Fatal Flaw?

[Steven Jenkins]

Re: Fatal Flaw?

The real antagonist in Star-Wars.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8594101.stm

[Richmond Weems]

Re: Fatal Flaw?

Let's see if we can get twenty pages out of this...

I knew we could make it.

HH

[instant_karma]

Re: Fatal Flaw?

195 posts and still no one has found a way to work "the usual suspects" into the discussion.

Lame.

I made a Kaizer Soze reference earlier and made a really really forced usual suspects remark, but I thought better of it and took it out.

And now I wish I hadn't, because I feel like I've let you down.

[TheKeenGuy]

Re: Fatal Flaw?

195 posts and still no one has found a way to work "the usual suspects" into the discussion.

Lame.

I swore I had, but realized that it was just the rough draft of my post where I talk about CITIZEN KANE. THE USUAL SUSPECTS has a similar structure. Modern-day protag, flashback protag. You could put THE PRINCESS BRIDE in the same camp.

Of course, in each case the modern day protag is just our way of accessing the real story.

[billmarq]

Re: Fatal Flaw?

195 posts and still no one has found a way to work "the usual suspects" into the discussion.

Lame.

[jonpiper]

Re: Fatal Flaw?

i still haven't seen casablanca, gone with the wind or E.T.

but i have seen BASKETCASE and rank phantasm right up there with evil dead, well not right up there, but within spitting distance.

You've gotta see and read Casablanca. It's a tight low budget screenplay, fantastic setting. Every word counts. Great dialogue.
Great characters. Emotional. Simple structure, complex relationships.

But who is the protag and who is the main character is disputable.

[THEUGLYDUCKLING]

Re: Fatal Flaw?

i still haven't seen casablanca, gone with the wind or E.T.

but i have seen BASKETCASE and rank phantasm right up there with evil dead, well not right up there, but within spitting distance.

[jonpiper]

Re: Fatal Flaw?

EDIT: jonpiper above argues, if i understand correctly, that Rick's eventual goal was to join the resistance, but that he only discovered that or was motivated towards it till the end. The drive to secure the Story Goal starts the instant the Inciting Incident occurs. That event upsets the balance of things, and there should always be some drive towards resolving that inequity otherwise the story will feel flat, i.e. no narrative drive. That drive should be there from Act 1 till the end.

In addition, it should also be noted that the letters of transit were indeed intended for Lazlo, once Ugarte decides to give them to Rick, balance is upset and the story begins.

On the other hand, if the goal was Lazlo and Ilsa's freedom then you can quite clearly see who the Protagonist and Antagonist are.

I will contend that Lazlo is not a particularly strong Protagonist. I still think he represents the drive to pursue that freedom for himself and Ilsa, but he's not particularly good at it.

My mistake. Ugarte did steal the letters specifically to sell them to Laszlo.


As for the story goal, I'm not convinced Laszlo's goal, which is to secure his and Ilsa's freedom, is the story goal.

I believe Rick's goals, confused and changing as they are-- to remain neutral, to regain Ilsa's love, to win a bet with Renault, to disgrace the Germans, to secure Ilsa and Laszlo's freedom, to regain his own soul--are the story goals. Rick's actions move the plot forward. And in the end it is Rick who is responsible for acheiving Laszlo and Ilsa's freedom.

P.S. Jim you said "The drive to secure the Story Goal starts the instant the Inciting Incident occurs. That event upsets the balance of things, and there should always be some drive towards resolving that inequity otherwise the story will feel flat, i.e. no narrative drive. That drive should be there from Act 1 till the end."

The II does upset the balance of things and does drive Casablanca forward by setting Rick in motion to secure his goals. He was forced ou of his depressed, don't-give-a-damn attitude.

[zenplato]

Re: Fatal Flaw?

I guess my problem would be that if the goal of the story was Rick getting Ilsa than who would the Antagonist be? You could say Lazlo, but by definition, an Antagonist actively prevents the Protagonist from acheiving his goal. I don't see that happening.

...

Let's not be so rigid. The movie's gestalt may not fit the mold that pedants want to squeeze it into, but that doesn't mean the principals of dramatic processes aren't in place.

And Steve, I don't see that quote being an essential attribute of a protag, imo...

The LoT are nothing more than a macguffin.

Sheeit!

[instant_karma]

Re: Fatal Flaw?

My own protagonist and antagonist, all bundled up in one sack. Alas.

Much as I generally dislike smileys, words just will not suffice -

[SuperScribe]

Re: Fatal Flaw?

Balls!

My own protagonist and antagonist, all bundled up in one sack. Alas.

[instant_karma]

Re: Fatal Flaw?

Balls! If I'd waited a few minutes and seen Ronaldinho's post, I could've saved myself some typing.

[instant_karma]

Re: Fatal Flaw?

