Central Dramatic Argument

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: Central Dramatic Argument

    If you wouldn't be thinking of faith as your CDA, what would be thinking of as your CDA? The CDA has an important purpose.
    That's why it's a fuzzy area for me.

    Sticking with Book of Eli. It's a story about a guy who's taking a book west and another guy who'll stop at nothing to get that book for himself.

    Faith is something that motivates both characters but I'm not putting 1 + 1 together. It's not clicking for me.

    If I were given the logline for Book of Eli and hired to write a screenplay, I'm not sure what my CDA would be.

    To me it's a very plot and event driven story. This happens, then this happens, then he goes here and this happens etc... Faith is just a reason to get the ball rolling. He could just as easily be delivering the last bottle of scotch and Carnegie really wants that bottle of scotch. It would still be the same story.

    That's why I'm grasping at Faith as a Central Dramatic Argument.

    That's also why I'm hacking away at this. Trying to elevate my game. To get a better understanding of something that makes as much sense to me as Chinese.

    *btw, I am a fan of the movie so I'm not criticizing or knocking it.
    Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Central Dramatic Argument

      Because we've been having this exact conversation for the history of this board, I'm going to cheat and copy an earlier post of mine:

      I'm leery of one word themes. I can see why people shy away from thinking theme is important if the answer is "friendship" or "invisibility." I'd argue that the theme can be boiled down to one word, but a good writer will have a more complex, specific theme they're incorporating.

      I just write silly comedies, but I'll give an example from a script of mine.

      I always loved the exchange between Fitzgerald and Hemingway about the rich. I wrote a screenplay around it - and in fact, the first words in the movie are the main character saying:

      F. Scott Fitzgerald said "The rich are different from you and me.- Earnest Hemingway's answer was "Yes, they have more money."
      That's the theme of the movie on the first page - and it's an argument with no easy or obvious answer. It's not a dictum that the characters are out to prove. It's an undecided question, not something like picking "money is the root of all evil," and then spending the whole screenplay showing it.

      Can you read the script and say "the theme of the script is money?" Okay. Sure. But it's so general that it's meaningless.

      Now, since that theme is a question, I have two main characters who start the screenplay believing each side of the debate. The plot was picked to construct a situation where each one would have support for their point of view. They're sure they're right, and they can point to incidents in their life that prove it to themselves.

      Of course, the plot of the movie is both of the main characters trying to prove their POV to the other person, and coming to understand the other side of it a bit better. At the end, I do take sides - but there's no reason I have to. There are plenty of great movies where the theme's central question is left unresolved - in fact, the best movies probably leave it up to the audience to try to answer the question for themselves.

      I also have secondary characters who seem to personify each side of the debate. And even there, it turns out that their real beliefs are different than what the main characters think.

      Out of that theme, I took my main characters, secondary characters, plot and a lot of dialogue.

      But like I said, I write silly little movies. Try to imagine Crimes And Misdemeanors without the theme consciously woven into the plot of the movie. "Do god's eyes watch us?"

      Holy sh!t, what would be left? You have one character who is worried that god does watch him, and when he decides that god doesn't, he's relieved and can live his life. You have another character who is terrified that god isn't watching him - it would take meaning away from his life. One of the characters is an ophthalmologist. You have the Rabbi go blind - literally god's eyes going blind. You have a philosopher who tries to find meaning in a world with an indifferent (or blind) god kill himself.

      And visually? I know it's outside the scope of our debate, but watch that movie again looking for eyes. Cars headlights go out after the murder. A light bulb reflected in a mirror over a character's head so it looks like god looking down on him. The mistress's open, unseeing eyes after she's been killed.

      If all of that is accidental, then... Well, I can't finish the thought, because it can't be accidental.

      Or take "Unforgiven." There, it's "is it ever acceptable to kill a man?" Look how many of the characters talk about how the job is a good, moral job because the rapists "had it coming." And yet, a lot of characters turn away from killing, even though they feel it's justified. And the only villain who's killed by the side of "good," the sheriff, is the one who didn't kill anyone. So is that acceptable? And the sheriff is killed for it, which seems just, but then the town is left ruined by that justice.

