Sometimes Dramatica can be so precise that an author can become confused trying to determine even the simplest of concepts. The concept of the Protagonist is one of them.
Dramatica breaks the Protagonist down to two Character Elements - one external (Pursuit) and one internal (Consider). So far that seems pretty accurate. Even the most juvenile of screenwriting books tells us authors we need a “willful” protagonist in search of a goal.
Well what if your Protagonist is against something? What if, like most James Bond films, he’s trying to prevent a madman from carrying out his dastardly deeds? (That’s the new Bond, Daniel Craig, there on the left)
That sounds more like an Antagonist which Dramatica breaks down to Avoidance (or Prevent) and Reconsider.
Is James Bond an Antagonist?
Not hardly.
The Protagonist is for the Goal and the Antagonist is against it. If the Goal is met then it is a Success story and everyone leaves the theater with good happy feelings. If it isn’t, the story has ended in Failure.
Look at that picture. Would you call that man a Failure?!
So that means Bond is a Protagonist who is against something?! How can that be?
It’s all about who you’re rooting for.
As mentioned before in the post trying to simplify Dramatica, you’ve got your good guys (the ones you’re rooting for) and your bad guys. If the people you are rooting for win, then it is a Success story. If they lose, then it is a Failure story.
Why do we root for them?
Because in the reception of a story, an audience roots for those who are trying to achieve the main goal. And this could be a reprehensible goal - it’s not always about rooting for the “morally righteous.” All that matters is the goal, and who is trying to achieve it.
Let’s say we have a story where these people are trying to build a bridge. Not all bridges are created equal. The question is: Are the people we are rooting for trying to prevent the building of the bridge, or the ones actually putting it all together?
Let’s say the guy were rooting for doesn’t want there to be a bridge built. That is the goal - the prevention of the bridge. So, like James Bond, our Protagonist is trying to prevent something from happening.
If he stops it, the story ends in Success. If the bridge gets built, the story ends in Failure.
That’s where the term Protagonist comes in - it’s the character that is for something - the character the author (and consequently the audience) wants to win. Even if it’s for stopping something - it’s still for that thing - still moving toward something as opposed to blocking or moving away.
Chris has more on this in this Tip of the Month about Protagonists, Antagonists, and Negative Goals.
Technorati Tags: screenwriting, story
Loading Image
Click anywhere to cancel
Share This
3 responses so far ↓
1 arijjan // Oct 24, 2005 at 11:57 pm
BEWARE: Posted same stuff elswhere on this blog. Bring. Post it again since it has the same subject matter as your entry:
Comparing Christ Huntley’s analysis of “The Constant Gardener” with mine:
Interestingly enough I had same engine settings BUT choose SUCCESS as the story OUTCOME
My reasoning: Justin sets out to find out why his wife is killed and succeeds in doing so.
His quest is of a personal character as opposed to his wife’s who wanted to put an end to the test program.
I started within the Theme browser with the SS since the sequence when Justin goed back to England was about their conlicting memories. Had never done that before and it’s good te remember to start with the patterns that stand out most and see which players are involved..
So a different storyform but so slightly it’s neglible.
The interesting question that remains is the best way to determine the story outcome. This story reminds me of “The People vs Larry Flint”" where Larry takes on The Supreme Court. He wants Justice. But after all is said.. he goes home and lies down on his bed opposite the painting of his muse and sighs deeply :>). Larry’s quest is ( At least according to the authors) the preservation of free speech. In the Constant gardener I would say it’s the other way around, everyone is involved in big business, one man is concerned with his relation with one woman. You can save this one vs This is Africa..
aj
2 jim // Oct 25, 2005 at 6:15 am
aj -
My apologies for my silence but I have yet to read your comments. I haven’t seen “Constant Gardener” or “History of Violence” yet and I want to be surprised!
Rest assured that as soon as I get a chance to get to theater I’ll revisit your comments and Chris’s analyses.
Thanks for contributing!
3 arijjan // Oct 26, 2005 at 12:22 am
He Jim,
Don’t even think about it. This is too much fun! Thanks for providing the platform. It’s a great format:>).
aj
Leave a Comment