Monday, August 06, 2007

Story Vault: Step Into Another Dimension

Well, that was weird. Blogger had identified this site as a spam blog, and had blocked me from updating it, so I had to wait until they could verify I was an actual human bean. Yes, bean. And I am. Baked in tomato sauce. What? Anyway, I'm all excited to get my clearance, only, ironies of ironies, I don't have anything to post. Or I'm posting to say I don't have anything to post.

Might be a bit slow and quiet around here for a while. August is typically dusty as many people are on holiday or at the Edinburgh Festival, or both, so it can feel like everyone's ignoring you as you wait for that vital response to your latest script. So, it's a good time to write a new one or explore other ideas. I'll try to chip in with a post or a Q&A to keep the blog flowing but until then, here's a post from August last year, about characters, and how to make them multi-dimensional.


The quality of the spec pile is improving. Despite contrary belief, aspiring screenwriters aren’t stupid. They’re attending the seminars, reading the books, analysing the films. They’re getting better. Screenplay craft and its application has become common knowledge, even for those with just a passing interest in the medium.

Of course, there is still a lot of stuff out there that ranges from bad to mediocre, and this will continue to give the spec pile a bad name. There are many scripts that vary from good to excellent (although the latter category is subjectively rare) and these screenplays are often on a par with films that are already in production or enjoying current release.

The overall improvement in the spec pile is both reassuring and disappointing. The general advance in quality comes from a good appreciation of craft. Writers know their three-act structure and how to execute it with pinpoint precision. They’re aware of set-ups and pay-offs. A great opening sequence. A good ending. Style, tone, structure. Check. At the very least, scripts are better written than they ever were before. What’s disappointing about this progress is that the characters in the scripts fail to emotionally engage, and this leads to the regular rejection on the script’s coverage.

It seems that new writers have developed a knack for writing serviceable screenplays but they’re not writing interesting characters to fulfil their respective stories. And this, above all else, is what matters in a script. Forget about the long list of disposable films that would offer a sound argument against the statement. They’re nothing to do with you or me. In the spec pile, you’re judged by the quality of your craft but also by how well your story engages the reader on an emotional level. This is achieved through the script’s cast of characters, and how well they are defined and developed.

Characters fulfil a certain role or duty in a story. The protagonist. Chirpy sidekick. Love interest. Villain. Best friend. Boss. Parent. Whatever. A script reader’s seen them all, just as much as a cinema audience. What we’re looking for is something new, fresh and distinctive. We don’t want to see characters behave in the same stereotypical way based on their role in the story. But that’s what happens all the time. The hero is the hero, flawless and brave. The sidekick is comic and supportive, and might even die for his trouble. The love interest’s romance is assured from the outset. The boss is unfair. The parent doesn’t understand. And so it goes…

Superior screenplay craft will ensure an easy read and an appreciative response from a reader but a story with only one or two dimensions of character will leave the reader dissatisfied and unimpressed with the script’s emotional range. Three-dimensional characters are considered favourable but this isn’t entirely true anymore because we can usually predict a character’s behaviour or response from his general characterisation in the story.

What’s desirable now, but more difficult to achieve, is the multi-dimensional character: complex emotional people where their behaviour can’t be easily categorised or predicted. This isn’t meant to encourage erratic or uneven conduct. Quit the opposite. It’s meant to establish a range of conflicting emotions and challenges for the characters to experience. This extra dimension of character is usually borne out of the writer’s particular insight into the situation. It will probably avoid cliché and predictability, and enrich the character’s emotional development with the difficult choice that he/she has to make. ‘Enrich’ doesn’t necessarily mean a positive outcome for the character; it could be a detrimental action that increases the story’s emotional or dramatic appeal.

Due to the particular demand of screenplay craft, getting a multi-dimensional character down on the page is tough. A well-written script with effective emotional characters mightn’t be as obvious or appealing because of what the writer hasn’t written, and what’s left to the subtext. You just have to trust the reader’s instincts and awareness, something that may not be in evidence if it’s an inexperienced intern.

