Central Dramatic Argument

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

    Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
    ATB: Again, everything you're saying about Cameron, I can make the case that Jeanie's arc is equal. FBDO is a movie with well written secondary characters. I don't think it goes any deeper than that.
    But is Jeanie's problem (her hatred for her brother) as great a problem as Cameron's?

    The answer to that question will inevitably be subjective, but can we agree that sibling problems aren't typically as important as parental problems?

    It seems like the entire point of FBDO is for Ferris to show Cameron all the joys he's missing in life... that there is more out there than just sh1tty parents.

    So it feels like John Hughes focused the story around Cameron's problem and let Jeanie's problem take a backseat as a subplot.

    Comment


    • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

      Originally posted by ATB View Post

      So it feels like John Hughes focused the story around Cameron's problem and let Jeanie's problem take a backseat as a subplot.
      But is Cameron's problem the story problem? The story problem is the main problem of the story, the problem the protag must solve or fix. It's the protags external goal. The protag is the character trying to solve the MAIN problem. The throughline of the story, the plot, what we see on screen, is the protag solving the MAIN problem.

      Comment


      • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

        Jeanie turned from an unhappy, unpleasant person into an awesome sister. She had a genuine personality breakthrough. Cameron turned from a great guy who was afraid of his dad to a great guy who was going to talk to his dad. I think his personal journey was much smaller than hers - he started off the movie as Ferris Bueller's best friend. Not a bad place to be.

        But look, it's all subjective. If any theories help you write, then embrace them. We can argue interpretation of movies after they're made until the end of time.

        Comment


        • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

          Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
          But look, it's all subjective. If any theories help you write, then embrace them. We can argue interpretation of movies after they're made until the end of time.
          Yeah, I agree. It's whatever makes the most sense to you.

          ETA: I do see your point about Jeanie. She clearly has a meaningful arc that is important to the story. I'm just unable to place her arc as equal to or greater than Cameron's. But like you said: it's subjective as hell and there's no getting around that.
          Last edited by ATB; 02-12-2012, 07:17 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

            Originally posted by ATB View Post

            It seems like the entire point of FBDO is for Ferris to show Cameron all the joys he's missing in life... that there is more out there than just sh1tty parents.

            So it feels like John Hughes focused the story around Cameron's problem and let Jeanie's problem take a backseat as a subplot.
            Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
            The protagonist isn't defined by character change. It's defined by the main plot.
            ATB, I think what you call the entire point is really one way the theme is explored in the story. Theme is explored through the actions and interactions of all characters. I think you are confusing theme with plot.

            Comment


            • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

              Originally posted by jonpiper View Post
              ATB, I think what you call the entire point is really one way the theme is explored in the story. Theme is explored through the actions and interactions of all characters. I think you are confusing theme with plot.
              I should've been more clear: By "the entire point" I meant the goal.

              I think it's Ferris' goal to show Cameron what he's missing.

              Not sure what the theme is. That's a different convo. And even more subjective than the protagonist issue, if that's possible.

              Comment


              • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                Awesome posts, Jeff.

                Comment


                • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                  Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
                  asjah8: An anti-hero is a kind of protagonist. Not another character in conflict with the protagonist.
                  that was pretty stupid of me to suggest it... i know better. thanks for not burying me.

                  i'm still struggling to see ferris as the protagonist but i'm probably cuing into the emotional line like ATB suggests... cameron suffers the most but it doesn't necessarily make him the protag since it's ferris' story and goal. great posts here.
                  life happens
                  despite a few cracked pots-
                  and random sunlight

                  Comment


                  • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                    Originally posted by asjah8 View Post
                    i'm still struggling to see ferris as the protagonist
                    I think you're over thinking this. The protagonist is simply the lead character. Or, as defined...
                    "protagonist
                    1670s, "principal character in a story, drama, etc.," from Gk. protagonistes "actor who plays the chief or first part," from protos "first" (see proto-) + agonistes "actor, competitor," from agon "contest" (see act). Meaning "leading person in any cause or contest" is from 1889...
                    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=protagonist

                    The movie is based around "Ferris Bueller's Day Off." Matthew Broderick is the lead.
                    STANDARD DISCLAIMER: I'm a wannabe, take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                      I disagree with Lowell on this. Well, particularly about Ferris Bueller.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                        Originally posted by Craig Mazin View Post
                        If you look at Scott's movies, there are CLEARLY central dramatic arguments to all of them. Minority Report maybe the most obviously so.

