Jeff Nichols on Plot & Character

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Jeff Nichols on Plot & Character

    I found this Q & A between interviewer Linc Leifeste (Oxford American Southern Magazine) and Jeff Nichols to be particularly insightful:

    LL: Your films are full of working-class and small-town characters. Those types of characters often feel stilted or inauthentic in film, but you treat them with respect and dignity.

    JN: I think that a lot of time people-storytellers, filmmakers, directors, whatever-use their characters to do things for them, to serve some narrative goal that they have. Plot's never been that big of an issue for me-it's always been a secondary goal. The primary goal has been to connect with the audience out of emotion. In order to do that, I'm not thinking about these characters as chess pieces on a board to move around. Instead, I'm really trying to put myself in these people's shoes. A lot of the time they are manifestations of some part of my personality, and I really genuinely care for these people.
    I think the bolded part (my emphasis) has been an important growth area for me as far as writing goes. Perhaps somewhere hidden within that is the secret to developing a "voice."

    Full interview: http://www.oxfordamerican.org/articl...-jeff-nichols/

  • #2
    Re: Jeff Nichols on Plot & Character

    Thanks!

    Nichols is in my list of most interesting current American directors, together with Wes Anderson, Paul Thomas Anderson and Darren Aronofski. Their movies are always interesting, and they certainly have strong authorial voices.
    Last edited by ; 12-05-2013, 07:17 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Jeff Nichols on Plot & Character

      I think this is a fundamental difference between good characters and bad characters (at the risk of over-generalizing too much). Characters should not be treated as simple cogs in the plot's machine - there only to move events forward to the next planned plot point. In these cases, the plot is in charge of the characters. In my opinion great stories come when characters are in charge of the plot. This means events occur as a result of the characters' wants, needs, fears, etc, and the actions they are willing to take because of them. Character is creating events rather than characters who simply react to events that are inflicted upon them externally.
      scribbler screenwriting blog-o-zine - Celebrating its fifth year of bloggerdom!

      Download a copy of Screenwriting Down to the Atoms : The Absolute Essentials Edition completely FREE!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Jeff Nichols on Plot & Character

        Originally posted by SCRIPTMONK!!! View Post
        I think this is a fundamental difference between good characters and bad characters (at the risk of over-generalizing too much). Characters should not be treated as simple cogs in the plot's machine - there only to move events forward to the next planned plot point. In these cases, the plot is in charge of the characters. In my opinion great stories come when characters are in charge of the plot. This means events occur as a result of the characters' wants, needs, fears, etc, and the actions they are willing to take because of them. Character is creating events rather than characters who simply react to events that are inflicted upon them externally.
        Well put. It's liberating to know that, amid all the convoluted advice on story structure, etc., one of the most important things a writer can do is to create characters that he and his audience can emotionally connect to.
        Last edited by bioprofessor; 12-07-2013, 03:29 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Jeff Nichols on Plot & Character

          Originally posted by SCRIPTMONK!!! View Post
          Character is creating events rather than characters who simply react to events that are inflicted upon them externally.
          Two sides of the same coin.

          Take The Godfather. Michael reacts to the Don's assassination. He goes home and reacts to Sonny and the Capos deciding what to do next. And it all starts to change him, to draw out character.

          You can say he's reacting to events that are inflicted upon him. Or you can say those events were designed to push him along the change.


          Originally posted by bioprofessor View Post
          Well put. It's liberating to know that, amid all the convoluted advice on story structure, etc., one of the most important things a writer can do is to create characters that he and his audience can emotionally connect to.
          But you use structure and plot to create characters that the audience can emotionally connect to.
          Story Structure 1
          Story Structure 2
          Story Structure 3

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Jeff Nichols on Plot & Character

            It's an interesting discussion, I guess because it parallels real life. Often, you don't know someone's character until they're put through *something*.

            But I know for me, it's easy to get wrapped up in the big plot machine and really do a disservice to my characters because you can only track so much.

            Movies with simpler plots, who find the complexities in their characters (rather than the plot) seem to be more successful to me in establishing those characters you don't forget when the movie's over.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Jeff Nichols on Plot & Character

              Originally posted by Timmy View Post
              Two sides of the same coin.

