While in the UCLA Writing Program I took BARNEY LICHTENSTEINs excellent Story Analyst Course.

The following is from his course material. It you share it please credit. Hes taught the course for 17 years and I enthusiastically recommend it to all writers. .

CHARACTERIZATION THE ULTIMATE IRONY An audience will not believe a story you tell if they dont believe the characters in that story. They have to latch on to somebody - a leading man, someone like them, or who feels and thinks like them, and thats called identification, and once have identification then you can pretty much tell any story with any of the fantastic elements at your disposal. Steven Spielberg The usual person is more than content, he is even proud, to remain within the indicated bounds, and popular belief gives him every reason to fear so much as the first step into the unexplored the adventure of the hero normally follows a pattern ofseparation from the world, a penetration to some source of power, and a life-enhancing returnfor now it appears that the perilous journey was a labor not of attainment, but of reattainment, not discovery but rediscovery. OWN REBIRTH Joseph Campbell, Hero with a Thousand Faces Hamlet is considered Shakespeares greatest tragedy. Hamlet stops himself. He is his own worst enemy. He knows what he should do but over-intellectualizing leads to indecision, doubt, inertia. As a result, he delays the necessary action until it too late. Nothing is more tragic than one who becomes his own worst enemy. All great characters contain some element of this irony. From Hamlet to Scarlett to Dorothy in Wizard of Oz to Luke Skywalker, all great characters become potentially their own worst enemies. They have some blindness or weakness to overcome. What Aristotle has to say on this topic is direct and without peer: There remains, then the character between these two extremes - that of a man (or woman) who is not eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is

brought on about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty." Aristotles tragic flaw is really another way of saying the hero has some blind spot that must be dealt with. In tragedy, it ends up bringing down the hero, and can still be seen today, even in such cutting edge films as Being John Malkovich, where the puppeteer, through his own hubris, ultimately suffers a fate worthy of Tantalus - trapped inside a girls head, now a puppet himself, forced for years to watch the woman he loves being loved by another. Robert Duvall once said that when he takes on a character, the first thing he looks for is the contradiction in that character, because thats what makes the character real (he must have had a tough time when playing Stalin). Contradictions in character directly contrast with the stereotypical aspects of the character, necessary for recognition by us. The teacher, the mother, the cop, the wife, the minister all of these words conjure up certain images right away, both in terms of how someone may look, but more important, how they behave. We expect a cop to have certain values about law and order, good and bad, a mother to have certain feelings toward her children, a minister to approach life with a certain moral scope. Yet each person has his or her own contradictions, be they fears, doubts, human frailties, etc. Without these contradictions, the characters above would never transcend stereotype. Like cut-outs from a magazine, they would be two dimensional pictures nothing more. Too often in films, they are just that. As Scholes and Kellog point out in The Nature of Narrative, One of Shakespeares great gifts as a creator of character is his ability to fill the mold of type with individuality. Like the great novelists, who learned so much from him, Shakespeare is one of those writers who projects himself into his characters, seeing things from their point of view. When creating his two adult leads for the screen version of Kramer vs. Kramer, Robert Benton found the keystone for the films success:

Early on, I think the best piece of advice I got was from a woman friend who I asked to read the book, and she said the most important thing you have to do in this movie is make certain that Joanna Kramer is not the villain. That she is as heroic in her own right. And she said thats the biggest challenge you have Shes a darker character, I believe, in the novel. And a more troubled character I believe in the novel. I took our friends advice to heart, and I believe that the person who finally is the great hero of the film is Joanna Kramer, because she gives up something for her childs good. Benton was equally careful in adapting Ted Kramer: I know an enormous number of men who are so mesmerized by either power or success, they really do no more than pay the most nominal attention to their families Ted Kramer comes to face his own failures. And he comes to accept the responsibility of emotional relationships, on more than just a superficial level. I mean, I think he believed he was a good husband if he was a good provider I think its about a man who has thrust on him the experience of being a mother. And that changes his sense of what all life is because he doesnt duck that responsibility. How can we explain why a character such as Ted Kramer accepts that responsibility? Ego? Doesnt want to admit he cant do it all? Some old fashioned view of family that wont allow him to break his up further, despite the risks to his career? Or perhaps simply because he loves his son, even if he doesnt know what grade hes in. A great discourse on this topic can be found in Egri: Everything that moves constantly

negates itself. All things change toward their opposites through movement. The present becomes the past, the future becomes the present. There is nothing which does not move. Constant change is the very essence of all existence. Everything in time passes into its opposite. Everything within itself contains its own opposite. Change is a force which impels it to move, and this very movement becomes something different from what it was. The past becomes the present and both determine the future. New life arises from the old, and this new life is the combination of the old with the contradiction which has destroyed it. This contradiction that causes the change goes on forever. A human being is a maze of seeming contradictions. Planning one thing, he at once does another; loving, he believes he hates. Man oppressed, humiliated, beaten, still professes sympathy and understanding for those who have beaten, humiliated, and oppressed him. How can one explain these contradictions? Why does the man you befriend turn against you? Why does son turn against father, daughter against mother? A boy runs away from home because his mother insists that he sweep their dingy, two room apartment. He hates sweeping. But he is quite content with a job as assistant janitor in a big houe his main function being to sweep the halls and street. Why? A twelve-year-old girl marries a fiftyyear-old man and is sincerely happy. A thief becomes a worthy citizen, a wealthy gentleman becomes a thief. The daughter of

