hero char arc : overrated / necessary?

Randall_Oelerich

Randall_Oelerich

Veteran
Just got my Jan/Feb issue of Script magazine in the mail, has a feature article (The Case Against Character Arcs by Mystery Man) on how character arcs are overrated, not always necessary. Very interesting article, enlightening.

So many gurus and books on screenwriting tout how heroes simply must have a character arc in order for the story to be worth. Yet the author of the article says that there are many movies/heroes-- many Oscar caliber-- that do not have hero character arcs: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Clarise/Hannibal in Silence of the Lambs, James Bond, No Country for Old Men, Ghandi, 3:10 to Yuma, The Fugitive.
~randall
 
That the hero is basically the same internally at the start and at the end of the story (in those stories cited). Gandhi is a pacifist at the beginning and end of the story, the people who change are those around him, not Gandhi himself. Hannibal Lecter is a feeder, of food and peoples' psyches, at the start and end; Clarice is wiser at the end, but she is the same person inside emotionally. Indiana Jones does not change. Neither does the hero Dan in 3:10 to Yuma -- but he changes those around him (his son, and also Russel Crowe's character). The Pink Panther is the same inside at the end-- a bumbling detective who is unaware of his idiocy. Sherlock Holmes is the same inside at the end of each story. Many stories do have character arcs, but the author argues for the case that many stories do not have character arcs, and should not.

David Jimerson said:
How do they make the argument that those films don't involve a hero's character arc?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I should add the article/author is not purporting that those movies do not have rich 3D characters, only that the hero characters do not go through in inner character arc (e.g. moral/ethical change).

David Jimerson said:
How do they make the argument that those films don't involve a hero's character arc?
Click to expand...
 
He's probably right on some of those things. But Ghandi started out as a guy who was content within the existing system until it was demonstrated to him how unjust it was. Clarice goes from being a naif not knowing what she was getting into, to being a seasoned agent able to overcome her own personal insecurities pointed out so bluntly by Lecter. (Lecter wasn't the hero, so he didn't so much need an arc.)

3:10 to Yuma completely fell apart in the third act (the Spiral of Stupid began as soon as they got to town) , so it's not really a good example, especially considering Crowe's character's totally unnatural personality transplant.

Indiana Jones -- probably. But Raiders ended with a deus ex machina, anyway. :) Not only did Jones not change, he wasn't even crucial to the resolution (whether or not he was there, the Nazis would have opened the Ark and died). So there, I'd submit, the script was faulty despite the rip-roaring great ride of the movie.

So there's some give and take, and there may be films which don't follow the arc -- but to point it out, I think, is something of a truism. If he's arguing that as a general practice, scripts shouldn't have character arcs, then he's on infirm ground.
 
I don't think the author of the article is making a case against char arcs, only that those (gurus, books) that seem to make it a rule that stories must always have hero char arcs are wrong. Only a few exceptions to such guru rules shows the rule is not a rule, that stories do not necessarily have to have a hero char arc.

Although of course, imho, if a char arc can be weaved into a story that works without an arc, I think it becomes a richer story and more rewarding and emotionally satisfying to us viewers who fork over $10 for a feedbag of popcorn LOL. :beer:

David Jimerson said:
... If he's arguing that as a general practice, scripts shouldn't have character arcs, then he's on infirm ground.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Well, like I said -- to say that exceptions to the rule exist is a truism. Of COURSE they exist.

There is, though, a certain tendency among beginners (at anything) to think they can be the exceptions without ever having followed the rules. I'm not saying that's what YOU'RE saying here, but it's a fairly common occurrence. It's not a good way to approach it. The rules have been developed over thousands and thousands of years; it's extraordinarily unlikely that a beginner to the field is going to have such an astounding insight that they can break them right out of the gate.
 
For sure, I am doing my best to weave char arc into my stories (at least feature scripts). I just think it is good to discuss such topics, learn from so doing. :beer:

David Jimerson said:
Well, like I said -- to say that exceptions to the rule exist is a truism. Of COURSE they exist.

There is, though, a certain tendency among beginners (at anything) to think they can be the exceptions without ever having followed the rules. I'm not saying that's what YOU'RE saying here, but it's a fairly common occurrence. It's not a good way to approach it. The rules have been developed over thousands and thousands of years; it's extraordinarily unlikely that a beginner to the field is going to have such an astounding insight that they can break them right out of the gate.
Click to expand...
 
Of course; I don't disagree. I just caution against the idea of trying to break the rules until you get a serious grounding in them. It's kind of a general shout out, not directed at you personally.
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
That the hero is basically the same internally at the start and at the end of the story (in those stories cited).
Click to expand...

This includes every major superhero film after the first film. LOL. I've made this argument before but my buddy who loves screenwriting only shouts at me about breaking the rules.

-Nate
 
David Jimerson said:
3:10 to Yuma completely fell apart in the third act (the Spiral of Stupid began as soon as they got to town) , so it's not really a good example, especially considering Crowe's character's totally unnatural personality transplant.
Click to expand...
amb6yr.jpg


​
(Sorry, I got some great personal news today and I am in an exceptionally happy, playful mood tonight and couldn't resist putting my post in the format of character dialog just for fun. Question is serious though.)
 
:)

The Spiral of Stupid is a term of art that goes back, oh, to the time I wrote that post, so about 2.5 hours.

