Kent Screen held a very useful seminar today on Screenwriting and Structure. The first part of the day was Kent Screen’s very own Chris Knowles covering the basics of screenwriting structure – running through the usual suspects – McKee, Field etc. It was a really useful refresher, and a number of times I kicked myself for forgetting some fundamental bits of information.
Then after lunch came David Russell, who spoke at great length about character and characterization, both from the screenwriting and directing perspectives.
One thing he did say (which he graciously acknowledged he got from David Ball’s ‘Backwards and Forwards’) was the concept that characters don’t change, and the notion that they should change is a ridiculous assertion.
Characters shouldn’t change, but both their perception of themselves and our perception of them should get deeper – mainly through them being forced to make decisions and act under pressure (bringing us back in familiar McKee territory again).
It was one of those glorious epiphany moments where a hundred little ideas that had been seeking accommodation, suddenly all had a perch on which they could to come home to roost. It”ll take me a few days to assimilate it, but it’s certainly got the old mind racing at the moment.
I’m not sure how well it fits into Dramatica theory, but I think ultimately it reinforces the importance of the relationship between the Impact Character and the Main Characater, allowing them to become more complex at the same time. All good stuff.
On the SToA front, I’m hopefully heading up to Darren’s tomorrow lunchtime to hear his efforts thus far. Very exciting.
You never know he might let me post some clips of the music up for your enjoyment.
3 comments
jim says:
December 12, 2005 at 5:46 pm (UTC 1 )
Ok…can you explain further what he meant by characters not changing? By ridiculous do you think he meant a 180 degree change is silly, would there be no change at all? Their perception of themselves – do you feel this evolving would be the same as a Dramatica Change?
This is fascinating – i’d love to hear more.
Andy says:
December 13, 2005 at 12:16 am (UTC 1 )
I think what he was driving at was the ‘Hollywood’ producer mentality that the main character has to go through some kind of dramatic change. I think he felt that some producers he had worked for had obviously wanted such severe changes that the characters almost became different people.
He generalised a little I guess, but his point was generally accepted that a change character is required.
The example he used primarily was Al Pacino’s character in The Godfather. He doesn’t change his attitude – he lies persistently throughout the film, to Kate and to his family. He is a ruthless liar. But despite what he’s said he still ends up being the Godfather, which is a big change, in his life, but he ultimately hasn’t.
He doesn’t change because his true nature is darker and more sinister than perhaps even he wants to admit to himself, so he lies and lies. But our perception of him changes a great deal through the story.
The reason the idea struck a chord with me was that it dovetailed nicely with a concept that Danny Stack alluded to in his blog a week or two ago; that of building emotion and how we do it.
In the same way that we build up emotional impact and change over a period of beats and scenes, so an intergral part of that has to be characters revealing their true selves through their actions. Perhaps, I thought, some emotional impact comes from how our perceptions of them can change.
Having thought about it more today I interpret it to mean that the Dramatica change character does not have to undergo some revolutionary, black-is-now-white change, rather they can find out, or choose to reveal, something new about themselves and (in the telling of the story) reveal more depth of character to us that we perhaps might not have expected.
I think Dramatica is perhaps quite sensitive to this more subtle kind of change as it doesn’t demand a person completely change, and the presence of the impact character ensures that there is rational argument before character, under pressure chooses to act in a certain way.
I liked the idea that a person could change by forcing themselves to dig deeper into their emotional and philosophical reserves, rather than dropping old characteristics and acquiring new ones to satisfy the plot.
I still haven’t really thought it through, to be honest, there just seems to gbe some logic to it all strugling to get out.
I’ve got ‘Backwards and Forwards’ on order so I’ll return to the subject later when I’ve cogitated a little more.
P.S. Congrats on the new arrivals!
jim says:
December 18, 2005 at 7:40 am (UTC 1 )
Finally had a chance to read this – Fantastic..really thought provoking stuff in there.
Chris always makes a big deal of letting people know that it doesn’t have to be a black and white change…Dramatica leaves much of it up to the author.
and thanks for the kind words.