Hamartia
Y’all know what hamartia is, correct?
If not, I’ve provided the Wikipedia link… Hamartia, or otherwise known as a character’s tragic flaw is a great way to get your Protagonist to change.
By identifying your Protagonist’s tragic flaw UP FRONT, you can very easily figure out where he or she needs to go to bring about that change.
Of course, it shouldn’t be an easy task… After all, we all perform maintenance of our “hamartia” don’t we? Do we not consciously or unconsciously maintain our tragic flaw by way of our:
- Environment
- Circumstance
- Decisions
- People we associate with
- Actions
And, if this is true, could we not utilize this same model for our Protagonist?
A Protagonist’s tragic flaw is actually more like his or her ego defense mechanism. In the beginning of the story and through approximately the third quarter of a story, the Protagonist continually relies on this tragic flaw to get as far as he or she has gotten. Up to this point however, whether they are aware of the flaw or not, they think they need it to get through the day. Consciously or unconsciously…
Work it correctly and natural conflict — conflict that you need for your story should be almost obvious during every scene if you keep yourself aware of your Protagonist’s tragic flaw.
I get a lot of screenwriters asking me how to create change in their Protagonist or… DARE I SAY IT…
The Character Arc.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again and I don’t really care if anyone agrees with me or not… I like a Protagonist that changes during the story and I submit that change does happen… Maybe in microcosm ways but I THINK IT HAPPENS.
Because if change didn’t happen, what would be the point of the story? Why would we care? But I’m not really trying to talk about change as much as I’m attempting to discuss the Protagonist’s MAINTENANCE OF THE TRAGIC FLAW.
That’s right…
That’s what your Protagonist does. He or she utilizes pretty much the same elements we all utilize to maintain our tragic flaws…
- Environment
- Circumstance
- Decisions
- Characters
- Actions
Not necessarily in that order but you get the gist.
Your Protagonist’s ordinary world is made up of the above elements is it not? Why is this his or her ordinary world? It’s not unlike a criminal running away from the law… He hides out because he doesn’t want to get caught, right?
So does your tragic flaw. Of course it rears its nasty head at the drop of a hat but rest assured, it’s lurking… Waiting for something to trigger its need or use.
And just like a criminal finds someone to assist in hiding him out, so do we assist our tragic flaw in hiding out… To keep it safe and sound until we need it again. In other words, to kick this tragic flaw out into the light means — dare I say it again — CHANGE.
And really… Overall… Does anyone really want to change?
Or do they hide out in their ordinary world because they can control their ordinary world much better than any new world that is placed in front of them?
So of course maintenance of the flaw is of the utmost importance… Your Protagonist chose the environment he or she lives in so that his or her tragic flaw can thrive. Your protagonist continually places themselves in circumstances where their tragic flaw thrives even more. Of course most of their decisions help maintain their tragic flaw as do the characters they choose to associate with. Last but not least is your Protagonist’s ACTION. All the elements preceding action culminate in some kind of action by the Protagonist that once again, assists in maintaining their tragic flaw.
I guess you could just as easy call it ENABLING.
Good Protagonists do whatever it takes to maintain their tragic flaw. It affects just about everything they do UNTIL that point comes along when they realize they no longer want to allow their tragic flaw to control their life.
Certainly, baby steps toward outing the tragic flaw will show some kind of change depending on how you create those steps. A fairly easy way to know where you should end up INTERNALLY however, is to simply figure out what the opposite of the Protagonist’s tragic flaw is. Once you figure out what the opposite of that flaw is, and you LIKE IT enough to use it, you can now figure out ways to slowly but surely OUT the flaw.
Unless you’re writing a tragedy.
