When a lonely, middle-aged Aussie long-distance truckie finds love online with a city girl, he must overcome his fear of losing what he loves most to win her heart.

Louise Weihart:

This discussion thread got me to wondering: In a script where the relationship/love-story is the "A" story (such as yours), is it always necessary to have a antagonist for the plot to work? Are there exceptions to the rule that every script must have a flesh and blood antagonist?

Two possible exceptions came to mind: "When Harry Met Sally" and "Brokeback Mountain". In both films, the relationship between the couple is not seriously threatened by a specific flesh and blood antagonist. But the couple in "When Harry Met Sally" are confronted by an important social/philosophical 'antagonist', and in "Brokeback Mountain" by a lethal cultural 'antagonist'.

Early on in "When Harry Met Sally", the couple have a heated argument over the question: Can men and women just be friends, real friends without sex coming into play and ruining the relationship? That becomes the social and philosophical 'antagonist' that raises the conflicts and complications that drive the plot.

In "Brokeback Mountain", the 'antagonist' is the virulent homophobia of that era and place that raises the conflicts and complications that drive the plot.

So my tentative hypothetical is: if the story has no flesh and blood antagonist, then the two would-be lovers should be confronted by a formidable 'antagonist' in the form of some cultural bias or social or philosophical issue at stake. If not some person, than some external idea or value or tradition must stand between them and living happily ever after.

[But I would point out that in "Romeo & Juliet", Shakespeare has antagonistic values (hate opposing love) and an antagonistic culture (a tradition of feuding families)-- and a flesh and blood antagonist (Tybalt), the embodiment, the personification of the conflicting values and families. A three-fer.]

Can the 'antagonist' be entirely internal, psychological in a film? I'm not sure because film demands that conflict be visualized, which is to say, externalized; it's got to be there on the screen for the audience to see. Can you think of a commerically or critically successful film that has pulled off that trick?

dpg and nicholas, thanks. dpg - he's long distance, away for weeks at a time. I'm having enough trouble with him (lol) ... haven't got to her yet. Sacrificing his freedom is more about emotional freedom than freedom of the road. He has to become someone that doesn't just live for the day but has to learn to share, make plans, not have it all his way. nicholas, that's a great logline but that's would be the end of the story. As it is now, we only find out if he does that at the end. She's not agrophobic though - on the contrary - she wants to head off into in the sunset in the truck and that is partly what threatens his freedom ... both literally having to figure out where to stop to meet her and then being there on time ... but also emotionally in that he can't enjoy his freedom when she's not with him cos all he's thinking about is her. So in that way she is also the antagonist/opponent ... but we can always find another one .. could the antagonist be the one that threatens his fight for love ... or does it have to be the one that threatens his freedom on the road .....

What about if the girl was an agoraphobic? Potential for conflict, and plays into your desire to have the truckie "give up his freedom" for love. The truck itself is the representation of freedom in this story; by selling it, it's making the statement that he's ready to settle down. I agree with dpg - the truck is not an antagonist (unless it is sentient - like the car in Knightrider, but I'm guess that's not the vibe you're going for).

You still face the problem of there being no antagonist though ...

"After his soul mate turns out to be an agoraphobic, a free-spirited trucker sells his rig to prove his love." Still ... antagonists, right?