All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
How do you shape your character? Think of an application form, what are the questions your character would truthfully fill out about herself? What would she lie about? How do you, the psychologist, see your character differently from the way he sees himself? How would she react in a particular situation under pressuring circumstances?
Quoted Text
Screenwriting character is like screenwriting structure and plot or any other elements of movie writing. The more you build a solid foundation for your characters the more compelling the story. For me, it's all about asking questions. Starting with the basic questions, and then going beyond these.
The 'externals' - hair colour, build etc - can be helpful in visualizing the character of course. But the most important elements of screenwriting character are internal.
Most of the things on the following lists should not elicit Yes or No answers. Questions like 'Is your character extrovert?' may prompt you to say Yes at first, but don't stop there.
Think about times when he or she may not be behaving like an extrovert. So much about our characters change according to circumstancs. Maybe your 'extrovert' character is introvert at times. Explore when those times are, when does this happen? Who is your character with at these moments? Does he or she behave differently with different characters?
A good many of the things listed here will not end up in your written screenplay.
But they will help you to start exploring the possibilities of your characters to build on. The more you can inhabit your character's inner life the deeper will be their effect on the audience.Going deeper and deeper into your character like this will almost automatically help to create complexities.
Screenwriting character is as much about asking questions of your character as answering them.
And you shouldn't be able to answer all of them anyway!
What are your Character's Emotional Needs? If they don't have any, shouldn't they have some? Where will the all-important emotional plot be otherwise?
Following on from emotional needs:
What does your character want? Do we care?
And do they want it enough for the audience to want to find out how or whether they'll get it?
What is your Character's Passion? If they haven't got one, should they have one?
How does your character express emotions? Anger, pleasure, cynicism, joy, fear etc
How does your character register tension and stress? By a physical gesture/expression? Silence? Talking too much?
Temperament?
Attitude to life?
An optimist or pessimist? Both - it depends?
Extrovert? Introvert? Ambivert? - it depends who character is with? What does your character fear? Real or imagined?
What is the worst thing can happen to him/her?
What makes your character happy/sad?
Does your character get depressed? When? Why?
What makes your character laugh? Does he or she giggle? Show their teeth in a beam?Think of a joke that would have your character rolling around on the floor clutching their stomach.
What comedians does your character like?And not like?
What does your character worry about?
Ambitions? - Professional? Personal?
Complexes? - must be meaningful, not tacked on.
Is your character in denial about something?
Has your character got low or high self-esteem, or medium? - Does it depend on how he or she gets out of bed that morning? Is the self-belief fragile?
What elements in his/her character that he/she doesn’t accept?
Frustrations – big and small?
What does your character like about him/herself? External and Pyschological.
What does your character dislike/hate about him/herself? External and Psychological.
Screenwriting Character The Externals Age
Sex
Build
Hair, eyes, skin colour
Movement - How does your character walk? (Some actors say that when they first approach a character they work out how they walk before considering anything else, because this can say a great deal about the character’s take on life, their sense of identity etc)
Mannerisms - NO 'pegged on' character tics. They must be a natural expression of character.
Facial expressions
Voice
Speech patterns
How do they dress?conservative? Fashionable? Quirky?Do they care about their appearance or not?What does that say about their confidence? Sense of identity?
What is your character's back story?
Major and minor disappointments?
What is your character’s family like?
Sibings? What is the character's relationship with them like?
What's your character's birth order? Oldest, youngest? Middle?
What was their childhood like?
Parents divorced? Step-siblings?
Friends? - Why does he choose them? Do they make him feel good, unconfident or what?
Lovers?
Sexually innocent/experienced/promiscuous? If promiscuous - why? Where is this coming from?
What is his or her attitude to sex? Worth thinking about deeply.
How intelligent?
Cultural interests?
Abilities and skills?
Hobbies?
Birthplace/Education/Job?
Rich/poor or other? Attitude to material things - very important,
Environment? Where does your character feel most comfortable -city, country, what kind of city, what kind of country?
Does the character have ‘shadows’ – ie things in his/her past that influence their actions now? They should have.
Religious? Atheist? Other?
Life goals?
Major events in life? Anything traumatic?Where does your character feel uncomfortable? What situations?How much has your character travelled? Has he or she fallen in love with a foreign place?
These are just the basics of screenwriting character, as I say. You're sure to come up with your own questions to ask of your characters. As well as discovering who your character is, you will hopefully come to realise what should remain a mystery about them. And as I've mentioned, most of these elements and characteristics will not be written into the screenplay. They are only useful as a means of exploring the possibilities of your character.
