Film Courage: What mistakes do writers make writing characters?
Erik Bork, Author/Screenwriter: I think the challenge with characters that I have is creating
three dimensional people that feel real and interesting to the audience, compelling and
intriguing and sympathetic are the things that you want them to be.
It’s not so much that you are writing the character because you are writing the script
that has the character in it.
Prior to writing the script you are figuring out who the character is and what you are
going to present about that character to the audience.
I think it’s kind of harder than it looks to come up with a character that feels real,
feels like they are recalling coming from real life some how and is really interesting
and that audience will care enough about them and want to follow them because they are going
to relate to them on some level.
It’s like figuring out what are the key aspects of the character that defined them
for this movie or this TV series.
What are the problems that they are mainly dealing with?
What are their internal issues (their main internal issues) and their main external problem
and then trying to write in such a way that they are not just a tool of the story or the
concept but that they actually feel like the audience gets drawn into the reality of their
life.
It feels super real (some how) the way that the character is drawn.
It’s not easy to do that but the best characters feel like this is a real flesh and blood human
being and it has to do with they are not just a stereotype, they have elements.
They might start with one aspect that could be a cliche or a stereotype or a trope or
a one-dimensional feature.
But then they have something else going on that is surprising and very different.
I read an article online (I think in Script Reader Pro website) where they talked about
lengthy character bios aren’t really that helpful.
It’s better to thinking of your characters as one main quality that most people would
define them as and then one surprising kind of twist that you wouldn’t expect.
So they use the example of AMERICAN BEAUTY and they talk about Wes Bentley’s character
is a wise beyond his years character, so that’s his main quality and he’s also a dealer
which is like a weird thing that you wouldn’t expect.
And each of the main characters in the movie they defined in that way.
Mena Suvari’s character is like this flirty lady but in reality she is the insecure virgin.
So there are like these surprising things that things quality with this opposite or
different quality.
But finding this first quality even is important because it’s easy to kind of be vague about
who these people are.
You want to think in terms of if a stranger (which is what your audience is) were to look
at this character in their life what would be the one word description they would have
of the type of person that is?
Not what they look like, the type of person that they are.
What’s the main quality that comes through and sort of figuring out what that quality
is and finding a way to subvert it to make them more dimensional seems like a good thing
something I’ve been playing with lately.
Film Courage: And even in GOODWILL HUNTING that the Matt Damon character is a janitor
that can solve this unbelievable math equation seems like “this will never work.”
But then when you watch him set against all of these other characters, he seems like a
real guy…like this person exists to me?
Do you see what I’m saying?
Erik: But he is also an example of these two opposing qualities, one quality being that
he’s sort of this working class tough guy janitor street kid who has got a chip on his
shoulder who happens to be a brilliant genius, like two things you wouldn’t think go together.