a respectable and religious family crashes into the underworld and prostitution. Why? On the surface, these examples are part of a riddle, part of the so-called mystery of life. But they can be explained, dialectically. It is a Herculean task, but not an impossible one if we remember that without contradiction there would be no motion and no life. Without contradiction there would be no universe. Stars, moon, earth would not exist nor would we. Hegel said: It is only because a thing contains a contradiction within itself that it moves and acquires impulse and activity. That is the process of all motion and all development. If Aristotle observed that drama must reflect life, Egri builds on this idea by pointing out that inner contradictions and mysteries which create life must be reflected in the most memorable dramatic characters. Zeami also believed in these contradictions: When performing Noh, there are endless matters that must be kept in mind. For example, when an actor plans to express the emotion of anger, he must not fail to retain a tender heart. Such is his only means to prevent his acting from developing roughness, no matter what sort of anger is expressed On the other hand, in a performance requiring Grace, an actor must not forget to remain strong. Thus, all the aspects of his performance dance, movement, Role Playing will be genuine and lifelike when presenting the role of a fearsome appearance, a demons role for example, even should the actor use a rough manner to a certain extent, he must not forget to preserve a graceful appearance

so that his stage appearance will remain elegant. Thus he may manifest grace in a demons role. He goes on to give universal advice about contradictions in a familiar character: Usually, the role of a warrior represents one who is fond of fighting by nature, so that in terms of the actors bodily movements, he should carry a bow and arrow, move his body violently as if to fend off anothers sword, and stamp about in a nimble fashion; yet beneath this strength, the performer must show concern to maintain a certain gentleness in his posture, so as to avoid pushing himself to the extremes of violence (emphasis added). Such a superior performance represents the Sphere or Accomplishment in a warriors role. Freytag would concur when looking at anger and violence which filled the heroes in tragedies by Sophocles: Again, this contrast appears in his heroes, with the power of the required complementary color (emphasis added) almost always the gentle, cordial, touching side of their nature, love opposed to hate, fidelity to friends opposed to treachery, honest candor against sheer irascibility Ajax, who would have slain his foes in mad hatred, displays an unusual strength of family affection, true-hearted, deep, intense love toward his companions, toward the distant brother, toward the child, toward his wife; Electra, who almost lives upon the hatred of her mother, clings with the gentlest expressions of tenderness about the neck of

her longed-for brother Only the chief characters exhibit this unfolding of their powerfully conceived unity, in two opposite directions; the accessory persons as a rule show only the required supplementary colors Check out any samurai hero in a Kurosawa film, everyone in Crouching Tiger, Kirk Douglas in Spartacus, or Russell Crowe dominating Gladiator to see these contradictions of strength and gentle grace, or complementary colors, forged into unforgettable characters. In fact, look at the lead character in any well written screenplay TAXI DRIVER CREATING A LEGENDARY CHARACTER But how do you determine the specific contradictions to make your own characters so real and memorable? Coleridge says it must stem from an imperceptible infusion of the authors own knowledge and talent (emphasis added), which infusion does, indeed, constitute an imitation as distinguished from a mere copy (emphasis added). In other words, combining a theme (point of view about life), stemming from your own knowledge and talent, with a mere stereotype, can turn that stereotype into a powerful symbol and legendary character. But how? Remember our discussion in chapter 2, the importance of knowing early on what theme your lead characters symbolize? Aristotle addressed this issue by comparing the creation of a dramatic character to the painting of a man, which should preserve the type and yet ennoble it. In another chapter of The Poetics, he delves into this analogy in more detail: The tragedies of most of our modern poets fail in the rendering of character (emphasis added); and of poets in general this is often true. It is the same in

painting; and here lies the difference between Zeuxis and Polygnotus. Polygnotus delineates character well; the style of Zeuxis is devoid of ethical quality (emphasis added). That ethical quality can be seen as theme without it, in art we simply get a meaningless image of a man, woman, even flowers. Had Van Goughs famous Starry Night or wilting sunflowers possessed none of the artists angst and brooding perspective on life, they would be copies of stars and flowers, rather than symbols of universal turbulence and fragility. The contradictions of beauty, angst and death in those paintings turn those stars and flowers into legendary, symbolic characters. The principle is no different when creating legendary characters for film. If I were to ask you Robert DeNiros most famous character, in which film would it be? Im willing to bet the two which came to mind were Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. And of those two, which contains his most famous screen line, You talkin to me? Anyone who has seen Taxi Driver, even just once, will remember exactly what Im talking about. Why has this character, and this line, become legendary? When we think of psychopaths, certain images come to mind. Brutal, sadistic, irrational, frightening, evil. We assume psychopaths have motives and thought processes so different from our normal ones, in a million years we could never begin to relate to them. They are easily stereotyped as the villain. Yet in Taxi Driver, Travis feels many of the things we do. He too hates crime. He too hates decay in the city. He too hates the vermin who prey on young girls and destroy their lives. Scorsese himself saw the character as feeling the frustrations many of us do: When you live in a city, theres a constant sense that the buildings are getting old, things are breaking down, the bridges and the subway need repairing. At the same time society is in a state of decay So that sense of frustration goes in swings of the pendulum, only Travis thinks its not going to