      Here's a bit in the movie that blows my mind:

      Eastwood starts off the movie telling a story about killing a man who "didn't do anything to deserve to get shot, at least nothin' I could remember when I sobered up." At this point, he clearly believe that sometimes it's acceptable to kill a man who deserves it. And that he was wicked for killing men who didn't deserve it.

      The, after he shoots Hackman, Hackman says "I don't deserve this... to die like this. I was building a house."

      And Eastwood replies: "Deserves got nothin' to do with it."

      I bow down to that. Such an elegant way to show the journey that character took. An assassin who tried to kill people who deserved it, because he understood the terrible thing that killing a man is, realizing that there's no justification for it.

      And then he lives and prospers, and isn't punished, even though he shot down a room full of men trying to do the right thing.

      Because deserves got nothin' to do with it.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Central Dramatic Argument

        From what I remember of Book of Eli, I'd say the CDA is that Eli doesn't have to shoulder this burden alone. Or rather, the Central Dramatic Question would be: Must Eli carry the weight of this mission alone?

        He pushes all others away, including Mila Kunis' character, Solaris.

        But he eventually opens up to her, allows her to help him, and that is ultimately the reason that he's able to accomplish his goal... because of her friendship.

        But what do I know? That's just what jumped out at me as the lesson he learned on his journey.

        Every scene seemed to be Loneliness vs. Friendship.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Central Dramatic Argument

          Do any of the characters in Book of Eli actually change? If so, how?
          "I am the story itself; its source, its voice, its music."
          - Clive Barker, Galilee

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Central Dramatic Argument

            THanks for that, Jeff.
            That line, 'deserve's got nothing to do with it,' is one of my favorite in movie history. And you just really explained why.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Central Dramatic Argument

              So, you could say that the Central Dramatic Argument is like glue. It's a greater thematic idea or question that pulls all of the characters and scenes together.
              Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                Originally posted by TwoBrad Bradley View Post
                Do any of the characters in Book of Eli actually change? If so, how?
                Late in the movie, we get this exchange:

                Solara: I didn't think you'd ever give up the book, I thought it was too important to you
                Eli: It was, I was carrying and reading it every day, got so caught up in protecting it, I forgot to live by what I'd learnt from it
                Solara: And what's that?
                Eli: To do more for others than you do for yourself

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                  Originally posted by MrZero View Post
                  Late in the movie, we get this exchange:

                  Solara: I didn't think you'd ever give up the book, I thought it was too important to you
                  Eli: It was, I was carrying and reading it every day, got so caught up in protecting it, I forgot to live by what I'd learnt from it
                  Solara: And what's that?
                  Eli: To do more for others than you do for yourself
                  It's also shown in his actions.

                  Early in the film he deliberately chooses to not help about couple who are murdered. I think he says something like Not my problem to himself.

                  Later, he goes out of his way to help Solara when he could have easily turned a blind eye and kept on walking.
                  Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                    What Jeff just did there, using his own work as an example, goes miles further in showing how one can write from a central dramatic argument than does trying to figure out the central dramatic argument in any given movie without input from the writer. It isn't about writing the cda with such discernability. It's about humanizing the action with an eloquence that should be felt more than it should be rationalized or intellectualized by the viewer. That's my understanding.
                    Standing on a hill in my mountain of dreams telling myself it's not as hard, hard, hard as it seems.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                      Originally posted by christopher jon View Post
                      ... when he could have easily turned a blind eye and kept on walking.
                      Clever girl.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                        Originally posted by sarajb View Post
                        What Jeff just did there, using his own work as an example, goes miles further in showing how one can write from a central dramatic argument than does trying to figure out the central dramatic argument in any given movie without input from the writer. It isn't about writing the cda with such discernability. It's about humanizing the action with an eloquence that should be felt more than it should be rationalized or intellectualized by the viewer. That's my understanding.
                        Agreed. Sometimes themes in movies are obvious, sometimes they're an ethereal feeling that makes you want to guess what it is. But that's just as effective.

                        I do think that sometimes you can write from a single word theme. I know I can. Don't do it often but it has happened.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                          Clever girl.
                          *removed my penis comment.