Unk
Comments
41 Responses to “Hamartia”
Leave a Reply
-
Find It
-
Recently Written
-
Screenwriting Discussion
-
Categories
-
Screenwriting Stuff
- Screenwriting Affirmations
- Script Secrets
- Word Play
- Screenwriter's Utopia
- StoryLink
- Screenwriting Expo
- Celtx
- Cinergy
- Zhura
- Scripped
- Plotbot
- Script Buddy
- StorYBook
- FreeThesaurus.net
- Mobysaurus
- Open Office
- Open Office Screenplay Template
- Abiword
- U.S. Copyright Form CO
- U.S. Copyright Form CO Instructions
- WGA West Registration
- WGA East Registration
- ScriptGirl
- Simply Scripts
-
Scribosphere
- 101
- Ann Wesley Hardin
- Bamboo Killers
- Brook Brannon
- Burbanked
- DanielMedley.com
- Fencing With The Fog
- Film Utopia
- FILMMAKING STUFF
- Go Into The Story
- Holy Embers Of Dreams
- I Write With Pictures
- If It Ain’t On The Page
- Johnny Atlas Writes
- Living The Romantic Comedy
- ME
- Miscellanea 2.0
- My Excellent Adventures
- My Next One Will Be Better
- Mystery Man On Film
- Nicolle C. Jones
- Our Man In Los Angeles
- Paul Zadie
- Pro Screenplays
- Revealing Of The Soul
- Screamwriter
- Screenwriting For Hollywood
- Screenwriting Manifesto
- Script Doctor Eric
- Script Notes
- Sex In A Sub
- Shouting Into The Wind
- The Moviequill
- The Scherer Joy Of Writing
- The Screenwriter’s League
- The Unemployment Cafe
- Uninflected Images Juxtaposed
- Writer Joshua James
- Writing On Spec
-
Most Popular Posts
-
Monthly Archives
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
-
-
Timely reminder of an important script issue.
This – “….when they realize they no longer want to allow their tragic flaw to control their life.” is midpoint isn’t it – or rather follows midpoint.
Great stuff man, great stuff…. i’ve been following your blog for a while now, and, you always surrise us readers with some good material.
Andthi sis a good subject, and a right one too. I. a recent screenplay i wrote, just the draft for now, i had to do exactly this, through the caracter arc. this would’ve helped me alittle.
Not necessarily…
I’ve seen the struggle begin in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Acts and work fine.
All depends on you and your character.
Unk
Hmm..I wasn’t meaning the struggle Unk, I meant the moment of giving up the struggle and deciding to BE who they were intended [by you the writer and, life] to be. Isn’t that generally, well, not midpoint – I was wrong on that – but end of Act 2 (I should fairly point out I am talking 3 Act structure). I’m talking in general however and do accept there will be individual script differences.
That’s what I’m talking about too. I’ve seen it everywhere and I’ve seen it work so I can’t say that it SHOULD be in a particular place.
Generally speaking? Yeah… End of 2nd Act all the way through the probably half to three-quarters of the way through Act 3.
Unk
Thanks. I guess I’m displaying a certain contradiction between your forum and here in terms of the ‘where’ issue. :)
Not from me…
Unk
Just thought I would recommend a great book on this subject. The book is called, Inside Story: The Power of the Transformational Arc by Dara Marks.
Get it. Read it. Devour it. You won’t be sorry.
I like these examples where the flaw is displayed in the first couple of minutes and where the midpoint shows a committed change towards resolution of that flaw, often by going for the opposite:
JAWS: Brody doesn’t take responsibility by fixing the core of the problems around him. His son is bleeding because Brody didn’t fix the swing, instead told him not to play on the swing. He also doesn’t fix the shark problem until halfway. Meanwhile he tells people to stay off the beaches.
THELMA & LOUISE: Thelma is embarrassingly submissive and accepts her jerk of a husband’s patronizing. She doesn’t have a life. Halfway she chooses the opposite: she takes the wheel from Louise and takes the initiative when she robs the store.
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST: Arrogant and misogynist McMurphy is overly confident he can outsmart nurse Ratchett and fake insanity to escape the work farm and stay in the asylum. At the mid-point reversal he humbly realizes he has failed and will now have to try and beat the system by pursuing the opposite: getting out of the asylum, away from Ratchett’s power.
How do you guys see these? I’m not sure about the last example.
Also: how ‘tragic’ is Thelma’s flaw? It’s really the re-discovering of her ‘Shadow’ (her suppressed self) that leads directly to the tragic ending. Ironically (and controversially), she turns to criminal behavior once she stops ‘maintaining her flaw’.
And Brody deals successfully with his flaw so his arc is a heroic one.
Interesting stuff. I am of the opinion that characters should never transform. I think that’s why I use the term “Negatively-impacting social traits” rather than fatal flaw or whatever.
People don’t have “flaws” because that implies someone is perfect. No one is erfect. We all have idiosyncracies and tend to overreact.