              Take The Godfather. Michael reacts to the Don's assassination. He goes home and reacts to Sonny and the Capos deciding what to do next. And it all starts to change him, to draw out character.

              You can say he's reacting to events that are inflicted upon him. Or you can say those events were designed to push him along the change.
              You should remember that the protagonist is not the only character who takes action based off their personal wants and needs. Stories come about from a web of actions taken by everyone in the story motivated by personal impulses - most importantly they come about by how those diverse actions interact and conflict with one another.
              scribbler screenwriting blog-o-zine - Celebrating its fifth year of bloggerdom!

              Download a copy of Screenwriting Down to the Atoms : The Absolute Essentials Edition completely FREE!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Jeff Nichols on Plot & Character

                Originally posted by SCRIPTMONK!!! View Post
                I think this is a fundamental difference between good characters and bad characters (at the risk of over-generalizing too much). Characters should not be treated as simple cogs in the plot's machine - there only to move events forward to the next planned plot point. In these cases, the plot is in charge of the characters. In my opinion great stories come when characters are in charge of the plot. This means events occur as a result of the characters' wants, needs, fears, etc, and the actions they are willing to take because of them. Character is creating events rather than characters who simply react to events that are inflicted upon them externally.
                I would agree, but what happens when the central premise involves something that human characters have little or no ability to influence? I've been considering this issue a lot right now because I'm currently outlining the story for a will-be script wherein there are five characters who are stuck in a dangerous and confined situation that is created by (horribly) bad luck and physics.

                They're trapped, and have to try to find a way out before the situation kills them. In this type of situation, there is very little that people can do but react. They (mainly the protagonist) cannot simply decide to change the entire situation in the same way that characters can in other kinds of story premises (the way Michael Corleone creates new plot through his decisions to do things). I mean, my protag can definitely choose to act and try to save lives, and that is plot defined by wants and needs I suppose, but the danger is going to keep escalating regardless of their wants and needs, so in my view this is a case where plot is necessarily a little bit cemented from the beginning. The forces against them are not other people, but things like weak metal, software glitches and time running out.

                An example of something similar from someone else's work might be that script that has some heat right now called Submerged. It involves several people trapped in a plane fuselage under the ocean after a crash. The writer can show how characters react to that situation, and how they act to try to save themselves, but nothing they do is going to fundamentally change the fact that they are underwater and that the air pocket keeping them alive has a limited time. So in a case like this I think that the plot is arising more out of physics (which dictate that that air pocket is going to eventually dissipate and they will drown unless they get out) than out of character.

                Am I off base here? I'm really curious about members' thoughts on this, because what I'm working on is the same genre and has the same kind of narrative drive (though a totally different setting and set of physical facts). In fact, yesterday I read a really interesting academic-level analysis of the disaster genre which stated that in this genre, characterization really takes a back seat to plot narrative and that the characters are essentially there to represent a microcosm of society while the disaster itself and its danger are symbolic of societal changes or forces.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Jeff Nichols on Plot & Character

                  Originally posted by Cioccolato View Post
                  I would agree, but what happens when the central premise involves something that human characters have little or no ability to influence? I've been considering this issue a lot right now because I'm currently outlining the story for a will-be script wherein there are five characters who are stuck in a dangerous and confined situation that is created by (horribly) bad luck and physics.

                  They're trapped, and have to try to find a way out before the situation kills them. In this type of situation, there is very little that people can do but react. They (mainly the protagonist) cannot simply decide to change the entire situation in the same way that characters can in other kinds of story premises (the way Michael Corleone creates new plot through his decisions to do things). I mean, my protag can definitely choose to act and try to save lives, and that is plot defined by wants and needs I suppose, but the danger is going to keep escalating regardless of their wants and needs, so in my view this is a case where plot is necessarily a little bit cemented from the beginning. The forces against them are not other people, but things like weak metal, software glitches and time running out.

