Characters and inner conflicts - Do they really matter?

C

c.g._eads

Veteran
An inner conflict is the one big "fault" your characters have that defines them. The idea is, in the last act, that your character will finally *overcome* this fault and it will ultimately help them save the day (or solve the major problem in the story).

I think inner conflicts, when done well, really help a script.

But are they necessary? Here are a few examples where I'd argue they aren't.

1) Titanic - Jack Dawson is perfect. There is nothing wrong with him. He doesn't really overcome anything. Yet I remember looking back in the theater after his death (oops, spoiler!) and seeing quite a few teary eyes. Seems like we cared about this character. So why didn't he need an inner conflict.

2) Ferris Bueller's Day Off - This is in my top five and guess what? Ferris Bueller doesn't change at all! He's the exact same person at the end of the movie as he was at the beginning. This is one of the most daring things ever gotten away with in a great movie. You have your main character do the immoral thing of ditching school... and he gets away with it! You're supposed to get caught in the end and learn a lesson. That's how most movies would've done it. And yet he gets away and we're completely satisfied. Makes you wonder if any of your future characters should learn a lesson, doesn't it?

3) American Beauty - Now this one is a little more complicated and I see this more frequently. I don't know how this ends up working in movies so maybe you can tell me. Lester Burnam's inner conflict is that he never stands up for himself. Yet it only takes him about 40 minutes before he does. Uhhhh, huh? Your main character is supposed to overcome their inner conflict in the last act. For Lester, it happens in the second. And yet it still works.

So I ask you, why? Why, structurally speaking, do these things still work? I know you can say things like, "Well, Ferris Bueller is just funny so we love him so much." Or "Jack saved rose. That's why we like him and are sad when he dies." I know these things. But these things are supposed to be secondary when you're writing a script behind finding what your main character's problem is and how he's going to solve it by the end of the movie.

Is there some instruction on how to deal with things like this? Anyone have any insight? Something like, "You don't have to give you character an inner conflict if... a, b, and c." ?

I know in all three examples, that the other characters changed a lot (Rose in Titanic and Cameron in Ferris Bueller's). And actually, their changes were quite dramatic. So maybe that's the key. If you're going to axe the conflict in your main character, then really up it in your supporting characters. Maybe? What do you think?
 
Last edited:
1. Titanic - Jack WASN'T the main character... I've never even considered him a character. He was a "force" acting on Rose.

3. Haven't seen American Beauty in a long time, but I think you're oversimplifying a bit, in terms of Lester's interior struggles. Certainly his attitude changed after the 40 or so minutes, but I wouldn't say his issues/conflicts were overcome. Certainly, IIRC, his close call at a sexual interaction with the scrawny girl near the end of the film, and his final decision not to go ahead with it, was an important part of his struggle, and sorta climactic.

Oddly, I haven't seen Ferris Beuller...
 
re: American Beauty - yeah, I thought about that ending with the girl. But in the beginning of the movie, what clearly defines Lester Burnham is his acceptance of the status quo and his inability to stand up to it. He may have developed another conflict later on, but that's kind of what I'm asking. How does that work? Also, I think inner conflicts are supposed to be simple, right? They're supposed to be what's wrong with them in a nutshell.

Interesting about Titanic. I know Rose starts and ends the movie, but I always saw them as at least co-leads. Then again, I might be thinking "dicaprio" equals "lead" and therefore put him as the main character.

I don't know if you're a comedy guy but Ferris Bueller is almost a perfect comedy. Some jokes are dated, but well worth the 3.50 rental.
 
I think (and its just my personal opinion) that whether or not your main character has inner conflict really depends on what story you are telling and how you are going to utilize that main character to that end.

People will have all kinds of takes on the examples you offer up. I certainly do when I think about them.

Maybe Jack doesnt develop an inner conflict until some point in the story, when he meets Rose. He is not flawed, but internally he changes. His values change over the course of the story and we care about him because we see that change happening for him in his relationship with Rose.

Ferris Bueller, well, I dont think the story was about Ferris. The story was about how he could make the other characters overcome their own mediocrity in life and to live it big. He didnt need a flaw or fault as his whole character was a tool for the others to learn thru.

Lester in American Beauty....I think the point at which you mention he overcomes his flaw of not sticking up for himself happens in a very over-the-top fashion. He not only sticks up for himself, but he does so in a way that his character cannot possibly maintain. The change is TOO big and TOO pronounced, so his struggle after his move into the "unreal" is to find the medium point he can settle at. That is his journey to me. He snaps, which catapults him into the life he wishes he had lived and he thinks he can have still. The cool car, the no pressure job at the drive thru, getting lucky with the cheerleader friend of his daughter, having a body he had when he was 20yrs old. These are unreasonable for him and his journey is realizing that and finding where he can live with himself. Something better than he was before and accepting of the fact that he cant be the young man he let slip away.