                        I'm smoking cigars with him tomorrow night (suck it, haters!), so I'll ask him. I'll dutifully report back what he says, even if it contradicts me.

                        I readily grant that my way isn't the only way, but I think it's a good way.

                        Originally posted by Shari Hari View Post
                        So btw what'd Scott have to say?

                        Love to hear.
                        I know, this thread wasso sublimely dead... but you get a chance to carom this one off Scotty's cranium yet?

                        Fascinated to hear his take (and dude doesn't show up for my licorice-lingerie parties anymore. Not since friggin' Bono got in his head about them. Curse you, Bono)
                        Last edited by Shari Hari; 02-19-2012, 01:17 PM. Reason: wha? can't say frig?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                          Originally posted by Craig Mazin View Post
                          Here's a hint:

                          --------------
                          MCCLANE
                          (long pause)
                          Look...I'm getting a bad feeling up
                          here...I'd like you to do something
                          for me. Look up my wife...don't ask
                          how, you'll know by then...and tell
                          her...tell her...I've been a jerk.
                          When things panned out for her, I
                          should've been behind her all the way
                          ...We had something great going until
                          I screwed it up...She was the best
                          thing that ever happened to a bum
                          like me. She's heard me say I love
                          you a thousand times, but she never
                          got to hear this...honey...I'm sorry.
                          (pause)
                          You get all that?

                          -------

                          Now, is that the way McLean feels at the end?
                          How does he feel?
                          Why?
                          Ooh, can I play (six years later)? Scriptnotes archives brought me here.

                          To me the key statement in John McClane's monologue here is not "I'm a jerk- as everyone kept mentioning but rather, "I'm a bum.- For the first twenty minutes of that movie, all John McClane feels is inadequate, emasculated, and out of place in both his marriage and maybe the world at large.

                          His arc, and ultimately the emotional payoff of the movie, is the path to proving he's *not* a bum. It takes him blood, sweat, and about 800 bullets, but gosh darnit he does prove it, because the script presented him the ultimate opportunity to do so. And it's rewarding to us the audience because we're rooting for him, the underdog, the "bum-.

                          The perfect counterpoint here is Under Siege. It's the same movie, with roughly the same pyrotechnics and "heroic beats-, but because Steven Segal's character doesn't have that emotional need (i.e., proving to himself he's not a bum), the movie ain't half as effective as Die Hard. A good example of why writing from "plot- alone can only get you so far.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Central Dramatic Argument

                            Originally posted by DannyBoy View Post
                            To me the key statement in John McClane's monologue here is not "I'm a jerk- as everyone kept mentioning but rather, "I'm a bum.- For the first twenty minutes of that movie, all John McClane feels is inadequate, emasculated, and out of place in both his marriage and maybe the world at large.

                            His arc, and ultimately the emotional payoff of the movie, is the path to proving he's *not* a bum. It takes him blood, sweat, and about 800 bullets, but gosh darnit he does prove it, because the script presented him the ultimate opportunity to do so. And it's rewarding to us the audience because we're rooting for him, the underdog, the "bum-.
                            i never got the sense he thought of himself as a bum. he's angry at Holly (but really, subconsciously, himself) for their marriage being in the process of falling apart. his scene with Hollis and the Rolex watch (also a climactic key later) shows exactly how self-confident he is about still being Holly's man, even if they still need to work things out. he may be unsure whether they will work out at that point but he KNOWS that Hollis definitely isn't the next guy in line. the monologue Craig quotes is the moment when what was subconscious becomes conscious for him.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X