Popularity: 49%

The Central Question

central-question

More questions… But to be precise, THE CENTRAL QUESTION. Also sometimes referred to as THE CENTRAL DRAMATIC QUESTION.

Hey Obi-Wan…

When you get settled down and whatnot, got coffee and feel like it, would you mind a few more elaborating words on THE CENTRAL QUESTION… either email or on the dear old blog - I was surfing through there, but maybe I missed it… but it’d be cool to hear anything more you have to say on it…

I’m probably overcomplicating it in my head, I’m sure… When I break it down, I see it as basically related to the call to action… once the hero accepts the call, the question is will he / she succeed at whatever the call requires… will Frodo return the ring to the pit, will Marlin find Nemo, will Angelina take her shirt off (oops, different question, perhaps more central to my viewing habits than it is to any movie story she participates in)… etc.

Just curious, what would you see as the central question of TRAINING DAY, is it, will the rookie survive training day?

Anyways, no rush, boss… just muse when it hits you.

Joshua James

The Central Question is like a lot of screenwriting elements… We can make it as complicated as we want.

Or not.

The first thing we should probably get out of the way is that normally, the central question poses itself somewhere in the first Act. Does it have to be in the first act? Nope… But if yours isn’t in the first Act of your screenplay, you better keep me glued to my seat with something while you make me wait for it to reveal itself. And that something needs to be related to the story to keep me glued. Don’t just toss some spaghetti up against the wall to keep me interested UNLESS it really has something to do with the story.

I’ve seen the central question CREATED in a myriad of ways in even more than a myriad amount of movies. In stories and movies where ye old Protagonist doesn’t really have a character arc — rather — they are used as elements of change i.e., they don’t really change or arc themselves but they try to change something major that’s happening in the story — usually something being done by the antagonist or antagonistic forces. In a lot of these kinds of stories and movies, the central question is pretty simple. Will the protagonist defeat the antagonist and bring about the necessary change to set the world back in balance? Not in balance like it was before but just a little better than it was before that nasty old antagonist was working his or her plan.

In most of these kinds of stories and films, the central question evolves from the inciting incident and once the inciting incident occurs, hopefully both the reader of the screenplay and the audience of the story is immediately asking themselves a couple of questions:

1) What does the protagonist want?
2) What or who is gonna try and stop him or her from getting what he or she wants?

Together, these two questions normally infer the story’s premise and once a reader or audience member’s gotta decent understanding of a story or movie’s premise — once again, the subconscious kicks into high-gear makes the central question clear:

Will the protagonist stop the antagonist?

In stories and movies where the protagonist definitely transforms, the central question can be a little trickier… Some stories and movies like to use the inciting incident to thrust the protagonist on his or her journey and this almost always brings up the central question of:

Will the protagonist resolve whatever the inciting incident disrupted in his or her ordinary world? Of course this isn’t REALLY the central question is it?

Nope.

Because the protagonist will journey away from his or her ordinary world — pick up knowledge along the way — maybe even a friend or two that depart some of their knowledge — this begins the element of change within the protagonist.

They’re absorbing all this new knowledge and very much like a caterpiller in a cocoon undergoing physical change to emerge as a beautiful butterfly, the protagonist discovers his or her TRUE GOAL. The want or desire that evolved from the inciting incident is no longer the real central question. Now the central question is will the protagonist now become the beautiful butterfly? And in becoming so, will he or she ALSO defeat the antagonist or the antagonistic forces in play?

Maybe — maybe not.

Another way to present the central question is simply by creating the quintessential character… Remember, we’re not talking about the best of the best. Not the best cop. Not the best private investigator. Not the best attorney. We’re talking QUINTESSENTIAL. The very best representation of that KIND OF CHARACTER.

If it’s a cop on the take, make the cop the quintessential cop on the take.

If it’s an attorney who only defends scumbags, make the attorney the quintessential attorney who only defends scumbags.

By creating a quintessential character — we — meaning we who will read your screenplay and or hopefully watch your movie, will automatically ask ourselves if this quintessential character is going to REMAIN the same. If you go DEEP ENOUGH with your character, thereby making him or her quintessential, we will almost always subconsciously ask ourselves these two questions:

1) How did this character come to be this way?
2) Will this character stay this way?

Whereas the first question is simply a question that we will wonder about but the second question can easily become the new central question of this story i.e., depth-charging your characters now assists in creating the central question of your story.

A lot of stories and movies try to make THEME the central question of the story. Nothing wrong with that at all especially if your theme explores one or more of life’s many unanswered questions.

The problem?

Making the central question important enough, dramatic enough, compelling enough to hold our interest through to the end and to ME, that’s the hardest part of getting the central question RIGHT.

Now let’s DISCUSS…

Unk

Sunday: 20 July 2008|1452|Under Questions

Print This Post

Comments

60 Responses to “The Central Question”

Joshua James on Sunday: 20 July 2008|1509

Like I wondered to you earlier, it seems that a protag may have a central question that’s there own, linked but different from the CQ of the overall story . . .

Oh yeah, FIRST!
Unk on Sunday: 20 July 2008|1513

Josh,

To specifically answer your original question, it’s definitely related to the CALL TO ACTION but it can be tricky for newer screenwriters to nail down and often, it can change by the completion of the last draft.

And I just noticed that I was able to write a complete post without one fucking cuss word.

I must be getting old.

Unk
Joshua James on Sunday: 20 July 2008|1527

Certainly a classic like DIE HARD, the central question is pretty up front . . . Will John stop the terrorists . . .

It’s when we get to different genres, etc, where it becomes more complex that that for me (for example, our fave BRUBAKER is essentially, will he reform the prison . . . but he actually doesn’t, when you think about it . . . the actual question is will he EXPOSE the conditions, etc, something like that) . . . plus, let’s face it, when don’t even know he’s anything other than a prisoner for the first 30 minutes.

God, I love that movie.

That and THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR, a great flick (and again, more complex with regard to the CQ, I think) and NORTH BY NORTHWEST (which is, will Cary clear his name and get the girl).

Anyway, I’m just ranting away. I’m supposed to curb my cursing now that little ears be listening.
Unk on Sunday: 20 July 2008|1533

Josh,

Just don’t let the little guy SEE you typing out those curse words. LOL.

But yeah… Basically, most action movies pose the CQ quite simply as you pointed out.