So I think you are right when you say:

"I know in all three examples, that the other characters changed a lot (Rose in Titanic and Cameron in Ferris Bueller's). And actually, their changes were quite dramatic. So maybe that's the key. If you're going to axe the conflict in your main character, then really up it in your supporting characters."

I'll be interested in what other people weigh in with. Its a good question for discussion.
 
Really like your take on American Beauty. Overcoming his inner conflict actually creates a more dramatic inner conflict. I love learning this stuff because they don't teach it to you in screenwriting books. Of course they only teach you the most standard way to do it.

As for the Ferris analysis, I'm not so sure I agree. It's called "Ferris Bueller's Day Off". I think it is about Ferris He's the one that sets everything in motion. He's the one that decides when and where they're going. Everything revolves around him. It's just not about "him" in the traditional screenplay way, which is what I'm getting at. You think it's not about him because the other characters (or really just Cameron) follow the more traditional arc of a typical "hero" or "main character".

I'm kind of looking at it as, if I brought my latest screenplay into a development exec and he was like "your main character doesn't overcome anything" and I replied, "yeah, I don't want him to," they're going to be like, "who the hell do you think you are? your main character has to change!" How would I respond to that? And how could I apply the answer to the rules that govern my screenplays.
 
I see.... I have never been in a position to worry about such things :D (never been presenting my work in a meeting like that). I see what you are after, though.

Seems like if the premise and concept of the story is a good one and your MDQ is clearly stated and made clear in the course of your story, then the question of your main character overcoming something or not, in the traditional sense, may be a moot point. Maybe?

I'm interested to know what people better equipped with real experience can offer on this. Thanks for posting it.

Also, don't shoot me, but I compare Ferris Bueller's story structure to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Willy Wonka is not about Willy and the factory. Its about Charlie and what he learns along the journey. Willy Wonka was the instrument for that learning process, the teacher to Charlie of how to see and live life with a different perspective.
 
Last edited:
It just depends on the type of story. James Bond doesn't change much and doesn't have internal conflicts. I never thought William Wallace changed that much. There aren't many absolutes in writing, normally it's good to have a hero or protagonist but some of the best scripts are ensemble. The only absolute in screenwriting is that you should use Celtx. Always always always.
 
How do you normally learn about people in real life?

You know about yourself from first person but everyone else from their behaviors. So you decide whether your story will get the audience inside of your protagonist or learn about them through behaviors.

Writing backstories for characters will help your actors but the audience will experience the story from how you write the point of view.

In the case of Ferris, the audience is put from the point of view getting to know him from his behaviors, like just another of his friends. The story exposes us to someone that has a "stop and smell the roses" personality which both influences others not to take life so seriously but also re-examine what is really important.
 
i think ferris works because in a sense he makes the viewer the protagonist. He even begins the movie by talking directly to us. i think ferris was directly trying to change our point of view.

you ought to see it too!
 
Jack in Titanic has a great conflict. He's the honorable one stuck on the wrong side of the tracks. The boy with dreams and integrity but no money. He's in love with the girl from a wealthy, connected family, whose mother would never allow her to be with a man like Jack. That's a lot of internal and external conflict. I would say he changes from within, starting as a man with great dreams for the future, ending with the realization that his dreams will never come true. That he just experienced the best part of his life in the past week, and that's the end of it. That would make me cry. I don't think the internal conflict has to be something very obvious. It can be something more intangible. And the external and internal conflict can dovetail together. Then again, Titanic isn't a really deep movie, and maybe the deeper the movie the deeper the internal conflict. Alien vs. Predator doesn't have much internal conflict in the main character either--it's all very external--and I still love it.
 
Ferris was a fourth wall character, and fourth wall characters are given a set of powers that set them aside from everyone else. They interact with the audience, and in this case, Ferris acts like a host, giving us a personalized tour of his world. He doesn't need to change, because this is as he sees it. And he's the one telling the story.

Characters don't necessarily have to change dramatically. Take 'Patton' for example. In the end, Patton is still the same old General as he was in the beginning of the movie. But the film offered a look at what made him who he was.

These are great movies that you listed, but they each had a different way of doing things. I don't think there should be a set of rules to tell a good story. Especially with more formulaic films these days, unconventional ideas will probably have a more lasting impression.
 
re: William Wallace

Come to think of it, I never really thought Maximus in Gladiator really had an internal struggle either. Like Wallace, he was a badass throughout the entire story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top