I hope the basics for screenwriting character I've put together here will act as a springboard for your imagination to take flight and begin to shape your character into a unique and complex individual who will seduce, intrigue - and perplex the audience.
If you have "Movie Outline" it has a character builder with it... It ask you a series of 100 questions about your character and then tally's it all up in the end. It's a pretty useful tool. Albeit, a time consuming one too.
Can I just say that that little sentence right there is pretty much what every film is.
You have a character and then the worst possible thing happens to them. That's pretty much all there is.
Actually, it is not always the film itself, but the fear that the character has throughout the story. For example, in The Departed, Leonardo DiCaprio's fear was losing his identity, but it's not one of the main issues in the film at all.
Also, the worst thing that can happen to the character is sometimes used as his motive throughout the film (like protecting his family) and you may even find movies when it doesn't matters, and it's not even mentioned (specially in plots where the protagonist is unwillingly involved in something and just wants to get out of the situation).
Actually, it is not always the film itself, but the fear that the character has throughout the story. For example, in The Departed, Leonardo DiCaprio's fear was losing his identity, but it's not one of the main issues in the film at all.
Also, the worst thing that can happen to the character is sometimes used as his motive throughout the film (like protecting his family) and you may even find movies when it doesn't matters, and it's not even mentioned (specially in plots where the protagonist is unwillingly involved in something and just wants to get out of the situation).
Obviously I'm oversimplyfying matters, nevertheless you can still make it work for the Departed. The stories just about a guy who really wants to be a cop and it ends up with him losing his identity as a cop and it's only by dying that he is restored to that position. Both his worst fears are realised at one point in the film.
Your second paragraph to me is just an extended version of what I'm saying. It doesn't have to come true, but the worst thing is the driving point of the film. So a staunch family guy ends up in a situation where his family is at risk or some other variant.
In the second situation it seems even more explicit. Someone gets put in the worst possible situation and then tries to get out of it.
I guess you are right. From that point of view, the whole idea of the film is to make it real hard to the protagonist, and take him to the extreme in terms of both emotion and action, and in every possible way the story can allow.
Didn't McKee write something like that in his book, anyway?
Probably. It's a fairly elementary part of storytelling. If nothing particularly bad is happening from the characters point of view, there's not much of a story.
I nearly chuckled when I read Decadence Films' above example of "not very riveting" dialogue. Virtually every novice script I've critiqued in the last handful of years has had vast amounts of such dialogue. Truly dreadful stuff. People just don't seem to understand what constitutes interesting, compelling, necessary dialogue. I'm a firm believer that you either know how to write good dialogue or you don't. Sadly, most budding scribes don't have a clue.
I think great dialogue comes with knowing your characters very well.
I'm kind of weary of Mckee's opinions, just because I have his book "STORY". In one part on page 375 he says: "A character is no more a human being than the Venus de Milo is a real woman. A character is a work of art, a metaphor for human nature. We relate to characters as if they were real, but they're superior to reality. Their aspects are designed to be clear and knowable; whereas our fellow humans are difficult to understand..." Now is there any wonder why characters are often so one dimensional and unrelateable? This guy is the "guru" for crying out loud...
It may be just me, but I think most of these things are kind of useless. Yeah, it's great knowing all about the character, but when it comes down to it, we only know the 100 or so pages of the script. The other stuff doesn't really matter.
I think the problem I have with it is that it's almost like your setting this character in stone. Screenplays have a pulse about them. They should be able to evolve over time. I don't know how many earlier scripts became great scripts because I changed one or two things during rewrite, things I thought were firm in the beginning stages.
In my humble opinion, characters should only represent dramatic action. Character A is only what it wants. I give that character depth by giving it a secondary goal (or dramatic action) that completely contradicts its main goal. Something like, "A man wants to save his marriage, but really he wants to bone his secretary".
Indiana Jones is deathly afraid of snakes, but he somehow always ends up in a snake pit. Go figure!
To be fair, Indy doesn't go looking for Snake Pits to play in... Humans always go looking for the next best thing. In your scenario, the secretary.
I kidd... I do.
Characters are only as strong as the story and situations you put them in. If you have a character who lays in bed all day and just says "10 more minuets. Give me 10 more minuets" that's probably not going to be a very deep character.
