Laura: How to Fix an Impersonal Main Character

May 3, 2007

As discovered in the original analysis of Laura, the film finds itself in the dark and brooding quad. As such the primary concerns of the story are The Past, Understanding, Conceptualizing and Memories. Laura’s character assumes the concern of the Past, while the Objective Story and Subjective Story assume the concerns of Conceptualizing and Understanding, respectively. This leaves us with Mark McPherson and his Memories.

Which we hear nothing about it.

This is why he seems so cold and unknowable. The primary dramatic topic his personal throughline should explore has gone completely ignored by the filmmakers. Now whether or not this has anything to do with the time period in which this film was released (men were supposed to be impenetrable and impervious to personal problems) or simply because of neglect will never truly be known.

Dramatica actually takes the story you’ve already written and tells you what is missing.

One thing for sure is that it would’ve been a completely different film. The filmmakers could’ve populated McPherson with some troublesome memories - the death of a loved one or a grisly image of another murdered girl that he just can’t quite forget about it.

But it more than likely would not have worked. The focus here is on the murder mystery and the subject of the title of the film, Laura. McPherson is merely a place holder for the audience.

If you do take a look below the Types to the Thematic Elements, McPherson’s throughline starts to come into view. Truth, Falsehood, Evidence and Suspicion. Certainly, he seems to be most interested in these items. And it feels right because when you take a look at McPherson’s character, you get a sense of Main Character Theme (which those four terms center around). What you don’t get, however, is a sense of any Main Character Plot (which the Memory level centers around).

This is how propaganda is created in a story. Leave something like this out, and the audience is forced to fill in that hole with their own personal experiences. An audience watches Laura and thinks to themselves, “What would I personally have to remember to become so obsessed with a woman this way?”

Unfortunately this hole, unlike the one in Children of Men, is so enormous that most audience members won’t bother trying to insert their own storytelling. And unlike Children of Men, the missing piece is not missing for a reason; it’s just an oversight. Instead they’ll just allow McPherson to come off cold and impersonal - a little off-putting when he’s the Main Character.

This is what makes Dramatica so great. Instead of other theories or books on screenwriting that tell you one way of writing a screenplay, Dramatica actually takes the story you’ve already written and tells you what is missing.

Laura could easily have been your screenplay. You could’ve received notes from trusted friends and associates saying, “I just didn’t feel connected to McPherson” or “I don’t feel like I ever get to know the detective.” After you had enough responses, you would’ve start to think, “Perhaps I’ve got a dramatic hole in my story.” You would then fire up Dramatica and answer the questions posed to you based on your screenplay. The theory would instantly let you know that the reason your friends and colleagues are having a tough time is because you left out a major chunk of the Main Character throughline.

With that information in hand, you could then intelligently make a decision whether or not to include it. Obviously Mr. Preminger was a very talented man and made the right choice for his film at that time. But isn’t it nice that you’ve got one more way to test how well the structure of your screenplay is holding up?

Again, it works for this genre. Without giving him any personal baggage, McPherson retains that detective mystique so essential for film noir.

As a Main Character, McPherson offers us nothing. We have no idea who he is, what issues he might be troubled with, or what is really going on in his mind. The reason why it works in this story is because we never really know for sure that he is the Main Character. In the beginning, it looks as if Waldo will be our personal viewpoint into the story’s problems (as I thought initially). That is, until we come to realize that the true passionate relationship (Subjective Story) in this film exists between McPherson and Laura.