Archive for Characters
What’s NOT stopping you from writing your screenplay
Posted by: | CommentsI have a hunch these are NOT what’s stopping you from writing your screenplay:
* You don’t have any ideas
* You don’t understand the basics of screenwriting
* You have a fear of success
I think maybe one or more of these IS what’s stopping you:
* Procrastination
* Too many ideas
* Writing blocks
* Not enough time
* No support from family and friends
If I’m right, the WRITING BREAKTHROUGH STRATEGY program is what you need in order to write the screenplay you know is in you. Here’s a little (one minute) overview of what it gives you. If you want to find out more or sign up, go to: www.WritingBreakthroughStrategy.com. But hurry, because it starts on Monday, January 16!
Your audience will judge your characters
Posted by: | CommentsWhen you create the characters in your screenplay, you probably have a good idea of how you want the audience to react to them, but are you doing everything you can to ensure you get the results you want?
Maybe you’ve seen the somewhat terrifying research that suggests that we make up our minds about people within a few seconds of meeting them. Not minutes—seconds!
That applies to your characters as well. Of course ultimately a lot of the audience’s reaction will be based on the actor and to some degree the way he or she has been directed, but even more of the responsibility rests with you.
What do you have your characters doing and saying the first time we see or hear them? Are you stopping to consider what kind of impression that will make and whether or not it’s the one you want us to have?
How subtle (or not) you are in planting your character’s qualities depends on you and what kind of film it is. The big action pictures paint with broad strokes. Sometimes that extends to dealing in stereotypes.
David Thewlis as the nasty landlord
One example: the landlord in the film version of War Horse. The way he’s dressed, the fact that he’s surrounded by yes-men, his expression and of course the way he treats the people who farm his land all tell us he’s a bad ‘un. The only thing he doesn’t do is twirl his moustache. And if the officer who bought the horse had been any nobler he would have been declared a saint on the spot. That doesn’t make it wrong (I’m sure Mr Spielberg will be relieved to hear this…)–it’s a movie that goes for big emotions, not subtlety.
It’s hard for us to be objective about these things when it comes to our own work, so here’s a suggestion: give a friend or colleague only the first two pages on which you introduce an important character. Ask them to read those couple of pages and tell you what they think the character is like.
Naturally you don’t expect or even want characters to reveal all of their facets the first time we see them, and in some cases you may even want to have a character who is hiding his or her true nature. Even then, usually a bit of subtle foreshadowing is a good idea—not big enough to register at the time, but enough that when the audience looks back they realize there was a clue to this person’s real nature from the start.
The missing ingredient in the movie “Carnage”
Posted by: | Comments
I saw a screening of Carnage the other day. Although the acting was good (especially Christoph Waltz, with a faultless American accent), there is one major ingredient missing.
Twelve Angry Men and Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, two films to which it has been compared, had it.
It’s glue.
By that I mean a reason why these people have to stay together. In the case of Twelve Angry Men, the members of the jury couldn’t leave until they reached a verdict.
In the case of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf it was the codependency of George and Martha–as much as they hated each other they also counted on their partner’s hatred to energize them.
In the case of Carnage, what keeps the visiting couple from leaving a situation from which any sane person would flee? An offer of more tea.
What could have fixed this? Well, having recently stayed in a New York hotel where at least one of the elevators seemed to be perpetually breaking down, that might have been a suitable device. Yes, the audience would have recognized it as a device but that’s preferable to having them think at least three times that of course the visiting couple would now get the hell out of this situation.