Change – or growth – also has a lot to do with genre. The drama is where you get the most change in your protag.
As an example, I have a comedy with a nerdy kid who has sarcastic written on his forehead. For part of the movie it just gets him locked in hs locker but in the latter portion it enables him to confound and outsmart villains. If such a character spawned a sequel you can’t lose that flaw.
Every Die Hard showed McClane’s trouble with his marriage. It shows his humanity.
But after MM did a post against the character arc I followed up with a similar post titled; “THe Circular Arc: The only Character Arc?” I truly believe that as the only time you truly view change is when a protag is an asshole and really needs to change. Any other time it’s growth.
With the comment abotu thelma and Louise, it folows along with UNKs external factors. Thelma was always around her husband but when she eliminated the influence she grew.
I know “negatively-impacting social trait” is a mouthful but it’s more accurate. The NIST is what you should be aiming for because personality is only revealed through SOCIAL INTERACTION.
Really, interesting viewpoints Christian H. You wouldn’t have studied psychology or sociology would you? It reads as if you have quite a bit of research in either or both those fields. Very interesting to claim CHANGE vs. GROWTH. One in which I’ll probably adopt into my own vernacular. However, I lost you a little on your definition of NIST. I think I can see where you could come up with it… but it is an extremely “heady” pursuit… Not easily grasped, but not so dense it boarders on pure theory…
Excellent points I will have to consider… however, as a development exec. — i know, I’m one of THOSE guys, and trust me, we’re not at all the writers enemy we’ve been envisioned to be — but, as a “d” exec, I can tell you… we don’t care if it’s CHANGE or GROWTH so long as a character moves from point A to point C through the story, and seeing signs that a character has moved from who they were at the outset to where we leave them by the end of the story.
All valid points… but I caution… as we are heading into deep theory… it might be better to just write… then upon review, revise based on gut reactions… the rest is getting a little too “mathematical” for some.
But I do believe it’s a writer’s responsibility to learn everything they can about their craft, however, just to point out an interesting exception, I read a quote this week from the great John Milius who claimed he didn’t know the difference between an adverb and an adjective. Stick that in your pipe and puff it. And say what you will about his directing, but his writing is smack-you-upside-the-head impacting.
My point is, theorize all you like, study craft, but go with your gut — fuck a few rules… and get it written.
Need More Ink,
Christian,
To ME, it’s the same thing. Change. Growth. Arc. All the same. That’s WHY we watch the movie because of the character going through whatever they’re going through and I’m not simply talking about plot.
Anybody can put any label they want on it… It all works.
Unk
Need More Ink – your anecdote re John Milius took me back to childhood and having a piano delivered and the older driver lifting the key cover and playing away beautifully. When asked by my mother if he could play her a piece of sheet music he admitted – with broad smile – he couldn’t read music and had learned purely by ear. But how he could play and with what joy!
Need more ink,
I like tro use the abstract approach to cinema as before you write it is abstract. I try to never get o into theory, but theory is what enables growth. Earky cinema yielded talkies which yielded avant-garde, etc.
I actually developed the “theory” from Linda Seger, who professes that flaws CAN be merely “negatively-impacting social traits.” As an example, a person who is very trusting and from a small town will more easily be a victim of a con-man whereas a person who grew up in the city but is trusting will understand the limits.
The person from the small town would make for great drama whereas you have an immediate “juxtapositon of banality” between the con man and the “townie” occurs.
Wow, I sound even drier and more theoretical. Well, people think I write good dialog….
UNK,
Of course. It’s all semantic. I just like to look at things from as many different angles as possible. Then I try to integrate it into my process. The discourse I find here has definitely improved my processes. I thank you.
I just linked to this article on a new screenwriting sub-reddit I created. You can check it out here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Screenwriting/
I don’t buy any of this.
If someone wrote a story about a junkie model
and a bi-polar Wall Street Whiz Kid falling madly in love. And at the end of that story they never change and live a destructive life till they turn 80 …the World would want to watch that movie.
We are being brainwashed. Sorry Unk!
Some people don’t want to change.
Some people don’t want change.
Some people want to destroy themselves.
Some people want to destroy others.
Some people believe in doomsday destiny.
Some people are true artist.
Look at the iconic artist Basquait — he doesn’t want to change for soceity — he wants to be himself.
