Dark Machine - Dramatica Breakdown

Now that my screenplay is in for marking I can begin sharing the analysis and breakdown of the paradigms and the storyform. Let's start with deep theory, and Dramatica. Having completed a pass of the story I took the original paradigms, the story plan, synopsis, etc, and passed it all through Dramatica's question system. That helped develop some hard facts about the direction and what needed to happen. Here are the important results:

Main Character Dynamics
Edward resolves to change (to solve his problem(s)). His growth needs to start (for the change to occur), but this conflicts with his be-er approach (reacting only as things happen); hence the story driver is action (Edward makes decision based upon actions). His problem-solving style is logical and his limiting factor is a timelock. The outcome of his goals ends in failure but because he changes and learns, his judgement is good.

The cost to the main character is the future, because by not taking control/responsibility for others he can’t be sure whether or not they will succeed and pull through. The dividend however is innermost desires in that Edward will be able to return to them and let them live – his love and support for Claire. The requirements are doing. Edward must consciously let go of responsibility to achieve his goal. The prerequisites are playing a role, which Edward is already doing. His role must change. The preconditions are how things are changing: Edward is spread too thin and making little or no difference in the lives of those he’s trying to take responsibility for. The forewarnings are impulsive responses. Edward’s taking of responsibility is to stop bad things from happening, however his déjà vu visions are not assisting him much in that end, and are actually just highlighting the path ahead – the tornado included.

Throughlines

Overall Story
Activity based, this throughline shows a world in which everyone is actively seeking something – Edward seeks fulfilment by taking responsibility (to sate his own guilt), Petersen is after his data, Hakim and the Shades want Alisha, Danny wants his job or inheritance, Claire wants her family. As such they are all concerned with obtaining. The issue is their attitude – everybody is focused on their rights, forgoing their responsibilities (except Edward). The counterpoint to this is their approach. Edward can only help others by letting go and allowing them to take control and responsibility for themselves. Therefore changing the approach is better than staying with a fixed attitude. Everyone takes responsibility.

The problem is help – no one is taking responsibility and therefore no one is helping themselves (except Edward). The symptom is oppose – because everything anyone attempts to do for another person meets conflict. The response is support – Edward in particular therefore takes responsibility for everyone. However the solution is hinder – only by no longer helping, and not getting involved will everybody learn from their mistakes and grow in strength.

Main Character
Fixed Attitude based, this throughline shows Edward is preoccupied with taking responsibility for others (indoctrinated by his parents and piled upon with guilt since their deaths). As such he is concerned with hiding away his innermost desires (to support and love Claire and the baby) because he feels duty bound to honour his parents’ memory by being honourable and righteous. The issue is his denial of himself because he is “other-driven”. The counterpoint to this is closure. Edward must learn to hand back responsibility and control to others, and deal with his guilt. Therefore Edward must stop denying himself. He must come to terms with his parents death - you can't change the future even if you can see it; seeing it only makes it harder. He can't change the past either. He can only work with himself, can't change other people.

The problem is help – by taking responsibility he is removing others’ ability to learn and grow. The symptom is temptation – he can’t help but take up another’s crusade and fight for them. His response is conscience – he couldn’t live with the guilt if he didn’t intervene and something bad happened. However the solution is hinder – only by not getting involved will others learn to stand on their own two feet.

Impact Character
Situation based, this throughline shows Hakim is stuck (like other coma patients, and indeed Edward). His concern is for the future, be it his own (how will he escape this place?) or others (he must ensure undue power doesn’t rest in the wrong hands). To that end he needs support to meet his goals. The issue is his preconception, his need to find other selfless people. He is driven to be open about what he wants to achieve, though this conflicts with the needs and wants of others. As such he is let down time and again. The counterpoint to this is openness. Hakim learns secrecy to secure support. Therefore by not being so open Hakim will secure Edward’s support.

The problem is pursuit – Hakim is too wrapped up in his pursuit of Alisha and the greater good. The symptom is oppose – Hakim’s beliefs and direction aren’t shared by others and so they oppose what he wants. The response is support – by supporting Edward and giving him the solution to his own situation he may endear Edward to trust him in spite of Hakim’s mysteriousness. The solution is avoidance – Hakim will remain mysterious and directed, making demands on Edward that Edward will allow because Hakim is teaching him.

