The best advise I got is from my instructor while he reviewed my first draft. He went over the story and outline and characters couple of times and came up with a one line sentence that kind of sums up "WANTS" of all the character. He suggested I put it up on the monitor while typing the script. Since then I stopped thinking much about the theme,as this single line approach was serving the theme purpose. And many a times that one line could be your theme.

Example Line:
How far can you go to make things right when the system failed.

I completely agree, Scott

It's my biggest problem with the book DRAMATIC WRITING. The author combines the idea of theme and premise. This may have a lot to do with a language barrier, but theme and premise are largely separate imo.

Take a film like STAR WARS.

It touches on many themes, Man vs Machine, Rebellion vs. Imperialism, living in the shadow of your father to name a few.

But to me the biggest theme George Lucas was writing about in Star Wars was--

-- having faith in something larger than yourself.

Isn't that what The Force is? Luke takes a journey away from home into hostile territory on nothing more than a seemingly naive belief in an old man and The Force.

Luke is the constant voice of optimism.

Han the voice of pessimism.

Leia cynicism.

Obi-Wan wisdom.

I find that most stories that only focus on a singular theme are often heavy handed.

I also think it is important, as a writer, to not have an opinion (or at least not impose one) on your characters. The characters should be the embodiment of different points of view of the same argument.

In the end, it's not about proving the theme right or wrong, but that it exists to test your characters and find out who they really are. Not to grind some agenda.

"I find that most stories that only focus on a singular theme are often heavy handed."

This is where Clint Eastwood goes wrong as a filmmaker, as well as the duo that wrote Crash. They're the most single-themed, heavy-handed, over-sentimental filmmakers I can think of. Their films are designed around a message and I alternately cringe and roll my eyes from scene to scene. However, the general public seems to love 'em.

Interesting comments. I don't think I've ever started a script project with theme. It's always been either a concept or characters. The theme always emerges as I get into the process. And I concur with Annika that some of the most problematic movies are those that would seem to have, if not started with a theme, are extremely theme-heavy.

This is especially true of the well-intentioned movie: Pay It Forward, Amazing Grace & Chuck are a couple that come to mind. There's that line from Woody Allen about "heaviosity." Well, some movies are so theme-laden, they suffer from heaviosity.

To play Devil's Advocate for a moment -- Some film makers make it work.

Olive Stone is by far one of the most heavy handed directors in Hollywood. But it's something of a trademark for him. Not to sound too pretentious, but there's an artform to his heavy-handedness.

My problem is more or less the live-action Disney-esque type films that use theme as contrivance. You know, the stuff Blake Snyder's book supports (ouch, sneaky insult I had to throw in).

There's also plenty of films that are excellent films that don't really have much thematic depth to them. RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK would be one imo.

These stories tend to rest on the laurels of a bigger good vs. evil theme, which for some reason always works (Something very human about good vs evil stories -- Right vs Wrong). Ironically, early good Disney films almost solely focused on this as a thematic center as well.

Soderberg films, at least the artsy ones, tend to have a very realistic approach to exploring a theme.

I stand in front of a landscape and I wonder about the beauty of nature, or loneliness, or time fleeting. Comes a passionate couple of students and they start to kiss. And I begin to think of the flame of love that has to be cherished in a wonderful world where nothing lasts for ever. What I was thinking alone which are my themes, or angle should stay in the background. What they will live should be front themes. By looking at their front experiences from my own point of view, I might come up with a valuable story. So for me, there should be the true themes related to what the characters experiment enhanced by the colours of the author's eyes. This is I guess the only way not to be heavy handed, which is, I absotuly agree,
a wrong approach. But remaining true to the characters, while knowing their themes and yours, surely also is a good way to embrace a full and wide look and feel to human or characters experience. And while it's all for who lives the story, I pretty much think that theme always is the gold of stories and in many ways, the most difficult aspect to deal with.

Dara Marks' book Inside Story has a wonderful way of exploring and developing the themes of your story.

I was working with a writer just yesterday on this.

He felt that writing to theme was the best way to approach a scene.

I felt that a writing to the flaw and character need derived from your theme is the best way to go.

John August called theme the "hidden DNA" of your story. I love that image.

The DNA of your story is in every single character, plot point, scene, beat and line of dialogue. It is the essence of your story, the reason why you want to write it.

I totally agree with Scott -- subthemes to the main theme are as important to have as subplots to the main plot.

BUT only as long as those themes support, counter, challenge, strengthen or in some way relate to the main theme.

If your subthemes have nothing to do with you main thematic statement, I think you end up with a scattered, unfocused story.

I wonder whether James Brooks didn't already unconsciously know the theme of As Good As It Gets, but it wasn't until post that he became conscious of what he already knew?

j

@James who said:

"BUT only as long as those themes support, counter, challenge, strengthen or in some way relate to the main theme."

Absolutely! Sub-themes MUST be tied into the central theme.

Re DNA: I caught August's post on that and did something on it here. Great metaphor for theme.

Yeah I remember that post too -- great conversation.

I think ultimately what's nicest about the DNA metaphor is that while we know in our heart that the DNA exists, we never see it directly.

The DNA drives everything but what we see/hear are the lines, the actions of the characters, the plot points, the images, that are derived from that DNA.

The themes should never been seen or spoken directly. All the story choices point to the thematic map, allowing the audience to grok it themselves.

What's also great, when a story is really resonating, is when themes come out that we never consciously intended to explore.

Like a great piece of theatre, the audience gets to play directors and and actors and discover the subtext and themes for themselves, project into the piece their own personal undestandings and discoveries.

THAT'S when stories can become great!

If the themes are too explicitly stated, if the DNA is clearly exposed, we shut out that opportunity of personal, individual connection to the material.

Great post, Scott!