Central Dramatic Argument

[christopher jon]

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.

[MrZero]

Originally Posted by TwoBrad Bradley

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

[christopher jon]

Originally Posted by MrZero

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.

[sarajb]

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.

[ATB]

Originally Posted by christopher jon

... when he could have easily turned a blind eye and kept on walking.

Clever girl.

[BattleDolphinZero]

Originally Posted by sarajb

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.

[christopher jon]

Clever girl.

*removed my penis comment.

Carry on with the discussion.

[jonpiper]

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

Originally Posted by christopher jon

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

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.

[Craig Mazin]

Originally Posted by MrZero

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.

[Recreant]

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.