Screenplay.com Forums

I'm just a little confused about the mechanism for the MC an IC Resolve. I understand that, at the very least, Resolve plays out at the character level. For example, in the Dramatica Dictionary definition of "Problem," it says that MC Resolve concerns whether or not, at the "leap of faith," the MC chooses to hold on to the Problem (corresponding to Steadfast), or switch it with the Solution (corresponding to Change). This is perhaps consistent with the Dramatica Dictionary definition of "Leap of Faith," which gives an example of a leap of faith where the MC "may determine that what it thought was the true source of the problem really is not." In that case, the MC may adopt the MC Solution, rather than directing her efforts towards the MC Response (which assumes that MC Symptom is the true problem).

However, does MC and IC Resolve play out at the thematic level as well? MC Resolve, according to the software documentation, refers to a potential fundamental change regarding an "issue close to [the MC's] heart," and IC Resolve refers to a possible fundamental change regarding "an issue strongly held by [the IC]." Are these "issues" actual thematic "Issues", so that the Resolve includes a debate that plays out on the thematic level. A fundamental change or steadfastness might, for example, be the MC Issue or the IC Issue. This seems to be consistent with the "Main vs. Impact Story Character" report, which focuses only on the arguments between the MC and IC on the thematic level. Does MC and IC Resolve in

Another issue that has confused me: the entry in the Dramatica Dictionary for "Crucial Element" states that "the Main Character's decision regarding the Crucial Element ultimately leads to an Outcome of Success or Failure and a Judgment of Good or Bad." Maybe I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but this seems to imply that the MC and IC Resolve include a choice between the MC Crucial Element or the IC Crucial Element. In other words, an MC Change character may choose to adopt the IC Crucial Element. Or maybe this "choice" regarding the MC Crucial element has nothing to do with MC Resolve. Some insight on the precise mechanism of MC and IC Resolve would be appreciated.

The short answer to the MC and IC Resolve question is, "A Change character abandons the problem and adopts the solution." The second part of your question doesn't have a short answer.

THE LONG ANSWERS

Yes, a change character adopts the solution element. However, the change character also often adopts the domain of the steadfast character. In other words, a do-er often becomes a be-er, and vice versa. What happens at the plot (Type) and theme (Variation) levels is undetermined at this point. Partly because the inequity may be resolved and therefore all tension related to that item is diminished. It's a good question and I'll give it some thought. If I come up with anything, I'll post it here.

As far a the crucial elements go, never think about what the character might do, or could do, or should do. The storyform only indicates what happens. This is true of ALL story points, not just the crucial elements.

So when the Dramatica materials say that the crucial elements lead to something, it indicates what happens, not why it happens or what the connections are, kind of like saying pregnancy leads to birth. They are two points in a complex process, and one should not make assumptions about why or how that connection exists to other aspects of the process. Crucial elements are not more crucial than many other aspects of the storyform. They just represent one of the connections between the throughlines at the element level.

Thanks. Is this new theory? I don't remember reading anything about the Change character jumping to the Steadfast character's Domain. But it makes a lot of sense to me that a Do-er might, for dramatic impact, become a Be-er or vice versa. Maybe this is what happened in A Clockwork Orange. At the beginning of the move, Alex is clearly a Do-er, but after his arrest at the end of the first act, his approach seems to change, and he seems much more like a Be-er. For example, he becomes a model prisoner and a model scientific subject, he tries to become the poster-boy for the Opposition, and then at the end he becomes the poster-boy for the government. Or maybe this flip is just a "flaw" in the story.