I think it speaks to our base needs. We have to take a lot of crap in our daily lives so that our lives stay uninterrupted and we can get by. However, in films these people get to say and do all the things that we just can't. I think it's why American's especially love an underdog story, we can relate and want to see them succeed.

It's for the same reason why we like a good fight. It appeals to our amygdala. Maybe that's sad, but that's the way it is. Another way this expresses itself is in our characters. Most of my friends are very similar to me. We agree on a lot. We like to do the same things. We share the same politics. But in a movie, that's BORING. That's why Kirk and Spock work. They disagree. They aren't disagreeable with each other, but they disagree. So while it's more REALISTIC to have a group of friends who agree all the time, it's more INTERESTING to have friends who are radically different. And movies ain't reality. If people want reality, they only have to step out of that theater.

Good point Brandi. Films often contain situations where the character says or does something we simply can't say or do in real life; like telling your boss he can take his job and shove it where the sun don't shine. I think conflict appeals to a very fundamental and basic part of our psyche. I wonder if fulfils that part of us that still remembers the conflict of running after an antelope so we can eat for the first time in weeks or fleeing from an angry tiger. Now that staying alive is pretty easy (no more scary tigers, at least where I live, although we do have some schizoid chickens) we don't have that basic "conflict" of surviving another day without being maimed/eaten/starved to death. Maybe watching films gives us that same sense. Humans love conflict. There's nothing more entertaining than watching a couple having a furious row on a train or listening to a mother desperately appease a child that has asked for a packet of M&Ms twenty-seven times in a row. It IS entertaining. I still don't really know why though.

The same reason we like to ride roller coasters, watch closely matched sporting events and gamble. We're risk takers. As much as we extoll the virtues of peace and tranquility what we really like is conflict and danger. My guess is that the cave dude who went out and took risks, got the most food and chances to mate. The 'take risks' genes got passed down to us.

Conflict is a great way to show character strengths and weaknesses, to show good characters with evil qualities and evil characters with good qualities. At least, that's how I look at it.

I think the word "conflict" is often used as a short-cut for "stakes." It's kind of a reverse way of seeing the process of trying to gain something , save something, avoid something, stop something, etc., and the consequences of accomplishing that or not. What is at stake, what is at risk? This effort to accomplish that goal leads to suspense and anticipation for the audience -- will the protagonist succeed or not? And if we are led to feel empathy and identify with the protagonist (including by giving them something at stake), we experience the feelings you guys described above as arising from conflict. But without stakes, conflict can become empty spectacle, which film does well, but audiences will tire of sensation without meaning before even a scene is over. This is all storytelling 101, of course, I just mean that having something at stake and an uncertain outcome is the essence of conflict.

I don't think of it in terms of entertainment. What people find entertaining varies on so many different levels, it's hard to qualify there being a single characteristic/attribute that applies to everyone. Rather, I believe we watch movies because conflict in and of itself represents struggle - and to struggle is the most assured way to enlightenment. In short, we find meaning in conflict. Whether it's internal or external, whether we overcome or fall short, there's wisdom to be gained from the experience - and great movies with strong stories typically have something worthwhile (meaning) the author wants to communicate. That's not to say that everybody goes to the movies to be enlightened - but in a sense, going back to the days of cave people, that's what storytelling was about: sharing knowledge and information in an entertaining way. Grock almost being eaten by a sabre-tooth tiger wouldn't have been nearly as entertaining it were a) witnessed first-hand or b) printed in The Bedrock Times.

Great thoughts. I would add that it appeals to those two parts of human nature that likes to solve problems and see what happens next. When conflict is stirred up, it sets up a problem of sorts (usually filtered through the protagonist to us) that we want to see resolved, one way or the other. This, then, sets up the classic question in our minds, "What's going to happen next?" Then when the the conflict escalates or one of the combatants runs into a new obstacle in the course of the conflict, we naturally ask again, "NOW, what's going to happen?" And throughout the movie this keeps happening, hopefully with gradually increasing stakes, until all of our questions are finally answered, and the central problem resolved, in the apex of the conflict--the climax--and we're (hopefully, again) satisfied.

Sorry to Steve E. for echoing his thoughts ... while I was typing his comment went up so I didn't get to read it first. I hope we don't have a conflict over it.