                  An example of something similar from someone else's work might be that script that has some heat right now called Submerged. It involves several people trapped in a plane fuselage under the ocean after a crash. The writer can show how characters react to that situation, and how they act to try to save themselves, but nothing they do is going to fundamentally change the fact that they are underwater and that the air pocket keeping them alive has a limited time. So in a case like this I think that the plot is arising more out of physics (which dictate that that air pocket is going to eventually dissipate and they will drown unless they get out) than out of character.

                  Am I off base here? I'm really curious about members' thoughts on this, because what I'm working on is the same genre and has the same kind of narrative drive (though a totally different setting and set of physical facts). In fact, yesterday I read a really interesting academic-level analysis of the disaster genre which stated that in this genre, characterization really takes a back seat to plot narrative and that the characters are essentially there to represent a microcosm of society while the disaster itself and its danger are symbolic of societal changes or forces.
                  I found this post interesting because during the Xmas week we caught up on two movies we didn't get to see in the theater (thanks to a kid at home), World War Z and Elysium. And I've been thinking about some of the same issues you bring up.

                  Both films are plot driven and both ultimately have reluctant heroes and save-the-world stakes. If not for the actors, Pitt and Damon, who sort of come infused with that "something" thanks to their skills and star quality, the characterization was one note. For the Damon character, flashbacks to childhood were used to give us a sense of the character but, to me, there was a disconnect between that kid and the man he grew up to be. I still wasn't sure who the Damon character was.

                  In both movies, plot unrolled like a freight train never bothering to stop at any of the stations along the way to explore character. And I'm still wondering if was totally necessary. Especially since both films were adapted from prose fiction which, most of the time, has the luxury of developing character.

                  I don't think it was necessary to sacrifice character to such a degree in either film. The freight train could've slowed down here and there to help get us more invested in the protags even as they find themselves manipulated into saving the world.

                  What happened is exactly what's said in the Jeff Nichols quote in the OP of this thread:

                  "I think that a lot of time people—storytellers, filmmakers, directors, whatever—use their characters to do things for them, to serve some narrative goal that they have. "
                  I think this is what happened in WWZ and E.

                  As for your story -- characters trapped, little they can do in terms of being proactive -- in my opinion, it relies on character even more than these types of big films. It's a classic Life Boat situation. The group dynamics need to be interesting or else the audience won't care if they all die before the third act.

                  Yours is an interesting story conceit -- to see people, with the false personas they cling to, begin to break down in the face of death and reveal who they really are. IMO, you would need to work even harder on characterization in your script than, as the example you used, the characterization of Michael Corleone.
                  Last edited by sc111; 12-29-2013, 09:20 AM.
                  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


                  • #10
                    Re: Jeff Nichols on Plot & Character

                    sc111, I guess everyone's different. One thing I like Elysium was that the plot moved quickly. Ultimately, the movie was forgettable to me. NOT because of the lack of characterization, but mostly because the concept isn't interesting to begin with and the actual plotline's quite meh.

                    Characterization is necessary but I think it depends on the movie. Can you name a movie with a superb plot that suffered from lack of characterization?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Jeff Nichols on Plot & Character

                      Originally posted by Tochirta View Post
                      sc111, I guess everyone's different. One thing I like Elysium was that the plot moved quickly. Ultimately, the movie was forgettable to me. NOT because of the lack of characterization, but mostly because the concept isn't interesting to begin with and the actual plotline's quite meh.

                      Characterization is necessary but I think it depends on the movie. Can you name a movie with a superb plot that suffered from lack of characterization?
                      I like stories that project into the future following a line in current society to it's logical conclusion if left unchecked. I think there was a lot of potential in Elysium and several different balls were dropped, over and over. One of the balls was characterization.

                      As to your question, I'm not sure how you define "superb plot." It seems to me, when it comes to plot, there's nothing new under the sun, as the Bard saying goes. The one thing a writer can keep fresh and compelling is character. And it's not an option one can forego. Character is the blood pulsing through the veins of the story. It's the difference between a memorable movie and one you forget minutes after seeing it.

                      I've always been intrigued by storytelling in general. Stories are a basic human need. It might not be at the top of the list like water, food and shelter. But it's probably in the top ten. Likely a psychological need.

