The antagonist's arc

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #61
    Re: The antagonist's arc

    Oh - I understand. That's cool.
    Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: The antagonist's arc

      Originally posted by Geevie View Post
      I'm just afraid to participate further. It seems I've earned a bit of a "rep".

      If I attempt to debate this any further I'm afraid one day my tombstone will read "Here lies Geevie. She believed antagonists could arc."
      I think it's the Doc Oc fixation that marks your legacy most strongly. Lot of us believe antagonists can have arcs, though also concede it's rare.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: The antagonist's arc

        I thought Ed Harris' arc in The Rock was good. There's many others I just can't think of them. Even though he never planned on launching the missiles he has some good growth.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: The antagonist's arc

          Originally posted by Revisionist View Post
          I thought Ed Harris' arc in The Rock was good. There's many others I just can't think of them. Even though he never planned on launching the missiles he has some good growth.
          I disagree.

          I felt General Hummel's "arc" came out of left field.

          Why?

          Because they did not hint at his apprehension ONCE through out the entire film up until that big Mexican stand-off scene where he reveals he had no intention of launching the rockets. It felt tacked on... And was because Ed Harris ordered a last-minute rewrite because he didn't want to be just a typical action-movie villain.

          How would I have done it?

          At least one or two small scenes where he confides in his second in command that he has second thoughts about everything considering he's already lost men and wiped out the Navy Seals. This would have also planted the seeds of distrust in the minds of those under his command who overhear these convos and give BOTH sides a reason for the Mexican Stand off scene where they do attempt a coup de ta.

          That's just my opinion, for what it's wroth.
          Positive outcomes. Only.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: The antagonist's arc

            Good point. It did feel a bit that way. And adding little clues here and there would have helped. I think there's something to be said about his complexity as a character though. The turmoil over the loss of his men, and there was some confliction about the launching that grew out of the story. I think there was a launch to get the Feds attention in there that was a ruse and caused conflict with his mercenaries. That type of thing.

            But I agree that it could have been set up better. Letting the audience in on the secret and possibly letting them figure it out might have wrecked the scene where all hell breaks loose. Where it catches a guy off guard it was a twist that wasn't expected and that is sometimes good.

            Possibly adding more confliction over what he was doing and what he got himself into would have worked. Then play up the fact that the mercenaries want there damn money no matter what happens. Then if the audience gets a whiff of what he has planned at least we have the suspense of more conflict with his men down the road.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: The antagonist's arc

              I agree with WB on the ROCK general. I don't think it qualifies as an arc if someone just changes his mind.

              There's a reason it's called an arc -- if you can plot the character's state with two points, then it's a line; if you require more than two points, and the points are not directly sequential, then it's an arc. That bolsters SC111's contention that mere change in a character's state doesn't qualify as an arc. Most secondary characters, if they change at all, change only a little -- either in degree or kind.

              If you define character arc solely as the hero's emotional journey, well, by definition no one else but the protagonist has one.

              But if a character arc has a definition independent of the hero -- and I contend it does -- then anyone displaying its characteristics can arc, whether it's hero, sidekick, love interest or antagonist. SC111's other point, that a movie plot doesn't have room for more than a single fully developed arc has merit, and adheres to Aristotelian principles of unity, but ignores variations that actually exist, some successfully. Aristotle (and Syd Field) studied existing drama and distilled rules from what he saw that worked. It's been a while since anyone swallowed those rules whole and didn't try to bump against their limits -- again, sometimes successfully.

              My definition of a character arc -- the character undergoes a complex (not point-to-point), substantial change internally and, usually, externally. There's almost always a peripetaia, a reversal of character. The character does something at the end of the arc that the character wouldn't have done at the beginning. The character is a different person at the end than at the beginning.

              I don't think that definition is so broad that every character in every movie fulfills it -- most characters don't change, or don't change much at all, or if they change, it's simply growth, along a predictable line.

              SC111's analysis of Michael's arc in THE GODFATHER is excellent. Do any of the other characters undergo substantial change -- are they different people at the end than at the beginning? Not Don Vito, not Sonny, not Tom Hagen, not Fredo, not any of his adversaries, not any of the underbosses. But Kay does. Michael's girlfriend at the beginning is a different person than the acquiescing wife at the end. And her arc continues in PART II, as does Michael's. The Kay who tells Michael she's had an abortion (as much as the Kay who actually has an abortion) is a different person than the Kay we first knew.

              Geevie points to another dramatic technique -- where the antagonist mirrors the protagonist. I'm not sure whether Oc has a fully developed arc -- or just changes from one state to another, like a switch flipping -- though I'm not ruling it out. But the rules of drama don't prohibit it, not even SC111's rule of concision -- there's room for a mirroring arc if it's handled well, because the antagonist is changing while antagonizing, rather than off on his or her own, competing story. It's a technique that can bolster our understanding of the protagonist's arc with every echo.

              ...