Look at Freddy Mercury of Queen — he never wanted to change – he was the world. Crazy and decadent and selffish.
That is why we pay big bucks to watch and
read Bio Pic!
We cannot choose our negative and destructive
destiny, it chooses us.
Egotism and negativism and destructiveness — it’s in the blood of some people. I respect that.
I don’t want boring predictable cinema!
We should show some respect to those
who refuse and will not change.
Write about life for heaven sake.
“If someone wrote a story about a junkie model
and a bi-polar Wall Street Whiz Kid falling madly in love. And at the end of that story they never change and live a destructive life till they turn 80 …the World would want to watch that movie.”
We would? Sorry, this doesn’t appeal to me one jot.
Why would I desire to sit through a minimum of 90 minutes watching the same actions, decisions, life responses playing by? What I saw in the first ten minutes would be enough of a snapshot if nothing within the characters changes. I may as well leave the theater as I am not getting any more from watching.
If I want to see life AS IS, then I go to see a documentary. Most of the time I want to see a catharsis – in whatever form that takes.
As for us not being able to choose? That is a fatalistic perspective and if you don’t believe that one can actually choose change, or accept change intervention, then I guess most mainstream – and indeed indie – cinema won’t appeal to you.
Benny,
You could always just put Gus Van Sant’s LAST DAYS on repeat in your DVD player…
Wasn’t that just the cinematic achievement of all time? Who wants to line up for multiple, repeated viewings of that masterpiece…
Anyone actually sat through the whole thing? Better yet, anyone who actually sat through the whole thing who would EVER do it again?
Of course Benny, you are free to express yourself in any a way in this Good Ole US of A… However, you either only want to watch your proposed film by yourself… or will only bring three of your “arteest” friends to screen it with you — (whom you conned into the festival with promises of free booze and the opportunity to meet the star of your one man play) — or, you’re a reactionary… baiting us for a response. My gut leads me to think the latter… however, this may be a case of all three combined.
You’re right… no one ever gave up cocaine to be an American President…
No one… overcame a disabilty or god forbid life threatening illness losing a testicle in the ensuing melee to win championships… X number of times…
No one ever lost someone, felt they could never love again… only to find themeselves cherishing the warmth and embrace of a deep and true love…
Other than that… you’re right no one changes…
You’re right, I still play with the same toys I had when I was two… they shall certainly delight me until I’m 80.
Other than that… no one changes… Aside from growing up believing in a republican world… through my twenties… only to see how wrong and narrow minded I was… learning in my 30’s to side with all things democrat…
Other than that… no one changes… and lastly, the criminal who found spirituality, god and redemption who chose peace and goodwill, pulled themselves out of the gutter, ghetto, and from the pits of crime and destitution to a life of hope…
Other than that… no one changes…
And the KKK leader who after years of racism, and bigotry… turns his heart around, meets with those he persecuted… asks for forgiveness, and remained apologetic…
No one changes…
Until something inside inspires them to…
I for one, believe in the redemptive power of god, art, and though a struggle — the ability to change. As such, those stories will always get produced b/c why? They pull the numbers. That’s what WE as a people want to see.
I’m afraid in this wonderful, hermetic area of a blog, where we choose to keep the flame alive for all to remain warm during our bouts of fear, uncertainty, and struggle… as writers… we have been infiltrated by a screenwriting jihadist.
Though I’m not intending to fan the flames… as I would rather promote positivity than simply watch it burn, Master Wayne… I stand guard… from this NONSENSE… vile, piss, and vinegar.
Any one else… feel free to stand behind me… My shield dons a crest with which symbolizes mankind’s ability to change…
Though I shall also defend the right to free speech, I fear we have provoked our great enemy: the bitter and unsold writer…
In defense of dreams and the human spirit….
Needs More Ink.
Well Needs More Ink, that was certainly a rallying and spirit filled post. I felt all a-hurrah! at the end. :)
Benny, I do understand your point about some people not wanting to change but WHY (as I said in my last post) would I want to sit and watch that? I want to feel enlightened or altered in some manner by my viewing experience. I desire to feel potentials and hope rather than ‘drudge’.
Need More Ink and Susan,
You’re wrong, I am the ’sound of silence”!!