Subjective Story
Manipulation based, this throughline shows that Hakim will manipulate Edward to help him. The concern is in changing one’s nature – Hakim has already made himself aloof, he just needs Edward to focus and stop taking responsibility for everyone and everything. The issue is obligation – Edward feels obligated by guilt and indoctrination to take responsibility for everyone and everything. The counterpoint to this is rationalisation. Hakim will make Edward see that he must allow others to learn from their mistakes and therefore grow from them. Edward must rationalise his obligations.

The problem is help – Edward is helping too many people and not himself. The symptom is feeling – Edward feels that guilt too much and needs to understand that he can come first. The response is logic – Hakim helps Edward see that it is logical to allow others to take responsibility for themselves. The solution is hinder – by not involving themselves in the lives of others, others can learn from their mistakes, and Hakim and Edward can help obtain Alisha.

Througline Order

Writer's Block

So, continuing my previous post:

2. Writer's Block
I have suffered as much as any man. My woes are deep, my distractions shameful - sorry, wrong story. Writer's Block, I now understand, hits a writer (of any ilk) for the following simple reason:

The writer doesn't have a full understanding of their characters.

Sure, that's very simplified when you consider exactly the multitudes of problems a writer's faced with on a word by word basis. In fact I could list specific situations in which the writer finds angst:

• Do I describe this here?
• What POV should I use?
• Am I giving away too much?
• I hate this scene!
• I can't think of how to describe this setting!
• What did my character have for breakfast?

For me, I have identified this problem with the help of Dramatica. I have quite literally spent an extended weekend getting to know my characters through a process of analysing my 4 Throughlines and mapping my characters according to the roles I have set them... Checkout the image:


On the Motivation chart my character's motivations behind their actions are laid out - this is what drives them - for example, my lead:

Sam Baker (as played by Mr. David Tennant) is in the position of:

1. Consider (he is leading the adventure so must deliberate over the best course of action), in also in the position of:
2. Pursuit (he must seek the story goal, whatever the outcome is and/or will be good or bad), also the position of:
3. Conscience (my protagonist has taken on the responsibilities of his friends and families because his backstory has led him to guilt. He wants to keep everyone safe and make everything work out well for them), continuing in that frame he is also in the position of:
4. Support (Sam supports everybody, but this is working against him, because he's spread too thin. He's trying to be everything to everyone, and no one can do that... he's failing), and finally for Motivation, he's in the position of:
5. Hinder (in order for Sam's character arc to be complete for the pilot episode... perhaps I'll split the pilot episode in two! For his arc to be complete he must learn to let go of that responsibility. He must allow friends and family to learn from their mistakes and grow).

So, considering that is just one of four quads - the others being: Purpose, Evaluation and Methodology - I will have a very definite grasp on each of my characters and their roles.

And these aren't archetypes either. If I were using archetypes, one would be...

Okay, let's take Sam's wife, Claire Baker (as played by the rather lovely Rose Byrne). She is currently opposing Sam's friend, Mark Morgan (played by ever hilarious Kris Marshall) in the top two quads. First the top-left, Claire is Feeling and Mark is Logic. Feeling is warm-hearted emotion, Logic deals with cold, hard facts.

Next, in the top-right quad, Mark is Uncontrolled and Claire is Control. Uncontrolled being someone unable to resolve themselves... oh you get the point.

Right then. In Star Wars, Princess Leia plays Logic and Control. She takes control, keeps her emotions in check, knows what she wants, where she's going, and is a fairly practical gal. Chewbacca plays Feeling and Uncontrolled. Chewie is ruled by his emotions. Threepio and Han both warn of a Wookie's anger, and how many times do we see the shaggy carpet running amok, smashing things, throttling someone, and coming over all mushy?

Well Logic and Control is one archetype (we're just taking Vogler's mythic archetypes as ported from that other guy - his name will come to me... answers on a postcard). One of the Protagonist's allies, who supports everything he does, but plays the straight man (Tinman in the Wizard of Oz?).

The other ally is the archetype of Feeling and Uncontrolled. You see, these pairs are destined to be together, aren't they? (Scarecrow from Wizard of Oz?).

Through Dramatica I have been able to realise my characters first as archetypes: Sam is the Protagonist (easy), Claire, his emotional wife (she's having his baby don't you know), and Mark, his logical friend (a programmer - very knowledgeable).

But, then you just give it a little twist, change archetypes into conflicted, complex, deep characters, and you give your audience a little bit more to enjoy:

Claire is Feeling. She's Sam's caring, loving wife, made emotional by the hormones from her pregnancy. She worries, she has Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and is a bit fraught with life.