                          Carry on with the discussion.
                          Last edited by christopher jon; 01-22-2012, 10:52 PM.
                          Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                            Just to put in my non-pro two cents to add to what Jeff, Sarajb. and BDZ said.

                            Originally posted by christopher jon View Post
                            Sticking with Book of Eli. It's a story about a guy who's taking a book west and another guy who'll stop at nothing to get that book for himself.

                            If I were given the logline for Book of Eli and hired to write a screenplay, I'm not sure what my CDA would be.
                            You might come up with another CDA and create a different plot and characters, a different story for the same logline.

                            Originally posted by christopher jon View Post
                            He could just as easily be delivering the last bottle of scotch and Carnegie really wants that bottle of scotch. It would still be the same story.
                            If it were a story about a guy who needs money to get an operation for his sick kid and he agrees to deliver the last bottle of scotch to someone or someplace for $100,000, you'd come up with an appropriate CDA. Maybe, "How much hell will a mother or father suffer to save a sick child."

                            The audience doesn't need to know what your CDA is, it's for your own benefit.

                            By the way, I think the CDA that guided the writer was something like, "can any obstacle cause a man or woman to loose faith in god?" The obstacles became seemingly impossible to overcome and the protag never lost faith, so as far as the story is concerned the answer is no. But to enjoy the story/movie I don't need to know what CDA the writer had in mind.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                              Originally posted by MrZero View Post
                              Late in the movie, we get this exchange:

                              Solara: I didn't think you'd ever give up the book, I thought it was too important to you
                              Eli: It was, I was carrying and reading it every day, got so caught up in protecting it, I forgot to live by what I'd learnt from it
                              Solara: And what's that?
                              Eli: To do more for others than you do for yourself
                              And there you have it.

                              Mind you, you don't have to have your characters state the CDA.

                              I like the CDA not to be a question, but an affirmative answer to a question.

                              Is it better to have loved and lost than not to have loved at all? Interesting question, but I want to know the author's opinion by the end of the piece.

                              The above Eli dialogue can be rephrased in a simple dramatic argument: how the Bible or religion can inspire us to be better people is far more important than the book, or religion, itself.

                              The importance of this isn't pedagogical. We're not lecturing the audience. The importance is that this argument HELPS US FIGURE OUT WHAT TO WRITE AND HOW.

                              What should the hero do in the end?

                              Why?

                              And it's important and interesting because?

                              What's the right trap to force him to become something more than he was?

                              What kind of "more"?

                              What was his problem to start with?

                              Once you understand that the CDA of Nemo is "parents must let their children go," you understand why:

                              1. It was a GOOD CHOICE to kill Marlin's wife and all his kids but one.
                              2. It was a GOOD CHOICE to make Nemo handicapped.
                              3. It was a GOOD CHOICE to pair Marlin with a character who can't remember anything.
                              4. It was a GOOD CHOICE to have Marlin find Nemo *before* the actual climax.
                              5. It was a GOOD CHOICE to create a climax in which the protagonist only had one single thing to do, which was allow Nemo to actually do the heroics.

                              These good choices aren't there because they're fun or exciting, although they are. They are there because they specifically reinforce Marlin's progression from someone who believes parents should *never* let their children go, into someone who believes they *must* EVEN AT THE RISK OF DEATH.

                              Everything in the movie, literally everything, flows from the central dramatic argument. I'll argue that Pixar movies do this without fail, each and every time, in an incredibly consistent manner.

                              Point being: I don't point this out so we can all pull our puds while diagramming movies in a brand new way.

                              I point this out because this will help you WRITE a movie with intention and structure related to DRAMA and CHARACTER and PHILOSOPHICAL INTENTION as opposed to MECHANICS and EXPECTATIONS and CONVENTION.

                              It's the difference between writing "Deserve's got nothing to do with it" because you think it sounds badass and maybe reminiscent of some movie you once saw that you really liked...

                              ...and writing "Deserve's got nothing to do with it" because THAT IS THE LINE THAT FULFILLS YOUR AUTHORIAL PLAN.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                                Just to clarify things... the main theme or "CDA" for Book of Eli is the power of faith and how that power can be turned to either positive or destructive ends depending on how we choose to employ it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X