"Characterization" and perception

[Evan Kubota]

After some thought: it seems to me that the Hollywood method of 'characterization' is easily recognizable as being closer to forced identification or sympathy than actual 'characterization.' It seems that it's not even necessary to write a 'character' - the actor will ideally inhabit that character even without 'insightful' lines. (this came up when I was writing my WWII film - I was so concerned with 'getting inside' the character's head that I was using voiceover, etc. when I should have worried less about that and let it play out visually).

This correlates with my recent realization that most of the films I really like don't have a lot of 'characterization' in the Hollywood mode. For example - 'Stalker,' 'The Brown Bunny,' 'Solaris.' It seems enough to let the character inhabit a visual space rather than try to write depth into them. This discourages immediate, superficial identification but probably is more rewarding for repeat viewings. After all, you can't take in an entire performance in a single viewing. Am I totally off base here or does anyone else think similarly?

[comradejones]

Have you seen any of the films by the Dardenne brothers? Brilliant characterisation without the glut of dialogue and exposition found in many films. Deceptively simple in style and technique. If you haven't have a look at Rosetta, The Son and L'Enfant.
Character is action; action is character...

[Evan Kubota]

Not yet, but the name that came to mind after I posted this was Bresson. 'Au hasard Balthazar' and 'Un condamné à mort s'est échappé' are good examples of 'non-acting.'

Frankly, I'm not a good enough writer or director to fictionally recreate something that can exist on a perceptually 'real' level for the audience. It's probably more effective to let the actors play themselves, in other words.

[comradejones]

Gotta brush up on my Bresson!

Sure, let the actors play themeselves but you as the writer still have to create the circumstances under which they act - the circimstances against which they react. Reacting is acting (or something...I'm still trying to figure it out...)

Frankly, I'm not a good enough writer or director to fictionally recreate something that can exist on a perceptually 'real' level for the audience.

But you're a filmmaker! And this is precisely what filmmakers do! Do I detect a crisis of confidence??

[Evan Kubota]

"But you're a filmmaker! And this is precisely what filmmakers do! Do I detect a crisis of confidence??"

No, just admission of my own weaknesses... I'm a lot better at visualization and technical aspects and only recently have started to scratch the surface of the mostly untouched, formless void of dramatic narrative and representation...

What I meant was that using explicitly melodramatic or artificial devices to construct something that feels emotionally 'real' is beyond my capabilities at this point. It can definitely be done, but only rarely and by truly talented groups.

[comradejones]

Well, yes - how many truly memorable auteurs can you name? It's no small thing to write, shoot, direct - not if your standards are high. That's why most of us choose specialisation - writers write, directors direct, etc.
But the only way forward is forward. Only by writing, shooting directing - getting on with it - will anyone have a hope of finding their voice (if indeed this is what they want).
Almodavar started off shooting camp melodramas on super 8mm, and now, after years of struggle and experimentation, he shoots camp melodramas on 35mm!! Seroiusly, it's a long road to finding a unique filmaking language but perhaps "using explicitly melodramatic or artificial devices" is a good place to start.

[comradejones]

Well, yes - how many truly memorable auteurs can you name? It's no small thing to write, shoot, direct - not if your standards are high. That's why most of us choose specialisation - writers write, directors direct, etc.
But the only way forward is forward. Only by writing, shooting directing - getting on with it - will anyone have a hope of finding their voice (if indeed this is what they want).
Almodavar started off shooting camp melodramas on super 8mm, and now, after years of struggle and experimentation, he shoots camp melodramas on 35mm!! Seroiusly, it's a long road to finding a unique filmaking language but perhaps "using explicitly melodramatic or artificial devices" is a good place to start.

[Evan Kubota]

Shooting staged action on film is artificial enough ;) I'm just saying that I don't want to introduce more artifice than necessary. Don't get the impression that I've given up on fiction or narrative films. Even within fiction you can still employ or eschew extreme melodrama, etc. A lot of my favorite directors do melodrama. It's not really what I'm set up for at this point.

[steve hyde]

...I'm not sure what "letting actors be themselves" means. If you are doing character-driven drama, then characterizations are your currency. Aren't they? For low budget films that can't afford to cast for a specific character, I think it makes all the sense in the world to write for the actors you do have access to. In other words write characters that the actors can do or want to do.

I was in a screenwriting workshop recently and the most fascinating thing I learned was a process called "character mapping". It is a way of thickly describing characterizations in ways that go much deeper than what is presented in the story.

Here is the material: http://www.emotionaltoolbox.com/
from Laurie Hutzler she teaches in the UCLA screenwriting program and works as a script consultant. **the tone of the website is corporate and awful, but the content is actually quite rich.** So if you want more insights into "Hollywood modes" they can be found on Laurie's website. Personally, I don't give Hollywood all the credit. Credit should really go to Aristotle.(Poetics)

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/classics/resourc ... ettran.htm

Here is how you play the game. Go to her website and download the "Map questions" then map yourself. After you map yourself map some of your closest friends or family members. If you take the exercise seriously and spend several hours with it, I gurantee you will gain some valuable insights into characterization. Once you "own" this technique you can use it or not, but I bet you will find it useful. I do.

hope this helps,

Steve

[Evan Kubota]

My whole point is that to *use* "characterizations as currency" you have to be very careful that you don't shoehorn in something obviously contrived. IMO that's worse than not consciously "developing" a character at all.

