Because this is a movie about relationships, Chris is very careful and very precise about the four throughlines and how each operates. A regular guy meets a movie star (OS), he has problems with relationships (MC), she just wants a normal life(IC), she helps him overcome his problems(SS). Boom! Four throughlines and away we go.
I doubt I can take credit for it, but I appreciated the way Chris made sure to mention archetypes - this was a question I posted over at the Dramatica blog and managed to confuse things further. In this analysis the Julia Roberts character is the protagonist and Hugh Grant is a non-archetypal antagonist which is closer to the way I've been thinking (informally) about how the Dramatica "archetypes" can be used in interesting ways to enhance the MC/IC perspectives.
- Using genre to isolate the througlines: Is the relationship story a physical comedy or a comedy of errors?
- Steadfast character problem = drive
- Change character problem = problem
Unfortunately, I haven't seen this movie so I'm listening to it as if it's a story pitch, rather than as an interpretation of a finished film. So the question is: if I watch it, how well will it match the "recipe" that Dramatica has created? Will it come out the way they "wrote" it?