Mark is Logic. He's Sam's business partner, and programmer. He follows logical processes, hides his emotions in wit and sarcasm.

However, Claire is also Control. She keeps her life in order, Sam too. She knows right from wrong and never strays, berates her husband for doing wrong, spreading himself too thin, or giving too much to his brother's selfishness.

Mark, on the other hand, is Uncontrolled. Whilst he should be partnered in with Control, he's not... because, he just won't take anything seriously. Not Petersen's business, data or threats. He's lazy, thinks too much of himself and without Sam, would have gone under long ago. He needs Sam to play straight man to his flights of fancy. It is this Uncontrolled nature which sparks the descent of the story.

Mark and Claire sit in opposition to each other in every aspect of their lives - they really wouldn't get on well in the same room together... so, thinking about that, why haven't I put them together? That would make a great scene!

So you see how creating complex characters we can really give you food for thought with your characters and their plotlines?.. hang on, wasn't this post about Writer's Block?

What I've been meaning to say is that by planning out your characters, really investing some thought in their roles, and who they are inside, their backstories, motivations, purposes, the methodologies that they carry out, you will know at all times what you can do with them, and this will help you in those dark hours of Writer's Block, because you can fall back on your character's roles, and ask yourself what would they do, why would they do that, and is that relevant to them.

What Price... words?

But a few words it is! I have been struggling with my screenplay for the Screenplay module from quite some weeks now and haven't, until this weekend, felt at all happy with it. This is a two-tier upset:

1. The assessment asks for a 40 minute pilot episode for a proposed TV series, but I've wanted to push to 60 - go for the BBC length.
2. Dreaded writers block has been throttling me.

I think I have overcome both.

1. Length
Linda Thompson took us through one of her Casualty episodes, and the script was only 49 Minutes in length. So, I didn't bust a gut going for 60 minutes. I mean, the Doctor Who episode that was on Saturday night was barely over 50. I'm currently at 35 minutes, I've distinguished it into a Teaser and 4 Acts so far... so have between 5 and 10 more minutes for the final 5th Act. That would be fine except for the fact that I was originally looking to take up my tutor's suggestion of trying for a Teaser and then 6 Acts, which would have been fine for a 60 minute episode.

But, I have one month left to write, perfect, re-jig the pitch, write the blurbs for the other 7 episodes and write the 2,000 word essay on the creation and how I've used the taught skills - oiye! So, I've got to get the script finished earlier than later, which means sticking with a roughly 40 minute episode, pairing it back to a Teaser and 5 Acts, splitting the previous sections differently to accommodate that and then filling in all the acts with the left over minutes (between 5 and 10).

Whilst I agonize over how to do that - given I've trapped my audience in with the protagonist, have a timelock situation and follow him throughout his fairly short day - you should digest Linda Thompson's Act breakdown of her Casualty episode:

Act 1 - Prologue - 12 Minutes
Establishes the themes, the mirroring of the parent/child fighting between Tess and Sam, the DJ and Simon, and the wedding couple and their kids.

Turning Point = Ernie (bridegroom) is knocked unconscious during the fight at the wedding, leading to snowball of other injuries.

Act 2 - First Remedies - 5 Minutes (Cum: 17 Minutes)
The mirroring continues, but this time between Nina (paramedic) and Lydia's (bride) adventures. This sets up the major misunderstanding between Nina and Abs.

Turning Point = Simon (the DJ's son) is hit on the head whilst in the back of the DJ's van and has an epileptic fit.

Act 3 - Crucible of Truth - 11 Minutes (Cum: 28 Minutes)
Conflicts worsen as we head towards the midpoint.

Turning Points = Guppy feels boring and Eileen tells him life is too short; Ernie's head CT; Ruth gives Ernie's backstory about Ernie being sad at his wife's death and then going out on the town with lots of women (foreshadowing the development of an older folk syphilis story); Ernie has an itch he wants Abs to check out; Ernie tells Ruth (Ernie's daughter) she has to go (Lydia must do this with her son if her and Ernie are to ever work out their relationship).

Act 4 - The Battle - 5 Minutes (Cum: 33 Minutes)
Conflicts are out in the open, decisions have been made, and people are resolute, no matter how unhappy it makes them.

Turning Points = Abs diagnoses Ernie's syphilis, leading to Lydia walking out on him; Abs takes on Tess's shift and Tess goes off for a night on the town with the girls; Guppy is told to go enjoy himself.

