character traits
Related Topics
tjk2 ...@aol.com (TJK2023)
I am wondering if there are specific techniques involved when giving characters BELIEVABLE character traits. I don't want to have my main character flipping a coin throughout the film, nor do I want him to always add "Know what I'm sayin?" to everything he says, simply to give him traits. And yet, I know that a good film sinks or swims on the quality of the characters. I often think of Indiana Jones, who hates snakes. That one is easy to believe, and, I think, makes Indy more real. And how far do you go when basing a character on someone you know? Obviously, you don't want to piss anyone off, but real people have such great character traits! So, what do you all think about this?
s ...@miholer.com (Jeff S. Miholer)
You could base the character on me. Or maybe Better Duck. Neither of us would mind. I used to be real big into the Meyers-Briggs, Briggs-Meyers thing. There's a good book based on their work called "Do What You Are." I would ask myself questions about the characters and then score them on the scales provided. Then I would read about that personality type and learn more about my character. That method seemed to work fairly well for stuff that didn't go too deeply into character (ie Walker Texas Ranger as opposed to NYPD Blue).
I'm p***ed that now. Now I realize that I don't develop the characters at all. You speak of "giving" characters traits. That's very ego-centric on your part. The characters are who they are. We only get to know them.
We don't "give" them traits, we discover their traits and then attempt to record them. How to change from the mindset of giving to the mindset of discovering is something I can't explain. But I encourage you to open yourself up to the idea....
In article <20011026002858.12373.00000...@mb-mr.aol.com>, tjk2...@aol.com
Paulo Joe Jingy phantom_...@my-deja.com
I don't think that there is anything specific, but what I do is write the first draft pretty much ignoring the minor character traits. Then when I start on the second draft I'll start giving the characters some specific traits based on things that they started doing on their own. Patterns of speech, or a strange habit, or anything I pick up from the first draft.
I refine it and give it a little more emphasis. I also start giving my characters more of there own personality. If two sound too similar, I'll change their speech patterns or habits or whatever to distinguish them from each other. With each draft, I refine it a little more.
s ...@miholer.com (Jeff S. Miholer)
That's not all you p***ed, moron.
Ed Lake det...@newsguy.com
TJK2023, I would think that, unless the character traits are important to the plot, most are left to the actor. Movie making is a collaborative art, and a lot of character traits seen in movies are attributes the actor brings to the role. Flipping a coin is a prime example. It probably wasn't in the script. They actor added it.
The character traits the screenwriter uses are mainly the essential traits that advance the plot or the definition of the character as required by the plot. That consists mainly of attitudes. How do they react when confronted with specific situations? How do they feel about things around them, and how does that change when the surroundings change? What motivates them? What angers them? What do they enjoy? If a character in a screenplay chews on toothpicks, I would think that that attribute should be needed in the plot: like the toothpick will be used to jam a lock or as a probe or as a weapon. Otherwise it's just a pointless affectation and adds nothing to the screenplay. Indiana Jones hated snakes BECAUSE the writer knew that later in the story he would be dropped into a room full of snakes. Otherwise it would have been pointless to mention that trait in the screenplay.
Indiana Jones probably also hates buttermilk. But it isn't mentioned in the screenplay because he was never forced to drink buttermilk.
In a novel you can write pages about pointless personal habits and traits because the writer does it all, the writer creates EVERYTHING.
But in a movie the actor adds his personality and character ideas to what the writer wrote. The writer only provides the essentials.
If you know people with interesting personal traits that you want to use in a screenplay, use them on fictional people that don't otherwise resemble the person you know. Or, if they are harmless traits, don't worry about it.
IMO Ed
krke ...@mountaincable.net (ken kelly)
I think that when you're first learning to write, you have to learn to see just how different people can be. To this end, the books on personality types and things like "The Ten Neurotic Needs," etc., can be of real benefit. They expand your perspective. They make you curious and more willing to observe people who deal with life in a manner different from what you're used to. They also help you realize that people really don't fit very neatly into boxes... there are shades to everything. In short, they help you begin to see beyond your preconceptions.
It's like learning to draw. The average, untrained person will draw an eye the same way no matter what it looks like.
They'll draw the abstract archetype for an eye: the flat, pointy-ended elliptoid shape with a circle in the middle.
