Mandarin, 1960.
Lodge, David. "Analysis
and Interpretation of the Realist Text." Modern Literary Theory.
Eds. Philip Rice and Patricia Waugh. 2nd ed. Edward: London, 1992. 24-42.
Phillips, Melanie
A., and Chris Huntley. Dramatica: A New Theory of Story. 3rd ed.
Burbank: Screenplay Systems, 1996.
Propp, Vladimir. Morphology
of the Folktale. Ed. Louis A. Wagner. 2nd. ed. Austin: U of Texas
P, 1968.
Solondz, Todd. Happiness.
Screenplay, 1997.
Solondz, Todd. "That
Lovin' Feeling." With Scott Macaulay. FILMMAKER 7 1998: 37-39,
104-05.
Welcome to the
Dollhouse. Dir. Todd Solondz. Screenwriter Todd Solondz. COL, 1995.
|
