Movies much like stage plays rely heavily on the three act format for the script. In those three acts could be several scenes, but each act has a specific purpose.
Act I: The introduction. Especially in movies, the introduction to the characters and the circumstances revolving around them is critical. Normally, the first act is anywhere between ten to twenty minutes. We need to know who the characters are, we need to know a little about their backstory, we need to know how it's relevant to what is coming up in the movie, and we need to set the stage for act II. There is a a lot that needs to be done in a very short amount of time.
Examples are always best. Here is an example of a great screenplay that has a great first act: Die Hard. First scene we are introduced to John McClane. He's on an airplane, a little apprehensive about flying, we establish that he's a cop just by showing his gun and a little dialogue, we see he's an average joe because he doesn't sit in the back of the limo, we establish he has marriage troubles with dialogue between him and the limo driver... and all this is done in a very short amount of time, but very effectively. We also meet Holly. We get to know her situation a bit. We learn that she misses the big lug and has some regrets about taking this job in LA. We see that it was a huge opportunity for her because she has her own office with her name on the door. The office conflicts and politics are established and become important later in the movie. (especially with Ellis) We also see a lot about the terrorists. The way they take the building, how they dress and interact with each other, how Hans carries himself as an aristocratic character in complete opposition to John McClane's character, and we know what the terrorists want. It's a beautiful setup to a great movie. All done in about the first twenty minutes of the movie.
A bad example would be Battle: Los Angeles. There almost isn't a first act at all. The audience is told the aliens invade through a news reel. Next thing we know, we are in a briefing talking about how the US military plans to fight back. The motivations of the aliens are glanced over, we never see the aliens clearly, and no characters are established other than they are soldiers. It's impossible to have drama if we don't know who the people are, what they are fighting for/against, or why we should care. It's like building a house with no foundation. Do you really expect it to keep standing?
Act II: Things get interesting. By far the longest act in any movie is act II. Once we set the stage, now things can start to go wrong. Everyone knows that conflict is the bread and butter of drama. Nobody wants to see a movie where everything is fine. That doesn't happen in real life and it shouldn't happen in a movie. Think of all the ways to have conflict: personality conflicts between characters, personality conflicts with one character, outward fights between characters, political tension, racial tension, religious tension, gender tension, social class tension, economic tension, and on and on. Act II is where the writer has fun. Act I everything is set up nicely, Act II we get to break everything.
The name of the game is conflict. And in keeping with the traditional writing model, the conflict must steadily increase. If there are any surprise twists or sub-plots, act II is where to put them. The most important thing is to keep the tension rising. There can be breaks of course. Even a viewing audience needs a chance to catch their breath. A running firefight for sixty minutes might sound good, but it's taxing and the audience will lose interest.
In slasher movies, there's a reason people get killed one at a time. It's to keep the action rising. One person gets killed, reaction shot by the survivors, some dialogue, and repeat. By killing only one person it also provides a little creativity in how that person dies. As I said, we have to keep the action rising. If person #1 has his head cut off with a machete, person #2 can't die in a relatively more tame way. It just becomes a let down and the audience just says, "that's it? Lame." Think about Final Destination 5. The first person dies by falling off the uneven bars and breaks her back/neck. Overall, a fairly tame way to die even though the death scene was very elaborate. But the next scene is a guy dieing in a massage parlor. Needles are embedded deep into his skin, there's a fire, and a Buddah statue crushes his head like a grape. That's called upping the ante.
Act III: The final countdown. In any movie this is it. This is the grand finale. This is the moment the entire movie has built up to. This is the final fight scene. This is the moment of realization. The climax and final resolutions. Here we find out if the two lovers live happily ever after, if the good guy defeats the bad guy, or even if anybody lives. Many people will forgive a slow buildup if the payoff is good. But not if they wait too long. Let's go back to Die Hard. The climax of the movie is the showdown between Hans and McClane. Hans' plan is all but ruined, he has Holly hostage, another villian is there with a gun too, the building is a fiery mess, and all John McClane has is a gun with two bullets. How does he solve this problem? It's the classic Mexican standoff scene. One man vs two and the life of a loved one in the balance. It's a great scene. It is about the last twenty minutes of the movie. We have our climatic scene and then all the loose ends get resolved. Beautiful.
An example of a bad climax would be Shutter Island. While it's not a bad movie, it is anti-climatic. Throughout the movie it's a mystery of what is really going on. All the pieces just don't fit and as our intrepid inspector is about to confront the shady doctor, the music swells, the door opens, and.... they have a nice chat.... yeah.... great movie. It's very suspenseful and a must see if you haven't seen it yet, but the climax is very disappointing. It just feels like the whole story fell off a cliff. All the tension and drama gets sucked out of the room immediately. The realization is satisfying but not dramatic.
Another example of a bad climax is when it goes on for too long. Transformers 3 has this problem. The climax is a disjointed mess of action sequences that don't fit well together and sometimes undermine each other. And it goes on for about an hour! There is such a thing as too much action.
Some movies break from the three act style with mixed results. Shawshank Redemption for example could be considered a four act play. The climax of the movie is Andy's brilliant escape from prison. But that isn't the end of the movie. While most of the movie revolves around Andy, it's not entirely his movie. Red is telling this story to us much like Grandpa reading us a bedtime story. Act III is the completion of Andy's story, but Act IV is what happens to Red. It's a break from the norm and some people like this, but it does have the problem of dragging out the resolution to the story. Something that is normally very quick, suddenly becomes the last twenty minutes or so of the movie. That's a lot of time for an audience that has already seen the best part and is ready to go home.
How the movie plays out is entirely up to the writer of the script. Some acts might be longer or shorter. Some disregard the three act format all together. However, breaking a movie down into three acts is usually a winning formula.
Showing posts with label Anatomy of a movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anatomy of a movie. Show all posts
Friday, September 16, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
Anatomy of a Movie: Characters
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)