However, if you have a character who gets off of work one day, stops in to cash his check at the bank and winds up in the middle of a hold up... One he could have prevented earlier that day had he not given the bank robbers a ride into town. Well, then you have something to work with.
He then becomes a man of action and that's what drives a story. Action and situations. In the end, those are the same elements that will make your character who he/she is in the end.
Well, when I'm stuck, I tend to go back and find out where I went wrong. I've made it a little too easy. I have to steer my character into a harder situation.
I think great dialogue comes with knowing your characters very well.
I'm kind of weary of Mckee's opinions, just because I have his book "STORY". In one part on page 375 he says: "A character is no more a human being than the Venus de Milo is a real woman. A character is a work of art, a metaphor for human nature. We relate to characters as if they were real, but they're superior to reality. Their aspects are designed to be clear and knowable; whereas our fellow humans are difficult to understand..." Now is there any wonder why characters are often so one dimensional and unrelateable? This guy is the "guru" for crying out loud...
I am not really sure what the issue is here, I happen to think that he has hit the nail firmly on the head with that sentence. He is saying that characters are not real people and never should be seen as real people, I for one think that exactly right.
It is the same as all the people who keep saying that dialogue should be realistic, that the best way to learn good dialogue is to listen to real people talk etc.. Sorry but that is clearly not true, has anyone ever listened to real people talk? Have you ever stopped to take in your own conversations with friends? My God what a boring movie! Great characters are way above real people, they say things in ways that real people cannot. In movies conversations are had that last fleeting moments and yet say so much more than any of us could manage in a 20 minute chat with friends.
Think of some of the greatest movie characters in the history of film and then try to imagine how many of them could actually exist in the real world, I mean really exist just as they do within their fictional world.
I don't take issue with the idea of fleshing out a character before you go into your first re-write and serious dialogue pass, it is probably a great idea to understand him/her as much as you can. I do think however that McKee, in this instance, is spot on. Character should be larger than life and thus speak in a language that is unheard of here on Earth.
Think of some of the greatest movie characters in the history of film and then try to imagine how many of them could actually exist in the real world, I mean really exist just as they do within their fictional world.
True but when I look in the mirror, all I see is R.J. MacReady. Go figure.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
Do you find the character? Or does the character find you?
What if you fill out some kind of elaborate form on "your" character, and everything is all very neat and cozy but THEN, he/she behaves differently. Either you, or your character have problems.
On a side note, I thing I'm strongest at writing dialogue.
Don't forget one thing: the strongest films are the one without (or almost) dialogue. Have a look at silent movies. Every feeling was passing through the image.
Dialogs or sitauation boards were there for only convenience.
Remember Chaplin. Remember Jacques Tati. Why do think that Bean was worldwide sold?
I have several posts in there. That's what I do sometimes. There's also a pretty fair series of questions both in that thread and in the Screenwriting Palette thread.
I am not really sure what the issue is here, I happen to think that he has hit the nail firmly on the head with that sentence. He is saying that characters are not real people and never should be seen as real people, I for one think that exactly right.
It is the same as all the people who keep saying that dialogue should be realistic, that the best way to learn good dialogue is to listen to real people talk etc.. Sorry but that is clearly not true, has anyone ever listened to real people talk? Have you ever stopped to take in your own conversations with friends? My God what a boring movie! Great characters are way above real people, they say things in ways that real people cannot. In movies conversations are had that last fleeting moments and yet say so much more than any of us could manage in a 20 minute chat with friends.
Think of some of the greatest movie characters in the history of film and then try to imagine how many of them could actually exist in the real world, I mean really exist just as they do within their fictional world.
I don't take issue with the idea of fleshing out a character before you go into your first re-write and serious dialogue pass, it is probably a great idea to understand him/her as much as you can. I do think however that McKee, in this instance, is spot on. Character should be larger than life and thus speak in a language that is unheard of here on Earth.
I think you're not noticing/understanding people in real life. Mckee himself admits people are complex. This is why he suggests writing characters in abstract. Nothing, can be more silly. The best character dramas(indeed, the stories) are taken from real circumstances and drawn from real people. People have amazing layers. What they might show to you in a sitting might be the boring bits but if you dig deeper like the first post suggests, you would be amazed. The reason for deep character profiles is that you can take the story in authentic places and you'll never feel stuck. When you do otherwise, you run the risk of contrivances.
Someone mentioned a character set in stone. That's far from it. People in real life react to various circumstances in ways that, though seem alien to them, are genuine.