Both BRUBAKER and THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR handled it brilliantly and kept us on the edge of our seats with RELATED story elements while they pleasantly TORTURED us and made us wait for the central question.

Unk
Joshua James on Sunday: 20 July 2008|1540

BING!

That last thing you said, that last paragraph, that just rang my fucking bell - that’s it!

Awesome.

Thanks man.
Unk on Sunday: 20 July 2008|1550

That’ll be $350K… LOL.

On second thought… Make that 2 beers.

Unk
Mike on Sunday: 20 July 2008|1604

Unk,
Sooooooooooooo…. the protagonist’s external problem — created by the Inciting Incident — is not the real Central Question, but the catalyst. The protagonist’s internal problem – The Flaw – his/her potential character arc – now becomes the Central Question: will the protagonist overcome his/her flaw in time to defeat the antagonist/save themselves/loved ones/the world, etc.?
Joshua James on Sunday: 20 July 2008|1608

Two beers, domestic. On tap. With a sixer to go. You got it.
Unk on Sunday: 20 July 2008|1620

Mike,

Exactly! Assuming one is writing their screenplay with that mindset.

Unk
Karel on Sunday: 20 July 2008|1708

Hey UNK, thanks for keeping the bar open (not members-only!).

You say “the central question poses itself somewhere in the first Act. Does it have to be in the first act? Nope…”.

If the CQ is really what drives the story, isn’t this really what defines the end of Act One??

I’m confused here.
Unk on Sunday: 20 July 2008|1732

Karel,

Normally yes… But it doesn’t have to be. The central question can evolve into something even bigger than what we first thought it might be. Am I saying to write it this way?

Nope.

All I’m saying is that it can be done either way but if one chooses to have it evolve into something different somewhere down the line, you really gotta know what you’re doing.

Having said that…

In a sense you are still correct because even the tip of the iceberg glimpse of the central question is still PROBABLY (and HOPEFULLY) going to be the tip of the iceberg — i.e., it’s still related to the now evolved bigger/different central question than what the tip of the iceberg first revealed to us.

They just need that connection… A relationship that still allows US to follow along and not get lost.

In other words, if you show us that tip of the iceberg and then later pull the rug out from under us and show us something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, they still need some kind of connection or you will definitely lose us.

Seen it happen MORE THAN ONCE… LOL.

Unk
emily blake on Sunday: 20 July 2008|2243

I think this is one of the most common problems with weak screenplays. I’ve given notes for more than one friend who writes a script where the character coasts from one event to the next without any forward momentum.

If you don’t know what the central question is, you don’t have a very good screenplay.
James on Monday: 21 July 2008|0040

“Making the central question important enough, dramatic enough, compelling enough to hold our interest through to the end and to ME, that’s the hardest part of getting the central question RIGHT.”

I think this is a little misleading, Unk.

It makes it sound like the question is what controls the viewer’s interest. When it is really the characters and their needs that determines the question.

The trick is to make the audience care about the characters, so that whatever that central question is, we have some vested interest in the success of the protagonist.

To illustrate the difference:

Yes, I do think the central question of TRAINING DAY is — Will this rookie survive training day?

The First Act sets up how different a world this rookie is stepping into. And it puts him off-balance. Playing off the inciting incident, like you pointed out.

He wants to be a good cop, do his civic duty. But Denzel provides a perfect counter-point. An undercover Narc who breaks all the rules. Once we meet him, don’t we ask ourselves “How the hell is Ethan Hawke going to get through this day?”

I bring this up, mainly, because I don’t think the question itself needs to be something everyone agrees is massively huge or important. In fact, I think that is a big mistake I often see in screenplays — putting in a larger plot driven goal, that while, yes, the world exploding is bad, seems superfluous for this character. It just needs to be something that is important to the main character(s).

HAROLD AND KUMAR GO TO WHITE CASTLE — the question is — Will these stoners get their burgers?

The setup and journey of the story made it very important that they succeed. And I’d even argue that the trivial nature of their goal, actually helped the viewer in wanting them to succeed.

Isn’t the central question in TRUE LIES — How can Harry Tasker balance his family life with his spy life? And not “Will Harry defeat the terrorists in a very exciting James Cameron explosive fashion?” (The latter is really the promise of the trailer and the genre. A hook. But the first is the heart of that story).

All I am saying, is that the central question doesn’t have to be large in scale or scope — in onscreen movie terms.

It does, however, need to be the one thing most important to the character.
James on Monday: 21 July 2008|0057

“Certainly a classic like DIE HARD, the central question is pretty up front . . . Will John stop the terrorists . . .”

Josh — Gotta disagree with you on this one.

The central question really is “Will John reunite with his wife?”

The terrorists are just plot device (fucking awesome plot device). But they are merely obstacle preventing John from getting what he wants.

Let me pose this question: If John got to Holly and they could escape completely unnoticed… don’t you think they would?
Mike on Monday: 21 July 2008|0254

James,

You stated: ‘…the central question doesn’t have to be large in scale or scope — in onscreen movie terms.

It does, however, need to be the one thing most important to the character.’

I believe overcoming his/her character flaw IS the one thing most important to the character — whether he/she realizes it or not. And the one thing that will/should keep the audience glued to their seats is: will the hero realize this in time?

Is the Central Question of Training Day ‘Will this rookie survive training day?’ Or, is it will Ethan Hawk’s character overcome his naiveté/hero worship in time to become the cop he thinks he can be?

As for TRUE LIES: ‘How can Harry Tasker balance his family life with his spy life?’ Not so sure this is really Harry’s movie. I think it’s Jamie Lee Curtis’ movie. She makes a transformation from frumpy housewife/office worker – what did she do, anyway? – to international spy. Harry doesn’t change at all. His only purpose is to provide the action, to keep the audience occupied while Jamie Lee ‘finds herself.

One man’s opinion – and we all know what opinions are like….

Keep Writing.
Mike
Susan P. on Monday: 21 July 2008|0730

I admit I haven’t read Unk’s response to the catalyst email because I’d like to throw my card down first.

The Central Question to me is ‘what-it’is’ that the audience connects to that leads them to have some ‘thing’ about life answered for them; or, if not answered, all least turned about like a rubik’s cube - illuminated.
Unk on Monday: 21 July 2008|1015

emily,

Agreed.