These questions are interesting:

"Question One: Among people who know you but do not know you well—what is the biggest misconception about who you are? What do people say about you in the loo or bathroom if they want to dismiss or belittle you?

Question Two: What was your greatest childhood fear? This is a non-specific generalized fear. What would keep you awake at night as a kid if you thought about it too much?

Question Three: What are your strongest traits? What is your crutch in hard times? What personal traits get you through when the going gets tough? What traits do you lean on?

Question Four: These are traits you do not have. They are, however, traits you really admire in someone else. When you see these traits in someone else your heart leaps a bit and you wish you could have these wonderful traits yourself.

Question Five: What are the traits that get you in trouble? Sometimes, when things are going reasonably well, this is what will muck it up. This is the way you most often get yourself in hot water with loved ones, co-workers, authority figures or friends.

Question Six: Think of someone you cannot abide. This is someone you know well or someone you’ve observed briefly—it is a person who has actually passed through your life and not an historical or celebrity figure. When you met or observed this person, the hackles on your neck rose and you had a visceral response of intense dislike. What were the traits that this person had that set your teeth on edge?"

but I note as I read them that most of my favorite films would not leave me able to answer these about many of the main characters, despite being richly rendered and intriguing.

[npcoombs]

I'm with Evan on many levels in terms of taste in cinema and my own approach to filmmaking which emphasizes visualization above character development. In fact some of my favorite films eschew character development completely, it has been flogged into such a predictable form of exposition that it no longer engages my sympathy.

As Matt said The Dardenne Brothers are a bit of an exception. Strong characters with little dialogue or background.

I was in a screenwriting workshop recently and the most fascinating thing I learned was a process called "character mapping". It is a way of thickly describing characterizations in ways that go much deeper than what is presented in the story.

Bad idea. Avoid all these gurus like the plague. My filmmaking workshop is an online DVD rental service called LoveFilm. I can see and hear everything I want straight from the greatest directors who have ever lived.

I think it would be relatively easy for me (with the money and people) to just copy the work of my favourite directors. The hard part is trying to introduce creative hybridity and my own personal themes and innovations.

[steve hyde]

...I can understand the logic behind avoiding "gurus", but I think it is flawed logic. The problem with the guru literature is not the literature itself, it is the way that people use it. Everyone wants a shortcut and these books don't offer any. The same problem exists in the sciences and all the arts.

For me - if a book (or theory) offers me a new pathway toward thinking about something critically then I see value in that. The questions that Evan noted above are a prime example of a writing exercise that encourages critical thinking. I have done the exercise myself and found it quite illuminating.

Here is what it illuminated for me: If you are going to spend several years of your life making a character-driven feature film, you had better know your characters in the same way a clinical psychoanalyst knows her patients. A writer/director has to have a strong sense of how a character will react in any given situation. If they do not the writer/director runs the risk of writing a character reaction that is incongruous with the given character traits. This is why screenwriters are always talking about "psychological truth". The alternative to psychological truth is a character that is not convincing. (the hallmark of student films)

Like anything writing is a process that requires learning new techniques. The best way to learn the techniques is by trying them. Then either throw them away, add innovative ideas to them or think about why it doesn't work for you.

If nothing else these literatures at least give us something talk about or criticise. Avoiding it like the plague is anti-intellectual in my oppinion.

...Visualization over characterization??......this doesn't make sense to me.
Take the remarkably visual character-driven film from Aleksandr Sokurov - Mother and Son. Here is an unconventional feature film that is structured in characterizations. On one hand the story is told through the ways that the two characters interact and on the other hand it is told through the characterization of place: the character of the home and landscape. The film is remarkably atmospheric in terms of its visualization, but the reason the visualization works is because it fits the characterizations.

So for me, if I was going to write this kind of story, I would find some use for the character map questions above - after all, the characters in Mother and Son have all of the qualities that would come out of such an exercise.
They have fear, wants, needs, admire traits, hate traits and so on - even if thery are not revealed in the film they are still there in *backstory*.

The point is not to put all of those things into your story. The point is to know your characters more intimately than your audience ever will because you will keep secrets from them. This is what all human beings are like.....after all we do not even completely know ourselves. If we did, we would have no use at all for the discipline of psychology and psychoanalysis.


Steve

[Evan Kubota]

Just for kicks I did this exercise to the best of my ability on the main character from my short.