I guess my problem would be that if the goal of the story was Rick getting Ilsa than who would the Antagonist be? You could say Lazlo, but by definition, an Antagonist actively prevents the Protagonist from acheiving his goal. I don't see that happening.

An antagonist does not have to be a person. It can be a force of nature or a set of circumstances, although personally speaking it is usually more emotionally satisfying when the obstacle that the protagonist has to prevail over is a person.

For example, consider the threat posed to the characters in the Final Destination series of movies.

Disaster movies also provide good examples of non human antagonists. The antagonist in Deep Impact was a giant space rock. In The Happening, it was the wind. Or trees. Or something.

Okay, forget about The Happening. The point is, there are a bucketful of movies with a non human antagonist.

With regards to what prevents Rick from getting Ilsa in the end, I would say the answer is Rick's love for her.

If he'd said the word, she was there for the taking, but his love for her stopped him from asking her to throw away a relationship with a man that Rick has built a grudging respect for in exchange for an uncertain and dangerous future with him. More than anything, Rick's goal is the protection of Ilsa.

[Ronaldinho]

Re: Fatal Flaw?

I guess my problem would be that if the goal of the story was Rick getting Ilsa than who would the Antagonist be?

One of my smarter screenwriting teachers - a guy with one absolutely huge film to his name, and a long solid career of work - always reminded us that a movie doesn't REQUIRE a specific Darth-Vader-like antagonist. Rather than "antagonist," he encouraged us to think in terms of "forces of antagonism."

His point was that this opens up the door to much more nuanced films.

I'll use an example of a film that most of us wouldn't think of as particularly nuanced: Top Gun. Who's the antagonist? Well, you could talk about Val Kilmer, I suppose, because Tom Cruise is competing with him. You could talk about Tom Skerrit, becuase he runs the school and is ultimately the one who grounds Tom.

But the real demon that Tom faces isn't either of those guys - it's himself. Those guys provide crucibles, but the real tests are always against himself.

And if something like that works, in a movie as straightforward as Top Gun, why struggle to define an antagonist in Casablanca? WHy not reject the entire theory that there MUST be an antagonist, and instead use the more flexible concept of "forces of antagonism."

Because yes, Strasser is an antagonist, for parts of the story. So is Laszlo. So is Ilsa. But, of course, the entity that Rick defeats which has the biggest impact on the outcome of the story isn't Strasser, or Laszlo, or Ilsa ... it's his own apathy.

When he defeats that, he wins.

Only because you have arbitrarily decided that someone must be the antagonist is this any trouble at all.

This, ultimately, swings back to my whole problem with rigid theories about dramatic structure. You've got this little box that says "antagonist" and you feel compelled to fill it.

But you don't have to. There are lots of films where the true test isn't against some ultimate villain, but against the world, or against oneself.

[JimHull]

Re: Fatal Flaw?

I guess my problem would be that if the goal of the story was Rick getting Ilsa than who would the Antagonist be? You could say Lazlo, but by definition, an Antagonist actively prevents the Protagonist from acheiving his goal. I don't see that happening.

The next candidate would be Ilsa herself, but I would contend that she is filling another dramatic role and that would be (at the risk of alienating everyone once again) that of the Impact Character. You can think of this character as the Main Character's personal Antagonist if you're uncomfortable with new terminology.

It is her "impact" on Rick, her way of seeing the world, that ultimately influences him to change and become the selfless man he once was. Their relationship in the story fosters this change in much the same way that Red and Andy's relationship result in Red's eventual change. That is where the meaning, or true message of both films lies emotionally.

So Ilsa can't be the real Antagonist of the piece either.

The Antagonist without a doubt is Major Strasser. The Antagonist wants the the efforts to reach the goal to end in failure, the Protagonist wants the efforts to reach the goal to end in success. Maj. Strasser definitely loses. By definition then, the Protagonist in Casablanca wins. Who would that be?

EDIT: jonpiper above argues, if i understand correctly, that Rick's eventual goal was to join the resistance, but that he only discovered that or was motivated towards it till the end. The drive to secure the Story Goal starts the instant the Inciting Incident occurs. That event upsets the balance of things, and there should always be some drive towards resolving that inequity otherwise the story will feel flat, i.e. no narrative drive. That drive should be there from Act 1 till the end.

In addition, it should also be noted that the letters of transit were indeed intended for Lazlo, once Ugarte decides to give them to Rick, balance is upset and the story begins.

On the other hand, if the goal was Lazlo and Ilsa's freedom then you can quite clearly see who the Protagonist and Antagonist are.

I will contend that Lazlo is not a particularly strong Protagonist. I still think he represents the drive to pursue that freedom for himself and Ilsa, but he's not particularly good at it.

Andy on the other hand, kicks ass in this department.