James,

When I write a post, you or any reader should read it within the context and confines of the post itself. We’re talking about the central question — that’s all.

Anyone who visits the site and reads my diatribe should, I think, be able to figure out that each post is not written as if its subject matter is the most important aspect of writing a screenplay.

We’re just talking about the central question and its ramifications on the overall story and getting a reader and hopefully, an audience interested ENOUGH to lean forward and invest in the rest of the story.

Trust me when I tell you that if you get the central question wrong, we’re just not gonna give a shit. We’re done. Even IF we sit there and watch or read the rest of the story, we’re gonna fall asleep or worse yet, walk away after the experience and NOT recommend the screenplay or film to anyone.

By making the central question important enough, dramatic enough, compelling enough — we succeed in getting past a gatekeeper or three. Never once did I say it was the most important part of the story… LOL.

Of COURSE the characters are the most important part. Always have been — always will be.

I would also take the DIE HARD analogy just a little further i.e., all the questions that this film brings up in my mind which is something we should also be discussing…

It’s okay to have MORE than one central question come up but what’s even better (just my opinion), is to have the central question appeal to as many demographics as possible — just like DIE HARD succeeded in doing…

The overall questions that DIE HARD brought to my mind are as follows:

1) Will John and Holly work out their problems and get back together?

2) Can two serious career people ever really keep a solid relationship going?

3) Will John defeat the terrorist thieves and save Holly?

4) Will John acknowledge Holly’s career is just as legitimate and important as his own?

I could probably go on for a couple of more questions but hopefully, you get the point… The central question of DIE HARD is different to different people and we are never going to get 100% agreement all the way across the board and in my humble opinion, THIS IS A GOOD THING!

Why?

Because a story or movie that cause many different people to subconsciously ask one or all of the above kinds of questions is a story or movie that is going to appeal to a large demographic.

I was in my 20s when DIE HARD came out and I guarantee that the central question I might have had way back then is now different than I might have now but they are still RELATED. They share the same DNA.

And THIS… This fact very much helps a reader or audience member invest in the rest of the story.

In other words and ideally speaking, we want our story and movie to be able to have anyone and everyone be able to come up with their own central question as to what the STORY is about.

The very real possibility exists that all of us within this comment thread are going to see the central question differently from one another but as long as those different questions are still part of the WHOLE — investment into the story (assuming the rest of the story is good) is a very good bet.

Mike,

I agree…

If we’re writing a character with flaws that keep him or her from achieving his or her goal(s) and cause US, the reader and or the audience to subconsciously ask ourselves if this idiot is ever going to wake up and smell the coffee so he can get on with his or her life (achieve goals), we most likely want this character to transform in some way so by the end of the story he or she is definitely smelling the coffee now.

You also commented:

Is the Central Question of Training Day ‘Will this rookie survive training day?’ Or, is it will Ethan Hawk’s character overcome his naiveté/hero worship in time to become the cop he thinks he can be?

OUTSTANDING! This is EXACTLY what I am talking about with DIE HARD. It’s different to you — different from James — YET NO LESS VALID and they share a lot of the same DNA i.e., they are related.

I think we’re finally getting somewhere… LOL. I wanted this aspect to be brought out in discussion instead of me just ranting about it.

Excellent comments.

Susan,

You’re NAILING it. It’s that SOMEthing that any of us are naturally going to wonder as we read and or watch the screenplay or movie unfold and can easily be different for any of us but yet still related.

I’m LOVING this… You people are GOOD!

Thanks for that!

Unk
Christian Howell on Monday: 21 July 2008|1038

Hmmm, what is the central question? Good question. Off the top of my head, I’d say it’s will the hero understand and overcome their “flaw” (I hate that word) to become the person they see themselves being.

I hate the word flaw because one man’s flaw is another man’s strength. Ex: a cop who tries to talk to criminals will have a different experience than one who is quick to shoot when confronting say The Joker or on the other side Andy Fiddler (The Man w\Sam L.).

It all comes down to situations as characters are only their choices.

I also believe in the quintessential character. That is the best way to develop drama: have the worst rapist come across the most devout virgin; or the dirtiest cop come across the “straightest” DA. The quintessential character makes scene construction much easier as extremes are the easiest thing to represent visually.

Anyway, I’m rambling.
Joshua James on Monday: 21 July 2008|1139

The brings up the difficulty I run into, from time to time, dealing with people who want a RAMBO type of CQ for a BRUBAKER type of movie . . . a square peg in a round hole, so to speak.

As I mentioned before, FINDING NEMO has a great CQ, which is will Marlin find Nemo. There are individual character CQ’s within, but the whole thrust of the movie is that, finding Nemo.

I just was RATETOOIE (I know, I can never spell that frigging thing) by the excellent Brad Bird . . . it’s theme, stated by the deceased famous chef, was: “Anyone can cook!” . . . which becomes the CQ when one of those “anyones” is a RAT.

If you happen to be a Rat with a nose for gourmet, it is true that ANYONE CAN COOK?

Which becomes the thrust of the movie. Right on that.

Contrast that with Bird’s even better THE INCREDIBLES . . . what’s the CQ?

I think it evolves, like other complex movies (the aforementioned Brubaker and Three Days of hte Condor) - the DNA comes down to a hero’s place in the world and family, doing good, etc . . . but we don’t even know that Syndrome is killing Supers until halfway through . . . we’re not even sure of the antag until then . . . it’s more about family and work life and fitting in when you’re different . . .

It’s a complex, twisting CQ that ends when he tells his family “your my greatest adventure” and they all accept who they are and work together.

ANYONE CAN COOK type of CQ would not work for THE INCREDIBLES . . . and vice-versa . . .

That’s the hard twisty part of this fun life of a scribe . . . heheheheheheh.

ps
Unk, the structure of THE INCREDIBLES is pretty fantastic, I think it’s SEVEN acts or so . . .
Christian Howell on Monday: 21 July 2008|1233

[i]In other words and ideally speaking, we want our story and movie to be able to have anyone and everyone be able to come up with their own central question as to what the STORY is about.[/i]

My feeling exactly. In my first completed script I set out to make the movie mean different things to different people while staying grounded in the personality and actions of the protag.
I had five people read it and they had five different opinions. I always say that’s the best way to attract large audiences; be slightly ambiguous, don’t tell the audience what to think; let them come to their own conclusions.

