What are some examples of recent films without a solid character arc?
Book of Eli.
Denzel's character relentlessly pursues his goal from start to finish, with only some irritating complications in the New Mexico desert, emerging with his internal and external architecture unchanged. His sidekick Mila does arc, however (but we hardly care).
Denzel's character relentlessly pursues his goal from start to finish, with only some irritating complications in the New Mexico desert, emerging with his internal and external architecture unchanged. His sidekick Mila does arc, however (but we hardly care).
I don't completely agree with this.
While his pursuit of his goal is unflinching, before meeting Mila's character, he doesn't get involved in other people's problems, lest it sway him from his task. After she decides she wants to be his sidekick and gets herself into trouble, he puts himself and his goal at risk by going to her aid when she gets into trouble.
I've seen discussions on screenwriting forums of the Arc of Awesome, where the protagonist has no arc, but the story arcs with those around him realizing he's the man to get the job done (whatever that is). As you'd expect, most often seen in action movies. Unfortunately, I can't recall any examples right now.
Yeah, it just depends on the type of story. Archetypal action heroes don't always have an arc. Indiana Jones, James Bond, etc. But on the other hand, Luke Skywalker has a beautiful arc.
Speaking of westerns, The Man with No Name -- does he ever arc? Doesn't seem so. And he got THREE chances.
But for the most part, I'm always thinking about how characters will change, why they need to, and what the consequences are if they don't.
Arcs are not an essential ingredient in drama - just in commercial drama.
Antiheroes often do not arc.
In a classical sense, a comedy is one in which the protagonist is changed by way of epiphany, and a tragedy is one in which his fatal flaw (and inability to change) ultimately leads to his destruction/downfall/demise.
There is also the "traveling stranger" motif in which the protag does not arc but forces an arc in those around him (think William Wallace's effect on Robert the Bruce in BRAVEHEART).
Yeah, it just depends on the type of story. Archetypal action heroes don't always have an arc. Indiana Jones, James Bond, etc. But on the other hand, Luke Skywalker has a beautiful arc.
Speaking of westerns, The Man with No Name -- does he ever arc? Doesn't seem so. And he got THREE chances.
But for the most part, I'm always thinking about how characters will change, why they need to, and what the consequences are if they don't.
You can argue that Indy arcs in RAIDERS. He initially refers to the Ark of the Covenant and its supposed powers as "hocus pocus mumbo jumbo" or some such **** when talking to the spooks, but at the end he tells Marion to close her eyes and look away and he does the same - he has come to believe in its power.
Now, setting TEMPLE OF DOOM earlier than RAIDERS was retarded because it circumvented this arc since he would already have encountered supernatural elements in his adventures and therefore had no reason to be a skeptic with the spooks at a later date.
There's a great interview by a famous screenwriter who talks about how ridiculous it is for everybody (i.e. studio execs) to expect a character to change in a story that is NOT ABOUT CHANGE. He was very adamant on that. He kept repeating that there are stories that are about people changing and there are stories that aren't. I don't know what I did with that link though.
When in doubt, just have your hero wrinkle his brow after he blows something up, people will think it reflects deep inner change and everybody will be happy
Comment