swing back unless he does something about it. It was a way of exorcizing those feelings, and I have the impression that DeNiro felt that way too Travis really has the best of intentions. He believes hes doing right, just like St. Paul. He wants to clean up life, clean up the mind, clean up the soul. He is very spiritual, but in a sense Charles Manson was spiritual, which doesnt mean that its good. Its the power of the spirit on the wrong road. The key to the picture is the idea of being brave enough to admit having those feelings, and then act them out. I instinctively showed that the acting out was not the way to go, and this created even more ironic twists to what was going on. And although at the end of the film he seems to be in control again, we give the impression that any second the time bomb might go off again Yet he is a psychopath when all is said and done, nearly assassinating a politician for no apparent reason, driving to the worst neighborhoods just to increase his rage. Scorsese even wanted to evoke an almost psychotic reaction in his audience with the incredibly violent shoot-out at the end: The idea was to create a violent catharsis, so that theyd find themselves saying, Yes, kill; and then afterwards realize, My God, no We arent supposed to feel that ambivalence watching Han Solo, James Bond, or Schwarzenneger. And what I said about concept and theme permeating right down to the poster? People related to the film very strongly in terms of loneliness. I never realized what that image of the poster did for the film a shot of De Niro walking down the street with the line, In every city theres one man. And we had thought that audiences would reject the film, feeling that it was too unpleasant and no one would want to see it! I believe people were also drawn because they sensed the sad truth and irony in the bleakness of that

poster in a sick city, that one man may also be an aberration. I would argue that without these contradictions based on that ethical quality or imperceptible infusion of the authors own knowledge and talent (Scorseses theme that a sick urban society creates its own sick hero), we would never remember Travis Bickle. He wouldnt possess the contradictions of character which make him a symbol rather than a stereotype. We would never remember, Are you talkin to me? The character would have no meaning for us no aspects we could identify with; he would offer no meaningful perspective about the frustrations of urban life. He would be nothing more than a meaningless copy of another psycho like so many weve seen before and since. By making things as tough on himself as possible, Scorsese created in Taxi Driver a film which broke new boundaries in terms of the anti-hero (usually an outsider who possesses qualities significantly different from the traditional hero ), and paved the way for films such as Pulp Fiction and the slew of lovable hit-men films that followed. Travis was even selected by the American Film Institute as one of the fifty greatest villains in the history of cinema, but I believe the fact that he cant simply be labeled a villain is precisely why he made the cut. The difference between Taxi Driver, Pulp Fiction and their imitators is that the originals dont simplify the contradictions. Instead, they are not afraid to both venerate and condemn their lead characters, showing their attractive yet dark sides, in an effort to force us to examine our own. Easy solutions salve our consciences tough ones presented in these films intentionally assault them. THE STRONGER THE IRONY THE STRONGER THE CHARACTER The more I thought about this kind of street-like character, that just is totally misrepresented by the way he looks physically, just the way he walks down the street was enough to say to people, Oh dismiss him. He kind of looks

like a bully, or looks like a dark kind of character. And I thought, no thats an interesting character because theyre always unrealized. Sylvester Stallone on Rocky Lestat's words on cowardice or conscience, on meaningless or lies -- these would be far less powerful if he himself were not vividly painted as blond, blue eyed, six feet tall, slender, feline, androgynous and exceptionally strong. He retains in all prose, I hope, the face of a 20-year-old man, yet his words now are those of a seer, a wise man. Anne Rice on Interview with a Vampire (Harrison Ford on Indiana Jones) As Travis demonstrates, the most memorable literary, cinematic and historical figures also contain the most irony: 1. ADDIE PRAY (PAPER MOON) most clever con artist is little girl who just wants a father 2. CHAPLINS TRAMP most downtrodden man is most noble and romantic 1. CHARLES FOSTER KANE most powerful man is most lonesome 2. DARTH VADAR most heinous villain is troubled father who wants son 5. HARRY POTTER greatest wizard just wants to pass exams 6. HOMER SIMPSON father more childish than his kids 7. JAMES BOND playboy-secret agent is old fashioned knight at heart 8. KING KONG worlds largest monster is scorned lover 9. SCARLET OHARA most conniving shrew is really a child underneath 10. THELMA AND LOUISE that waitress who brings coffee is