I mean, if you were looking for a “meaty” movie, would you want the one where people are arguing their opinions or just remembering what they were told?

It all gets back to Atonement; two people can see the same thing and have two different conclusions (or one person can just see what their perception allows). I’m actually starting a slasher movie based on that premise.
Jeff on Monday: 21 July 2008|1349

I love this question.

My newbie perspective is that it’s the simple question of Will the protag succeed at “blank” ?

And this question may get answered and replaced by a new question. (thoughts on this anybody ?)

It’s the overriding question that keeps us interested and wondering what happens next.

I don’t believe it has to do with character flaws; although that may introduce (hopefully) complications.

Will Ted succeed in love with Mary ? That’s what were wondering once Mary appears and Ted gushes in V.O. Simple question that doesn’t get answered until the very end.

In Superbad will the guys impress and hook up with their dream girls by bringing booze to the party.

Will the 40 year old virgin get laid ? And later, will he find love with Trish ?

Will Neo succeed in finding out who is watching him ? Will he defeat the Matrix ?

Will Juno get through her teenage pregnancy ?

That’s how I see it. Usually a simple question that leads to tangents and complications to keep us hooked.
James on Monday: 21 July 2008|1430

Unk,

Yeah, I figured that from the context of your post. It was also strange writing my response, because I was in agreement with what you had to say. I just wanted to clarify a point I saw as a little muddy. And you further elaborated, to make it clearer.

I also completely agree that you need to have the right question for the story.

And likewise, I also agree that there are many different ways to verbalize the same question.

In essence –

“1) Will John and Holly work out their problems and get back together?

2) Can two serious career people ever really keep a solid relationship going?

3) Will John defeat the terrorist thieves and save Holly?

4) Will John acknowledge Holly’s career is just as legitimate and important as his own?”

– are all the same question. And yet they reflect different parts of the plot.

I think that just illustrates how the central question needs to be present in every scene (Not dwelled upon, but present). And in Die Hard, it clearly is.

Mike —

I have to disagree. I think you would have a much different movie if Harry wasn’t the main character. For instance, if Harry wasn’t a spy, wouldn’t that dramatically change the movie? It would also change Helen’s arc.

I do, however, agree that Helen arcs. But some protagonists don’t arc. They tend to be catalysts for other characters to arc. I think that is the case here.

Not to mention, it is a GOOD thing Helen is such a strong, interesting character. It makes it more difficult for Harry to balance work with home life.

And that balance is central to TRUE LIES.

Also, you wouldn’t really have a cohesive Third Act. Act Two ends with Harry and Helen kissing in front of a mushroom cloud. Almost immediately Tom Arnold tells Harry, “They got Dana.”

Relationship fixed with the wife. Check.

Now to save the daughter and complete the family.

Helen isn’t even really present in Act Three.
emily blake on Monday: 21 July 2008|1432

One of my lessons about plot is to ask that central question. I use Romeo and Juliet as an example. The central question in that story is Will Romeo and Juliet end up together? The answer, of course -

SPOILER WARNING you illiterate fucks -

is NO, and the moment at which you know the answer is the climax of the story. Climax is REALLY hard to teach because it can be subjective, but that’s how I define it. The moment you know the answer to the question - that’s the moment when everything starts heading to the end.
Unk on Monday: 21 July 2008|1445

emily,

Christ… I just blew Pepsi out of my nose. Now I’m all sticky.

Unk
Mike on Monday: 21 July 2008|1558

Jeff,

I don’t believe it has to do with character flaws; although that may introduce (hopefully) complications.
Hmmmmm. I respectfully disagree. Let’s examine a few of your examples….

Will Ted succeed in love with Mary ? That’s what were wondering once Mary appears and Ted gushes in V.O. Simple question that doesn’t get answered until the very end.
What keeps Ted from winning Mary’s heart? There’s something about Ted (pardon the pun) that keeps him from Mary and until he overcomes that ‘flaw’ he will NOT succeed.

In Superbad will the guys impress and hook up with their dream girls by bringing booze to the party.
Haven’t seen this movie, but based on past Apatow flicks I can almost bet the farm that booze won’t win them their dream girls, but by ‘growing up’ a bit and treating women as something other than a sex object – – immaturity being the flaw — will.

Will the 40 year old virgin get laid ? And later, will he find love with Trish ?
I think the more interesting question – and the reason we find the character so interesting – is WHY is a 40 year-old man still a virgin? And until he resolves his inner conflict – his flaw – he ain’t getting any.

Will Neo succeed in finding out who is watching him ? Will he defeat the Matrix ?
Okay, I’m embarrassed to admit this, but ….. haven’t see this one either (color me red – but too CGI for me). However, I do know enough about the story to know the real question is NOT will Neo defeat the Matrix? The real story question is will Neo BELIEVE in himself –the inner conflict – the flaw — soon enough to defeat the Matrix?

Like I mentioned to James… opinions are like a**holes…. everyone has one. These are mine.

Keep Writing,
Mike
Mike on Monday: 21 July 2008|1619

James,

I don’t know… maybe you’re right. Or…..

I reread the True Lies script (well, perused might be more honest) and the action that takes place while Harry rescues Dana only covers seven (7) of the last ten (10) pages. Waaaaaaaaaay too short for an Act IV. The whole Harry/Dana thing strikes me more like a loose end — a Coda of sorts.

Anyway, maybe we’re both right…. or not ;-)

Keep Writing,
Mike
Mike on Monday: 21 July 2008|1709

Jeff,

•I don’t believe it has to do with character flaws; although that may introduce (hopefully) complications.
Okay, Jeff, let’s test your hypothesis:

•Will Ted succeed in love with Mary ? That’s what were wondering once Mary appears and Ted gushes in V.O. Simple question that doesn’t get answered until the very end.
Why hasn’t Ted succeeded in love with Mary up to this point? What’s stopping him? Could it be a flaw that Ted must overcome in order to win Mary’s love? Is there, something about Ted (sorry) that has to change before he wins Mary’s heart?

•In Superbad will the guys impress and hook up with their dream girls by bringing booze to the party.
Haven’t seen this movie, but knowing Jud Apatow movies I’m sure beer isn’t what is keeping the guys from hooking up with their dream girls. The guys must learn to grow up – immaturity being the flaw – before ANY dream girl will give them a second look.