Nothing to me, feels weirder than the librarian who hacks up lovers and keep them in the freezer in her basement... Unless, there is something in her history that explains her current state. Hence the need for character profiles.
Characters are not set in stone, and when you write silly character profiles, which are a good way to waste time, that's what you're doing. You're making decisions before writing the script.
Characters should act first and speak second. We're not writing plays. We're writing movies. I think most novice writers make their characters say too much.
Nothing to me, feels weirder than the librarian who hacks up lovers and keep them in the freezer in her basement... Unless, there is something in her history that explains her current state. Hence the need for character profiles.
It is said that character profiles didn't work for Ted Bundy. He worked for the Samaritans and was polite and courteous.
Not every character is set in stone.
All these pillars of society we are suppose to look up to from cops, judges to priests and doctors. A librarian can of course kill.
I think you're not noticing/understanding people in real life. Mckee himself admits people are complex. This is why he suggests writing characters in abstract. Nothing, can be more silly. The best character dramas(indeed, the stories) are taken from real circumstances and drawn from real people. People have amazing layers. What they might show to you in a sitting might be the boring bits but if you dig deeper like the first post suggests, you would be amazed. The reason for deep character profiles is that you can take the story in authentic places and you'll never feel stuck. When you do otherwise, you run the risk of contrivances.
Someone mentioned a character set in stone. That's far from it. People in real life react to various circumstances in ways that, though seem alien to them, are genuine.
Nothing to me, feels weirder than the librarian who hacks up lovers and keep them in the freezer in her basement... Unless, there is something in her history that explains her current state. Hence the need for character profiles.
I take your point, but films aren't life. They tend to be heightened realism.
Real life things often play out as false or weak on film.
For instance, I've often heard Producers complain that people come to them with real life stories that are full of coincidences. The Producer will point out that drama shouldn't play out through coincidences because the audience won't buy it, to which they get the inevitable reply "But it actually happened".
The other point is that most people don't react like the heroes in films. They would simply call the police and go home or whatever, give up.
What is taken for "realism" in a film is usually not very real at all.
I remember reading a review on Nil by Mouth, a British drama. The Guardian described it as a very realistic portrayal of domestic violence. It struck me at the time; How would they know?
I once saw a fight between a husband and a wife outside a working mans club, it went a bit like this, they were both very drunk
You're a fucking cock you are, a fucking cock
I'm a cock? You're a slut. You're a fucking tramp.
No, you're a cock.
Shut your face, you slut.
You're a cock. A fucking pissed up fucking cock.
Stop calling me a cock you slut
I'll call you what I like you fucking wanker. You're a cock
Call me a fucking cock again I'll fucking slap you.
Go on then you cock
Then he slapped her and they scuffled a bit and it got broken up.
That's a realistic portrayal of some domestic abuse, but if you wrote that and put it on the screen, people would say your dialogue was crap and unimaginative.
You have to heighten it and make it more dramatic. You lose about 80-90% of the emotion when it's on screen, so you have to ramp it up to get it back to what seems like the same level.
Kckee is not saying that your characters should be one dimensional, he's merely saying they should be clearer and more pronounced than real life. After all you only have 90-120 minutes to get their story across.
I couldn't disagree with you more. That one incident you saw is not representative of the plethora of domestic situations. I've seen an obese woman pummel her skinny boyfriend to shame, flinging him around like a rag doll, while I've seen a grown man attacked a skinny teenage girl on a bus(I was livid, but that's beside the point). You're right about most people being cowards. Most people are also sheep. But that doesn't preclude them from doing amazing things during the most dramatic points in their life.
In new york a father was on waiting on a train with his two young daughters when a guy had an epileptic attack and fell onto the tracks. With the train bearing down, the man made a split second decision and jumped onto the tracks. He put the guy in the gutter between the lines and laid attop him. The train passed over them, harming noone. When asked why he did it, he said he didn't want his girls to experience seeing the alternative. Another element of marvel to the media was that this was a black man saving the life of a young white guy. This happened about three or four years ago. Real life drama that storytellers can only copy.
Everything that happens in 3000 Miles to Graceland is by coincidence, and that's one of my favorite movies.
There are other examples as well. I'm just speaking generally.
Unless they are a part of the fabric of the structure or the story itself, they generally don't play out very convincingly. For instance, people have been known to fall out of a plane from 25,000 feet and survive. It's possible, but it would seem rather silly if that happened to your action hero in the middle of a film. I'm not explaining it very well, so I'll stop there.
