Originally Posted by JeffLowell
Beyond terminology, the OP seems to have designed a plot with little drive for the main character, since he felt that splitting up the protag and the MC was okay.
That's my quibble with the Dramatica Theory Of Script Deconstruction - used descriptively, whatever. Call a plot a soundtrack. Who cares?
But when people try to use it prescriptively, it's a mess. From everything I've read and seen, you're forced into artificial decisions so that the script fits into the paradigm. If Shawshank had actually been written with the method, and care had been taken to keep from emotionally connecting with Andy, and instead connecting with Red... Well, we wouldn't be talking about that movie today.
Sorta on a side note. I think Red sees Andy's story as his own.
When Andy says, She was beautiful. God I loved her. I just didn't know how to show it, that's all. I killed her, Red. I didn't pull the trigger, but I drove her away. And that's why she died, because of me.
(but Red did pull the trigger)
Red comes back with, That don't make you a murderer. Bad husband, maybe. Feel bad about it if you want. But you didn't pull the trigger
Andy, No. I didn't. Someone else did, and I wound up here. Bad luck, I guess
Bad luck? Jesus.
Andy, It floats around. Has to land on somebody. Say a storm comes through. Some folks sit in their living rooms and enjoy the rain. The house next door gets torn out of the ground and smashed flat. It was my turn, that's all. I was in the path of the tornado. I just had no idea the storm would go on as long as it has.
I see this scene in two ways, one it changes Red's POV; he finally takes responsibilty for the murder he commited years before, and Red is us-the audience-saying to Andy 'we still believe you're innocent.
BTW: Frank Darabont and Stephen King are graduates of the Dramatica Center For Kids Who Can't Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too!