•Will the 40 year old virgin get laid ? And later, will he find love with Trish ?
Who cares? What the audience wants to know is WHY is this guy still a virgin at 40? What inner conflict must Andy overcome in order to get laid/find love?

•Will Neo succeed in finding out who is watching him ? Will he defeat the Matrix ?
Okay, yet another flick I haven’t seen — all that CGI crap turns me off – anyway, the real question is Will Neo learn to believe in himself in time to defeat the Matrix?

•That’s how I see it. Usually a simple question that leads to tangents and complications to keep us hooked.

You’re correct – usually a simple question leads to tangents and complications that keep us hooked —- will the hero discover/overcome his/her character flaw. That’s the simple question.

Keep Writing,
Mike
Mark on Monday: 21 July 2008|1748

James,

Gotta disagree with you on the DIE HARD thing. Holly is pretty much a stakes character. I definitely think the CDQ is whether or not Bruce Willis can thwart the terrorists.

Sometimes though, as UNK said, you can have a few things going on. Usually these have to do with outer motivation and inner motivation, or whatever you wanna call it. If you have multiple protagonists, they might each have their own central dramatic question, or they might all be tied to the same CDQ.

I’m working on a script right now where, like UNK said, the entire thing goes up a notch. The inciting incident leads to one thing, then at what you might call the pinch (but for this script its past halfway) the larger picture is revealed. Surprisingly enough, I had already planned the script this way before I read Mckee’s STORY…he would call this taking the antagonism to the end of the line.

And yes, the two need to be connected or the inconsistency will break down the film. If you want to do it this way, it’s not a bad idea to weave a plot for the first half to 2/3 of your movie that helps us get to know the characters, defines them, could be a lesser film on its own, but then you pull back a much deeper layer that really defines the film and makes it all the more special.
Mark on Monday: 21 July 2008|1805

Emily,

Pretty good post on climax, but it doesn’t have to be a moment or a single scene even. Many great films have a series climax or a climax that takes up an entire act, using whatever structure it is they are using.

For me, climax is, naturally, release. But I, personally, like to always look at plot points as two-parts. For the climax, its two parts are the point where the protagonistic and antagonistic forces come to final confrontation, and then when that final confrontation decisively ends. Ideally, the story should progress to the point where there is no other alternative anymore but for this confrontation to take place. Earlier, other choices were made, in fact usually the protagonist takes the smallest leap he or she has to in order to resolve conflict, none of which with a final result. That leads to the climax. Here, there is no running away. There is no more growing. This is it. The tension in the film has built up to the breaking point, and then the other side of the climax presents itself–release. The tension gives way into resolution.
jeff on Monday: 21 July 2008|1904

Mike,

Thanks for the reply. I’m not quite sure I agree with you. Your responses are examples of the protag dealing with inner conflict/goals and possibly even to Theme.

I see the central dramatic question as more of the prime mover that allows the character to discover and overcome the inner conflict. Put another way the central question is more of an outer goal; generally a simple question posed at the beginning that draws the audience in.

Questions of inner conflict aren’t always present at the beginning and it’s the central question that holds our interest until the character stuff comes out.

Thanks again, I’ll mull it over some more.

Jeff
Susan P. on Tuesday: 22 July 2008|0613

jeff, you said:

“I see the central dramatic question as more of the prime mover that allows the character to discover and overcome the inner conflict.”

Could it be that the question is actually related to the inner issue (which is related to wound) BUT that the audience has to see the external manifestation?

For example, a character hates being alone and works desperately to never be alone. However, are they prepared to place themselves in an opposite scenario FOR a greater good (which relates to fulfilling their own essence)? How big must the call BE for that individual to pull them out of comfort zone?

As I write that I guess that’s an essence question for many films:

How big or significant must the call be for the protagonist to pull out of their comfort zone?

or, perhaps more accurately:

What needs to happen to catalyse the protagonist’s willingness to move from their habitual place, into discomfort, in order to fulfil their essence?

And this circles back to my earlier post about audience connecting to life questions/issues - because that’s what (to me) it all boils down to.
Would *I* do the same? Would that have been enough for me to have pulled out of MY own issues? What would *I* need to do so?
Justin on Tuesday: 22 July 2008|0640

“…will the protagonist overcome his/her flaw in time to defeat the antagonist/save themselves/loved ones/the world, etc.?” (Mike,2009)

Just saying that to myself sounds cool. :)

OK IF YOU GET THE CENTRAL QUESTION THIS MIGHT CONFUSE YOU IGNORE IT!

BUT… heres a little thought that occured to me.

How about in a movie like Kill Bill… will the
central question always be:

“will the bride kill bill?”

Then I thought about it for a minute… The film is episodic, would it be fair to say there’s a central question in each episode?

EG: ORIGIN OF O-REN

Is there a central question as to “how oren became oren?” is it her own movie at that point? With her own mini-central question?

Or would you just consider these orgin stories and subplots in the episodes, simply buildign towards THE central question?

- I’m kind of pushing it here, but it was just an intresting little thought I had re-watching it last night.

Thoughts?
Susan P. on Tuesday: 22 July 2008|0729

Hah..Mike..forgive for my duplication. I don’t have time to read all the comments.

Justin..episodes or really well crafted sequences?

Notwithstanding which term, each sequence is a story unto itself therefore one assumes a question is inherent. This said, I suspect the craft is to not allow the central thread ‘question’ disappear or be subsumed because of the sequence questions; or, the latter should all ‘inform’ the core issue. It IS an intriguing question indeed. :)
Justin on Tuesday: 22 July 2008|0931

Some quick edits, and clarification.

(Mike,2009) clearly (Mike, 2008)… unless of course he’s James Cameron, and owns a time machine.

And Susan,

I only choose episodic because it feels like a serial to me.

You can watch Kill Bill in episodes, and it still works. In other words: every month a new chapter’s released and you’d go see it.

In fact, it almost becomes a whole differnt experience that way… try it.

For me a sequence has always been used to describe the long set pieces De Palma or hitchcock.

For example:

In Marnie, where Tipi Hedron’s robbing the vault at Ruthlands. I call that the ‘vault robbery sequence’. Or de palmas split screen car bomb sequence in Phantom of the Paradise. Just to name a few.

I think what I’m getting at is:

Sequences are self contained units of action; not story. Least that’s the way I see it. But I’m turning this into semantics again, which wasnt my intention.

