Summing up characters

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Summing up characters

    There is a non-postable thread in FAQs that discusses summing up characters. I have to argue it is perfectly okay, and again always comes down to the particualr script, or more specifically, the character you are introducing. You may find that it works in one sript, but more concise intros will work better in another script, and you will dole out more as the story unfolds.

    You don't have to put the whole intro out in one sentance.



    This from As Good as it Gets ...

    POV - MELVIN UDALL in the hallway... Well past 50... unliked, unloved, unsettling. A huge pain in the ass to everyone he's ever met. Right now all his considerable talent and strength is totally focused on seducing a tiny dog into the elevator door he holds open.


    Filmable? Absolutely.

    That in contrast to Indiana Jones' intro. Hardly recognizable.


    Do what feels right based on your gut.

    a

  • #2
    Re: Summing up characters

    I think you're missing the point of that commentary on summing up - you have to see those characteristics on the screen, not on the page. The audience sitting there can't tell he's unloved and unlikable. He has to do something to show that to them. That scene opens and all the audience can see is he's a guy trying to get a dog on an elevator.

    If the audience sees those unlikable, unlovable things, then why do you have to say them in the set-up? It's just wasted lines.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Summing up characters

      Originally posted by Colin Holmes View Post
      I think you're missing the point of that commentary on summing up - you have to see those characteristics on the screen, not on the page. The audience sitting there can't tell he's unloved and unlikable. He has to do something to show that to them. That scene opens and all the audience can see is he's a guy trying to get a dog on an elevator.

      If the audience sees those unlikable, unlovable things, then why do you have to say them in the set-up? It's just wasted lines.
      Except that - from memory - I think the point also being made in that discussion was that some of these things are in the set-up for the benefit of the actors and directors and costume designers and set designers - but they are things that can be seen. They give depth to the psychology and personality of the character and provide cues for how the performance is developed and viewed, how the character will be seen, not superfluous info that will not appear on screen in some form. The script is not there for the cinema audience - it's also a set of instructions for the filmmakers and actors. The 'do not sum up your characters' was more about set-ups that list information that does not inform these elements.

      ETA: I know this is not really a helpful comment, but it also comes down to whether or not you have an aptitude for screenwriting, whether or not as a writer you 'get it'. Some writers get it, some don't, and beyond a certain basic level I don't think it can be taught.
      Last edited by DavidK; 10-22-2012, 11:14 AM. Reason: eta
      "Friends make the worst enemies." Frank Underwood

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Summing up characters

        Is Bruce Banner gonna get angry in this thread?

        HH

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Summing up characters

          Originally posted by haroldhecuba View Post
          Is Bruce Banner gonna get angry in this thread?
          I hope so. There's nothing worse than dropping in on a thread where Bruce, or someone else, doesn't get angry. I've thought of getting angry myself but other people do it better.
          "Friends make the worst enemies." Frank Underwood

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Summing up characters

            Originally posted by Colin Holmes View Post
            I think you're missing the point of that commentary on summing up - you have to see those characteristics on the screen, not on the page. The audience sitting there can't tell he's unloved and unlikable. He has to do something to show that to them. That scene opens and all the audience can see is he's a guy trying to get a dog on an elevator.

            If the audience sees those unlikable, unlovable things, then why do you have to say them in the set-up? It's just wasted lines.
            There are times that I have "summed up" in one way or another, and times that I haven't -- and this is the point (which I've made before -- but what the heck).

            We all understand that a script, at best, is a sort of approximation of the experience of watching a movie.

            When a character first appears on screen, we don't just see: "Bobby, (30s)"

            We see a whole person and that person, especially if it's a star, depending on who's been cast, conveys a tremendous amount, just by our looking at him.

            If it's Robert DeNiro, he doesn't have to say or do anything -- we already have a sense of the kind of *character* it's likely to be.

            If it's Jack Nicholson -- ditto.

            Or even if it isn't a traditional "star" -- the simple appearance, dress, posture, body language of a character, before he even does or says *anything* is going to convey to an audience a lot more than mere age and gender.

            The nature of the visual medium is that it is naturally more information dense than print.

            So yes, you're going to have a male of a certain age maneuver a dog into an elevator. But you've got two ways of describing this.

            You can either describe the *activity* so that we can infer whether it's a nice man getting his dog on the elevator, or a fussy man, or an imperious man, or a confused man, or a macho man or any of who knows how many different kinds of men -- getting their dog on an elevator.

            Or you could describe the *kind* of man and then allow us to infer the behavior that would naturally follow given the kind of man -- how would *that* kind of man get his little dog on an elevator.

            Now, it's funny because one of few times I've used that sort of "summing" was in a similar situation -- when my main character was riding up in an elevator with a bunch of other people -- and I described her in a way that distinguished her from the people in the elevator around her.

            You could just micro-describe the behavior, but it's much more succinct to describe the person and allow us to *infer* the behaviors that flow from it, not only in the opening scene, but throughout the movie.

            And that's the point. When the summing up allows us to infer behavior, I think it's legit. When you're giving mini-bios that are largely exposition and don't tell us about behavior, I don't think they're adding anything.

            NMS

            Comment

            Working...
            X