a vigilante No matter how positive or negative your lead character, he or she will only be memorable if there is some contradiction allowing us to learn something about our values, our society, or ourselves. Most of us men have at least a touch of Ted Kramers drive and ego, even if we are not bad fathers, while most women can identify on some level with Joanna Kramers concerns about motherhood. Benton offers a fascinating insight he used to help sensitize his cast to the issues, One of the things I said to the actresses in this is, I honestly believe that no woman ever believes shes a good enough mother, no matter how good she is. And no man, no matter how wretched he is, ever believes hes been a really bad father. Even a broad comic character such as Fletcher in Liar, Liar should contain identifiable contradictions according to co-writer Steve Mazur. You want your audience to relate to the character Were all weak, right? But we all hope that were strong and would make the right choices. Heres a guy who lives by lying, but hes successful in his life, on the surface. He has a nice car, and a nice apartment, and money, and success in his career. So that when he finally makes the right choice, you want him to have to sacrifice something And everyone in the audience can relate to that its not all black and white. They go, Yeah, I lie. Sometimes I lie because its good for me, it helps me, it improves my life. And can I find the strength inside not to lie. Without that sort of conscious development of the lead characters journey representing a deeper theme about the costs of lying, Liar, Liar could very well have ended up on the same scrap heap as the seemingly countless, forgettable, one joke comedies containing nothing more than two dimensional characters and endless repetition of a single gag. This concept of contradictions in character is so powerful, it once threw off Kurosawa completely while writing a screenplay:

The more I think about it, the milder a statement Scandal (not the British film) seems to have been. On top of that, while I was writing the script an entirely unexpected character began to take on more life than the main characters, and I ended up being led around by the nose by him. This fellow was the corrupt lawyer Hiruta (Leech Field). He comes to the defendants to sell out his client, the plaintiff, who is sincerely trying to battle the verbal gangsters in court. From this point on, the film went in a different direction I had not intended and turned into something quite different. Characters in a film have their own existence. The filmmaker has no freedom. If he insists on his authority and is allowed to manipulate his characters like puppets, the film loses its vitality. From the moment this Hiruta appeared, the pen I was using to write the screenplay seemed almost bewitched. It wrote on, detailing Hirutas actions and words as if of its own accord. I had written many scripts, but this was the first time such a thing happened to me. I didnt think about the circumstances in which Hiruta lived; the pen just glided on and described his poverty and shame. As this happened, the character of Hiruta quite naturally took over the film and nudged the hero aside. Even as I observed what was happening and knew it was wrong, I could do nothing to stop it. About half a year after the release of Scandal I was on my way home from a movie theater in Shibuya, riding the Inokashira Line. Suddenly, I had to keep myself from shouting out loud. As the train passed the first station outside Shibuya, I had a flash of recollection: I had met this man

Hiruta in real life. I had sat next to him while drinking in the little bar called the Komagataya right there at that railroad crossing in Kami-Izumi. It was an astounding thing to recall, and I couldnt understand why it hadnt come to me while I was working on Scandal. The human mind does strange things. This real-life Hiruta must have been hiding somewhere in a crease in my brain. Why had he chosen this moment to emerge? I had gone to the Komagata-ya regularly when I was an assistant director. There was a pretty barmaid there named O-Shigechan, and she understood us very well, won our affection and let us drink on credit. I used to go there with all the other assistant directors. For some reason I had gone to the Komagata-ya alone one evening. We usually went upstairs to a dirty but comfortable room on the ground floor. It was on this occasion that Hiruta was sitting next to me. He was already quite drunk, and he persisted in talking to me. The bartender, O-Shigechans father, tired to keep the man from bothering me, but I nodded my head to let him know I didnt mind. I drank on while listening to his stream of babble. Behind the mans appearance he was approaching fifty as well as in his manner of speaking there seemed to be something very bitter, something that tugged at the heart as he talked. I wondered how many times he had repeated his story before he told it to me. He talked as if he had memorized his speech, and recited it fluently and casually. But in that casual air the sad content of his talk was all the more striking. The subject of his refrain was his daughter. She was suffering from

tuberculosis and was completely bedridden, and he repeated over and over again what a wonderful girl she was. She was like an angel, like a shining star, descriptions that under ordinary circumstances would sound sickeningly sweet. But I was strangely moved, and listened to him with an open heart. He went on to say that, compared to his daughter, he himself was a totally worthless human being. He started to list the ways, giving examples, in which he proved inferior to his daughter, but at this point OShigechans father seemed to have had all he could take. He put a covered dish in front of the man and said, All right, thats enough now. Youd better go home; your daughters waiting for you. The men suddenly fell silent and sat staring at the glass dish. He didnt move. Inside the covered dish was something that looked like the sort of food that would be given to someone with a high fever. Suddenly he stood up, grabbed the dish, tucked it carefully under his arm and rushed out the door. O-Shigechans father apologized to me as I gazed at the door through which the man had disappeared. Hes a problem. He comes in here every day and repeats those same things while he drinks the evening away. I wondered what the man who had just rushed out said to his daughter when he came home every night. As I thought about what must be in his heart, I felt pain well up in my own. That evening I drank and drank, but was unable to feel any release. I was sure I would never forget this man and his story. I did, completely. But when I was writing the