I couldn't disagree with you more. That one incident you saw is not representative of the plethora of domestic situations. I've seen an obese woman pummel her skinny boyfriend to shame, flinging him around like a rag doll, while I've seen a grown man attacked a skinny teenage girl on a bus(I was livid, but that's beside the point). You're right about most people being cowards. Most people are also sheep. But that doesn't preclude them from doing amazing things during the most dramatic points in their life.
In new york a father was on waiting on a train with his two young daughters when a guy had an epileptic attack and fell onto the tracks. With the train bearing down, the man made a split second decision and jumped onto the tracks. He put the guy in the gutter between the lines and laid attop him. The train passed over them, harming noone. When asked why he did it, he said he didn't want his girls to experience seeing the alternative. Another element of marvel to the media was that this was a black man saving the life of a young white guy. This happened about three or four years ago. Real life drama that storytellers can only copy.
I never claimed it was. I'm just saying that real life characters don't necessarily play out well on screen. The instance I gave was just an example.
People do amazing things, there's no question about that. What I'm trying to get across is the point that film is not real life. Our expectations of a film are not like real life. If you witness a guy saving someone's life on a train, without any knowledge of their background, it's an amazing thing. In a film it isn't. It's just a film, we know it's not real. To get the same level of emotion as the real life event you have to structure it deliberately so that you care about both the people and want them to survive. In real life that is taken for granted.
The filmic equivalent would see us meet both the characters and find out about them. Probably the saviour would have a backstory that had something to do with the fact he's a coward, maybe his daughters don't respect him, his life is all out of kilter, maye he's even contemplating suicide, then something like this happens. I don't know it could be anything, but you've got to set the stage for it to have emotional resonance.
If you just jump straight into it, the audience will have no emotional connection to the event and will just be asking questions like Who is this guy? Why is he so brave? Where did he learn to do that?
That's why what Mckee says stands up, I think you're just interpreting it to mean something he doesn't intend. Clear doesn;t mean that they have to be one dimensional, that's just the way some people have written characters.
Audiences definitely need clarity about the characters, they can be deliberatley ambiguous, but they shouldn't be unclear, because if the audience doesn't understand what they want, they can have no emotional connection to them because there's nothing to empathise with.
It's different to real life because altruism doesn't extend to fictional characters on the TV screens.
Of course, it all depends on the type of film you are making. Movies generally don't need real life characters, they need something more but something that is believable at the same time.
decadence, if you met both characters and do profiles, I gaurantee that they will be twice as interesting as anything you could imagine in abstract. Why, people come in layers. Some show you what they want you to see in order to hide what they're ashamed of. Some overcompensate, some are extroverts but are extremly oblivious to nuances etc It depends on you and how observant you are of the people around you. People often speak in subtext, can you figure out what's going on? Take this example: If the guys didn't know their characters inside and out would this scene work?
The funny thing is, I know a guy who is exactly like Damon's character. If I tell you about this guy...
decadence, if you met both characters and do profiles, I gaurantee that they will be twice as interesting as anything you could imagine in abstract. Why, people come in layers. Some show you what they want you to see in order to hide what they're ashamed of. Some overcompensate, some are extroverts but are extremly oblivious to nuances etc It depends on you and how observant you are of the people around you. People often speak in subtext, can you figure out what's going on? Take this example: If the guys didn't know their characters inside and out would this scene work?
The funny thing is, I know a guy who is exactly like Damon's character. If I tell you about this guy...
Intersting that you use Good Will Hunting as an example. Ben Affleck and Matt Damon wrote it as a thriller, about a guy with super intelligence who was hunted by the military intelligence to become a G-Man.
It went through further changes after suggestions made by Rob Reiner (he said it should be about the realtionship between Will and his Therapist) and William Goldman. Some of the scenes were made up on the spot. Minnie Driver, Ben Affleck and Robin Williams improvised a lot of their stuff in rehearsals.
The classic moment with Robin Williams talking about his wife's idiosyncracies was made up on the spot. Matt Damons laughs were real and the camera jiggles because the camerman was laughing so hard.
You see the point? The guys wanted to contrive a plotty thriller and instead they were advised to focus on creating characters based on themselves. They ended up with a much richer story for it.
There are other examples as well. I'm just speaking generally.