                      I like to read ancient stories translated from other cultures. Especially oral cultures like Native American stories passed down the generations. It's hard to ignore the fact plot lines are very, very similar, sometimes identical. What's amazing is, some of the oldest stories, from cultures well separated by geography, are themed and plotted the same.

                      Why is that? I've pondered it a lot. I think we use stories to explore our own human condition -- it's frailties and flaws and fears. That inner knowing we all have that we "should" do the right thing, the honorable thing, but it's our weaknesses that sabotage us.

                      For this reason, humankind's stories continue to explore the same themes, the same human challenges, over and over, for centuries. We seek catharsis and redemption for ourselves through stories. And the only way we get it is from identifying with the protag in some way. If we can't connect, empathize with their situation and burden, even if, on a personality level, they're not very likable, the plot becomes mechanical and the story falls apart at the seams.

                      This is my longwinded way if saying I disagree with the second half of your sentence: "Characterization is necessary but I think it depends on the movie."

                      I don't think well-developed characterization is something a writer can decide to opt out of.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: Jeff Nichols on Plot & Character

                        Thanks sc111 for the comment. I worry a little that you might be right, and that I'll have to work extra hard on the interaction between the characters. Yet, there won't be a ton of time for that in the story because there is other action that ramps up. But I do have a subplot that is interesting where two of the characters---who don't know each other (though none of the protag and four others know each other) ---have this fateful thing coming between them if they get out of the confined situation alive. And I was planning on having little interactions or tiny subplots between a couple of the characters and family members they talk to on the weak cell connections available.

                        The timeline here though is different than "lifeboat dynamics" because those usually go on for days, weeks, or even months (though by then most on the boat are dead and there's not much talking, right?), whereas my story plays out in linear real time: the danger crescendos and resolves within the scope of the roughly 100-minute script.

                        I also found it interesting to look up the plot description of DAYLIGHT on Wikipedia. That's a 1990s disaster thriller with Sly Stallone. I was looking to see if there was any mention of relationships or emotional elements between the trapped characters, and didn't see any. The plot was all about their efforts at getting out of the situation alive... pretty much how it would be in real life.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Jeff Nichols on Plot & Character

                          Originally posted by Cioccolato View Post
                          Thanks sc111 for the comment. I worry a little that you might be right, and that I'll have to work extra hard on the interaction between the characters. Yet, there won't be a ton of time for that in the story because there is other action that ramps up. But I do have a subplot that is interesting where two of the characters---who don't know each other (though none of the protag and four others know each other) ---have this fateful thing coming between them if they get out of the confined situation alive. And I was planning on having little interactions or tiny subplots between a couple of the characters and family members they talk to on the weak cell connections available.

                          The timeline here though is different than "lifeboat dynamics" because those usually go on for days, weeks, or even months (though by then most on the boat are dead and there's not much talking, right?), whereas my story plays out in linear real time: the danger crescendos and resolves within the scope of the roughly 100-minute script.

                          I also found it interesting to look up the plot description of DAYLIGHT on Wikipedia. That's a 1990s disaster thriller with Sly Stallone. I was looking to see if there was any mention of relationships or emotional elements between the trapped characters, and didn't see any. The plot was all about their efforts at getting out of the situation alive... pretty much how it would be in real life.
                          It doesn't have to be that hard. The thing to avoid is moving characters around the story like chess pieces to accomplish plot points.

                          It's good to look at movies in the same genre you're writing. But consider additional research. I look for real-life stories of people who were in situations similar to my characters.

                          For example, I still have my female lead western on a back burner. Sort of my "heart" script that will likely go nowhere. Online, I found a project that transcribed journals and diaries of women who went west to stake land claims during the time period. I found descriptions of events, experiences that happened on the land -- incredibly cinematic stuff -- and interactions with other homesteaders, characters I would never think of, all of which I've never seen in any western film.

                          If we keep looking to other films as our sole research, we end up with fewer options.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Re: Jeff Nichols on Plot & Character

                            Originally posted by Cioccolato View Post
                            I would agree, but what happens when the central premise involves something that human characters have little or no ability to influence? I've been considering this issue a lot right now because I'm currently outlining the story for a will-be script wherein there are five characters who are stuck in a dangerous and confined situation that is created by (horribly) bad luck and physics.