People and the characters don’t change??? They live with the real truth. If they tell you they have changed, they are not telling the truth.
The genetic makeup of the brain — will never change.
I rather see the real gritty world on The Silver Screen. I want the truth. We can’t handle it — but the truth must be told on THE SILVER SCREEN in technicolour.
FOR EXAMPLE –
I rather see a real movie about the horror and
violence of real life divorce drama –
where the wife and husband refuse to change because they can’t. And children suffer for a short duration.
I rather see a junkie who cannot clean up
his act and he’s madly in love with another junkie who is trying to clean up her act, but in reality she can’t either. She’s just pretending.
I rather see a true romance where real love
is measured by blinding and stubborn and pigheaded and selfless love. And the only way out is through death and pain and suffering. Love and romance hate changes. Love and Romance is painful.
I rather see a BOXING movie where the
character kills himself because he knows
he cannot change and that he is an animal.
I rather see a story about a wife who
sells her body for money because
she has to support her 3 children and does it till the end of the movie because she cannot change. Her destiny is written.
D:Written
Cheers,
Benny,
In all seriousness, as I am truly curious… Would you happen to be Atheist?
Need more ink,
I guess you understand the role of the hero during his journey. The hero grows, which in some cases requires a “change.” But that’s only with the destructive anti-hero. A very hard character to do well.
When you write a “likable” protag he’s probably not a woman beater or a criminal so of course the “character arc” has to write itself. As Susan said, “who would watch an asshole for 90 minutes” without a change – unless, again it’s the tragic tale….(Butch Cassidy, Leaving Las Vegas, Fatal Attraction, etc.)
Will Smith could barely sell that so perhaps the journey is better with a hero who defeats, or at least tries to defeat, the villain.
Benny,
I respect your honesty in expressing what YOU wish to see. I simply disagree with your assertion that what you want to see is what the ‘world’ wants to see. I also disagree with your “brainwashing” comment.
It would seem to me an agonizing depression to watch several films of the sort you aspire to seeing – perhaps a form of nihilism? Either films would be awash with negativity or, one presumes, sun shiny happiness.
Oh yes, we ALL know the issue of alcoholics who are 30 years sober but are still alcoholics. But you would give up on the potential of end of life sobriety and just have them drunk until their death. There is no hope in your stance. I observe that you have a rationale ready to support your view. Fine. I simply don’t advocate the same.
And I DO believe audiences, in the main, look for hope. They don’t always obtain that of course and light and shade can be an excellent thing. But I wouldn’t see the cinema you advocate.
You are absolutely free to think that you like but please don’t tell me what I wish to see in film. And if you can sell a script along the lines you suggest, all power to you.
Christian H. :) If you’re going to quote me, please quote me.
Yes, the antagonist rarely goes through a large fundamental arc. Or can someone suggest a film where this happens?
Scarface, dir. De Palma, Taxi Driver, American Psycho…
Still seems to be an arc in each of these anti-hero’s…
This arc… from point A to point C, where the character ends up… is still change/growth or whatever you feel like calling it. Maybe its purple…
But they all arc… and for a character not to arc…
Here is the script:
A MAN saunters into a bar.
THE END.
Nothing else can possibly happen…
But its all semantics… go ahead… write whatever bemuses you… whatever you wish to see on the screen…
And may the doors towards getting it sold and made be open to you…
But if lands on my desk… I can assure you, if there is nothing happening to a character except STASIS? Therefore I see a one line script: A MAN saunters into a bar…
and nothing else happens from A to C — it will certainly receive a PASS.
And sadly no, you won’t be seeing that film on the big screen.
Warhol might be a good one to look to if you really like to see chracters refusing to change…
Didn’t he film the same repeated shot for over 8 hours? Sounds awesome.
Ink
I’m feeling Euclidian. It’s an arc kind of thing. :)
Ink..There may be overlap but I see the protag/antag dialectic as different to anti-hero. Do you see them as the same?
Not sure. Let’s call Paul Schrader and ask.
No one — unless they are a produced screenwriter of such a classic as the ones I’ve previously mentioned employing an anti-hero — can really speak with any authority on the matter.
Others will try… but Goldman gets it right — No one knows anything.
BUT — are anti-hero’s not still the ‘effin protagonist of the story? Just morally reprehensible? So, I’m betting its the same fruit.