Scandal screenplay, his memory emerged unconsciously from my brain and made my pen dance on with peculiar strength. The character of Hiruta was written by that man I met in the Komagata-ya bar. He was not written by me. The worlds most corrupt attorney is also a caring father, who realizes his own faults too late. Like Michael Corleone in The Godfather, he is a man who commits evil, yet becomes difficult to hate due to a powerful love for family and awareness of his own inferiority. If it werent for that contradiction, I would argue Kurosawa would never have remembered Hiruta. CENTRAL RELATIONSHIP It wasn't just a film that dealt with mental illness or talked about this genius, a man who won the Nobel Prize. It was a great romance, it was this wonderful, committed relationship that lasted through it all. Russell Crowe on A Beautiful Mind Occasionally, as in the above example by Kurosawa, it is possible that a secondary character usurps the plot. In general however, it is important to know who the central relationship will be between. No matter how many subplots, and no matter how long, great films usually have one central relationship that stands out. When there is a clear hero and antagonist, or romantic coupling, the central relationship should be fairly easy to spot, as in Gone with the Wind, Face Off, Home Alone Love Story, or Youve Got Mail. Dual protagonist pieces such as Butch Cassidy, Lethal Weapon or Thelma and Louise also make it obvious, ensemble vehicles less so. Yet even here, usually one character or relationship will be primary, sometimes by a little, sometimes by a lot. In Breakfast Club its clearly the rebellious Judd Nelson, while there is no question that

Gene Hackman and Ernest Borgnine baiting each other in Poseidon Adventure dominate. Sometimes two relationships may rival each other or surprise us as to which takes precedence, depending on who has a bigger effect on the lead. Although Shall We Dance? sets up conflicts and resolutions between Mr. Sugiyama and wife, it is really Mai who has the greatest influence on him, and vice versa. In Jerry Maguire, Tom Cruise and Renee Zellwegger share much screen time and a romantic finish, yet its his scenes with Cuba Gooding we remember most, as the football players character becomes pivotal in Jerrys growth. If not for Show me the money, You complete me could not exist, both lines competing as the films most memorable. In similar fashion, Die Hard opens with husband and wife separated and ends with them reunited, but his ongoing dialogue with the cop over the radio becomes the storys core relationship. From Hal and Falstaff to Frodo and Sam to certain Bond women, a strong buddy relationship or love interest can always take first chair; the important thing is to make sure it does so due to a conscious choice. If not, reassess what you thought was the central relationship and strengthen it, or make the most of a secondary character, as Kurosawa did. Some stories actually work best when there is no central relationship because a lead dominates so strongly (Alex in Clockwork Orange, father in American Beauty, Chuck in Cast Away, Elle in Legally Blonde). In those instances, the central relationship is between the lead and him or herself, an unusual yet by no means uninteresting scenario. There may be important secondary relationships, such as the girl and boy-next-door in American Beuaty, but they cannot be seen as the centerpiece given the extent to which Lesters personal journey takes center stage. Likewise, developing the beginning of Elles relationship with the lawyer she will marry several years later would not have made Legally Blonde any better (probably the opposite), so dont force development of a relationship if your lead requires center stage. The following films contain some central relationships,

or lack thereof, that may be surprising at first glance: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ALICE IN WONDERLAND: no central relationship, Alice on her own ALIEN: Ripley and alien ANTIGONE: Antigone and Creon THE GRADUATE: central relationship almost evenly divided for Ben between Mrs. Robinson and Elaine (Mrs. R gets my vote) LION KING: Simba and father RAGING BULL: no central relationship, Jake oblivious to destruction of others ROSEMARYS BABY: Rosemary and older woman upstairs STAR WARS EPISODE 4: Luke and Obi Wan TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE: trio, yet Bogart ultimately takes center stage THE UNTOUCHABLES: Elliot Ness and Irish cop Sometimes the central relationship will be the one which gets the most screen time, but not always. Simbas father dies in the first act of Lion King, but his brief reappearance in the night sky and frequent references to him by other characters make him the primary force in the young lions life. In The Graduate, the central relationship is divided almost evenly between Ben and Mrs. Robinson in the first half, and him and Elaine in the second. Likewise, Joanna Kramer exits at the outset of Kramer vs. Kramer, yet her specter hovers due to principals continually referring to her absence, plus several brief reappearances she makes prior to court hearing. Benton feels the relationship between her and Kramer ultimately comprises the core of the drama. Usually however, it will be fairly clear what the central relationship is. If you arent sure, NOW IS THE TIME TO DECIDE, not when you start writing. Determining the central relationship should almost always be a prerequisite to structure. You may change your mind in the process of writing, but at least work from a starting point. If you feel uncertain due the nature of the material (i.e. an ensemble

piece), check in the outline stage through peer review. To those unfamiliar with the piece, key characters and relationships will tend to stand out.