1. biggest misconception about you?
a coward

2. your fear?
dying, or failing

3. what are your strongest traits?
being able to consider things

4. what do you admire in others (that you don't have)?
being able to do something dangerous without considering the consequences

5. what trait gets you in trouble?
reluctance to follow without questioning

6. trait you despise in others?
people who say and do things wrong without paying any attention, unthoughtful people

It's interesting that to an extent these did shape the narrative without me specifically considering them. Maybe I'm not as bad with "characterization" as I thought ;)

"A writer/director has to have a strong sense of how a character will react in any given situation. If they do not the writer/director runs the risk of writing a character reaction that is incongruous with the given character traits."

Yes, but to draw a musical analogy: you can avoid playing false notes by either learning scale patterns or intuiting which notes are right. One approach if followed too dogmatically is guaranteed to make your playing formulaic and trite, especially since some 'wrong' notes are partially 'right'. The other approach gives more interesting results but ironically you have to play in the box before getting a feel for when you're out of it and why.

It seems that both are necessary to an extent. I know that I've been playing guitar for years and only recently have a good grasp of what I can play when without resorting to scales.

Basically, don't rely these kind of schemes exclusively, but you can use them sparingly to troubleshoot if something isn't subjectively "working" about the character.

I think what Nathan was getting at is "visual characterization" - through aesthetics and mise en scene you can build a character much more subtly and richly than simply forcing them to regurgitate their programmed "emotions." Obviously if done right dialogue can reveal much about a character indirectly, which is the goal.

[steve hyde]

Just for kicks I did this exercise to the best of my ability on the main character from my short.

Cool. So now you can go as deeply into this as you want to.

1. biggest misconception about you?
a coward

Now, it might be useful for you to spend some time writing in your notes why he is seen as a coward and how this perception is constructed. I like to frame my character maps with answers to how and why questions.
These answers will give you insights into how the missconception is produced and then maybe you will get some good scene ideas.

2. your fear?
dying, or failing

Okay, this is short hand, but these are very general kinds of fears. Everyone has them. I would go deeper and more specific. Your character has needs and wants. Do they fear not getting what they want or need? If not, they must not want it very much. Fears are almost always tied to wants and needs in some way.

3. what are your strongest traits?
being able to consider things

Again, I think you could go deeper here. Does your character have the capacity to love? Are they trustworthy? Are they loyal to something explicit? It seems important to know because if it is your characters strongest trait your story, in many ways, will be about what makes his strong trait a strongest trait. His strong trait will motivate his line of action. If I was your actor playing this character, I would want to have this information for my pre-production research...

4. what do you admire in others (that you don't have)?
being able to do something dangerous without considering the consequences

This is a potential error. If he does not have this character trait then the first misconception above is made problematic. Is he a coward or not a coward??

Also, this is an odd thing for someone to admire: recklessness? This speaks volumes to his character if he admires recklessness, but just make sure this is *true*.

5. what trait gets you in trouble?
reluctance to follow without questioning

Okay, so the guy is a rebel. How and why does it get him into trouble?

6. trait you despise in others?
people who say and do things wrong without paying any attention, unthoughtful people

Well, if we look to psychology (and ourselves) we know that people despise in others the things we despise in ourselves. Many people go their entire lives without being able to see this, but this is a common human characteristic... I suggest looking for patterns that explain how and why the things that your character despises are also the things that prevent your character from getting what he needs or wants (what he's searching for in life)

It's interesting that to an extent these did shape the narrative without me specifically considering them. Maybe I'm not as bad with "characterization" as I thought ;)

"A writer/director has to have a strong sense of how a character will react in any given situation. If they do not the writer/director runs the risk of writing a character reaction that is incongruous with the given character traits."

Yes, but to draw a musical analogy: you can avoid playing false notes by either learning scale patterns or intuiting which notes are right. One approach if followed too dogmatically is guaranteed to make your playing formulaic and trite, especially since some 'wrong' notes are partially 'right'. The other approach gives more interesting results but ironically you have to play in the box before getting a feel for when you're out of it and why.

It seems that both are necessary to an extent. I know that I've been playing guitar for years and only recently have a good grasp of what I can play when without resorting to scales.

Basically, don't rely these kind of schemes exclusively, but you can use them sparingly to troubleshoot if something isn't subjectively "working" about the character.

I think what Nathan was getting at is "visual characterization" - through aesthetics and mise en scene you can build a character much more subtly and richly than simply forcing them to regurgitate their programmed "emotions." Obviously if done right dialogue can reveal much about a character indirectly, which is the goal.

Yeah... they are just conceptual exercises...

The last thing you want to do is open Final Draft and stare at a blank page and just start writing:

INT. NIGHT

dialogue dialogue dialogue...blah blah blah

without having a ream of notes in front of you that serve as map and compass...

hope this helps,

Steve

[npcoombs]

1. Depending on the person's experience either A) Vain, arrogant, cold and work obsessed or B) Shy and recluse

2. Death or obscurity - ending in a meaningless paper shuffling job

3. Ambition and visualization (taste)

4. Being content in life and not being ambitious

5. Work obsession and outspokenness, projection of an image of entitlement

6. Stupidity, superficiality, childishness, aggressiveness, close minded pre-conceptions