Act 5 - Resolution - 16 Minutes (Cum: 49 Minutes)
Everything comes to a close... except of course for the hook!

Turning Points = Lydia gives up her son and reconciles with Ernie; Guppy lets his hair down; Abs and Nina split after the "Truth Game" (which is also the name of the episode); the DJ and his son reconcile also.

Hook = The end of each wrapped up episode should provide a hook that will give the audience something to consider and want to find out in the next week's episode = Guppy and Kelsie, being very drunk, kiss, giving the audience the expectation that a relationship will develop...

Apparently it doesn't, but the hook's there anyway.

For Writer's Block, I'll start a new post...

The Impact Character

I've spoken previously about Dramatica and the use of the Impact Character to better define the Protagonist's through line, and round off the main story is a more dramatic fashion, providing us with a character arc, and character development. My screenplay tutor provided the following link:

http://www.dailydramatica.com/2007/04/12/impact-character-video-montage/

And also the Youtube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWwFBELL9Bo

... to prove the point about Impact Characters and their place in story.

How cool is that?

Anyhoo, to me this raises the point of all these Main and Impact Characters play off each other, and only one of them gets to change... but what about if they do both change? If they both try to better themselves and break from the mold - a third character gives the lines, of how similar they are. Could that work? I don't see why not.

That said, Peter Parker changes in Spidey 3, and so does his Impact Character - Harry Osbourne - but of that I'll say no more.

And there's more:
http://www.dailydramatica.com/2007/04/05/theres-a-reason-we-are-both-alike/

Further then, to that, the following analysis of Training Day makes the observation of having a third character advise that Main and Impact are alike:

http://dailydramatica.com/2007/04/17/training-day-analysis-2/

Screenwriting 104(4) - Dramatica - Problem Quad

What must be understood about Dramatica, is that the process is all about drilling down through the layers of quads to get to the root causes and solutions to characters and their problems. Having passed through the issues, we reach the Problem Quads - out of a total possible 256 Problems.
So, the Problem Quad exists pretty much like this:

As with our previous assessments of Quads we place one layer over the framework of another. However, we are now working so deep that we must deal with each of our original Storylines (Throughlines - Main Character, Overall Story, etc) separately. So for each of the four, we have four Problem Quads. And each looks at Problem, Symptom, Response, Solution.

Taking Rick's Main Character Throughline from Casblanca, we have drilled down to a Problem Quad (if you follow my previous posts and the Dramatica guidebook) of Control, Feeling, Logic, Uncontrol. So, for Rick, his problem is that he has to control everything. The symptom of which is that his feelings for and toward Ilsa have led him to this end... well, Andy Conway sums it up best:

Well, Rick seems to be a hard-bitten, cynical guy who sticks his neck out for nobody. That’s a very logical attitude to take to what is happening around him. But remember that Renault recognises him as a rank sentimentalist. He’s adopting this attitude to cover his emotions. It breaks out now and then, but mostly he manages to hide it.

But his real Problem is ‘Control’ and the Solution to that is ‘Uncontrol’. What does this mean?

When we open, Rick is one of the most powerful people in Casablanca. He is in total control of everything. He runs his bar and controls the prefect, even the Nazis, everyone. But this is a false empire. It’s not what Rick should be doing. What he needs to do is give up all that Control and choose to walk away from it. And that’s exactly what happens at the end of the film. He walks away with nothing but the clothes he stands in, at the mercy of the world again.

The key to use of this system that after all your domains, situations, problems and characters are mapped out you are provided with a list of what needs to be shown by your script or story in order to help with deep characters, plot arcs, and a tale that works on all levels. Furthermore, looking at this depth allows you to generate stories that end on different notes - for example Casblanca ends on a positive for Ilsa and Laslo - they escape. Rick however, though he has left behind his control, suffers the bittersweet ending. He's stuck in Casblanca, without Ilsa, but he's prepared to move on.

Now, if that isn't an oscar winner... I don't know what is!

So, what comes next for Dramatica? Well, there is the character archetypes, and the complicating of their natures to create superbly rounded characters that function to serve the plot in as many ways as necessary, there's the 12 point plot notes you need to be aware of... and more. But that's up to you to investigate... http://www.dramatica.com/

Screenwriting 104(3) - Dramatica's Concerns

Okay everybody, this is where things begin to complicate... and at this point you should begin to wonder why all this effort is necessary. Surely it's just distracting from writing? Well, yes and no. Dramatica can be used either at the beginning of a project, mid way through, or at the end. Its purpose is to help fill the gaps, bring out inconsistencies and develop the more rounded product.