YOUR CHARACTERS JOURNEY Gladiator was a fully emotionally realized performance. Every now and then wed fight some tigers, all right, but the emotional journey this guy was on is why people loved it. Russell Crowe Creating contradictions in your characters is critical, but at this point a static process. I hope these examples have helped excite and prepare you for one of the most exciting journeys any writer can take - the growth of your leads into heroes. CHARACTER ARC: TRANSFORMATION OF THE SOUL Every writer, every acting coach, all they ever talk about is the arc and the character. But, in reality, thats just plain good writing without a predetermined definition. Richard Donner A popular phrase in Hollywood. To put it simply, a character arc is the transition a character makes from point A to point B in a story. It is the characters transformation of the soul. In great drama, characters end up different people on the last page than on the first. In fact, the first page should tie together with the last, so there is a sense of the story coming full circle. As Egri notes: Everything in nature changes - human beings along with the rest. A man who was brave ten years ago may be a coward now, for any number of reasons: age, physical deterioration, changed financial status, to name a few. You may think you know someone who has never changed, and never will. But no such person has ever existed. A man may

keep his religious and political views apparently intact through the years, but close scrutiny will show that his convictions have either deepened or become superficial. They have gone through many stages, many conflicts, and will continue to go through them as long as the man lives. So he does change, after all. Even stone changes, although its disintegration is imperceptible; the earth goes through a slow but persistent transformation; the sun, too, the solar system, the universe. Nations are born, pass through adolescence, achieve manhood, grow old, then die, either violently or by gradual dissolution. Why should man, then, be the only thing in nature which never changes? Preposterous! There is only one realm in which characters defy natural laws and remain the same - the realm of bad writing. And it is the fixed nature of the characters which makes the writing bad. If a character in a short story, novel, or play occupies the same position at the end as the one he did at the beginning, that story, novel or play is bad Conflict is sustained through growth (emphasis added). The nave virgin may become wiser. She may teach a lesson, in marriage, to Casanova, who becomes unsure of himself. The professor may become careless with his speech, while the (inarticulate) man turns into an eloquent speaker. Remember what growth did to Eliza in Shaws Pygmalion. The thief may become honest - the honest man may turn thief. The philanderer learns to be faithful, the faithful wife turns to philandering. The

unorganized worker becomes strong through organization. These are bold outlines, of course. There are infinite variations of growth possible for any character - but growth there must be. Without growth youll lose whatever contrast you had at the beginning of the play (emphasis added). The absence of growth signals the lack of conflict; and the lack of conflict indicates that your characters were not well orchestrated. Although this dictum may hold true more for the stage (Egri examined plays) than a Hollywood where successful action films showcase characters such as James Bond (well examine such exceptions to Egris rule shortly), for the most part, the vast majority of great films do involve change of character. Even in Aristotles time, where tragedy ruled, characters still had that moment of recognition, a learning experience as it were, just before their downfalls. In Hollywood, where happy endings tend to sell tickets (or at least thats what producers often believe), a different structure has emerged since the tragedies of ancient Greece, allowing a character to have a revelation, face doom, but overcome it due to what he or she has learned. The effective happy ending today usually juxtaposes darker moments found at the end of tragedy with the brighter more contemporary belief that people can change and turn their lives around.

ACTIVE CHARACTER I call an active character one who changes as the story progresses and has an arc. It may be a sudden realization at the end, or a gradual growth throughout, but somehow he or she comes away differently than when the story started. This type of character is overcoming some sort of internal obstacle, or learning something new which will make him or her a better person, therefore characterization is actively changing, even in what we might term a plot driven piece. If a characters life isnt in jeopardy, we must see clearly from the outset that if he or she doesnt change the current path, that charater will be doomed in some other manner (i.e. never realize full potential or become stuck in a horrible relationship due to making a wrong decision). Lets look a little closer at how this change progresses. WHAT DOES YOUR CHARACTER WANT? WHAT DOES YOUR CHARACTER NEED? Want vs. need - the heart of character growth, stemming from that reluctant journey Joseph Campbell talks about. A character starts off wanting one thing, then learns as the story goes on he or she really needed something else. The more these wants and needs contrast, the stronger the drama and growth of the character. I was introduced to this popular concept years ago at a seminar, where someone showed the first ten minutes of Midnight Cowboy as a great example of this well known theory. As Joe Buck physically goes toward what he wants (to become a male prostitute in New York), he is going away from what he needs, which is to stay where he is in Texas and deal with his problems about women, which are many (if you recall, the film condenses passages from the book of young Joe getting screwed up by his [grandmother?] and others into quick flashes on screen). Although most stories dont show this kind of physical journey regarding what a character

