Stephen Duncan on Theme

Duncan (2006) identifies five types of story conflict themes:
"1. Man versus Man
2. Man versus Nature
3. Man versus Self
4. Man versus Society
5. Man versus Fate" (p. 26-27).
In individual movies the screen writer "puts a face" on the abstract titles. Nature = Jaws.

"The next step is to find the one word that is the theme of the story. Then, find a cliche that best articulates your one-word theme" (p. 27, Duncan's emphasis).

Duncan gives the following example from Shrek: "Tolerance: Don't judge a book by its cover." [Very relevant example for this particular research blog.]

"Every single scene in these films explores the one-word theme in some way, whether it is a pure exploration, antithesis, or an unusual facet of it" (p. 27).

Duncan also identifies some common sources for themes (in cliche form): the Bible (e.g., from Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not kill.").

According Duncan a writer can establish a theme in two ways in a script (i.e., physical and metaphysical). The "physical central question" is: Does the protag accomplish the task (e.g., catch the killer). The "metaphysical central question" takes the form of "spiritual, humanistic, universal" question (Can true love conquer all?) or a "hypothesis"/"thesis". Example from Chinatown: Main character says early on "Only a rich man can get away with murder" (p. 28). What does Duncan mean here? I'm not sure I understand the distinction made here between the metaphysical question and the hypothesis. A hypothesis can be easily be turned into a question. Violence begets violence. Will more violence continue. ???

According to Duncan a writer can also establish a theme by using the "moral imperative" approach. The protag and associated characters must accomplish a task because it is the right thing to do, for the greater good, etc.

Duncan says the theme should be established within the first 10 pages of a typical film script by "using a thematic device" (p. 53).

Howard: Theme vs. Thesis

According to Howard (2004) a story's theme is "the aspect of the 'human dilemma' that it will explore (p. 131). Two examples he gives are jealousy and ambition. We could also add hate as an example. He stresses that there are no verbs or value judgments in a theme as he defines it.

Howard makes a distinction between a theme and a thesis. "Once a verb is added, once value judgments are hung onto a theme, then it becomes a thesis that the story is obligedto prove." (p. 131, emphasis mine).

In an earlier post (Theme According to Epstein) we covered the example "Hate kills". Note the verb and the value judgment here. Human dilemma + verb = value judgment.

Howard seems to preach against this verb/value judgment approach to theme. "This is a deadly, story-killing mistake. it skews the story away from art or entertainment and puts it squarely in the realm of propaganda.... A story saddled with the chore of proving a thesis relegates all its characters to 'positions.' Their words and actions are subordinate to the author's goal of proving this thesis to be true." (p. 131).

Howard does admit that there must be a resolution to the story (hate kills, greed destroys a community), a writer does eventually make a statement, but the "statement should be buried in the action, in the moment of the resolution. It is there to be discovered..." (p. 132).

Finding Theme and Exploring the Theme with Howard

Howard (2004) suggests that a script writer should first do some writing and try to discover the theme in the early drafts by asking some questions: "what kind of change does your protagonist go through? What part of his life or being is challenged or threatened or transformed? How have you thought of ending the story? How do you want us to feel at the end of the story? Will it have a happy ending, a sad or tragic ending, or a bittersweet ending?..." (p. 132-133).

Note in this approach you don't start with a theme (or worse yet a thesis). The theme is discovered by the writer after some writing. So, you can't (according to Howard) start the writing process without a theme (or worse yet a thesis) in mind? Why not? Is it a waste of time to eventually discover the theme?

Howard also points out that other characters should relate to the protagonist in terms of the theme (p. 132, 421). If the story is about ambition and perhaps the protagonist lacks it. The antagonist would be very ambitious (perhaps an over-achieving sister). The protagonist's friends ("reflective characters") may "pull" or "push" him in different directions. So, other characters explore the theme (or reflect the theme) in their connection to the protag or in a subplot, the protag "carries [the theme] in a bigger way than any of the other characters. That means she has to learn or overcome, is more resistant to change" (p. 421).

Moritz on Theme in Scriptwriting

Moritz (2001) writes about the two schools of thought regarding themes in scripts. One school of thought says that you should have a clear theme before writing a script and another school of thought says you can find it later. Moritz takes that latter position. He says that having a theme before can actually get in the way of "the framing of a specific story..." (p. 25). It can stifle creativity he says "by being intent on checking that every bit of what you put down conforms to the line of argument in your premise" (p. 25, my emphasis). However, is this workable advice for an E-E researcher? An E-E researcher begins with the argument that is being made, right?

Moritz seems to say in a good story, you'll discover the truth of your story, the theme as you work through your story.

Moritz suggests: "it's far more important to find out the way a story is going to go rather than worry too much about what it means" (p. 25).

Theme According to Epstein

Theme, according to Epstein (2002), is "the underlying, human question your story deals with. Your main character, stakes, jeopardy, and obstacles give us reasons why we care about how the story turns out. The theme gives us a reason why we should care" (p. 53, Esptein's emphasis).

Epstein also makes a distinction between good and great movies. Great movies have a theme, while the "sheer popcorn entertainment" would not. If you want your movie to have "a lasting effect on people," then you want a theme (p. 53, my emphasis).

"What gives a picture a theme is that the major scenes in it touch in some way on the question the theme raises. It doesn't have to actually answer that questions" (p. 54). Epstein offers A Clockwork Orange as an example.

Some of Epstein's examples of movie themes:

• Bladerunner: "What does it mean to be human?"
  Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: "Decency is enough to defeat corruption."
• Star Wars: "Faith can defeat empires."
• American History X: "Hatred kills." [This one is highly relevant to this research blog.]

"If you are working with a theme, then try to make each scene tell a truth about the theme. All the main characters, with their goals and their flaws, should in some way reflect the theme... Your theme comes to light in their conflict with one another" (p. 55). Interesting verbs he uses: "reflect" and "comes to light." I would use the verb "show," but what does that mean? How exactly do your put theme into a script?

Epstein writes that the theme should "underlie the story," and not "come to the surface" (p. 55). "Let the story take care of the theme. You don't need characters to talk about the theme" (p. 56). So, I guess, it should be built into the plot, not something that is beat over the head in dialogue. Is this the most effective way to persuade an audience? Does this approach work?

Howard, 2004

Howard, D. (2004). How to build a great screenplay : A master class in storytelling for film. St. Martin's Press.

Duncan, 2006

Duncan, S. V. (2006). A Guide to Screenwriting Success: Writing for Film and Television. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Moritz, 2001

Moritz, C. (2001). Scriptwriting for the screen. Media skills. Routledge.

Epstein, 2002

Epstein, A. (2002). Crafty Screenwriting: Writing Movies That Get Made. Holt Paperbacks: New York.

Marriage of the Narrative Rhetoric Lit with Screenwriting Books

What do you get when you marry the narrative rhetoric lit with screenwriting books?
You get the theoretical mixed with the practical.
How to "marry" the two? Look for the common elements mentioned in both.
In the narrative rhetoric lit, Rowland (1999) writes that narrative rhetoric functions in six ways to persuade.
"1. Narratives add interest;
2. Narratives create identification;
3. Narratives function aesthetically to persuade;
4. Narratives encapsulate claims;
5. Narratives can be used to create an emotional response;
6. Narratives can transport us to another place and time." (p. 83).

Functions #2 and #5 are often mentioned in screenwriting books -- identification of the audience (Frensham, 1996, p.78-80), evoking emotion in the audience (Miller, 1998).