Have an account? Sign In Now
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
A young orphaned undercover detective on suspension learns from an FBI agent that his biological father's is their current target.
Why is the FBI hunting down his father? Is the father an innocent victim of a witch hunt or a perp who deserves to be brought to justice? Why does the son turn on the FBI to protect his father? Is there a moral dilemma in the story? Should there be one?
Why is the FBI hunting down his father? Is the father an innocent victim of a witch hunt or a perp who deserves to be brought to justice?
Why does the son turn on the FBI to protect his father? Is there a moral dilemma in the story? Should there be one?
See lessThree best friends return for their high school reunion intent on righting all the wrongs done to them in high school ? by either fucking, marrying, or killing their tormentors.
"fucking, marrying" -- out of spite, malice, vengeance may be a male fantasy, but it's a turnoff to at least 1/2 of the potential movie audience: women.
“fucking, marrying” — out of spite, malice, vengeance may be a male fantasy, but it’s a turnoff to at least 1/2 of the potential movie audience: women.
See lessWhen a lonely, middle-aged Aussie long-distance truckie finds love online with a city girl, he must overcome his fear of losing what he loves most to win her heart.
Louise Weihart: This discussion thread got me to wondering: In a script where the relationship/love-story is the "A" story (such as yours), is it always necessary to have a antagonist for the plot to work? Are there exceptions to the rule that every script must have a flesh and blood antagonist? TwoRead more
Louise Weihart:
This discussion thread got me to wondering: In a script where the relationship/love-story is the “A” story (such as yours), is it always necessary to have a antagonist for the plot to work? Are there exceptions to the rule that every script must have a flesh and blood antagonist?
Two possible exceptions came to mind: “When Harry Met Sally” and “Brokeback Mountain”. In both films, the relationship between the couple is not seriously threatened by a specific flesh and blood antagonist. But the couple in “When Harry Met Sally” are confronted by an important social/philosophical ‘antagonist’, and in “Brokeback Mountain” by a lethal cultural ‘antagonist’.
Early on in “When Harry Met Sally”, the couple have a heated argument over the question: Can men and women just be friends, real friends without sex coming into play and ruining the relationship? That becomes the social and philosophical ‘antagonist’ that raises the conflicts and complications that drive the plot.
In “Brokeback Mountain”, the ‘antagonist’ is the virulent homophobia of that era and place that raises the conflicts and complications that drive the plot.
So my tentative hypothetical is: if the story has no flesh and blood antagonist, then the two would-be lovers should be confronted by a formidable ‘antagonist’ in the form of some cultural bias or social or philosophical issue at stake. If not some person, than some external idea or value or tradition must stand between them and living happily ever after.
[But I would point out that in “Romeo & Juliet”, Shakespeare has antagonistic values (hate opposing love) and an antagonistic culture (a tradition of feuding families)– and a flesh and blood antagonist (Tybalt), the embodiment, the personification of the conflicting values and families. A three-fer.]
Can the ‘antagonist’ be entirely internal, psychological in a film? I’m not sure because film demands that conflict be visualized, which is to say, externalized; it’s got to be there on the screen for the audience to see. Can you think of a commerically or critically successful film that has pulled off that trick?
See less