wants and needs, we can see it in terms of contrasting how a lead starts and ends up. Usually a character starts off wanting the obvious, more shallow, or less healthy goals (looks, money, status, sex, fashion) but really needs and ultimately gets drawn into higher values (love, loyalty, selfesteem, courage, independence, concern for others), making the journey truly meaningful. TURNING POINTS Moments which spin your lead character in a new direction regarding a certain path in life are known as turning points. Whether you decide to establish (or break off) a personal relationship, answer the phone when a particular job offer may be coming through, or move to a new location - all of these represent turning points which could easily change the course of your life and put it on another track. One big mistake writers make is to assume turning points or revelations for a character come primarily at the end. NOT TRUE! In a tragedy perhaps this may hold water, as we dont mind seeing a character suddenly realize every belief held was wrong, only when its too late (i.e. MacBeth realizing he shouldnt have followed the witches and his own immorality, Sophocles Oedipus realizing he brought on his own tragedy through stubborn pride, Scarlet realizing she really did love Rhett). Otherwise, most characters gradually change through carefully planted turning points. In Hero with a Thousand Faces, Campbell illuminates the significance of accepting what he terms the call to adventure: But whether small or great, and no matter what the stage or grade of life, the call rings up the curtain, always on a mystery of transfiguration - a rite, or moment, of spiritual passage, which, when complete, amounts to a dying and a birth.

The familiar life horizon has been outgrown; the old concepts, ideals, and emotional patterns no longer fit; the time for the passing of the threshold is at hand. Although the final rebirth may not occur until the end of the journey, just accepting the call begins the process of change, even if it causes the hero to go down the wrong road (i.e. the witches and his wife seducing MacBeth into murder). A turning point then is commitment to a new course of action or point of view, leading the hero toward a final turning point and rebirth. SCENE OF DECISION In most stories, a scene of decision occurs determining a lead characters fate for the rest of the story, if not his or her life. In MacBeth, the scene of decision is when he decides to kill the king. Up to that point, he could have backed out. Once he kills Duncan however, every evil act he commits becomes an effort just to keep his head above water, as the wheel of fortune turns inexorably against him. In Hamlet on the other hand, the scene of decision is his choice not to kill the king, after seeing his uncles reaction to the play-within-the play and realizing he is guilty of killing his father. He knows what he should do, he could get away with it, but over-intellectualizing and fear of making a decision holds him back, ultimately bringing on his demise. A character can also have a scene of decision made for him or her, such as Luke being forced to leave his home planet when his aunt and uncle are killed by storm troopers in Star Wars. In Like Water for Chocolate the scene of decision is not made by Tita, but by Pedro, who sets the tragedy in motion by not standing up to Titas domineering mother, instead agreeing to marry her sister in order to be near the girl he loves. Whether made by the lead or not, scenes of decision represent key turning points, and its important to be familiar with how they play a vital role in

creating a total character arc. THE MOST FAMOUS CHARACTER ARC Ebenezer Scrooge is possibly the most famous and beloved active literary character. His story is performed in theaters and schools the world over every holiday season, not to mention classic film versions rebroadcast on television like clockwork, remakes and reinterpretations (including Mr. Magoo, a Muppet satire, and Bill Murrays Scrooged), and of course the endless string of TV commercials and print advertising in which Scrooge has appeared. There are literally too many to count. Dickens must have been doing something right for this man to have such endurance. What was it? With deference to Aristotle, I would have to argue that this is one case where characterization takes precedence over plot. True, there is a strong concept of a man visited by ghosts on Christmas eve, but the story has more of that episodic quality Aristotle was not so fond of - a bunch of loosely constructed scenes with the ghosts acting as narrators, spelling everything out (not far off from becoming a modern day Greek chorus). Yet with this most heavy handed exposition, the story remains a classic. Why? One single reason - Scrooge himself. Scrooge contains the ultimate contradictions. He is the meanest man in the world, yet he has no overt reason to be. He is not poor (on the contrary, he is rich), and no one mistreats him (on the contrary, they try to placate him). How then can we dissect his character for the purposes of learning? Lets look first at the theme: CENTRAL CONFLICT - CAN SCROOGE CHANGE? HOW RESOLVED - HE DOES, ULTIMATELY BY SEEING HOW HIS ENTIRE LIFE HAS COME TO NOTHING

SYMBOLIC MEANING? ITS NEVER TOO LATE TO BE REDEEMED FROM OUR SINS THROUGH LEARNING HOW THEY CAME TO BE (GHOST OF THE PAST), HOW THEY AFFECT OTHERS (GHOST OF THE PRESENT), HOW OUR LIVES ARE ULTIMATELY THE SUM OF OUR DEEDS (GHOST OF THE FUTURE), AND HOW ACTS OF REPENTANCE CAN CHANGE US If you saw time travel, Christianity, psychoanalysis and existentialism in there, youre not imagining things. What makes A Christmas Carol truly amazing is that it contains all these elements, yet remains a holiday pageant! Now lets look at how this remarkable character was created in terms of conflicting wants and needs. WHAT DOES SCROOGE WANT? At the start of the story, if you were to ask Scrooge what he wants, he would tell you money, money, and probably more money - and for you to go away. WHAT DOES HE NEED? What he really needs is to see his values are one hundred and eighty degrees opposite of what comprises real happiness, and will only bring him ruin, both here and in the afterlife (i.e. the warning of Marleys ghost). WHAT IS THE CONTRADICTION IN HIS CHARACTER? Even though he has been blinded by greed, he still wants his life to mean something of true value. If he didnt, he wouldnt care that it will all come to nothing if he doesnt change. He would simply say, as so many yuppies have, Oh, well. He who dies with the most toys wins. Deep down, he still wants to be loved, and to love others, and his

