hero char arc : overrated / necessary?

just found this forum, very interesting.

I guess you can tell stories without a major character arc, but unless you're a master or just plain lucky you'll probably struggle. If you're telling a story where it's course does not affect the main character in some way then why bother telling it? it's no more inciteful than a druken night out.

An exception to this could be that the viewer watching gains insight into something even if the main character keeps going round in circles. Some European cinema does this very well and we end up feeling regret for the main character that they are unable to change.

The reason most superhero movies have ever worsening sequels is because the first film normally has the most dramatic arc for that character in his life; the discovery and acceptance of who they are. The superhero movie sequels that are the most compelling are when they find a new emotion to arc or change within the charatcer. Otherwise it becomes a pure visual spectacle.

It's doable but you may have to show the consequences that 'not changing' has on your other charatcers in the film. You can make the audience feel satisfied once they see that they will absolutely not change, and they are caught in a cycle. At that point the audience has gained enough insight to leave the story and take some meaning with them; make the inability to change the theme of the film maybe.
 
I think that the writer of that article has a dangerously narrow definition of "character arc."

An arc is an arc whether it is internal, external, a fundamental change in a character's personality, merely a change in the audience's perception of a character, and so on and so forth.

I had an argument with somebody who once tried to tell me that only a polar change in some central belief of the main character could constitute an arc. I disagreed with him. My argument was that the most important thing is that the audience's perception of the character changes, but those changes can be very subtle and still qualify as character arc.
 
David Jimerson said:
:)

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.
Click to expand...

Gottcha. I was just wondering if this was a term I might encounter outside of here as I have never heard it before. But your assessment of 3:10 to Yuma is spot on. That was one of the last movies I actually went to the theater to see and I remember leaving feeling like I had only been half-heartedly amused instead of enthusasitically entertained for the previous couple of hours. I thought the ending was really odd.
 
Excellent points Unk (and others here). Hmm, well that article in Script magazine is having less and less credible since I read it a few days ago. =) I still think it has been a good discussion though, even if the conclusion is that the premise of that magazine article has not carried much weight with us writers. We can all learn through discussion, right? :beer:
~randall
 
Last edited:
Discussion is ALWAYS good... Especially if it helps you understand the craft just a little more and a little more...

I think a lot of discussion about character arc today but based on older films before the term became popular is just the evolution of the craft.

In most of the best films I've ever seen, the Protagonist goes through some kind of change whether that means they become more committed in the attainment of their goal OR they undergo a complete character transformation like Ebenezer Scrooge.

They all work depending on how you write them...

Unk
 
Look at the character when the story begins.
Look at the character when the story ends.
Are they completely unchanged?

(Okay, they have probably changed their socks and underwear, but has other stuff changed, too?)

Usually the story changes them - they realize something they have been doing isn't working. I think in most movies characters don't change as much as they *change back* - they have had some problem knock them off track, and the story helps them find their way back on course.

- Bill
 
Well I that I for one have much to learn about this craft. Can't learn it all at once, so I do so a little at a time; many small steps make for a successful journey, even a raging waterfall starts with small drops of rain (okay i can't take credit for that -- straight out of the film The Power of One -- which like all movies I believe has Morgan Freeman amongst the cast :beer:). This forum is a great place to learn to walk. :)

UnknownScreenwriter said:
Discussion is ALWAYS good... Especially if it helps you understand the craft just a little more and a little more...Unk
Click to expand...
 
UnknownScreenwriter said:
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
Click to expand...

No Country for Old Men: I'd argue Moss doesn't change. We just find out who he is. He was a good old boy when he found the money, and he died the same way.


The Fugitive: Again, I'll argue Kimble didn't change. He starts off a brilliant, insightful, caring (goes to the hospital instead of remaining with his wife after the party), rightous doctor (who was going to blow the whistle on the drug, hence the attempt on his life). At the end, he has used his brilliance and insight to find the killer and the plot behind him, his righteousness to correct the wrong (instead of just dissapearing) and has remained caring (helping the guard and the little boy) to the point of risking his own capture.

Tommy Lee Jones changes from "I don't care," to "Don't tell anybody."
 
Nathyn said:
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
Click to expand...

Not really man. Spider-Man has a major arc in all three films. Batman underwent some serious ish during TDK.
 