I just meant that as soon as they got to town, dumb things started happening, and they just kept getting more and more dumb, until the very end when Crowe shoots his most loyal lieutenant, the dumbest thing of the whole film.
 
It would be nice, but I don't think an action story hero needs an arc because the action suffices to entertain the audience well enough that they leave the show quite happy. On the other hand, an arc creates depth to the character and often the depth resonates with an audience that is seeking a greater sense of meaning.

Jame Bond, Mr. 007 typically does not have an arc, except for the latest films. Often 007 remains the same guy, from beginning to end, he just needs to stop the bad guys using cool technology, charm, wit good fighting and lots of good luck. This approach is based upon a super hero who is somewhat God like, fully developed, just here to help us mere mortals. The action is the story.

Real heros (this could include action heros also) in my book need an arc because the stuff that really makes them a hero is more than the physical achievement, it's facing their own fears and internal demons that hold them hostage. The process of overcoming these personal dragons is what appeals universally to all people. This form of achievement is what makes any story, from any time period or situation, relevant and meaningful to an audience anywhere in the world; because it's personal and speaks to similair situations we all face in our daily life, therefore, we can relate to it. Action heros that have an arc are possibly the most appealing hero stories because the story contains both worlds of jepordy: the inner psychological world & the outer physical/social world; this is really appealing and satisfying when they succeed and deeply disturbing if they tragically fail.
 
According to the old-school "gurus" the blockbuster action-hero doesn't have an arc. Bad guys don't have arcs.

I idea of having arcs for everyone (and especially being mandatory) is a recent touchy-feely doesn't-anyone-think-of-the-children development (say over the past 10-20 years), and is responsible for a lot of ruined movies. Personally I think that a pointless arc is cliche.

Some characters just don't need arcs. It depends on the type of story you're telling that determines whether your character has an arc or not.
 
David Jimerson said:
Of course; I don't disagree. I just caution against the idea of trying to break the rules until you get a serious grounding in them. It's kind of a general shout out, not directed at you personally.
Click to expand...

Character arc is not in the rules. Well actually there are no rules, but if there were rules, character arc wouldn't be one of them.
 
brianluce said:
Character arc is not in the rules. Well actually there are no rules, but if there were rules, character arc wouldn't be one of them.
Click to expand...

If character arc weren't a "rule," there wouldn't be articles about why it shouldn't be. :beer:

It's not just a script issue; it's a general storytelling issue applicable to many literary/stortelling forms.

But the point isn't even necessarily that it's a rule -- it's definitely a common convention, a well-used device, and you should understand how and why it's used before dismissing it.
 
I tend to think of character arc as some kind of change however slight.

Many old movie protagonists didn't have character arcs per se but the protagonist became even more determined -- more committed to his goal.

To me, that is still change.

Most of the movies mentioned here weren't spec scripts either... Not that this thread is about writing a spec as I know quite a few that read this might be making their own movies... However, trying to sell a spec TODAY with a protagonist that doesn't arc OR change is, in my opinion, more difficult to sell.

It should be pointed out that a lot of producers are of the opinion that screenplays adapted from books already have a built-in fan base and they rely on that fan base for word of mouth.

In addition to that, sequels also have that built-in fan base so again, you don't have as much need for a character arc.

Having said all that, I think an argument can be made that a protagonist becoming more and more determined to attain their goal as the story moves forward can be a kind of character arc.

Butch and Sundance go out fighting in the end... Did they have a choice? We don't know. Could they have come out with their hands up? Maybe -- maybe not. We watch them run away and outsmart everyone throughout the movie... Their change TO ME, is a change in venue along with no more running.

Indiana Jones doesn't believe in the POWER OF GOD in the beginning of the movie but he sure as hell believes in it by the end of the movie... LOL.

Clarice is a somewhat naive and ambitious FBI student... By that I mean that Crawford sends her in to talk to Lecter without letting her in on his plan because he figures if he does let her in on his plan, Lecter will see right through her. We watch her grow as a student. We watch her learn from Lecter. We see her implementing the things she's learned while at the academy. We see her more or less become "friendly" with Lecter even though she knows she shouldn't. We see her graduate from the academy... In other words, just like the moths emerge from the cocoon, Clarice emerges as full fledeged FBI agent.

Is that change? Hmmm.

James Bond... Built-in fan base so it probably doesn't matter but I like the new Bond...

No Country For Old Men... An argument could be made that Tommy Lee Jones is the actual Protagonist of that movie. Does he change by the end of the film? Hell yeah... He retires. He sees that the world has changed right underneath his nose... Moss changes from a good old boy Texan living in a trailer park to a guy trying to hold on to a couple of million dollars or die trying.

Ghandi's already been discussed.

3:10 To Yuma... Bale's character sees himself as a failure in the eyes of his family. He no longer wants to be seen as a failure. This isn't a movie about Bale beating Crowe's character... This is a movie about a father wanting to be a hero to his family especially his son who ended up tagging along. He died trying which to ME was the point.

The Fugitive... A vascular surgeon with a rich wife and not a care in the world. He didn't change? By the end of the movie, Dr. Richard Kimble was a force to be reckoned with. He SINGLE-HANDEDLY caught his wife's killer and revealed the new drug as a hoax.

So I guess it depends on HOW you look at it.

Unk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top