Unless they are a part of the fabric of the structure or the story itself, they generally don't play out very convincingly. For instance, people have been known to fall out of a plane from 25,000 feet and survive. It's possible, but it would seem rather silly if that happened to your action hero in the middle of a film. I'm not explaining it very well, so I'll stop there.
I understand what you're saying. It's not the point of "coincidence" being wrong, but it's the way things are built within the fabric of the story. There needs to be a very pointed kind of logic so that things don't apparently happen out of the blue, but due to some kind cause. Even if it's a flawed kind of logic, there needs to be a connection. That's where the set up is so important.
Right now, the movie Night at the Museum comes to mind. To me it was a fun movie for kids and silly grown ups like myself. The significance of Larry's flashlight is played to the hilt with the other guard when he "touches" the exhibit. And then later, he's using it as a sword. If someone just threw that kind of thing into their script somewhere at random, it might come off as "where the heck did that come from"? But if it's pointedly used, it can be extremely effective.
Your point is a good one. It's much easier said then done and it's why we have to keep scrutinizing the smallest energetic units within the story and weighing them against the story as a whole.
It's "the hand of God" saving the character from an impossible situation kind of coincidences that are a no-no. Opportunities are a necessary part of drama(ie story) as much as they are in real life. The writer just have to know how to blend them well with character skills and circumstances for them to work.
I couldn't tell you. I've focused most of my energies on ignoring the things (read: books) put out by others while concentrating on my writing.
Your characters should have some semblance of realism in them, where their actions don't seemingly come out of left field. A basic example is the nerd who is picked on for an entire film only to finally take a stand. Does he do it right off? No. There's usually some sort of buildup to it, in the form of a clever montage or something, that jives with this new change in personality and gives it a sense of realism. It brings logic into things, and solves allows the character to overcome both their internal and external conflicts. Sad thing, is that even if you manage to accomplish that, there are still questions to be asked.
I'm trying so hard to stay out of this...but...I can't! Sorry.
Listen, every example that anyone gives of a plot point, or even example of characterization, or writing in general. Keep on doing the same thing equals BORING...equals BEEN THERE ALREADY SEEN IT...5 TIMES!
My point is this, create great charaters whatever way works for you, but make sure they are real people with real back stories, lives that continue when the camera moves away. Who cares how you do, what book you read, or which guru you listen to.
It doesn't matter how you get there, just do what you can to get there.
Jammingirl, McKee is not saying that good characters cannot be based on real people, he is just highlighting the fact that good characters are not real people. There is a huge difference there. I do not see that Decadence is disagreeing with you at all. I think you have just taken a quote by McKee and mis-interpreted what he meant by it.
Good characters are above real people in everything they do, this is what audiences expect. Some will be smarter, some will be braver, others will be funnier etc.. You can certainly take a real person and use them as a base for a character but you cannot hope to use a real person as a character and think you will get away with it. Look at the big biopics of the last few years and see how even a real person has been turned into an unreal character, this is the movies.
The most important factor in this though is through dialogue, no matter how hard you try you can never make your characters talk like real people. The simple reason is that when we engage in conversation we do not plan ahead what we are going to say, there is often no time limit on what we have to say, there is no goal or direction the conversation must follow and there is certainly no rules as to whose turn to speak it is. Our characters get to have all of the above and more, you have two pages to get to the next plot point and you need to have someone say where the secret door is. Your characters are therefore above real people, every single movement they make and sentence they speak is planned.
This, as simple as it sounds, is all that McKee is saying. You do this alot, you take simple, no-brainer stuff that the "guru's" say (stuff incidentally that you already know) and read far more into it that there is.
Of course you are right, it is a great idea to create backstories for characters, this though is not for the audiences benefit, it is purely for your own benefit, the audience will only ever see what you write.
I didn't take Mckee's words out of context and there was nothing for me to interpret. He was very clear. He is very wrong. Contriving characters based on what one deems "better than real people" will only make them flat, and unrelateble. I notice that some gurus often say "don't make your characters talk like real people because they make alot of 'ums' " well that depends on the person. Some writers actually walk around with notepads trying to capture overheard conversations that play great onscreen. I've been in a couple situations where I wish I had a notepad to write things I overheard... Great dialogue should be important to the story but it should also reflect the character. And you can't do that without knowing your character well. See my script, 'after the trade'? I didn't base my characters on real people and it reflected in the dialogue. But it was my very first script and I've learned alot since then.
