I am redrafting the story. It was a “brooding hero” type thing so I am going to reel in the brooding a bit and see what happens. It won’t change the theme of the script but it will heighten the “energy” of the protagonist.

I’ll see where it takes me, I guess. This craft is always such an adventure. I love it.

Great post!

We used the “playing against type” infomercial card in a small way with our Indie film Dead Horse. Daniel Von Bargen (Lords Of Illusion, Seinfeld, Basic Instinct, O’ Brother Where Art Thou, et al) was drawn by the character, who’s in nearly every scene. His character is also not a cop, general, or any other power figure type — all of which Daniel has played often. His character in our dark comedy is an alcoholic/manic-depressive hell bent on killing his married girlfriend’s husband.

So that’s another way of attacking the actors out there – come up with material for them they’d normally never play. It may attract them…especially if you’re working in the Indie world.

So a lot of them can see beyond line counts and how many scenes they are in.

What they are looking for are characters which are going to be memorable.

Writing memorable characters is more about having people who have believable objectives, who have secrets which create subtext, characters who are forced into situations that leave them emotionally vulnerable.

When you’re thinking about writing great parts for actors it is better to think about scripts like Crash, rather than looking to genre movies.

If you can give the actor a part that reduces the audience to tears, because it is so poignant, so ironic, then you’ll be fighting the stars off with sticks.

1) My first screenwriting teacher told me, “imagine Jack Nicholson is playing your lead.” By that, she meant that he’s going to need to be in just about every scene – not all – but most. And the part has to have some meat. No cardboard characters need apply.

2) I love Aaron Sorkin’s stuff and, by and large, all his characters are smart. There’s plenty of funny in his writing, but there are no dumb people. It plays into what Jane Espenson had once said about comedy. That there are characters who are intentionally funny and characters who are unintentionally funny.

An interesting example of a smart funny character could be Bluto from Animal House. All that he does is intentional. The opposite is Clark Griswold from National Lampoon’s vacation. The majority of the humor is derived from the mistakes he makes unintentionally. Both are funny, but it determines what kind of character you create.

Although it seems off-topic, I use it as an example of what makes characters engaging and interesting to read or watch.

I once had a (semi-popular) actor tell me, “I don’t want to be the guy who learns. I want to be the guy who KNOWS.”

Great post, man.

-MM

Nobody wants to play a boring part. So now when I write a part I always think of whether or not I’d want one of my friends in the role, then try to find a way to make it good without interrupting the momentum of a story.

Even that film had a few scenes without the lead, with a couple featuring Harvey Kietel and Jodie Foster as well as Albert Brooks and Cybil Sheperd.

“How ’bout this? WE aren’t happy with the buttons. WE aren’t paying for the buttons.”