When developing characters, I'm open to where any character may transform whether a lowly one line guest or one of the protagonists. I spend much more time with the characters I intend to be the main cast by deliberately daydreaming about them, considering the fullness of their: origins, flaws, desires, setbacks, living spaces, lineage, relationships, etc. I have found a number of times that a character I threw into a script just to fill up the necessary space ended up being upgraded to a more essential member. Currently with the pilot teleplay, I can think of three characters that this was the exact case: Rebecca, Lise, and Edgar.
I regret to say that's how the women begun their fictional selves, but at the time of their development I was trying to have an initial understanding of Caden. Rebecca was disgustingly two-dimensional and almost deux ex machina in rescuing Caden. I then wrote a short story about Rebecca and began to give her a soul outside being a tool to end a problem.
Lise was frankly an archetype. I threw her into a dank barroom and felt she married well into the lengthy description I had made before grappling with Caden... because I was being chicken with introducing my protagonist These were all pretty novice tricks, but those preliminary short stories from years ago were the igniting spark for the story universe I have today.
Lastly, Edgar is one of the last created main cast characters (to date). There were certain needs in the story world that were not being addressed, and the more I thought about what those problems were (an outlier in the villain community, eloquence, strong ethics, a realization of the evils of one's own society, etc). It became clear that I needed someone to fill that role; Edgar was by far one the most inevitable characters. In fact, I think in many ways when creating a story universe you don't create characters, you discover them. It's almost as though you're scratching at a black hole hoping to pull out fossilized quantum foam -- that's a more precise way of looking at character development. You have to predict where characters belong, ask questions of who is this person's boss, who is really in control, who could challenge this character, who can represent innocence here, and what could complicate and deepen this further? Characters, like actors, have to be pushed farther than you would initially invision their emotional performances and story arcs.
In the middle of nowhere... the mind may focus on a scene with a zombie pushing a shopping cart. The writer may spend the next few months crafting a story around how this zombie came to be and why he's pushing a shopping cart. Ultimately the writer may decide that the zombie and the shopping cart are unnecessary and can be cut. And that cutting that initial scene made the whole of the story all the more seamless. Characters operate in the same way. They need to shift to their best performance, and their development origins may be wildly different from their ends, but I think if a character isn't pushed to its potential it will remain flat, typical, and an unfortunate piece of boring nothingness. It's due to writer's hubris that so many characters remain stilted. If writers dare more for their characters it not only fosters a greater design, but an audience that will care, be enticed, and more than likely depict a more accurate reflection of reality.
Don't let the characters who grow overpower the protagonist. This is challenging since I would say in so many creative works the protagonists generally are not the favorite of the audience. I can name a few favorites. Like Mulder. The focal light is on the hero. The audience will be confused by too many strong characters competing for the light: it makes things blurry, over saturated even. Give more percentage of the story to the lead(s).
On another point entirely, I am a big believer in paying homage to legends, myths, fairy tales, classical literature, and the like. I think this helps to make an already strong story have a more dignified and mature sense about it. I also think studying the story maps of these stories and playing off them creates stories that better resonate. If the recipe for worthwhile fiction is out there and has an example, go ahead and use that blueprint... but make it your own (like replacing blueberries with chocolate chunks).
I also think going deeper than the classic tale has ever been told is satisfying. Little Red Riding Hood is capable of so much more than we usually give it, but I have seen it redone in many ways that had me reevaluating the story for deeper storytelling. For instance, a cartoon I saw years ago where the narrator was the Wolf, but this wasn't apparent until the end when he's drinking a glass of Red's blood with a book in his hand (creepy). Borrow names used from classics; avoid the regular John, Anne, Chris, Megan -- make those middle names for fiction. And as much as I love Dracula -- don't have two characters with the same first name unless you want to be confusing and distracting.
There may be some charm to a John or an Anne (and in fact I've come across many) but I think this screams humdrum. Those sound like names of a wretchedly two-dimensional rom com. You know why rom coms are dying? Because they need to take risks.
No comments:
Post a Comment