Mais non, CJ! No conflict here. You actually included the "obstacle," which provides the other side of the effort to reach the goal, and the increasing of the stakes is vital. Thanks!

> I think the word “conflict” is often used as a short-cut for “stakes.” It’s kind of a reverse way of seeing the process of trying to gain something , save something, avoid something, stop something, etc., and the consequences of accomplishing that or not. What is at stake, what is at risk? Thanks for this, Steven. I couldn't agree more. Does anyone here have any experience with improv? When people start improv and enter an open scene, you often see something like this: A: Merry Christmas! B: It's not Christmas, it's Easter. ...and then the scene dies. In improv that's called "blocking"--when you reject the reality established by your scene partner, or the dramatic offer they make to you. A lot of beginners do it instinctively, and it's a hard habit to break, because they want to help by bringing "conflict". But all they do is shut down the scene. On the other hand, improv is all about high stakes. A high stakes improv scene with the same opener might look like this: A: Merry Christmas! B: Merry Christmas to you, too, Santa. Now let's break you out of this evil villain's super prison before we run out of time to deliver presents to all the good little kiddies! Hey, our friends A and B have the start of a good scene there. Odds are the environment around them is going to break down, leading to a lot of physical comedy; the clock is going to keep ticking at an accelerated rate, raising the stakes; and their level of failure is going to escalate, making the scene funnier with each failure. I find "high stakes" and "raising the stakes" to be much more useful concepts for me in writing than "conflict", probably in part from years of improv. I don't actually like conflict--even in fiction. Doesn't turn my crank at all. I find a lot of current shows unwatchable because they boil down to bickering and nastiness between mean-spirited people (which some writers erroneously mistake for conflict)--conflict that equal blocking is tiresome. What I do like is a scene / story where characters are active and things are happening, in high stakes situations, with love in the scene, and I get to watch people be smart and creative in solving their problems (even if those problems are interpersonal). Yes, I'm splitting hairs here, but to me there's a subtle difference. Now when a writer gives character conflicting goals and puts them in a high stakes situation...that's magic. But there's a critical difference between conflict that arises from character and blocking imposed on a scene because a writer has heard that "conflict is important" without understanding what it means. Give all your characters, even minor ones, a strong goal. Raise the stakes. Shake them up and put them in a scene. That's why I can have a premise and a rough idea of plot but I can't start writing until I have a good grasp on what's going on with the characters: I can't write them until I know what they want. “Drama requires conflict.” is a misleading formulation. Replace "conflict" with "high stakes" or "effort" or "action" or "struggle" or "conflicting goals", and it's much more helpful. . . . Why do I enjoy this? Why do we? We want a story that's active, not static, where things are happening. That's part of it. And we identify with the protagonist and her struggle. We want her to win. We want to experience a vicarious victory on an epic scale that fiction affords us, that we don't experience in our regular life. I don't know that we like conflict so much as we like heroes and quests.

"We go through life, at least most of us, attempting to avoid conflict." — Why can't it be a reason? Our life is too boring and we just need it. It's not our conflict, it's like to be a shrink for 90 minutes. — Oh. Life of this guy is so... Hell! He's sucks! My life seems much better now! Isn't it entertaining? We like to feel better than someone else. Or, as opposite, another point of view — trying to run from our mini-problems we're creating some extremely gorgeous hidden-for-now problem, which will appear in the future and will destroy our life to the ground. So, our brain prepares itself with some troubleshooting information gained from movies/tv/music/literature/games/aquarium watching. It can sound silly, but when something is wrong with our loved ones, we would like to watch loved-ones-involved drama movies instead of UFO attached slasher. And some guys who have extraterrestrial conflict in their lives will prefer Sci-Fi Battleship to Walker, Texas Ranger. It's always nice to know how to solve a problem. Even if sometimes you should be Tom Cruise. Seems like the first POV has a little more sense.

Wow, that's great Shaula. I'm wishing I had done improv now!

My view is that we view stories (conflict included) as parables. We relate to the characters and learn from their behavior. How do they deal with a situation? What would I do? If the character is a hero, perhaps I will do better next time... like that hero did. If the hero is not so great... perhaps I already do better. I think this is why celebrity gossip mags do so well. They are like modern day Greek gods causing conflict left and right. Doing good. Doing bad. Redeeming themselves. Killing themselves. They play out their lives so that we learn from their mistakes. Lindsay Lohan teaches me not to lie. Amy Winehouse teaches me not to drink. Colbert teaches me to be brave with humour. Dreams, to me have the same psychological function... and I believe we cast our dreams much the same way directors cast movies. (that's why you end up sleeping with the neighbor you hate and giving birth to the devil).

