One of the first things people ask when they delve into this theory is whether or not the big guys use Dramatica. Having personally worked with several of these big guys I can tell you that most, if not all of them would vehemently deny it. This doesn’t mean, however, that they’re not really using it…

Curtis G, on his MySpace blog, recently wrote about Dramatica:

What is it supposed to do? It’s software, built around a new story theory, that helps you ensure that you’ve covered all the bases dramatically. It sounds good, like most gear does, but does it really work? Well, that’s where the difficulty comes in. If anyone in Hollywood is actually using Dramatica to write screenplays that sell, they’re being very quiet about it.

Like I mentioned before, I’ve met and/or worked with several of these big Hollywood types. And yes, most would never cop to using something like Dramatica. As far as they’re concerned, they don’t need such hackneyed tools; their writing “genius” is all they need. It should come as no shock then that the ego of these writers reigns supreme. To lower themselves by using the assistance of a silly screenwriting tool would be to invite criticisms of blatant amateurism from their peers.

But then there are the others who, when the door of their writing office is close, covertly click on that Dramatica icon.

Where’s the Proof?

Without a doubt, this episode of the X-Files was written with Dramatica. To be fair, there could be a slight doubt, but after writing that analysis I’m pretty much convinced that the theory was used. Several other episodes from that series also seem to contain hints of the theory. An easy way to tell which ones is think back and remember which ones you thought you really stood out on their own. If they felt complete then chances are Dramatica had an influence.

Another good example that I’ve written about before¹ is the science fiction film, Contact. The character Drumlin (played by Tom Skerritt) does not appear in the book. In that film, Drumlin is a major pain in the ass to Eleanor (Jodie Foster). He’s not as threatening as the government cronie, Michael Kitz (James Woods), but he still gets in the way.

This sort of influence over the Objective Story perfectly describes the Dramatica concept of the Contagonist character. Now this idea is not completely revolutionary. It appears in other forms of story theory under the name Trickster or Tempter. Dramatica, however, is the first theory to specifically define what traits this character would have.

There are two main motivations behind a Contagonist - Temptation and Hinder. In Dramatica, Temptation describes the willingness to go ahead with something regardless of the consequences (as opposed to its usual religious conontation). Hinder describes the motivation to obstruct or burden or encumber - pretty much sounds like Drumlin, doesn’t it?

And he fills a nice spot in the story. He’s not trying to stop contact with the aliens or continually questioning whether or not they should be running a program like this at all (that role is nicely filled by the previously mentioned Antagonist - Kitz). He just pops in every once in awhile to throw Eleanor and her friends off their goal. Drumlin’s character does feel a bit stereotypical, but this is how Archetypal Characters are supposed to feel. More complicated character-based films like American Beauty or Notes on a Scandal shift these characteristics around to create more complex characters.

Any Other Proof?

So more likely than not, the screenwriters behind Contact probably used Dramatica in their adaptation of Carl Sagan’s original novel. If you look hard enough elsewhere, you could probably find more examples. Overall you’ll note that since 1994 (the release year of Dramatica) there have been a significant number of films that closely resemble the “Dramatica structure”, i.e. a solid Impact Character and a well-developed relationship between the Main Character and that Impact Character (Subjective Story). There are still filmmakers who could care less about a Subjective Story, but overall you can sense an increase in the completeness of stories since then.

Still, from reading what little independent information (read: not on Dramatica.com) I’ve been able to about it, it looks to be a very helpful tool (if extremely heavy on theory; the learning curve looks pretty steep). Not only can I use it to build a new, complete, satisfying screenplay, but I can also run my old screenplays through it to see where (not if) they can be improved.

That’s exactly what it is: a helpful tool designed to help you write a great story. As long as you don’t try to master it all at once you’ll have a blast, especially if you’re someone who really loves the development process of creating a story. With Dramatica you can really get in there and develop to your heart’s content.

Footnotes for this article

1. I go into the possibilities of why the screenwriters might have added Drumlin’s character in my article: Is Dramatica Really Worth It? ↩

Share This

Somewhat related to this article

• getting it 100% right→

• explaining the Dramatica quad→

• mental sex brain teaser→

• The Stifling Nature of Dramatica?→

• choosing MC resolve→