Let's talk about characters in movies. More specifically, what makes for a good, well-rounded character instead of a poorly written, one-note, stereotype. I chose the Star Wars movies as an example because they highlight both the best and worst in characterization.
If you've ever been in a middle school English class, you know that there are protagonists and antagonists in any story. The protagonist is often misunderstood to mean the "good guy" in the story. While that is normally the case, it's not always true. The protagonist is better defined as "whose story is this?" The central character in which all events seem to circle around in the story. For example, in Star Wars, the protagonist is clearly Luke Skywalker. This is his story about finding the droids, leaving home and the life he once knew, and setting out on a grand adventure full of danger and self-discovery. While we do meet other interesting characters along the way (Han, Leia, etc) none of them are ever the driving element of the story. Never is that more clear than in The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi because both of those movies are always about the relationship between Luke, Darth Vader, and if Luke will join the dark side.
The opposite of the protagonist is the antagonist. Again many people think of the antagonist as the "bad guy." Even in the English language, to be antagonistic means to be disagreeable and generally not likable. But in terms of a story, the antagonist is the person or thing in direct conflict with the protagonist. Again taking the example of Star Wars, the antagonist is Darth Vader. Little is known about his history or motivations (until the prequel trilogy ruined that). He's an enigma. Dark, shadowy, and always menacing. We are interested in this character because he has to have some motivation for wanting to stop the protagonist. He has to have his own dreams and aspirations that are in conflict with what the protagonist wants. Luke wants to stop the evil empire from ruling the galaxy while Darth Vader wants to stop the rebels and rule the galaxy. We learn later of course that the motivations are more in depth than that but that's the basic idea.
I was careful to define protagonist and antagonist because simply labeling them the good guy vs the bad guy is misleading and not always the case. The protagonist doesn't always have to be a heroic or noble character. Sometimes the protagonist can be someone we generally don't like. Imagine you were going to make Star Wars but from the point of view of Darth Vader. That makes the movie drastically different! We don't have to like him or even agree with what he does. But it becomes his story. It's about his motivations for conquering the galaxy, his attachment to Luke, and the loyalty he has to the Emperor. This is what we see in the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Often when we have a character like this as the protagonist, it's classified as a tragedy.
There are no more important characters than the protagonist and the antagonist.
Aside from the stars of the show we have the supporting characters. We tend to know less about them because in movies we have much less time to tell the story than say a novel. That doesn't mean they are any less interesting. Han Solo is a perfect example of a great supporting character. What do we know about him? He's a gruff, dirty, foul, ill mannered space thug but with some noble characteristics like loyalty, determination, intelligence, and charisma. He is every bit the noble rogue and could easily be the star of his own movie. (works for Captain Jack Sparrow, right?) As a supporting character, their job in the story is to assist the main character (protagonist or antagonist depending on which side). While they might be reluctant to get involved, ultimately they play a direct part in resolving the conflict in some way.
Lastly, we come to peripheral characters. These characters we might interact with on a limited basis, but most of the time they aren't that important. Their importance varies of course. Jabba the Hutt and Boba Fett are peripheral characters and have an important role to perform, but still the movie could cut them out completely and it wouldn't effect the overall story. Jabba the Hutt is a good example. We only see him in the original trilogy in Return of the Jedi because Han Solo is his prisoner and the others mount a rescue. Imagine if we were writing this story. We go back to Empire Strikes Back and instead of Han being frozen in carbonite and sent to Jabba, he instead is killed or Luke makes the save before he is frozen. That means Han is never sent to Jabba's palace, there isn't any reason to go back to Tattooine to rescue him, and therefore no need to have Jabba the Hutt in the movie. We can write off Han Solo flying back there by himself to pay the debt he owes and go straight to Luke Skywalker flying in his X-wing to continue training with Yoda.
The original Star Wars trilogy is an excellent example of great characterization. Every character is fleshed out, well-rounded, and memorable. Now, let's contrast that with the poor characterization we see in the Star Wars prequel trilogy.
Our protagonist changes from the Phantom Menace to Attack of the Clones. In the Phantom Menace the protagonist is Obwan. This is his story of meeting Anikin Skywalker. When we reach Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, the story is now about Anikin Skywalker and his fall from grace. This by itself is not a problem but it has to be handled correctly. We first have to establish Obwan as the protagonist in Phantom Menace. So, what do we know about Obwan Kanobi? It's right about here that I don't have an answer to that question. We know plenty about him as a secondary character from New Hope, but we never learn anything about Obwan Kanobi from Phantom Menace; at least nothing new or emphasized. We do learn one thing, Obwan is a bit rash in his youth compared to the wise sage we know from New Hope, but that part of his character is never emphasized. We never see him do anything daring. He is a loyal student to his master and eager to learn the ways of the force. But that is in no way sufficient characterization for the protagonist in a movie.
Contrast Luke Skywalker from New Hope vs Obwan Kanobi from Phantom Menace. We know Luke is a lonely farm boy with dreams of traveling. He's ambitious, a dreamer, and even a bit reckless. He's an orphan who lives with his aunt and uncle. We don't know what happened to his parents other than they died and it's something that bothers Luke as he tries desperately to find answers to his past.
Obwan is a young teenage student learning to be a warrior/priest.
And how about Anakin Skywalker in Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith. What kind of character is he? He's whiny, emotional, self-important, obsessive, and easily fooled. What are his good characteristics? And that's my problem with the prequel trilogy in a nutshell. Tragedy is when a character we like falls victim to his own shortcomings. We have to like him first, then we feel bad and a sense of loss when he turns evil. Instead we like him more in Return of the Jedi when we see the conflicts between good and evil he has inside.
The antagonist also is very different. In Phantom Menace we have Darth Maul. He never talks and we never learn anything about him. We know he's a good fighter but that's it. He never does anything to build dread. Before we ever see Darth Vader he is attacking an unarmed ship and when we do see him, he interrogates a guy by lifting him up in the air by his neck with one hand. Edge goes to Darth Vader.
The supporting characters also are not given the dignity they deserve. What do we learn about Princess Amidala? Young, childish, and a bit spoiled. That's about it. What do we learn about Anikin Skywalker? He's Jesus. I'm only slightly kidding about that. He shows no dark characteristics other than "fear" and he was a boy born of a virgin mother. There is so little established about these characters it's frustrating.
And lastly, we come to the perpheral characters and oh God do I not want to bring up Jar Jar Binks. This is the quintesential one note character. His whole character is that he is stupid. What do we know about him? Why was he out in the forest when his people live under the water? He's stupid and clumsy. So stupid and clumsy he was banished by his people. Wow. We see Jar Jar in Attack of the Clones. Briefly. Even the writers knew they created an offensive annoying stereotype so they got him off the screen as quickly as possible and had him speak only when absolutely necessary.
Just ask yourself a few basic questions: 1) who is this character? 2) What do we know about this character? and 3) What are the good and bad qualities of this character? If you can answer these 3 basic questions, it's a good character.
No comments:
Post a Comment