Re: Fatal Flaw?
 

I think you're onto something! I have a team of scholars running it through the Dramatica Story Engine as we speak. Expect an answer in two to three months.

Re: Fatal Flaw?
 

Come on. Everybody knows the nightclub is the protagonist and the flashback is the antagonist.

Silly screenwriters.

Re: Fatal Flaw?
 

What's the catch:shifty:

:smokin: Oh,who cares. :whatno:

Re: Fatal Flaw?
 

Personally, my favorite scene in CASABLANCA is when the fat man swats the fly in the BLUE PARROT. I think he should have been developed into a Main Character :)

Re: Fatal Flaw?
 

The fly or the fat man?

I can see both working.

Re: Fatal Flaw?
 

I've had enough of Casablanca - who's the Protag in "A Christmas Carol"?

Is it Bob Cratchit?

Ok - laugh it up :p

(Sorry - this isn't a serious question!)

Re: Fatal Flaw?
 

Re: loglines for Shawshank and Casablanca

I have an idea where you are headed with this question, but before I bite...

In my estimation, loglines are about as useful to an author as the concept of "raising the stakes." They're great for development executives and the back of DVD boxes, but they don't really give a writer the tools necessary to write a complete story. They are reductive and meaningless and should not be a part of the creative process as they don't delineate any structural features of a story. Likewise, they are not a useful tool when it comes to analysis. If they did somehow communicate the true meaning behind the author's original intent, then we would all be writing loglines instead of elaborate well thought out screenplays.

That being said, I will concede that if I were to write loglines for those films, the first would center on Andy's story, the second on Rick's. Those are the most compelling parts of the story and would do well in the marketing or pitching of said story.

Loglines illustrate and summarize the most interesting or compelling parts of a story. An author may choose to emphasize any portion of a story's structure, making one element more interesting than the next, with little to no effect on the structure itself. The intensity of one does not negate the necessity of the other. Whether or not Darabont spent more time on Andy's story does not change the fact that the film is seen through Red's eyes. It is his personal perspective on the events that unfold that we as an audience share, and it is an integral part of the story's message.

Re: Fatal Flaw?
 

I still don't see anything here that goes against the idea that Red is simply the Narrator, telling the story of Andy, the Protagonist.

If you don't think Red's role fits this already pretty well established storytelling device, could you please explain why.

It seems like you're trying to sell a new paradigm to replace one that currently works perfectly well.

Re: Fatal Flaw?
 

(Sorry - this wasn't a serious question!)

Re: Fatal Flaw?
 

here's my take that i posted several pages back.

redd talks about how he spent so many years inside that he didn't think he could survive in the real world. remember when the first old guy got released and hung himself? redd thought he was on that same path but andy's desire to get out of that prison even after 17 years inspired him to survive out there. that's why redd is the protagonist and andy is the main character.