Bottom line ::

whats up with the central question in relation to Kill Bill?

This is my central question… Wow, i cant believe i went for that line. lol.
Mike on Tuesday: 22 July 2008|1139

Justin,

If I remember correctly — and I’m not having yet another senior moment — Hitchcock purposefully filmed/told his story in 10 minute sequences — 10 minutes equals a reel of film — shoot nine (9) 10 minute sequences (reels) and you had your movie.

If Hitchcock had digital cameras I wonder what he would have done? Although, digital or no, I still write in sequences. It makes keeping track of the story all that much easier.

Keep Writing,
Mike
James on Tuesday: 22 July 2008|1236

“Climax is REALLY hard to teach because it can be subjective,”

Anyone else find that kind of hot coming from a female?

I R a perv.
James on Tuesday: 22 July 2008|1301

Mark — “Holly is pretty much a stakes character.”

What is at stake for the main character IS the central question.

Look at one of Unk’s DIE HARD central questions:

“3) Will John defeat the terrorist thieves and save Holly?”

It includes both elements.

I know it gets a little tricky. Because ultimately a movie like DIE HARD (and TRUE LIES) we are asking ourselves questions about how the plot will be resolved, and really want to see the heroes kick the tar out of the terrorists.

The emotional heart of these movies lie not in the resolution of the terrorist plot, but in the resolution of the relationship between the characters.

Notice, DIE HARD has about 23 minutes BEFORE we even see the terrorists.

That’s longer than it takes the SIX characters in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE to decide to hit the road for California — and that’s not an ACTION movie.

What is the dramatic tension holding together those 23 minutes?

It is the relationship. And ultimately, that is what the movie is about.

Don’t get me wrong — I think we all WANT to see Bruce Willis/John McClane kick the crap out of the terrorists — and I think we can all agree the movie would be weaker if he simply ran away with Holly instead of having to fight them –

– but the story is constructed in a manner that the ONLY way for John to save his wife, is to also off the terrorists.

I’m not discounting the terrorist plot by any means. This is really more a chicken versus the egg argument. And it is my opinion that the emotional core — the stakes — what is important to the character dictates plot and not vice versa.

To put it this way — We enter the movie seeing a character trying to reunite with his wife.

The opening scene aboard the airplane presents the question, “Will he reunite with his wife?”

The scenes that follow elaborate on the details of this question. “What will it take to reunite with his wife?” The following scene in the limo sets up the distance, that they’ve been separated, and John’s commitment to his job.

Then — Holy crap, she is using her maiden name on this computer dealy, this guy is F#$%ed. “Does she even want to reunite with him?”

And when the terrorists show up — “Like it wasn’t hard enough for him to reunite with his wife, now he has to defeat terrorists to do so? You gotta be kidding me?!”

There are also some nice pay-offs — like the fact that she was using her maiden name actually helps to save her life. It also helps create a lot of tension in the scene with Ellis “What have you told them, Ellis?” The subtext is, do they know who my wife is?

Hell, even the famous, Yippee Kai-Yae Mofo line stems from the fact that John can’t use his real name and instead dons a cowboy pseudonym.

The story is really bent around trying to preserve this failing marriage. The terrorists are just very elaborate plot device to make it much more difficult for John and Holly to simply reunite.

The payoff for the genre though, is definitely, let’s blow shit up and kill terrorists, as it is in TRUE LIES, as well.
James on Tuesday: 22 July 2008|1326

Mike — Back to TRUE LIES

In page count it is a short Act. And I call it Act 3, not Act 4, but whatever. You are probably counting what I think is the midpoint, as an Act break. It doesn’t really matter what you call them.

I agree that the main thrust of the story is about Helen. That doesn’t make her the main character.

Look at BACK TO THE FUTURE.

You can’t find a movie with a more clear cut 3 Act structure. Act 1 and 3 are in the present. Act 2 is in the past. (I’ll give you some overlap at the very end of Act 2 — as the Act really ends when his parents reunite. Then it becomes “Getting back home.”)

The entire premise of the movie is about a kid who goes back in time and potentially writes himself out of existence. That’s Act Two — in its entirety.

There is also no question MARTY MCFLY is the main character.

But his character really doesn’t arc. The emotional journey is his father’s. Marty is the catalyst for that change.

You wouldn’t call GEORGE MCFLY the main character of the movie, would you? It is very similar in structure to TRUE LIES, in that the premise, and hook of both movies really are Act Two in its entirety.

What makes TRUE LIES interesting is Helen’s journey. What makes BACK TO THE FUTURE interesting is his father (and also his mother’s) change.

But it doesn’t make these secondary characters the “main” character.
Justin on Tuesday: 22 July 2008|1518

yup, you’re right I’m wrong… sort of.

“In film, a sequence is a series of scenes which form a distinct narrative unit, usually connected either by unity of location or unity of time. For example a heist film might include an extended recruitment sequence in which the leader of the gang collects together the conspirators, a robbery sequence, an escape sequence, and so on. Each of these sequences might further contain sub-sequences; for example the robbery sequence might consist of an entry sequence, a safe-cracking sequence, and so on.” -wikipedia LOL.

Actually, I’m not exactly wrong, I’m just not right either. lol. I was thinking of ’sub-sequences’. Which people sometimes refer to as ’sequences’ too.

And yes Mike, Hitchcock is one of my all time faves.

I still think their episodes in kill bill! LOL.
Justin on Tuesday: 22 July 2008|1519

“An episode is a part of a dramatic work such as a serial television or radio program. An episode is a part of a sequence of a body of work, akin to a chapter of a book.” -wikipedia

fuck that is one cool site!
Mike on Tuesday: 22 July 2008|1559

James,

Now, I know I’m stepping on Unk’s turf here, but structure is a hot button for me. Yes! Yes! Yes!

FOUR ACTS!

Here’s how it works:

Act I – The Orphan/Loner Page 1 – 25
Marty in his Ordinary World. By page 25 he has gone back in time and is alone and an orphan (mother and father have yet to marry).

Act II – Wanderer/Explorer page 26 – 46
Marty learns/explores his new world. Discovers an ally/mentor in Dr. Brown.

Act III – Warrior/Activist page 46 – 75
Marty struggles to get George, Lorraine together and to discover a way back home.