They'll draw the symbol for "eye." This kind of elevation of the abstract is where cliches come from. It's a shorthand for perception, and nothing like actually seeing something. Once you manage to strip that reflex away, you'll be better equipped to see what's in front of you in a far more sophisticated way. You'll see that there are interesting things everywhere. Writing is no different from drawing in this respect.
But you're right: you outgrow this stuff; it becomes instinctive. But I think it's important for a writer to do the work up front to get to that point.
s ...@miholer.com (Jeff S. Miholer)
Hmm. Astute.
tjk2 ...@aol.com (TJK2023)
Very enlightening!
com ...@webtv.net (Tom McDonough)
I don't think that character traits necessarily have to advance the plot. An old example is George Raft flipping his coin in SCARFACE and a recent one is Gary Oldman popping his pills in THE PROFESSIONAL . These peculiarities are added to flesh out and embellish the character a bit, and they do nothing to advance the plot.
I have a psychologist friend who unwittingly picks his nose on virtually every occasion. He has two very large nasal cavities from which he is constantly extracting foreign matter of one type or another. He closely examines each of these extractions, and once he has satisfied his curiosity as to its nature, he either wipes it on his pants or rolls it into a ball which, by utilising his thumb and forefinger, he skillfully flicks away, caring little where it may chance to light.
I am planning on writing a screenplay about a determined lady detective who dogs an escaped prisoner for twenty years. I plan to incorporate the nose picking idiosyncrasy into it and to advise my agent to offer this cinematic masterpiece to Barbra Streisand. I think this would work beautifully for Barbra. I can envision her now as she unwittingly drags a three inch snot out of her enormous honker while she is informing her partner that she knows the escapee is hiding in Broken Bow, Nebraska, and washing dishes at Fat's Diner under the name of Sneed Hearn. Ah, sure tis the stuff of which Academy Awards are made!
Regards, Scribe who also has script that calls for female lead to be constantly pulling wedgies out of her arse. Now THAT'S a character trait.
new ...@virtual.com
Surely, Tom, Barbra would still be able to sing her heart out through the flegm, snottage and dripping mucus membranes.
She is, after all, a professional.
Doug *sniffle* *honk* *Ptui* Just a virtual guy... in a virtual world.
nmstev ...@msn.com (nmstevens)
I'm afraid I disagree with the above to a certain extent. Clearly, the writer shouldn't burden a character with a host of twitches and speech impediments and irrelevant eccentricities -- but then again, neither should the actor.
In both cases, it seems to me, the issue for both actor and writer is the same. That is to define the character in two senses -- the broad defining motivations -- the defining qualities of a character from which all subsequent decisions emerge -- and the detailed and specific qualities that bring that character to life.
Often that means finding specific details and behaviors -- but those details, whether invented by writer or actor, are there to provide little windows into the mind and heart of the character. And that should be the job of the writer. If the writer is doing his job, then there's less for the actor to do in terms of trying to find those behaviors.
I've always told people that they should never take characters off the shelf -- that there is, in fact, no particular way, that, say, a cop is, or an accountant is, or a scientist is. A profession isn't a character. Neither is a speech impediment, or national origin, or race, or accent, or sex, or sexual orientation.
If somebody describes a character in his movie as a "Gay Brazilian movie producer" -- he may think he's described what this person is like. The fact is, he hasn't told us anything at all about what this guy is like. That's because there isn't any one way, in the real world, that a gay man is, or a producer is, or a Brazilian is. There are only cliches about these things.
And the way in which those qualities -- his national origin, his sexual orientation, or his job, translate into specific behaviors --
are dependent upon figuring out, first, what his character truly is --
what he needs, what drives him, what quality he possesses that, perhaps, prevents him from achieving his goals. Things like sexual orientation or national origin are like lenses -- it's not that they leave no mark upon what a person is -- but they don't define it. The fundamental character moves through those things in a way unique to that particular person. The lens of personal experience changes what we see -- but what we see isn't defined by the lenses. The initial image -- the defining qualities of character -- determines what the lenses deliver to our eyes.
And if that is simply something taken off the shelf "Typical gangster"
-- "Typical scientist" -- "Typical waitress" -- giving them quirks isn't going to bring them to life, because the life doesn't come from the quirks. The quirks are there to illuminate the character. And if there's nothing to illuminate, they're always going to seem false.
NMS
tjk2 ...@aol.com (TJK2023)
This is interesting stuff. Much appreciated!
| To Top |