A great question by the way!

It's never too late: I dragged a friend in her late 50's with me to an improv fest a few years ago, and she did a fabulous job in the beginner's classes. (She was in politics and terrified of public speaking; the class turned out to be a great confidence booster for her.) If you ever get the chance to do any kind of improv workshops or training, jump at it! I am astounded at how much my improv background comes up for me in writing--I'm talking all kinds of writing, even speechwriting. And it's especially invaluable for writing comedy. If you're ever near Vancouver, BC with time to spare, check out the workshops run by the Vancouver Theatre Sports League, where Colin Mochrie and Ryan Styles got their starts. When I was there they had an excellent program. Other good places to look include improv festivals, and, of course, Second City. Lacking access to classes, check out the classic improv books, like Impro by Keith Johnstone, and Viola Spolin's books. Not the same as taking a live class, but still very helpful.

It seems to me that conflict is multi-dimensional. Some commentators have pointed out that they prefer 'high stakes' to 'conflict', others have suggested that conflict provides insights into behaviour ... I think all are accurate. The purpose of conflict, in my view at least, is to expose the 'stakes'. What we, the story's respondent, want is to see how far the character will go in order to satisfy what's at stake - life, riches, love ... Subconsciously, we then compare how we might react under similar circumstances, even though consciously we know we are dealing with fiction, subconsciously we are considering the possibility of reality. Thus we see behaviour exposed by a character, and we are able to consider how we might behave in comparison. This is how conflict affects our senses, and is converted into entertainment. Conflict comes from both obstacles in the path to progress and opposition of wills between characters. Obstacles may arise from the story world itself, or from the circuitry of other characters and how they gad the circumstances and cause situations to arise that a character must respond to. Opposition of wills between characters is where we find the most interest, because it is where a character displays his/her true colours. Both forms of conflict (opposition and obstacles) expose what's at stake. If, however, when a character faced with a conflicting situation goes from tension level '0' to tension level '10' in one step, we lose interest in the conflict. We want to see how the character gets to ten, what buttons the opposition character pushes in order to move the stakes to a higher point; how the character responds to those buttons in counteraction. It's this process of rising conflict that we buy into, not the conflict itself. When we feel the tension rising we are more inclined to lend our sympathy to the character, it helps us identify with the situation, it makes the circumstances believable, thus the fictive dream puts the respondent in the story. The other issue about conflict in stories I find interesting is that there is usually more than one level of conflict going on at a time. A story may have its central conflict, characters competing for the McGuffin, so to speak, but at the same time, there is usually a moral conflict being played out by surrounding characters that exposes us to the main character's attitudes to the moral issues under contest; conflicts of loyalty that show us how a main character can be betrayed; of logic and emotion that show us gut reactions and considered responses ... Conflict, even that engaged in by supporting characters, becomes a complex mechanism that shows us the true nature of the one or two characters at the centre of the story. Thus we find stories without complex conflicts in play somewhat boring and tedious and we wonder 'what is happening.' Conflict entertains us because we know that growth can only occur through struggle and we want to see how others managed the struggle, whether they are homo-fictus or not. This is the same reason we like 'true-life' stories and biographies of people who have achieved great things. We think we can learn something from how they managed their situations.

we love conflict in films precisely because it isn't happening to us. just like gossip is addictive for the same reason.

Steven, this is a huge point and it speaks to our emotional investment to characters and by extension the story. If two people are just screaming at each other and there is nothing at stake, why does it matter? But if there ARE stakes and we DO care about them, then the conflict takes on that much greater meaning. So it's not just conflict, it's conflict that MEANS something, yes?