Act IV – Martyr/Death page 75 – 96
Marty makes it Back to The Future and sees Dr. Brown gunned down by terrorists only to stand – alive – bulletproof vest. Marty returns home to find the old Mom and Dad have been transformed into a young successful couple (old mom/dad metaphorically dead).

Four act structure. Gotta love it. And it will work for any movie.

Keep Writing!
Mike
ps. I’ll do a 4 act breakdown for True Lies if you like LOL.
Mike on Tuesday: 22 July 2008|1600

oooops!

Four Act breakdown is for Back To The Future.

Sorry.
Mike on Tuesday: 22 July 2008|1645

James,

Prologue: Page 1 – 13
We learn about Harry – that he’s a spy – a damn good one.

Act I – Orphan/Loner Page 13 – 47
We are now in Harry’s Ordinary World. We meet the family: wife, Helen and daughter, Dana. In this world Harry is a loner.

Act II – Wanderer/Explorer Page 47 – 71
Harry spies on his daughter. Discovers Helen is having ‘an affair’ – spies on wife. Tries to discover all he can about Simon.

Act III – Warrior/Activist Page 71 – 102
Harry goes on the offensive, puts a tail on Helen – capture Simon and Helen – take them both to an interrogation room. The Boris/Doris scenario. Terrorists capture Harry/Helen.

Act IV – Martyr/Death Page 102 – 132
Terrorists. Atomic bombs. Harry and Helen counter attack – kill most of the terrorists. Helen and Harry escape but learn Dana’s life now in jeopardy.

Coda: Page 132 – 134
One year later. Harry and Helen and Dana are one happy family. Harry and Helen are spies.

Yup! Looks like a Four Act structure to me. But like I said before… just one man’s a**hole, errrr, uhhmm, opinion.

Keep Writing!
Mike
Christian M. Howell on Tuesday: 22 July 2008|1732

Four act structure is actually what Aristotle implied as to content. His exact statement about beginning, middle, end is only qualitative not quantitative. It’s actually an abstract thought: The beginning has nothing before, the end has nothing after it, the middle follows the beginning and precedes the end.
Quantitatively, he defines four separate sections where the last section is divided in two (this actually helps have two resolutions; one internal, one external.

See my blog for an intro to the Poetics.
Christian M. Howell on Tuesday: 22 July 2008|1837

Forgot the link. Et voila.
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.1.1.html
Susan P. on Tuesday: 22 July 2008|2055

Mike, why isn’t your Act 2 the second sequence of Act 1? Isn’t it essentially the inciting incident?
Carlo Conda on Wednesday: 23 July 2008|0148

Jeff,
Neo didn’t try to beat the matrix in The Matrix. The movie was about him finding himself. That’s it.
Mike on Wednesday: 23 July 2008|0318

Unk,

My apologies for taking your Central Question and turning it into a forum for the 4 Act structure.

Susan,

If you are talking about TRUE LIES… the Inciting Incident MUST as early as possible in your story. There is no way that Harry learning about Helen’s ‘affair’ around page 47 can be the I.I.

Unfortunately, the Inciting Incident in TRUE LIES takes place before the story starts on screen. The audience picks up the story during the prologue. (My opinion).

Okay, to wrap things up and end this conversation on structure (again, sorry, Unk)…

Four Act Structure Rocks!

Concerning the Central Question: The Hero’s External Conflict is the catalyst that exposes the Hero’s Internal Conflict (flaw) which in turn becomes the Central Question: Will the Hero overcome his/her flaw in time to _________ (fill in the blank).

Keep Writing!
Mike

ps. I will now ZIP. My. Lip.
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzziiiiiiiiiippppp!
James on Wednesday: 23 July 2008|0358

Mike —

Like I said, you are simply splitting what I call ACT 2 into ACTs 3 and 4. It doesn’t really matter. The structure is still the same. Your act break — is my midpoint /shrug.

I tend to classify Acts by their objective. The main objective in Act 2 of BACK TO THE FUTURE is to get Marty — back to the future.

But they can’t do that until the lightning bolt strikes, which is a nice touch. It gives Marty a week to f$#% around in the past. After all, that is the hook to this movie. If nothing else, a nice visual, too.

The first thing Marty does on his quest to get back to the future is meet up with Doc Brown. The first thing Doc tells him is to not mess up anything, “You could disrupt the space-time continuium.”

And what’s the first thing Marty does?

Starts us on a nice B-story.

The midpoint comes when Marty has taken the place of his father, and he is asked to the dance instead of George.

If you wanted to get really technical, you could call it 5 Acts. There is a complete 3 act structure within the entire duration Marty is in the past with the present book ending either side. Does it matter? Nope. A rose by any other name…

I could also show you how BACK TO THE FUTURE, as a whole fits the template of the Hero’s Journey — and then show you how Act 2 by itself, also has a complete Hero’s Journey in it.

The names of the signposts don’t really matter. It just matters that they are there. And entertaining. And built off the premise.

TRUE LIES has a similar structure — I could break that down too, but it looks like you get it.
James on Wednesday: 23 July 2008|0359

Should read “what I call Act 2 into what you are calling Acts 2 and 3.”

Sorry typo.
Susan P. on Wednesday: 23 July 2008|0405

Mike.. my comment was based PURELY on the summaries offered. Based on the summary content (forgetting page numbering et al), that came across as an II to me.

On something you raise here..I question any II commencing prior to actual movie. I admit I’ve not seen True Lies and I do agree that sometimes people carry off an ‘anti-script’ (so to speak) more than just well, but a script I read recently tried to do the same thing and was weak weak weak and did not offer ongoing excitement because of that break with three act convention.

By the way, I’m in another time zone to most of you folk hence when I came in there can be so many comments I can’t get through them all so apologies on that score. I just respond to what I can that’s most recent.
James on Wednesday: 23 July 2008|0411

P.S. If you read any of the comments in Unk’s 4 Act Structure, you’ll see I actually agree with him.

The only real difference between Unk’s 4 Acts and Syd Field’s 3 — is a naming convention.

Structurally, the midpoint, is generally a large reversal — a high high or a low low. If you, as a writer think this reversal is big enough to change objective, than you have Four Acts. If not, you have Three.

But it’s still the same movie.

For example, ALIENS (yea! More James Cameron movies) has a very brutally bad MIDPOINT.