If you don't have a character arc then you probably have an odyssey on your hands (although the protagonist of an odyssey can grow, the things he/she experiences are usually more important).

I believe that a growth arc adds to the question of "will the protagonist prevail?". If you introduce him as meek / average / flawed and put a task in front of him that he doesn't have the tools to deal with you will have a much better story than if you started out with someone who has the world under his thumb. The flaw doesn't have to dominate his/her character but it should be there, it should be evident, and it should match the theme of the story.

As an example, I have a finished script where a 24 year old protagonist has trust issues, not that he trusts no one, but that he makes bad decisions concerning trust. In the introductory scene a young boy asks him "How can I know who I can trust?" The response is "You'll struggle with that your whole life." The theme is there, out in the open before the first plot point, and the rest of the screenplay is a series of moderate to bad decisions concerning trust. At the very end he makes a few good decisions, and even answers a non sequitur "I trust you" to a question posed to him, more of an internal realization that he did find his solution. I consider that an arc (although some might argue against it).

Bob
 
Cyar said:
No Country for Old Men: I'd argue Moss doesn't change. We just find out who he is. He was a good old boy when he found the money, and he died the same way.


The Fugitive: Again, I'll argue Kimble didn't change. He starts off a brilliant, insightful, caring (goes to the hospital instead of remaining with his wife after the party), rightous doctor (who was going to blow the whistle on the drug, hence the attempt on his life). At the end, he has used his brilliance and insight to find the killer and the plot behind him, his righteousness to correct the wrong (instead of just dissapearing) and has remained caring (helping the guard and the little boy) to the point of risking his own capture.

Tommy Lee Jones changes from "I don't care," to "Don't tell anybody."
Click to expand...

Arguing is always good... LOL.

My perspective on storytelling and more specifically, screenwriting is that without change, you're boring the hell out of me.

As I stated before... I believe that when a character's commitment to goal grows stronger and stronger, that is in fact CHANGE to ME. And, I think it's definitely worth tossing out here as a perspective... In fact, easily as worthy as any other perspective I've read here.

You say Moss was just a good old boy... No problem. To each his/her own. I say Moss started out as a good old boy and then greed started to pull him in to the point that he even put his wife at risk.

Good old boy? LOL. Then at some point, greed became less of a motivating factor to keep the money... I'd almost say Moss kept it just to piss Chigurh off.

To me, he changed his reasons for keeping the money... Maybe it's subtle but it's still change to me...

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When a character reaches their breaking point or their limitation, they have to reach down down down... Find SOMETHING they probably didn't even know they had within them to attain and or forge ahead to attain their goal whatever that may be.[/FONT]

To me that is growth. That is change. That is development. That is not boring.

Unk
 
Hello Fellow Sufferers - Great, I mean great films with no, I mean no character arcs (these, my friends, are called tragedies because the protagonist CANNOT change) Citizen Kane; 2001: A Space Odyssey; A Clockwork Orange; Dr. Strangelove; 400 Blows (Truffaut); Barry Lyndon; High Noon; Annie Hall; The Good, the Bad & the Ugly; Dirty Harry; Unforgiven (a sort of reverse arc); The Road Warrior; Breaker Morant.

Not so great films: Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Pirates of the Caribbean (Jack Sparrow).

For examples of great plays with no arc, check out Shakespeare: Hamlet, MacBeth, King Lear, Henry IV I & II (Falstaff has no arc, but Hal does); Julius Caesar; Richard III.

The idea of a character "arc" is typical Hollywood crap, a way to tell delude would-be writers that just by having a character suddenly care about something he or she didn't and couldn't care about for the previous 90 minutes of a script, they actually created a "believable character."

A great film, play, novel, etc, often, but not always, tells the story of a character who cannot change, or believes that their way is not only the best way, but the only way of doing something, which is Greek Tragedy is called "hubris."
 
UnknownScreenwriter said:
Arguing is always good... LOL.

My perspective on storytelling and more specifically, screenwriting is that without change, you're boring the hell out of me.

As I stated before... I believe that when a character's commitment to goal grows stronger and stronger, that is in fact CHANGE to ME. And, I think it's definitely worth tossing out here as a perspective... In fact, easily as worthy as any other perspective I've read here.