Its still a MAIN CHARACTER — WHO IS RESPONDING TO A PREDICAMENT — AND THROUGH THEIR OWN VOLITION — EITHER SUCCEED OR FAIL AT THEIR GOAL.
So, I may be wrong — but, sure as heck would seem to be the same to me. Regardless of morality and other such anti-heroic characteristics.
Treat them as a hero, who is so thoroughly flawed, they appear ANTI — but are still hero’s aren’t they? They just tend to lose in the end.
I think we’ve all built the myth of the anti-hero into something larger in our minds… Its still a character driven through a story… that moves from A to C. With change…and a Act I — III.
Same fish. Different chef. But we’re still eating fish.
Ink
Hello Paul..Paul?
Well Ink, I don’t mind giving discussion a shot.
My thinking – on what I raised – runs along these lines….
We have a protag. moving through an arc. In some ways, the undoing of the antag. is partially his or her unwillingness to arc. The arc of the protag. actually shines more obviously because it is moving against a rather static antag. Sure, the antag. may up the ante/create more noise but that’s volume control as opposed to real change.
The anti-hero is more, to my mind, a challenge to ‘type’. They act is a way contrary to societal standards. They can be obnoxious or pitiful etc but they are really failed heroes. They’re really full of pathos. Within their arc they MAY come to adopt certain normative traits.
So, I’m suggesting that the anti-hero arcs but that antags. – as a rule – don’t. I don’t see antag. failure as an arc as such.
ok…
What about Anakin Skywalker? All the way through Vader and his trying to save Luke?
See, they both arc… just the protag has a much larger CURVE… Its not the antag’s story… the antag is a foil… but still, they start at one point… a Bad Mofo — and become and Really bad mofo…
That’s still an arc from A to C — but not nearly the curve, the protag exhibits…
Certainly Megatron was a frozen block of ice… until he was badass…
but, how about this one… Have you seen INSIDE MAN –dir. Spike Lee?
Who is the Protag/Antag? Are you sure?
Sure, maybe as a rule the arc is not dynamic… but it is something of an arc… maybe closer to a straight line… but there is still the potential to create a more dynamic antagonist.
Again, see INSIDE MAN — that one will spin your head from a who is the hero point of view? Is it Denzel? OR Clive Owen? Or maybe which one is the anti-hero? Its a total mind fuck. They both are hero’s — they both are morally reprehensible — and they both foil each other… and we are asked to identify with the criminal — the owen character as if he was the hero… yet, he’s foiling Denzel.
Ugghh. Oroboros.
But, the point is… most of the time in SPECTACLE pictures — tent poles… the antag is rather static… But in the more character driven pieces… why can’t the antag arc? Grow/Change?
Give it some thought…
No reason why we can’t see an antagonist grow from a minor foil… to an all powerful entity.
What about a cancer cell? At first a small pesky growth… that takes over everything…
That might be a great analogy for a three dimensional antagonist.
Re: Taxi Driver
There’s definitely an arc to Travis Bickle. He does change and grow. In fact, there’s even a line in which he says … “and then, change.” It’s just that he grows in the opposite direction than most heroes. He “grows” from isolated loner who observes the decay of humanity, to a man of action who attempts to save it — but perhaps in a misguided way. His growth is more a dissent — or is it? Part of Bickle’s growth is realizing — through his interactions with Betsy — that he’ll never fit in with “normal” society. I think one of the questions of the film whether that society is so messed up that the only logical or heroic action is to go on a shooting spree?
Aaaah, the beauty of cinema. I agree with everyone. Semantically as all of the aforementioned have made pleasing cinema in the right hands. I have a few anti-heros in projects I’m working on. I think the key is not to show their “flaws” but how they go that way.
That’s what Taxi Driver does along with Leaving Las Vegas – though was quicker.
I’d rather write about the hero who is “balanced” with the bad out there and what the right thing is. That to me is the definiton of a hero. The person who can deal with loss before surrender. Of course they’re not perfect but the strive to be good people. They will consider people’s feelings to a certain extent; but not to the extent that their desires and goals are hindered.
Unk,
I love this sight. It has given me what I consider invaluable information in my quest to become a better storyteller before I send out my first screenplay.