The marines get their butts handed to them by the Aliens.

Some may argue that this completely changes their objective — they decide to get the hell out of Dodge when before they were gung-ho. Some may argue, they just decided to kill them using a different tactic (blowing the whole place up) instead of hand to hand.

The point is — structurally its the same thing (whether you call it Four Acts or Three).
jeff on Wednesday: 23 July 2008|0727

“Neo didn’t try to beat the matrix in The Matrix. The movie was about him finding himself. That’s it.”

Carlo,

Whoa , whatchu talkin’ ’bout. Of course, Neo’s trying to beat the Matrix and rescue Morpheus. That’s the outer goal and driving plot of the story. That’s what’s putting people in the seats.

Agreed the inner journey is him finding himself but you gotta have both. IMO

ps. Mike, You should check it out, classic Hero’s Journey.
boyer on Wednesday: 23 July 2008|1101

Unk wrote this above:

“The problem?

Making the central question important enough, dramatic enough, compelling enough to hold our interest through to the end and to ME, that’s the hardest part of getting the central question RIGHT.”

I’ve been working on my script for months, with a gut feeling that something was not just “right.” I started to feel like I was “pushing a rope.”

Now all along, I had a central question. But in my head kept churning a lot of the same thoughts and points written above. Then I realized my central question was not COMPELLING enough.

I’d venture to say, this should be the main focus of this “debate.” And to solve this issue, I’d say go to, or create, the BACKSTORY of your protaganist. Find out WHY your protaganist is so fucked up. What happened to him/her, years ago, that’s making them behave this way today? I bet if you dig DEEP into the life of your protaganist, you’re central question will begin to make itself obvious.

Of course a bunch of valid points are made above, but what makes up and drives your character’s heart is the main key (I think) to the central question (otherwise, why do you need one?).

I watched Finding Forrester three times this past weekend. A great line he “asks” of the aspiring young writer is “Where are you taking me?”

So, what would you say to your protaganist, if he/she suddenly walked in on you, while you’re sitting at the typewriter? Do you know them well enough to give an answer they will appreciate? And deserve?
boyer on Wednesday: 23 July 2008|1105

OOPS,OOPS!!! IMPORTANT TO MY ABOVE!

Above in the last paragraph, I meant to say,

What would you say to your protaganist, if they walked in and ASKED you, “Where are you taking me?”
Carlo Conda on Wednesday: 23 July 2008|1245

Jeff,
Neo is NOT trying to beat the matrix in The Matrix. This doesn’t happen until Reloaded. Neo is, in fact, told NOT to try to face the Agents because all Morpheus and such are trying to do is reach Zion. Neo had to save Morpheus, yes, but never once did he feel the need to beat the matrix. Heck, the only time he considers beating the Agents is at the end when e finds himself cornered and he believes he is The One. For the rest of the movie, the aim is never to beat the matrix or the agents.

And, while Neo defeated Agent Smith at the end, this does not mean he has defeated the matrix. You should know this. As I’ve said many times, stating the obvious, Neo never once was concentrating on defeating the matrix in The Matrix. The goal for Neo was to find himself, and the grander goal was to survive on their way to Zion. That’s it. I’m not sure what movie you were watching if you don’t know this.

Morpheus’s goal is to: Reach Zion, find The One, and eventually defeat the matrix. However, the matrix-defeating goal began in Matrix: Reloaded, not the first Matrix.
Susan P. on Wednesday: 23 July 2008|1748

I hear you boyer..I have the same problem..but for me its not necessarily making a wound compelling but building tension and making overall treatment compelling. I am way too used to prose writing so even if the basic structure of my script outline is correct, it winds up reading like a walk in the park with seven additional sequences. :)

I really enjoy Leon the Professional but I can’t say his wound is that significant compared to certain other films but the surrounding treatment is so good.

I still think The Sting is one of the all time great films but no ‘great’ wound.

Same with Scarface really. I don’t think the wound is that ‘different’ or outstanding but just great characters and layers of personality.

For me wound is intriguing just like the human psyche is. You can have two people with similar backgrounds and one has forged ahead in life and the other pulls wings off butterflies. I guess it’s how we wrap that in the overall context of the film that may, or may not, draw an audience.

The films for me that shift the central question away from wound to pure action are ones like The Avengers. The Fiennes/Thurman version doesn’t cut it for me against the original but there is no wound there per se. I see these films like caricatures in a way. Watch the old Man from U.N.C.L.E films and you’ll know what I mean. :)
Ryan on Wednesday: 23 July 2008|1814

SON OF A BITCH! That took me a long time to go through those comments.

My only comment is… Son of a bitch!
Ryan on Wednesday: 23 July 2008|1916

Well… I lied.

I could have very easily missed this. All these comments just sorta blend into one big ass comment.

From what I understand is the CQ is different for each individual. So the CQ can be anything. Right?

Can there be one main CQ and then have little ones along the way??? Therefore, many CQ’s.

Like DANCES WITH WOLVES — John Dunbar –

The CQ(for me) will he get his new post in the middle of B.F.E and get it up and running with military personel?

This slowly turns to… Will he find any sort of life out there? More specifically Indians.

He does. After that will he become friends with them — He does.

After that — Will he be able to speak their language, then marry the one white woman in the tribe, then get his journal that he CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT(that he has been living without for who knows how long — by the way).

To me the CQ is always evolving in this great film. Not only evolving but has a big one, then smaller ones.

Am I just rambling on here and not making any sense? Looking too much into it? That’s my fucking luck by the way…

In some of these great films(blockbusters — granted not specs) I see the CQ evolving into something else. Well… Even specs do this too.
Susan P. on Wednesday: 23 July 2008|2008

Ryan, your comment re the CQ evolving raises the question of writer vs audience perspective. I think audiences can see an evolution but as a script writer surely that evolution was planned? If so, the end point was the question all along and the lead in or evolution just clever artistry. Unless of course one argues that ‘things’ just emerge by chance and not design. As posimistic as I may be at times, I think ‘chance’ is a dangerous mistress for a writer. :)

Leave a Reply

The Central Question

Comments

Find It

Recently Written

Categories

Screenwriting Stuff

Most Popular Posts

Monthly Archives

The Central Question

Comments

Find It

Recently Written

Categories

Screenwriting Stuff

Scribosphere

Most Popular Posts

Monthly Archives