You know, TBBB, this raises a whole other dynamic in the equation: There is the conflict that occurs on the script page or movie screen. But then there's also the conflict we feel as readers and moviegoers. Take for example The Silence of the Lambs, that incredible scene in Memphis, the last time Lecter and Clarice see each other just before he escapes. He COMPELS Clarice to 'confess' what happened to her on her uncle's farm in Montana. Obvious conflict between them where he keeps pushing and prodding, and she resists, not only him, but obviously her own internal desire to be safe, knowing that recounting this horrible memory is one of, if not THE most frightening aspect of her psyche. We, as movie viewers, are also conflicted. We can't help but both detest Lecter and yet find him fascinating. We despise him for forcing Clarice to do something painful, but we support him because we are desperate to hear her secret. And we feel scared for Clarice, but somehow know in our guts that she HAS to recount that memory. So in a perfect cinematic experience, there is a synergistic relationship between the conflict on the screen and the conflict of the viewer. Does that make sense?

Shaula, that is so insightful and you have articulated something that was behind my original question. It's so easy to say, "You can't have good drama without conflict," but what does that MEAN really? I'm reminded of a producer who once told me the best way to convey boring exposition in dialogue: "Just put the characters into an argument so they're screaming at each other." In other words, shroud the exposition in hostility. But isn't that just a bad way of oustide-in writing, a writer dictating the terms of characters' behavior? It's not just about conflict or maybe even not about conflict at all, but stakes, meaning, struggle, action, and so forth, dynamics that you all have mentioned in this thread. Wow, this is turning out to be a really solid conversation. Thanks all for the contributions!

LuckyandDead, I think that's absolutely true. In Hollywood, they talk about "wish fulfillment" movies, where we get to participate vicariously in the wonders and delights of characters on screen [e.g., be a billionaire, a super spy, a pro athlete, the President, a rock star]. But that also works in reverse, as you noted: His life sure sucks. My life seems much better now. Perhaps "curse fulfillment." I'm reminded of an observation Lily Tomlin made once: "Why is it when you go into the post office, and there's this huge line, and you're standing there stuck at the end of the line, then someone ELSE comes in and gets behind you... and suddenly you feel better." That's pretty much the point with those kind of movies and of course can be scaled up significantly [e.g., guys gets devoured by a monster]. Thank God that's not me!

Tania, I think that's right. The example I often use is the movie Ransom in which a couple's son is kidnapped. Why would parents want to see this movie, it's our worst nightmare. But off we went in droves because the movie generated over $300M in B.O. revenues worldwide. I've thought a lot about the success of that movie and my conclusion is as you suggest: The story serves as a parable in which we get to participate in the experience, playing out our nightmares in the safe context of a story. So as you say, movies can be a variation of dreams psychologically speaking. Good stuff!

Thanks for raising the question, Scott! I've been thinking about this through the day... (Good) writing advice uses conflict in a very specific way, that differs from how we use the term more generally in every day conversation. Squabbling over which topping to order on a pizza might be conflict in the every day sense, but not the dramatic or writing sense; but when Desdemona tries to advocate for Michael Cassio (her want) with her husband Othello, at the same time that Iago is working to convince Othello that Desdemona and Cassio are having an affair (and Othello wants proof about the affair one way or another--his want), we don't have a pizza-squabble conflict, but we have people with goals at cross purposes, to dramatic and tragic results. A lot of the confusion comes from the difference in using the word in a non-specialist way vs a way very specific to storytelling--that's thrown around a lot but very rarely defined. I haven't tried to articulate most of this before, so thanks for the nudge to make me think it through clearly and figure it out. :)

I think that humans actually crave challenges and conflicts in their daily lives. People need a reason to get up in the morning and for most of us that reason is to make money. We need the money some can eat, have shelter, wear clothes ect... In fact people who are suddenly given more money than they ever often suffer from serious emotional problems. I'm sure everyone on this website has heard stories about people winning the lottery and havi g their lives ruined. Part of the problem is that they have spent their whole lives knowing that they had to work very hard to get by. All of the sudden they can sit on the couch for the rest of their lives and never go hungry. What should they do with their lives.  Conflict makes drama interesting because conflict makes life interesting. Conflict and challenges make life worth living. 

Conflict is a subjective result, motivations expressed by characters... now you're talkin'. If entertainment falls into a method for escapism then our reality must be contrasted with "irrational" events created by sociopathic behaviors such as hate, violence, provocation. Bored yet?