You say Moss was just a good old boy... No problem. To each his/her own. I say Moss started out as a good old boy and then greed started to pull him in to the point that he even put his wife at risk.

Good old boy? LOL. Then at some point, greed became less of a motivating factor to keep the money... I'd almost say Moss kept it just to piss Chigurh off.

To me, he changed his reasons for keeping the money... Maybe it's subtle but it's still change to me...

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When a character reaches their breaking point or their limitation, they have to reach down down down... Find SOMETHING they probably didn't even know they had within them to attain and or forge ahead to attain their goal whatever that may be.[/FONT]

To me that is growth. That is change. That is development. That is not boring.

Unk
Click to expand...
NCFOM comes from Cormac McCarthy who writes classical tragedies. Moss is a good man whose greed doesn't kill him, but his compassion. He's found out because he takes water to the dying man, at which point he meets inexorable fate in the character of the angel of death.

The killer character isn't interested in revenge, retribution, or reclamation, just in death. No one in the film can stand up to fate (who can?) We all enact our fates, just as Moss does. He could have left the money, but he didn't. Why does Moss die? He's trying to save his family, which is why he took the money in the first place.

No arcs in this film, or any Coen brothers film (which makes them good). We just have people acting on their obsessions, wreaking havoc and learning nothing.
 
mburgh said:
No arcs in this film, or any Coen brothers film (which makes them good). We just have people acting on their obsessions, wreaking havoc and learning nothing.
Click to expand...

One could argue that in Fargo, Francis McDormand's character goes through a character arc. At the beginning and most of the way through the film she doesn't dig too deeply into her investigations. She's good at her job, but she takes people's word as truth right off the bat. That is until she realizes that the Mike Yanagita character had lied right to her face and she believed it 100%. This realization that what people say and how they project themselves to be is not always the truth. And this inspires her to further her invesitgation of William H. Macy's character which eventually breaks the case open.
 
OrangePlanet said:
One could argue that in Fargo, Francis McDormand's character goes through a character arc. At the beginning and most of the way through the film she doesn't dig too deeply into her investigations. She's good at her job, but she takes people's word as truth right off the bat. That is until she realizes that the Mike Yanagita character had lied right to her face and she believed it 100%. This realization that what people say and how they project themselves to be is not always the truth. And this inspires her to further her invesitgation of William H. Macy's character which eventually breaks the case open.
Click to expand...
Frances MacDormand's character doesn't change a bit. She's out in the freezing cold, pregnant, morning sick wondering where all the other police are, which shows her perseverance, her dedication, and her sense of responsibility. The only time she exhibits any kind of emotion is when Lundegard flees the interview. The source of humor for Fargo is her complete unflappability. She treats Mike (the disturbed guy at the Radission) the same as she treats Guir when she shoots and arrests him.
 
Nope. Marge begins the film trusting *everybody* - even a car salesman! But when she realizes the guy she went to school with isn't telling the truth, she realizes other people may not be telling the truth and begins to question people around her... and the car salesman again.

- Bill
 
wcmartell said:
Nope. Marge begins the film trusting *everybody* - even a car salesman! But when she realizes the guy she went to school with isn't telling the truth, she realizes other people may not be telling the truth and begins to question people around her... and the car salesman again.
Click to expand...


Truuue that.
 
Marge? Trust?

Marge? Trust?

wcmartell said:
Nope. Marge begins the film trusting *everybody* - even a car salesman! But when she realizes the guy she went to school with isn't telling the truth, she realizes other people may not be telling the truth and begins to question people around her... and the car salesman again.

- Bill
Click to expand...

Marge is polite to everyone. Don't mistake that for trust. Consider how she talks to criminals: The two truckstop whores and Shep, and how she talks to her fellow policemen (who are too stupid to know that DLR signifies Dealer plates). She's a cop from the first frame we see her to the last.
 
I've been reading this book called "The Heroes Journey" which talks about almost any story can fit into the framework that is detailed in the book. One thing you mentioned about Gandhi was that he didn't change...the people around him did. In the chapter from the book describing typical hero structure, one type of hero is the "catalyst" hero. This is a hero who stays relatively the same throughout the whole movie but changes those around him. He is the catalyst for character arcs of the lesser characters in the movie.
I agree with the author and state that perhaps a hero doesn't need to change, sometimes he justs needs to be there so that something will happen that will change the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top