During my self study, I had already learned how important the protagonist’s tragic flaw is to the story: how you have to show the effect of the tragic flaw on his ordinary world; how you have to show the protagonist changing as a result of his journey from point A to point C (in the words of Need More Ink); how the antagonist should be directly connected to the protagonist’s tragic flaw; and how the change in his tragic flaw leads to the resolution of the main conflict. But I never considered what the protagonist has to do to MAINTAIN his tragic flaw and the dramatic possibilities that can be created to show this maintenance.
As you told Susan P., the change can happen anywhere in the story depending on the story and the characters or, to put it another way, how you decide to structure (that dirty word) your story. In BATMAN BEGINS the change happened at the end of Act 1. (If you haven’t seen this movie, I apologize. I’ve been analyzing the screenplay to study structure and storytelling). I know there’s someone out there who is going to disagree with me on this because in your earlier post on theme, someone said that he thought that the theme of BATMAN BEGINS was fear. I disagree. The theme of the movie had to do with the difference between revenge and justice. Fear was the TRAGIC FLAW of Bruce Wayne—specifically, his fear of bats. This fear led to the death of his parents and all the bad things that happened in his life (as shown in the flashbacks) and the awfulness of his ordinary world in the Chinese prison at the beginning of the movie. The change in his tragic flaw occurred during his training with Ducard/Ras al Ghul (whose introduction was the inciting incident) where his fear was banished at the end of Act 1. After he got over his tragic flaw, he went back to Gotham and began the process of becoming Batman.
But Unk, what I realized after reading your post is that what I considered to be all the good dramatic moments in Act 1 were the MAINTENANCE of his tragic flaw—his environment, circumstance, decisions, characters and actions. This knowledge is going to help me with my story. It just reinforces my belief that a screenplay is like a spider’s web—everything is connected. Thanks!
“I rather see a BOXING movie where the
character kills himself because he knows
he cannot change and that he is an animal.”
Basically, you’re talking about THE WRESTLER. Randy decides he’d rather die in the ring than live outside it. Sounds right up your alley. But alas, there is an arc at work. Randy has come to terms with his place in the world and what he wants from it. The decision to die in the ring is just that, a decision, and one he did not make in the first act (when, in fact, he quit wrestling to preserve his health). It’s unfortunate that so many well-intentioned artists fight codification as if its tantamount to paint-by-numbers generica. I understand the urge to resist structure because on the surface it appears to squash creativity, but thats simply not the case. There’s math behind every melody.
Oh, and Ink, I AM an atheist, so please don’t confuse an absence of faith with an absence of craft.
Chris
There is no confusion… nor a corollary to lack of faith and lack of craft. Who ever said the two had anything to do with each other? Craft & Faith? Not I. My question was based on a view that promoted an apparent lack of faith in mankind, and an attitude that was largely nihilistic. It was asked out of genuine curiosity to understand his philosophy… not as a judgment. Certainly faith and craft have nothing to do with one another. Not sure why you felt the need to defend it. But, whatever. To each their own.
But please do not mistake my next question as to be construed towards you…
Funny though. If I asked if someone was a Buddhist, do you think other Buddhists would raise thier fists as if they were offended… and declare their religion has nothing to do with the way they paint?
Craft and Faith have nothing to do with one another. But, there is a corollary to the CONTENT an artist creates which is indicative of their world view.
Be well…
No offense taken, Ink, and my apologies if I overreacted. In my personal experiences, there isn’t a great correlation between atheism and nihilism, but thats beside the point. All I meant to convey was Benny’s worldview and tastes, whatever they may be, should not be used as a means of justifying a lack of structure. I think people often assume small movies with small arcs or tragedies with pessimistic themes don’t hit the same beats as giant blockbusters, when more often than not, they do. Armegeddon and Five Easy Pieces have more in common than Benny would like to believe.
Best,
Chris
that’s all well and good but… is it snowing in here?
This is a great topic by the way, and this debating only opens our eyes to how detailed we can be our how many views one particular subject can have.
I just started my own blog. I would love to get an opinion of what i have posted.
Nice read! Explains all of Shakespeare’s tragedies..
The main character in Trainspotting. That guy has a Hamartia.
Also, readers, a character that has a tragic flaw and then dies because of it is called a “tragic hero.”
This is stuff I learned years ago.
I know stuff but that don’t mean I’m smart,
Chris.
God bless, Unk.