So, concerns...Dramatica has 16 Concerns, based upon the framework of the 4 Domains (hope you're still with me). What we're doing is drilling down through a matrix (imagine a multi-level chessboard). Here each Domain becomes split into 4 Concerns. So, for each of the Throughlines, we now have 4 Concerns. In Casablanca, Rick's Main Character Throughline, which fell upon the Domain of Fixed Attitude can now be separated out into Memories, Impulsive Responses, Innermost Desires, and Contemplation.

BUT! But, we don't use all 4 concerns... we can't because we must avoid too much confusion. Each of the Throughlines/Domains may only focus upon 1 Concern, and in respect to Rick, his Concern for his Fixed Attitude is Innermost Desires.

And, what that means for the other Througlines/Domains is that their Concerns must/do fall upon the same relational square, ie: Rick's is the bottom-left, so the other three Throughlines must fall upon the bottom-left square of their own Concern quad. With me?

• Rick (Main Character Throughline) - Fixed Attitude (Domain) - Innermost Desires (Concern)
• Ilsa (Impact Character) - Situation (Domain) - Future (Concern)
• Visas and escape (Objective Story) - Activity (Domain) - Obtaining (Concern)
• Rick versus Ilsa (Subjective Story) - Manipulations (Domain) - Changing One's Nature (Concern)

Screenwriting 104(2) - Dramatica's Domains

Moving onto the next quadrangle we see that along with 4 Storylines, we have 4 Domains. The Domains are the context through which the Storylines operate. The writer puts the framework of the Domains beneath the shroud of the Throughlines so that you have one Throughline for each of the Domains.

It is theorised that every "Grand Argument Story", that is every damn fine story, has all four of these Domains present. So, we have:

• Situation
• Activity
• Manipulations
• Fixed Attitude

It is also theorised that for a story to feel rounded and complete, these elements all need to be present and working together, or against one another.

What does this really mean? It means that one of your Throughlines will line up with one of the Domains, meaning that the other three will, likewise, have to fit into one of the other three Domains. Take this example from Casablanca, for... er... example. (From the comic strip about Dramatica):

So, we can see what fits where:

• Situation - Ilsa (Impact Character) is locked in a situation (she's stuck in Casablanca with no way out)
  
• Activity - Everybody (Objective Story) is trying to get visas to escape Casablanca
  
• Manipulations - Ilsa and Rick (Subjective Story) are playing mind games with one another; Rick out of bitterness, and his need to control everything; Ilsa because she needs to get out of Casablanca, despite her feelings for Rick.
• Fixed Attitude - Rick (Main Character) has a fixed attitude. He's seen the world, and lost the girl. Now he's bitter and thinks the only way to live his life is by controlling everything.

Jaws:

• Situation - The Objective Story (Shark terrorising the Waters of the local populace)
  
• Activity - The Main Character (Brody is the one who takes action, to pursue the shark, and stop its devious teethiness)
  
• Manipulations - The Impact Character (Hooper, the guy with the money, the education and all his beliefs about sharks and the such like)
  
• Fixed Attitude - The Subjective Story (Hooper and Brody's conflicts - Brody must learn from Hooper to reach understanding)

The Storyform
We now have storyforms to work with from Domains and Throughlines. Andy Conway developed the following way of looking at Storyforms... which goes into more depth than presently necessary, but it gives you the idea:

Screenwriting 104(1) - Dramatica's Throughlines

Dramatica is the deep theory of story, and simply put is a framework upon which you can place your story idea, themes, characters, and the suchlike, to ensure you have all your bases marked for a well-rounded story - be it a novel, film, stage play.

Consider Dramatica to be the DNA of story, where "the whole brain is having a debate about inequity".

My previous Screenwriting posts have been the analysis of film through the separate paradigms, but with Dramatica, as my tutor, Andy Conway, pointed out, to understand Dramatica you need to analyse the paradigm through film. As such, this could get complicated (but is well worth sticking with), and I might resort to regurgitating what Andy has already written... why rewrite the wheel?

Quadrangles
Dramatica works on a principle of setting everything out into quads. There will be four of everything, arranged as four squares within a square. This provides the basis for relations between objects, such as helping to assess conflict zones.

