All language subtitles for 09 - The idea, conflict and premise II.eng

What is coming now is to develop
a bit the premise idea.

The premise is not the idea.

There are two things together
that become a third.

The premise is not conflict either.

The premise is, in very few words,
why we do our project.

It's like a set of words
that represent our project,

but in a slightly deeper way

than just an idea or just a conflict.

Now we're going to see it more in depth,

but for me the premise is
a kind of least common multiple.

A species
of product simplification

of everything that has to do
with the form.

It's the axis, it's like the spine,

is a kind of post-it
that we have to hit on the forehead

and that's why we're doing
what we're doing .

The why
we are taking so much work

in making a folder,
in creating a character,

Subtitled by
-♪ online-courses.club ♪-
We compress knowledge for you!
https://t.me/joinchat/ailxpXoW3JVjYzQ1

in thinking a universe,
in getting funding.

On seeing how we are going to animate
our short film or series.

It's our conviction
and that's what we believe in.

That's why we have to have it
in a very prominent place

on our desk
and always keep it in mind.

It is also true
that it is difficult to understand

what is the premise of our project,

but there are some tricks
to understand it quickly.

This is Lajos Egri, a Hungarian writer,
and I selected a quote

from Lajos Egri's book that will help us
to understand the premise idea.

Says: "A playwright can work
on an argument for weeks,

before discovering
that he really needs a premise,

which will show the goal of his drama.

You , however,
not write something he does not believe in.

The premise must be his conviction
so that I can show it sincerely.

Maybe it's an absurd premise for me,
but not for You

The lack of a manifest premise
in a drama is

a sign of little consistency.

Just as you can not grow an apple tree
without having the seed of an apple tree,

can not
write drama without the seed,

which is the premise.

The premise is the conception
of the beginning of a drama.

The premise is
as the transformed seed

in the plant
that was contained in it:

nothing more, nothing less. "

I know it sounds a bit abstract,
reread this

once we've explained well
what the premise is.

Let's try to find some way

of discovering it by analyzing Shakespeare,
which is quite simple

in terms of finding
what the premises are.

For this we chose "Romeo and Juliet",
everyone has it in mind.

There's a young man, Romeo,
and a girl named Julieta,

who are from opposing families
and apparently it's an impossible love.

finally manage to be together,

but the family keeps on preventing
and the two dead end.

So for Lajos Egri

the premise of "Romeo and Juliet"
would be something like that.

"A great love defeats even death."

Now, why does this have
and are three things too?

Let's separate it into three paragraphs.

"A great love", on the one hand,
"overcomes", "even at death".

Lajos Egri proposes the following method.

says that the first part of the premise,

in this case is the sentence
"a great love",

must represent the protagonist
or the protagonists,

in this case
the protagonist is shared.

But "a great love"
represents the action of the two of them,

what they do all the time.

It would be the praxis of them two
throughout the whole work,

is a play.

All the time
they represent love.

Then Lajos Egri says
to grab what is the action

that the protagonist or protagonists
most recurrently

to achieve what they want and put it
in the first part of the premise ,

in this case, "a great love".

"Vence", the second part of the premise,

represents
the main conflict of the work.

Actually here there is
a conflict between two families

and see which one will beat the other.

It is usually
a kind of connector

this verb in the middle of the premise

and in this case Lajos Egri
chooses the word "wins".

"Even to death",
the last part of the premise,

represents the end of the work.

So, somehow,
what Lajos Egri

is that to understand well
what is our premise,

to understand well why we
do what we do,

we could configure
a first part with the praxis,

what the characters do
throughout the whole work.

"Vence" represents the conflict,

the second part would be
the conflict and the end.

Let's see another case.

"Macbeth."
Macbeth is a man

who receives a premonition
from three witches

who tell him he's going to be king.

Then Macbeth ends up
killing the king to be him the king

and that ends up unleashing
an absolute catastrophe.

I told it in a rather precarious way,

but the important thing is to try to understand
what the premise is in Macbeth.

What Lajos Egri
is that "cruel ambition

leads to its own destruction".

"The cruel ambition" is what moves
to Macbeth throughout the whole work.

He all the time
does not kill because he is bad,

but he kills because he wants to be king
and because he is ambitious.

Then he decides
that "cruel ambition" is

the first part of the premise.

"Drive to", because there is a kind
of destiny in Macbeth,

is a kind of tragedy, like Oedipus,

where he is told
that something will happen

and he, instead of waiting for it to happen,
triggers for that to happen.

Then that ambition leads him
to "his own destruction".

It's the end of the play,
he ends up dead, they kill him.

So, in this way,
again we have the first part,

the praxis or the action
that the character or the protagonist

does throughout most of the work .

The conflict in the middle, "leads to",

and "its own destruction" is
the end of the work.

The last one,
also from Shakespeare, "Othello".

Othello was very jealous
and that ends up being a disaster

because he thinks his wife cheats him
and ends up murdering her.

And the premise would be that "jealousy
destroys the jealous one and their loved one".

"Jealousy" is what Othello describes.

His action is all the time
motivated by that emotion,

then all the time
he conducts himself in that way.

"Destroy" is the conflict

because all the time
he destroys everything he loves.

And finally "the jealous and his beloved"
is the end.

is, "jealousy destroys
the jealous and their loved one" would be

the premise of Othello.

Now, what about this premise
that looks great in Shakespeare,

but what if we are doing
animated cartoons.

How can we make this premise

adapt to formats
of animation series, for example.

Beyond that I recommend you a lot
read the book by Lajos Egri,

we are going to make an attempt
to understand the premise

in this type of content.