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: The antagonist's arc

                Originally posted by Pull Back Reveal View Post
                Geevie points to another dramatic technique -- where the antagonist mirrors the protagonist. I'm not sure whether Oc has a fully developed arc -- or just changes from one state to another, like a switch flipping -- though I'm not ruling it out. But the rules of drama don't prohibit it, not even SC111's rule of concision -- there's room for a mirroring arc if it's handled well, because the antagonist is changing while antagonizing, rather than off on his or her own, competing story. It's a technique that can bolster our understanding of the protagonist's arc with every echo.
                Wouldn't a romantic comedy (or drama) where the male and female protags play off one another's differences qualify under this?

                In a rom-com the protagonist and antagonist are directly opposite in each other in one form or another, either externally and always internally... At least, at first before they get to know each other.

                Also, in a rom-com the protagonist can be their own antagonist and is usually the secondary reason they can't grow initially and NEED the other protagonist to help them.

                Look at Cameron Diaz's character in "The Holiday".

                Her character is the typical Alpha-female who is complete control of her professional life (is very successful), but who hates complications in her personal life. So, whenever it gets "complicated' she pushes the guy away (breaks up) in order to protect herself. This stems from her mother being cheated on and walked out on by her father -- Which I think is a stretch, but it is what it is.

                It isn't until she goes to England and finds Jude Law's character and realizes one CAN be happy even if they have a complicated life -- Jude is a Widower with two young daughters juggling tons of responsibility and roles! -- And to have a meaningful relationship means things ARE going to get complicated from time to time and you can't just run away from that.

                So, in a way in rom-coms, the antag and protag do mirror one another and are supposed to, let alone the protag can also assume the antag role in a lot of ways, correct?
                Positive outcomes. Only.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: The antagonist's arc

                  This is all assuming we are talking about people as antagonists. What about when the antagonist is one's own fear, or other intangible forces that want to keep out MC or protag from accomplishing their goal?

                  Can fear arc?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: The antagonist's arc

                    Originally posted by alex whitmer View Post
                    This is all assuming we are talking about people as antagonists. What about when the antagonist is one's own fear, or other intangible forces that want to keep out MC or protag from accomplishing their goal?

                    Can fear arc?
                    Now you're just trying to be cute, right?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: The antagonist's arc

                      Not at all. If we agree antags can arc, then can intangible villians also arc.


                      Overcoming a profound fear to accomplsh you goal will have ups and downs. At what point does one begin to conquer that fear, and why?

                      Has the fear / threat in some way changed? Or just the perception of it? Or, did an external action force the hand, yet the fear remains as always?

                      A

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: The antagonist's arc

                        For a hero to arc, he has to make a movment from a poor trait/outlook to the positive. OR from the positive to the negative a la Michael Corleone.

                        The Villain, in standard story structures, does not arc. His feeling and hatred may intensify throughout the story, but that's not an arc. You're driving deeper in the same direction.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: The antagonist's arc

                          That's assuming that the antagonist is the "villain" and driven by things like hatred.

                          Not always true in every story.

                          Therefore antagonists can (and do) "arc", as we've already conceded in genres such as romcoms, where co-protagonists work as each other's antagonist.
                          "So I guess big parts of our youth are supposed to suck. Otherwise we'd get too attached and wake up one day trapped on a hamster wheel that used to look like a merri-go-round." - Hal Sparks

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: The antagonist's arc

                            Originally posted by Geevie View Post
                            co-protagonists work as each other's antagonist.

                            Depending on which school of thought you subscribe to, this is sometin¡mes reffered to as the Obstacle character. Not opposed to the protag, but standing in the way, forcing the protag to change tactics, see things in an alternative light, or whatever.

                            I want to kill the bad guy, and have the gun cocked and ready, but my obstacle character quickly reminds me of the consequenses, and forces me to drop the gun and find another solution, thus adding another 30 minutes to my movie!

                            This is the 'inner conflict' The subjective story. The devils advocate.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: The antagonist's arc

                              Websters defines "antagonist" as the principle character in opposition to the hero in a narrative or a drama. It also defines the word as someone who presents "opposition", so we're both right.

                              I believe that the antagonist presents the biggest obstacle to the protagonist goal. If you have a romcom, the conflict comes from this - not from an outside source, but from the two protagonists.

                              In How to Lose a Guy, Ben needs to make a woman fall in love with him in ten days. Coincidentally, Andie needs to make a man break up with her in the same amount of time. There are no "bad guys", "villains" - simply two people with conflicting goals.

                              In Brokeback Mountain, you have Ennis as the co-protag, but yet the biggest opposition to Jack's goal to be true to themselves and take a chance on love. Some might say that homophobia is the antagonist, but I would argue that it's Ennis's fear. He couldn't accept himself, homophobia was simply the external symptom of his internal conflict.
                              "So I guess big parts of our youth are supposed to suck. Otherwise we'd get too attached and wake up one day trapped on a hamster wheel that used to look like a merri-go-round." - Hal Sparks

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: The antagonist's arc

                                There is a fuzzy line on who or what is the antag, and what is the obstacle that forces them to look at their situation in another way.

                                Hell, could even be the wife and family.

                                The daughter certainly playd a big role in stumbling the process.

                                A

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X