And then there’s what an actor can bring to the part. What really wasn’t on the page is suddenly lifted into a whole new emotional character dimension because of the actor’s particular talents. But for the moment let’s just assume we’re lazing in the spec pile, a million miles away from actors and directors on set. It’s our job to give the characters a chance to breathe and develop; to react and respond to the story on an emotional and practical level.

Whether it’s a genre movie or a more personal piece, the characters have to ring true and be consistent. Think of the best and most lauded genre movies: they all have great characters. And, more importantly, they all have interesting personal stuff going on that had to be dealt with in the course of the film’s plot. Star Wars, Back to the Future, Jaws, Raiders, Shaun of the Dead, Four Weddings and a Funeral, The Full Monty, Billy Elliot.

Well-defined characters. Multi-dimensional. Emotional. Human. Real. That’s the secret to screenwriting success. Craft has a lot to do with it but if the characters don’t engage, excite, inspire or amuse, then they’re probably serving the plot in a two-dimensional fashion rather than driving the narrative with their multi-dimensional needs.

Treat characters with care and respect. Explore other decisions or reactions that they might make: more complex and emotional rather than easy and predictable. It will help to defy a reader’s expectation but also increase the emotional attachment to the story because of the characters’ interesting and unexpected behaviour.


Check out UNK's Transformational Character Arc post, too.


James Moran said...

If you're going quiet temporarily, then the rest of us have to step in. You're like the scribo-dad, and all us scribo-kids are going to trash the joint unless we focus. Focus!

Wait, if Danny's the scribo-dad, who's the scribo-mum? Lucy's a naughty scribo-kid, Potdoll's sort of a mad scribo-auntie. Arnopp's the older teenage scribo-brother, who has reportedly seen a girl naked and everything. Lee's the scribo-jailbird, done for unspecified offences. And I'm the "special" adopted scribo-tard that keeps wetting the bed. But who's the scribo-mum?

Oh Danny, it's all gone wrong already, you've barely been away for 2 minutes and it's descended into madness. See what happens when we're unattended??

Danny Stack said...

Moran, you're barred. *tears adoption papers into shreds*

James Moran said...

No, scribo-dad! No!

I should never comment on blogs while having a big coffee. I'm lurching around the internet like a caffeine-crazed chimp at the moment.

Anonymous said...

Interesting post. 'Lost', the television show, is a great example.

Lucy V said...

WTF??? I'm a nuaghty scribo-KID? I'll kill you all, I am clearly the insane grandmother who knits unspecified things full of dropped stitches that my relatives must put on display every time I come over for a visit!

I agree however that James is The Scribotard. Now... Where are my teeth?

potdoll said...

sort of a MAD Scribo-Auntie??!!

I think you meant sort of a HOT scribo Auntie.

Jason Arnopp said...

Potdoll, James clearly meant 'MA(RRIE)D'. It was a silent 'rrie'. See, Moran? See that? Saved your ass there, big-time. You big Caffeine Boy, you. And for the record, I still haven't seen a girl without a bra. I live in hope.

James Moran said...

Lucy is about 12, so yes, the tearaway scribo-kid. However, having now seen photos of Potdoll, I will indeed revise my description to "hot scribo-auntie". Although we are all, of course, incredibly attractive in our own special way. And yes, I'm on the coffee again.

martin said...

i saw a girl without her bra once. but then her husband came out and he broke my binoculars. I was sad.

And I wanted to be the hot scribo auntie :(

Lucy V said...

12 year olds don't have a rack as impressive as mine, I tell ya.

Danny Stack said...

Right, that's it. You're all barred.

Lucy V said...

I meant a SPICE RACK obviously! Don't reject me, Scribo-Dad, I don't want to go in the Scribo-Home for naughty girls, please noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

Anonymous said...

the more talentless hacks out there submitting less than stellar scripts means that someone like me can move up a few notches in the food chain... heck, I think by now I am almost up to talentless hack status even