Throughlines
Dramatica's first principle is tht of a Story Brain, in which exist four Throughlines (not one simple story). These four Throughlines are four separate stories integrated into the whole, providing the audience/reader with the most interesting route through the Story Brain from opening to conclusion - this is something I've pondered for some time in my own writing. That there is a need for lots of mini-stories, flashbacks, anecdotes, that flesh out the world. Though this is on a more specific level.

So, we have 4 Throughlines:

• The Main Character throughline
• The Impact Character throughline
• The Overall Story throughline
• The Main Character versus the Impact Character throughline (Subjective Story)

Here you can see that the Main Character and the Impact Character are diagonally opposed, as is the Subjective and Objective Stories - Conflict!

Think of it like this:

In Star Wars, Luke (Main Character) is taught by Obi Wan (Impact Character). Their Subjective Story is the training of Luke to become a Jedi, whilst the Objective Story is the wider world of Rebellion versus Empire and the destruction of the Deathstar.

In Casablanca, Rick (Main Character) had a love affair with Ilsa (Impact Character). Their Subjective Story is their relationship ("We'll always have Paris.") and Rick's bitterness over Ilsa leaving him, and now turning up with Laslo. The Objective Story is that everyone is trying to get visas to get out of Casablanca.

It's the relations between the Main Character and Impact Character that are most important to the story whole. The clash between the two results in 1 of them changing (Character arc), and one of the remaining the same... steadfast.

In Star Wars, Luke comes to believe in the Force, and to trust that ability within himself. Obi Wan doesn't change. In Casablanca, Rick learns to let to of his control of everything and helps Ilsa and Laslo, whilst Ilsa doesn't change. Amelie, in Amelie, learns to allow herself to help herself and not to stand in the way of her own goal, whilst, the glass man remains steadfast. In An Officer and a Gentleman, it is Zack who changes, not Paula.

That is not to say it always has to be the Main Character who must change... consider Indy Jones and most Bond films.

Dramatica

Holy-cripes. Next week we look at Casablanca and Amelie in relation to the Dramatica theory.

Casablanca
Casablanca is an Oscar-winning 1942 romantic film set during World War II in the Vichy-controlled Moroccan city of Casablanca. The film was directed by Michael Curtiz, and stars Humphrey Bogart as Rick Blaine and Ingrid Bergman as Ilsa Lund. It focuses on Rick's conflict between, in the words of one character, love and virtue: he must choose between his love for Ilsa and his need to do the right thing by helping her husband, Resistance hero Victor Laszlo, escape from Casablanca and continue his fight against the Nazis.
The film was an immediate hit, and it has remained consistently popular ever since. Critics have praised the charismatic performances of Bogart and Bergman, the chemistry between the two leads, the depth of characterisation, the taut direction, the witty screenplay and the emotional impact of the work as a whole.

Amelie
Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain (The Fabulous Destiny of Amélie Poulain), also known simply as Amélie, is a 2001 French romantic comedy film directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet and starring Audrey Tautou. Written by Guillaume Laurant (also dialogue) and Jeunet, the film is a whimsical and somewhat idealised depiction of contemporary Parisian life, set in Montmartre.
The film was released in France, Belgium, and French-speaking western Switzerland in April 2001, with subsequent screenings at various film festivals followed by releases around the world.
Amélie won best film at the European Film Awards; it won four César Awards (including Best Film and Best Director), two BAFTA Awards (including Best Original Screenplay), and was nominated for five Academy Awards. It is the highest-ranking French movie in the IMDb's Top 250. (See below for other awards and recognition.)

Dramatica
Dramatica is a theory of story that was developed by Melanie Anne Phillips and Chris Huntley in the early 1990s. Dramatica is also a computer program based on the theory and published by Write Brothers, Inc. (formerly Screenplay Systems Incorporated).

Dramatica theory is based upon the idea of the "story mind." The theory posits that every complete story is a holistic model of the problem solving process of the mind. Stories must examine all significant approaches to resolving the central problem of the story to be complete. The theory provides a systematic and complicated framework for creating and analyzing stories that are published in film or print.

The theory involves identifying the main character and an "impact character." A protagonist is often, but not always, the main character of a story. "Impact characters" have an ideology that conflicts with the main character. The story is divided and analyzed across four perspective "throughlines":

• Overall story
• View of the main character.
• View of the impact character.
• Relationship of main and impact characters.

Theory terminology has shifted gradually. Impact characters are still referred to as "obstacle characters" in some instances.