I didn't take Mckee's words out of context and there was nothing for me to interpret. He was very clear. He is very wrong. Contriving characters based on what one deems "better than real people" will only make them flat, and unrelateble. I notice that some gurus often say "don't make your characters talk like real people because they make alot of 'ums' " well that depends on the person. Some writers actually walk around with notepads trying to capture overheard conversations that play great onscreen. I've been in a couple situations where I wish I had a notepad to write things I overheard... Great dialogue should be important to the story but it should also reflect the character. And you can't do that without knowing your character well. See my script, 'after the trade'? I didn't base my characters on real people and it reflected in the dialogue. But it was my very first script and I've learned alot since then.
He's not telling you to base your characters on "what one deems better than real people". That's the point you are taking in error. He's merely expressing that characters in a story are not real life people, they are art.
In your example of Good Will Hunting, his whole character arc is a metaphor for life (and the importance of love). In just two hours we see a complete change in his personality and it is a change that is irrevocable. That is the difference between characters and real life people. Their struggles are clearer (both internal and external) and their goals are readily identifiable.
He doesn't contradict what you are saying, he never says that characters can't be multi-dimensional. It's just that their dimensions have to be clear and visible, otherwise the story is unfathomable.
I'm no disciple of Mckee, like most writers in the end I decided to rely on my own instinct for story. Be aware that there are different types of film though. These guru's are ususally talking about a specific type of creation, which is a "Movie" for want of a better word. There are other styles of film and script you can write and there is everything in between.
Of those types of writers my personal favourite is Alexander Mackendrick:
These are the characters considered the best by the general viewing public. Whether you agree with them or not is not the issue in question.
I'm just pointing out that there are alternative ways to make interesting characters.
The top three of all time as considered by the viewing public are The Joker, Darth Vader and Tyler Durden. The only one who had any kind of back story was Darth Vader, but people, I have no doubt, picked him for when he was sheer evil, ooked very cool and not because we found out he was really a weird looking old man in a helmet.
The three greatest characters of all time as considered by the public were pretty much standard archetypes. The Joker of Chaos ( "Some men just want to watch the world burn"), Darth Vader of Fear/Evil and Tyler Durden was a representation of the male ID. He had no doubt, he was strong, physically perfect, confident and attractive. He was what every man would like to be.
Maybe there is a difference between main characters and lesser characters? I'd say so. the main character needs more than one dimension. Maybe there are different styles that work for different films?
Certainly a back story can harm a bad guy. Look at Michael Myers in the new version of Halloween. He's gone from being a scary boogeyman in the first film, to being a weird little kid who has to hide his face. It doesn't work. Attempting to humanise archetypes seems to actually lessen their appeal.
As always, there is more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm trying so hard to stay out of this...but...I can't! Sorry.
Listen, every example that anyone gives of a plot point, or even example of characterization, or writing in general. Keep on doing the same thing equals BORING...equals BEEN THERE ALREADY SEEN IT...5 TIMES!
My point is this, create great charaters whatever way works for you, but make sure they are real people with real back stories, lives that continue when the camera moves away. Who cares how you do, what book you read, or which guru you listen to.
It doesn't matter how you get there, just do what you can to get there.
You know?
I hear what you are saying, but isn't this thread about discussing ways of doing just what you say?
In order to find the way that works for you, is it not good to hear other options?
Saying "create great charaters whatever way works for you, but make sure they are real people with real back stories, lives that continue when the camera moves away"; is all well and good, but how would you suggest one does such a thing?
What defines a great character?
What you have said is true, but it's the same as saying "Just write a masterpiece". It's a good idea but it's not exactly a systematic plan.
Yes, Dec, it is. But as always, everyone seems to be arguing about what is the right way and what is the wrong way to shape a character...to create a character.
The answer is that there isn't a right or wrong way. You may use one way, Baltis another, Jammin' a third, and me, a completely different way altogether.
USe whichever way works best for you. Nothing wrong with trying a bunch of different ideas until you find what works best for you.
Yes, Dec, it is. But as always, everyone seems to be arguing about what is the right way and what is the wrong way to shape a character...to create a character.
The answer is that there isn't a right or wrong way. You may use one way, Baltis another, Jammin' a third, and me, a completely different way altogether.
USe whichever way works best for you. Nothing wrong with trying a bunch of different ideas until you find what works best for you.
Ditto!
Just work it. Work it your way. Work it any way. Just work it.
Pages: 
Author
Character Profiles
Logged
Locked Board