gradual realization occurs through turning points created by images of the past, present and future selected by the ghosts for this specific purpose. His transformation doesnt happen suddenly at his grave - it starts well before and culminates there. The exciting force for the hero, using Freytags terminology, begins with Marleys visit. The decision to heed the warning of his late partners ghost sets Scrooge on that call to adventure Campbell talks about, which starts to change the miser and will ultimately determine his fate. As Campbell notes, the journey is not just one of discovery, but rediscovery - the lead getting in touch with some inner qualities he or she has buried without even knowing it. Without such rediscovery, the euphoric ending which delights the world every year since the storys inception could never have come to be. Theme, characterization and turning points are inextricably linked in this classic tale. OTHER MEMORABLE EXAMPLES: 1. Citizen Kane Charles Foster Kane Wants: money and power, to buy love Needs: to recover lost love and family taken from him in childhood Scene of decision: actually not made by him, but mother, who sends him off to live with wealthy benefactor 2. Gone with the Wind Scarlett OHara Wants: money and power Needs: moral core she never finds Scene of decision: Decides to never go hungry again euphemism for selling her soul\ 3. The Graduate - Benjamin Braddock Wants: to find meaning in plastic society Needs: to break free and find real love Scene of decision: to have affair with Mrs. Robinson

4. Lilo and Stitch Experiment 626 (Stitch): Wants: to destroy Needs: to belong Scene of decision: decides to masquerade as Lilos pet dog 5. Seven William Somerset Wants: to retire, become apathetic Needs: to stay involved, make a difference Scene of decision: Decides to take on one last case 7. Sister Act Deloris Van Cartier Wants: to find happiness in selfish, valueless existence Needs: to do for others, find spiritual core Scene of decision: agrees to convent for witness protection program 8. Shall We Dance? Mr. Sugiyama Wants: To battle mid-life crisis by pursuing young woman Needs: To free himself through dance Scene of decision: decides to join dance class 9. Terminator Sarah Connor Wants: conventional, unambitious life Needs: to discover inner strength Scene of decision: to go with warrior from future, accepting the impossible 10. Wizard of Oz Dorothy Gale Wants: to leave boring farm in Kansas Needs: to appreciate where she is Scene of decision: to run away, then return during storm It bears repeating, if a lead character is active and will change at all, it is critical that you can note one or two significant wants and needs that oppose each other at the beginning of the story, and a key scene of decision.

LOOKS DONT MATTER OR DO THEY? Personality includes mannerisms, superficial conduct and appearance, while character refers to the nature and quality of the individual character is always revealed in a persons reaction to a situation that tends to block the attainment of a desire (emphasis added))... If there is no opposition to desire, there is no emotion. All conflict, in the last analysis, is a conflict of emotions. Frances Marion Too often I have read scripts where we are supposed to care about a man because he is tough, stoic and good looking. Or we are supposed to like a woman because she is gorgeous. Im sure you have seen films made with this same mindset. The result? Boredom. Why? Because the writers, director and producers confused physicality for character. The only times in a story (and for that matter, life) that looks matter is when they reflect a characters inner self or create dramatic conflict, such as a woman struggling to find love or independence despite being admired only for her sexuality. This popular theme finds its roots in Greek mythology (a luscious yet unwilling Daphne pursued by Apollo), and over the centuries has worked its way into Romeo and Juliet (her arranged trophy marriage to Paris), and the first English novel Pamela. Modern permutations have continued to hold audiences, as evidenced by Jayne Mansfield in The Girl Cant Help It, Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffanys, Nicole Kidman in Moulin Rouge. The opposite side of the coin can be found in Hunchback of Notre Dame and Beauty and the Beast, where people are blinded to inner beauty for exactly the opposite reasons all they see is outer deformity. If your character being attractive or unattractive is not

an integral part of the theme and plot however, do not rely on this aspect to involve your audience. It may engage their interest for a few scenes or pages, yet any man who has gone out with a beautiful yet shallow woman knows how quickly the novelty of physical attraction can wear off. Bear in mind Frances Marions advice, a friend is not remembered by the color of his hair or eyes, but because of his thoughtfulness, kindness, humor or intellect; and as a rule it is far more important to show that your character has a passion for economy or that he is extremely conscientious, or that he is afraid of cats, than that he has curly hair and blue eyes. For this reason, most love triangles often include the character who is more physically attractive, and the one who is less overtly beautiful but moreso in terms of character. It is up to the choosing party to see beyond the externally obvious and eventually go for truer beauty.