Believe it or not, one of the more difficult things to do when analyzing a story is deciding who the Main Character is. Because the Dramatica theory of story separates the concept of Main Character from the Protagonist, determining that essential character calls for a more precise analysis. This became a problem when analyzing the last film for the Dramatica Users Group - Laura.

Very quickly, for those who are not familiar -

• The Main Character represents the personal viewpoint of a story’s problems
• The Protagonist is the prime driver in the Overall Story

These two can, and often are, combined into the same player. Far more elegant storytelling can be had, however, when they are not (as in To Kill a Mockingbird). For a more in-depth explanation, travel to the Dramatica theory book’s Main Character/Protagonist chapter.

Before I get into a wrap-up on the analysis of Laura (which I’ll do in a later post), I wanted to write a bit about the difficulty I had in nailing down the Main Character for this film.

SPOILER WARNING

For me, there were two obvious choices - either Waldo Lydecker (Clifton Webb) or Det. Mark McPherson (Dana Andrews). McPherson was obviously the Protagonist of the story. Whodunit’s with detectives in them usually assign the role of Protagonist to the detective (99.999% of the time). That much I was sure of.

But when it came to choosing through who’s eyes we see the film I really couldn’t pick between the two. I felt more personally attached to Lydecker. I saw through his eyes a beautiful woman who was constantly going after younger, more virile men. It even seemed to be a major point of contention for him as well - as if this difference in physicality was his greatest personal issue (giving us a Main Character Domain of Universe).

But I wasn’t sure, because he wasn’t there for a large part of the film. In addition, the more personal moments for him lessened in screentime as soon as McPherson started to fall for Laura.

McPherson was my other choice - but he was as cold as any character I had ever seen. I had no idea what his personal issues were or what he was trying to overcome. I knew he was starting to fall for the beautiful and dead woman, but I didn’t feel personally connected to him. Then again, he and Laura did seem to develop a romantic relationship later. I couldn’t decide.

Besides, I thought it would be a cooler storyform if Lydecker was the Main Character (for some reason I have a thing for Main Characters who just…lose it).

The answer, it would seem, came from a different direction. Chris reminded us that the main difference between the Subjective Story and the Objective Story, the one quality that separates the two, is passion.

You can never forget that the throughlines are a point-of-view

When you’re reminded of this simple fact, it becomes clear. The only place you feel true heart-felt moments happens when Laura and McPherson get together. As Chris put it, Waldo is “as passionate as a doorknob.”

Now, you could argue that Waldo was a very passionate person - after all, he did kill one woman because he didn’t want her marrying someone who wasn’t good enough for her. But when analyzing a story, there is a difference between passion as the topic of the story, and passion as a perspective or viewpoint within the story.

Waldo’s murderous actions are an objective look at his passions. The growing romance between Laura and McPherson is a passionate look at what “we” are building together. Waldo talks an awful lot about passion, but we don’t feel like we are a party to the supposed relationship between he and Laura. You can never forget that the throughlines are a point-of-view. They are not the subject matter that is being looked at.

We, as an audience, are a party to Laura and McPherson’s growing relationship and, as such, places McPherson squarely in the spot of Main Character. His choice as Main seems to fit the story better than Waldo, especially when you consider that towards the end of the film McPherson starts to lighten up. We start hearing the use of his first name more often (Mark) and there are these little knowing side glances he gives that only we as an audience are privileged to see. These are personal moments that no other character picks up on - and a wonderful indicator of who the Main Character is.

There are two other clues towards identifying McPherson as the Main Character - the first being music. Whenever Waldo is present the music turns ominous and mysterious. When Mark and Laura are together, it swells into classic 1940s romanticism.

The second clue happens when McPherson falls asleep in Laura’s apartment. The door opens and Laura walks in. McPherson opens his eyes and at first we think, “He must be having a dream about this girl. He’s really starting to obsess over her.” We soon come to learn that this is not the case. His disorientation is our disorientation. We experience his confusion over her entrance personally.

It still doesn’t “warm” his character up any or give us any more idea of what personal issues he is dealing with. But it does help in coming to a storyform with all four perspectives consistent throughout the entire piece.

Interestingly enough, we did discover a “hole” in McPherson’s throughline that accounted for much of his coldness. It was another perfect example of how Dramatica can help fix stories that just feel wrong for some reason or another. In my wrap-up I’ll go into more detail about that.

If you can’t wait for that post, you can always listen to the podcast of our Analysis of Laura: (MP4)

Share This

Somewhat related to this article

• Incredible DUG Meeting Coming Up→

• how the impact character relates to the main character→

• The Best of StoryFanatic in 2007→

• Sharing the Main Character’s Surprise→

• backstory/forestory Change MC→