Let's see the premise in "Petit".

I tell you quickly
for those who do not know "Petit".

"Petit" is based
on a book by Isol Misenta.

This is Bernadette Ojeda, a kind
of the Chilean animation hero,

a person
who also admired a lot

and took the enormous job

to adapt
Isol's work to animation.

And for this surely he had to go through
for the whole process that we are going through.

Isol has several publications,

but Bernadette Ojeda
chose "Petit, the monster".

"Petit, the monster" won
a very important prize in 2013

and the book tells a little
that Petit can be very good

and, at the same time, it can be very bad .

And this is
the main conflict in Petit.

In that he does not finish understanding,
throughout the book,

if he really is good or bad

because those two things
seem to coexist in him.

The process that Bernadette
was to start with the book

and say "let's think that Petit is
a child who behaves badly",

in fact, the book is called
"Petit, the monster."

Then he started to think

that a child who misbehaves
there is not much conflict.

Then he started thinking that Petit is
a child who does not understand the rules,

that's why he misbehaves

because the rules
are difficult to understand

and that makes him ,
not understanding them, he breaks them,

but that did not work either.

Then Bernadette started
to think that maybe

Petit is a naughty boy
who mixes reality and fantasy

and he is imagining one thing
but, in reality, it's another,

then the antics of him
have to do

with being so imaginative
that he does not understand reality.

That did not work either.

And we were in the process this
thinking that maybe

the series had to go
because Petit was a child

who always had
a different point of view,

but the truth is that we did not finish
to find a system

or a premise
in all these arguments.

What ultimately prevailed was that Petit
is a child who asks questions

and answers
with his own logic as a child.

So he's not a monster

and he misbehaves
because he has an internal impulse

that makes him do evil things.

Petit is also not an innocent boy
and a fool who does not understand the rules.

Nor is he a naughty boy
who lives in his fantasy world

and all the time he mixes
reality and imagination.

Neither Petit is a boy who has
a different point of view

as a kind of geniecito,
but what we ended up doing was

that Petit asks himself questions

and the questions answers them
with a logic of their own.

This whole creative process
causes us to finish

trying to see
what the premise is in Petit.

How did

crystallize all this in this sentence
that Lajos Egri proposes

of three terms in which we explain
exactly what the series is about.

We got to this.

It's that "logic (well or badly applied),

that in parentheses,

but the truth is that what Petit
is apply logic all the time.

Subtitled by
-♪ online-courses.club ♪-
We compress knowledge for you!
https://t.me/joinchat/ailxpXoW3JVjYzQ1

" Drive a "and it's the conflict

because he applies
wrong logic or logic

and that makes him do something.

Then that logic
moves him to something.

"The understanding of the world"
is the end of each chapter

Then,
"the logic (well or badly applied)"

represents the character.

"Leads to" is the conflict

because that logic moves him
to do certain things

and the end of each of the chapters
is how Petit understands the world.

Let's say Petit,
Like any philosopher or child,

seeks to understand the general principles
and the functioning of the world around

But in his particular gaze
of seeing things

reveals to us how strange it is can be
our everyday world

and its logic, its m irada
and her common sense

make what we take for granted
in life,

actually sounds extraordinary.

We did not make Petit an archetype

of the imaginative child,
scientist or explorer,

but he is a normal child

and his thought makes us see
the ridiculousness of the conventions

or how strange it is
the universe in which we live.

Then I invite you to watch

some episode of "Petit"
and discover in some way this premise

or this kind of post-it

that guides us
in trying to think new chapters.

Let's see a bit then how would
this premise idea applied to "Zamba".

As you know,
Zamba on each excursion escapes.

Somehow,
because Zamba is not attracted to

this form of transmission
of vertical knowledge of the teacher.

So he decides to look for
that learning space

by his own means,
by his own experience,

then that transforms him.

Let's see how we could
adapt this premise

to the Lajos Egri format.

What characterizes
our character?

In this case its main characteristic
is the action.

Zamba all the time looks for action,

obviously does not want
be sitting in a classroom

listening to the knowledge,

but he wants to live
in the flesh and seeks adventure.

So let's assume

that the main praxis
of our character is action.

What would be the conflict?

This action leads to several problems,

which are, in principle we ask ourselves,
if Zamba will be able to return or not

and then we ask
if San Martín or Belgrano

or anyone of the characters

with whom Zamba
is related in the past

will achieve their objective or not.

But fundamentally Zamba's action
leads to something else,

so let's put
in the conflict part "leads to".

And the end of the premise
and the end of the chapters

have to do
with the real learning.

There is an idea like that Zamba,

returning from the past
back to the present,

just coincident
with the end of the tour,

finished understanding
what was the historical process

and that transforms it.

Then "the action
leads to true learning"

respects this way that proposes
Lajos Egri of three terms

to say first what is the praxis
that characterizes our character,

then an idea of conflict
and finally an idea of the end.

This will always serve us

to try not to lose the north
and try to know what is the hypothesis

that we are trying to demonstrate,

what is our final idea,
what do we want to say?

Maybe this does not have
to be in any pitch,

maybe it does not have to be in the folder,

but it's very important
that we keep it

and know why We are doing

this audiovisual project,
be it a short film,

a feature film or a series.

I emphatically recommend
that you read the book

"The art of dramatic writing"
by Lajos Egri

because it is a central book
to understand a little

why we are writing
what we are writing.

We already have an idea of the content.

We already did an investigation.

We've already started
to shape this idea.

We have a premise
at best.

And we have a little clear
the notion of conflict,

Now let's see
how we can grab all that

organize it, format it
and put it in the box in the next unit.