Advertisement
I'm moving a topic in another thread here.
With the idea that interesting characters make interesting choices and interesting choices might lead to an interesting story (and plot)....
...let's ask this question...
What makes an interesting character?
I think quirks are a little risky because so often they are really abstract and mean nothing. I remember reading lots of scripts that would give characters some meaningless little habbit thinking it identified it, but it meant nothing.
What works is the fact that Napoleon Dynamite insists that girls like guys with Skillz - especially in the ninja sense. The like that he rented a dance video and learned the moves and then saved his friends presidential campaign by strutting some 80's moves at the assembly.
I think the ORIGINAL Meet the Parents had some of this charm. Gay Focker. He was a guy who you can identify with - he just keeps doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. His tragic flaw is over thinking - being overly insecure - being unable to let things ride.
What are some other examples?
With the idea that interesting characters make interesting choices and interesting choices might lead to an interesting story (and plot)....
...let's ask this question...
What makes an interesting character?
I think quirks are a little risky because so often they are really abstract and mean nothing. I remember reading lots of scripts that would give characters some meaningless little habbit thinking it identified it, but it meant nothing.
What works is the fact that Napoleon Dynamite insists that girls like guys with Skillz - especially in the ninja sense. The like that he rented a dance video and learned the moves and then saved his friends presidential campaign by strutting some 80's moves at the assembly.
I think the ORIGINAL Meet the Parents had some of this charm. Gay Focker. He was a guy who you can identify with - he just keeps doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. His tragic flaw is over thinking - being overly insecure - being unable to let things ride.
What are some other examples?
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Character leading to story
Sat, May 21, 2005 - 7:16 PMThe dance scene in Napolian Dynamite reminded me of the performance in "About a Boy"...
I liked the character developement in Never Cry Wolf. There was not much plot. He had no other actors to play off of and his character changed quite a bit . Not an astounding film..but I've liked like Farley Mowat since I was a kid.
More than Napoleon..I liked The Castle. It's another geek film but it's a stronger portrayal of integrity and optimism. All the characters are honest , sincere, and dim. The dimmest being the father. Everyone reveres him and rightly so. He takes the high road "most" of the time!
I guess Napoleon could actually exist..and Darl might not. But The Castle was just full of Australian whitetrash humor .: Electric towers, toxic fill, jousting sticks, bedazzler, plastic flowers around the tv, handknit kangaroo sweater,matchstick prison ashtray, Bonnydoone, "carp is good catching fish" ...plenty of material to support the characters. I had to watch this movie a ghalf dozen times , just to take in all the props.
-
Re: Character leading to story
Sun, May 22, 2005 - 11:58 AMMark I'm going to join this exceptional tribe right after this post. I believe what makes a character interesting is your personal knowledge of that person, whatever it was that made them memorable to you. Your the creator, your the one bringing them to "Story exsistence". If they caught your fancy, your notice, your funny bone, your curiosity then they're going to be interesting or your not a writer, a conveyor of stories. I believe we are encouraged to write in the little "quirks" for the benefit of the actors...that somrtimes sells, but maybe I'm intent on being a purist and I don't want to do that. I'd rather the actor and director fet that out. -
-
Re: Character leading to story
Sun, May 22, 2005 - 9:44 PMI'm glad you like the tribe, thank you.
I would say that maybe we are encouraged to write quirks because were encouraged to believe that "character is important" and this is a first effort way of addressing that concern. So, essentially, we do it for our own insecurity.
I think some people do have quirks - but we rarely talk about it them to friends and they rarely help tell a story. And they are actually rarely cinematic. Someone swirls the keys around their fingers in an interesting pattern. Someone else whistles while they think. These things just don't get us anywhere. I think true character is in the actions we take. We judge people by what they do. These are also the things we share with friends with a passion. Perhaps that's a clue at what makes something film worthy - when it'st he kind of thing people feel like they must share with someone else. When was the last time you had to call a friend immediately and tell him or her that this guy was swirling his keys around his finger? When was the last time you had to tell your best friend that your other friend did that same thing again! Made that same choice that is damaging to his or her life again?
-
-
Re: Character leading to story
Sun, May 29, 2005 - 3:20 PMWhat made the original Meet the Parents work for me wasn't neccessarily the protagonist's quirks (they were mostly window dressing for comic effect), but the hero's desperate need to please his future in-laws so he can marry his girlfriend with her father's blessing. While comedy is continually mined out of the Ben Stiller character's unfortunate name and occupation, his character is most effectively revealed by *how* he goes about trying to accomplish his mission, and how he handles or mishandles the various hiccups that stand in his way.
I'd classify Napoleon Dynamite as more of a slice of life/character study sort of comedy. Napoleon doesn't have any kind of identifiable superobjective that drives him through the story. Rather, the movie follows a group of eccentric characters through a string of vignettes that are enjoyable to watch...or not, depending on who you are and what you like. ND reminded me of several Saturday Night Live movies meant to showcase recurring characters. In fact, Napoleon's voice reminded me a lot of Martin Short's Ed Grimley character. I liked the movie. I thought it was cute.
Keeping this conversation to comedy, I recently rewatched "Young Frankenstein." For me, the movie endures not because of its schtick but because of the characters' clear M.O.s. The quirky, over-the-top intensity Gene Wilder brings to his performance as Frederick Frankenstein certainly makes the movie enjoyable to watch but I think the movie succeeds as a whole because the hero's needs drive him forward (i.e., first, he desperately wishes to disassociate himself from his infamous grandfather but later aspires to follow in his footsteps with the same urgency).
Certainly, Wilder tries to repeat the receipe in subsequent comedies like "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother" and "The World's Greatest Lover" but, perhaps without a savvy collaborator like Mel Brooks to play off of, these other movies don't work as well.
I haven't seen "Midnight Cowboy" in a long time but if memory serves, it's not the story that engages but the eccentric characters and what the actors bring to their performances. The same can be said of "The Misfits". I can barely remember the story, but I'll never forget the characters and who played them. Scorsese's "King of Comedy" might stand as an example of a movie that delivers highly eccentric characters as well as a memorable story.