A lot of great comments. Brian Boyd wrote a great book "The origin of stories" which I'm still working my way through. I think he would say stories which involve conflict are a form of play (as in chess, not as in Chekhov). So conflict is entertaining in the same way that a game of chess is. Supporting what Kevin Price said, I think Boyd would argue that how the conflict is resolved is the entertaining part. If someone cheats to resolve the conflict, just as if someone cheats at chess, there is an innate revulsion to the story. Maybe the real entertainment is the expectation of a satisfying resolution?

Sure does - I'll give you an even better example: Scottie in Vertigo. We want him to find justice, but we're conflicted by his obsession and what it leads him to do. Likewise, we dislike Judy for the role she's played - but we end up empathizing with her perhaps more so than Scottie. Now that's a synergistic relationship between the conflict on screen and within the viewer themselves.

I don't think we find conflict itself entertaining. Maybe exciting, like a screensaver, but not that entertaining movie magic we all know and love. What we really love and get out of dramatic conflict is purpose with a passion. In other words... we're fascinated by a character with an interesting desire because it tells us that their actions are infused with deep ramifications and meaning, but for this to work- we need to be convinced that they will charge every ounce of their being with such willpower. After a while, once we're convinced (**which can only really happen via the character fighting for it in one way or another**), we even come to trust that relatively minor actions, whether it's a curious look or an extra long hold on an object, are pregnant with meaning. And, in my opinion, this is the magic of stories... to bring meaning and purpose (which we LOVE) into every detail... The conflict itself can be interesting where it's not only proving the character's desire, but where the conflict itself has intrinsic purpose and meaning (for example- the speech impediment in The King's Speech.) But that doesn't happen in a vacuum either, and depends on the core reason for the conflict to be there. To explore this more, we can imagine where conflict without any level of purpose is just as bad (if not worse) than no conflict at all. Take any movie involving violent robots (Real Steal, Terminator, Robocop, etc.) and strip away the someone/thing-trying-to-accomplish-something-meaningful aspect. You might be left with some exciting explosions or boxing matches, but it's pointless and not entertaining at all really... at least not in that magic way that the original movies are.

Because at a basic level it's how we relate to one another. Ever been through a difficulty in life? Then you can really relate to someone going through the same thing. I mean really relate at a deep level: Lose a parent to cancer, pass a kidney stone, or get passed over for a promotion. You can't relate if it never happened to you. We humans long for people to understand us, to identify with us. So what other way is there than to share in another's journey onscreen? At the end of the movie, we gain their knowledge and emotional payoff, their catharsis and their ending, and we leave the theater changed.

William Martel explains this well in his article on Character in Conflict (my bolding): Every scene in your script should have conflict... that way we can explore character. Screenwriting is dramatic writing. It's about people with really big problems which will be solved through emotionally charged action or dialogue scenes. If Rocky was the #1 rated contender taking on the champ it's not much of a movie. No conflict! You can either have an ordinary man in extraordinary circumstances (think THE MATRIX) or an extraordinary man in ordinary circumstances (think SUPERMAN). If your character starts out as an extraordinary man (MEN IN BLACK) in extraordinary circumstances (all of them aliens) it's a story about a guy doing what he normally does - and that's kind of boring. No conflict, and we *need* conflict to explore character. But just any conflict isn't the right conflict. Having a character go into a 7-11 and get into an argument with the guy behind the counter is a hollow conflict. It's like that MONTY PYTHON sketch about the guy who goes into the business which provide arguments - he tells the clerk he's looking for an argument and the clerk replies, "No you re not!" "Yes I am." "No, you're not!" "Yes, I am." No, you're not!" Then charges him for an argument. The conflict has to have emotional stakes for your protagonist, which means it has to reflect the theme and inner conflict the protagonist has to deal with. The conflict comes from the character. (Read the whole thing here.)

I just read a quote that reminded me of this discussion: "Stories are the only enchantment possible, for when we begin to see our suffering as a story, we are saved." -- Anaïs Nin

From an article on conflict that sheds interesting light on this discussion: "Conflict can set characters in motion, forcing them to do what, without the conflict, they would never have imagined doing." -- Conflict—Beyond Arguments and Fist Fights by Beth Hill The article discusses conflict in detail. It's worth clicking through the link.

Another quote: It’s very hard to write about that which is always beautiful and pleasant and good. You don’t get anywhere with it. There’s no friction in it. There’s no trouble. You have to have trouble. Somebody’s got to get in trouble, or no one wants to read it. -- Paul Bowles