                            They're trapped, and have to try to find a way out before the situation kills them. In this type of situation, there is very little that people can do but react. They (mainly the protagonist) cannot simply decide to change the entire situation in the same way that characters can in other kinds of story premises (the way Michael Corleone creates new plot through his decisions to do things). I mean, my protag can definitely choose to act and try to save lives, and that is plot defined by wants and needs I suppose, but the danger is going to keep escalating regardless of their wants and needs, so in my view this is a case where plot is necessarily a little bit cemented from the beginning. The forces against them are not other people, but things like weak metal, software glitches and time running out.

                            An example of something similar from someone else's work might be that script that has some heat right now called Submerged. It involves several people trapped in a plane fuselage under the ocean after a crash. The writer can show how characters react to that situation, and how they act to try to save themselves, but nothing they do is going to fundamentally change the fact that they are underwater and that the air pocket keeping them alive has a limited time. So in a case like this I think that the plot is arising more out of physics (which dictate that that air pocket is going to eventually dissipate and they will drown unless they get out) than out of character.

                            Am I off base here? I'm really curious about members' thoughts on this, because what I'm working on is the same genre and has the same kind of narrative drive (though a totally different setting and set of physical facts). In fact, yesterday I read a really interesting academic-level analysis of the disaster genre which stated that in this genre, characterization really takes a back seat to plot narrative and that the characters are essentially there to represent a microcosm of society while the disaster itself and its danger are symbolic of societal changes or forces.
                            This reminds me a bit of both a Walking Dead episode and 2012, right? In the Walking Dead the Cop is with another character going back to a zombie-infested school for supplies (or what have you) and they're surrounded by zombies. They both want to escape, but it's the cop who-- through his character-- sees an opportunity to save himself... he shoots the kid so that the zombies feed off him and allow the cop to escape. That situations forces the character to make a choice. How a character reacts, or doesn't reveals his character.

                            It's not just about saving yourself. Character is also about what you choose not to do as well. Or what you lie about. Those reveal character and make movies truly interesting.

                            In 2012, you have a rich, corrupt man who needs a pilot and our protag is a pilot who needs a plane. We believe the corrupt man has good intentions to save the protag and his family, afterall he's the rich guy's driver, right? But what happens when they get to the rendezvous point? He abandons every one (even his trophy wife) to save himself and his selfish little brats. We see all characters revealing themselves.

                            Even though the disaster will play itself out as we expect, it's the interactions and choices the characters make (or don't make) that will allow us to connect to them. The zombies will continue to find our characters and hunt them for dinner. The world will still be destroyed.

                            So, I think that's your challenge, too, right? You have this situation that's heading in one direction-- a disaster, but it's what you reveal about how each character makes choices along the way that will determine how much we connect to your film. And of course, stepping aside and allowing another person to die, reveals a lot about a character, too.

                            Real people have ambiguities within themselves. They have conflicting characteristics, right? The cop that's hooked on coke. The priest that molests little boys. The teacher that sleeps with his students. A pro life politician who pays for his mistress to have an abortion.

                            The best films have complex characters that have internal struggles of their own-- demons, secrets, biases... Good guys can have bad qualities, and bad guys can have good qualities. That's what fascinates us. At least that's what I believe.

                            FA4
                            "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy b/c you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." -- Edward Snowden

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Jeff Nichols on Plot & Character

                              Originally posted by Tochirta View Post
                              sc111, I guess everyone's different. One thing I like Elysium was that the plot moved quickly. Ultimately, the movie was forgettable to me. NOT because of the lack of characterization, but mostly because the concept isn't interesting to begin with and the actual plotline's quite meh.

                              Characterization is necessary but I think it depends on the movie. Can you name a movie with a superb plot that suffered from lack of characterization?
                              I would say The sixth sense - do you remember anything about Bruce Willis' character except that he's dead? But maybe that's why M. Night Shyamalan's movies suck - too much emphasis on the plot.
                              Check the book by Guy Gallo Screenwriter's Compass: Character As True North .

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X