Popularity: 3%

The Transformational Character Arc Part 1

Transformational Character ArcI keep trying to make my Protagonist’s in my rewrite a little less obvious yet more APPARENT. I don’t want anyone to read and say, “Cool, there’s the arc.” I just want people to walk away after having absorbed the fact that the Protagonist completed it.In other words, I want to slide it in there under the radar so that you FEEL it… You know it but you don’t know it.

Got it?

Nope?

The transformational is the emotional change your goes through by the end of your story.

The transformational character arc is one of the most daunting story elements we have today… Many many screenwriters attempting to break into the business know that they need it but once again, those that are out there attempting to teach us this stuff haven’t done their homework…

What I mean by that is they (the ) almost always tell YOU; the girl or guy that just plopped down $300, $350, $500, (and an equal amount or more on screenwriting books) that you need to make sure that your Protagonist has a character arc.

Uh, thanks.

Let me also say that I don’t really mean this toward ANYONE in PARTICULAR but suffice to say, I’ve been to every guru’s workshop, pretty much buy every screenwriting book that comes out (even bad ones), read articles like they are going out of style and still…

No meat and potatoes when it comes to the character arc. *NOTE: I do however, have several new screenwriting books coming from Amazon.com that may change all that? At least that’s what they PROFESS…

We shall see.

I wonder why that is? Could it be that nobody’s ever actually broken it down?

No fuckin’ way… Somebody’s done it somewhere… Hell, I know I have.

MaryAn, of fame made an outstanding comment in a previous post… i.e., “My take: motivation is what propels characters towards goals.” A simple little sentence but OH SO MUCH POWER.

I bring this up because of the importance of … i.e., it is in fact this motivation that you’ve so deftly fleshed into your story that also drives your character to be BETTER than he or she was before they started out on their journey but REMEMBER…

However your Protagonist acts; whatever your Protagonist says or thinks that he or she WANTS (GOAL), could very well be DIFFERENT from what they TRULY WANT i.e., their MOTIVATION.

Often, the Protagonist simply goes after what they THINK they want and, through their own decision making, emotional action and reaction, they end up discovering what they really want and when they discover what they really want, BAM! They WAKE THE FUCK UP because until now, they’ve been fooling themselves just trying to get along… Now that they’ve SEEN the new end of the rainbow, they can’t do without it hence, the new GOAL and hence, MOTIVATION.

I guess that’s why I go fucking crazy when it comes to my characters… Without characters… Scratch that. Without GREAT CHARACTERS, the audience is going to have a really hard time climbing on board the sympathy/empathy train.

I read a lot of screenplays where the screenwriter tries to develop all the main characters before the first act is complete… To me, that’s exactly one of the problems in pulling off an outstanding transformational character arc… Give us the character as a lump of clay in the beginning. BE THE ARTIST and let us watch you mold that clay throughout the entire story…

In other words… Bring in your characters and quickly give them dimension… Go ahead and develop them JUST ENOUGH to hook us so we can get on board the sympathy/empathy train for the rest of the story. Get rid of all their clichés, kick them in the ass, and get them going on their journeys… Then, as time goes on, continue to develop them… Continue to give them more through their actions and dialogue.

Another problem I see a lot are characters that are simply NOT FUCKING CAPABLE of undergoing a transformational arc. Remember, your main character i.e., your Protagonist needs to be a character CAPABLE of undergoing transformation. If you give us the PERFECT CHARACTER right up front, FUGHEDABOUDIT. We’re gonna be bored and bored people FORGET to jump on the sympathy/empathy train.

Along this line of thought…

If we’re bored by your characters, then it is very likely that your characters are also . Nobody wants to read and watch … We already have way too much in our lives… Please do not inundate us with even MORE! I can’t tell you how many people NOT in the business make the comment (or something similar), “Well that’s another two hours of my life that I’ll never get back.”

As a screenwriter, please be HYPER-AWARE that before you ever give your script to someone to read, you’re asking that person or persons to GIVE YOU about two hours of THEIR LIFE to read your screenplay. To me, that’s one of the most ULTIMATE GIFTS anyone could ever give to me and so many fucking screenwriters NEVER EVER stop to consider what a wonderful gift that is to begin with… Assuming that this is a wonderful gift, don’t you at least OWE your reader two hours of instead of boredom? And, if that is true, don’t you also owe it to your prospective MILLIONS of AUDIENCE MEMBERS out there waiting to see your eventual movie, two hours of excitement?

Don’t ever forget WHY we go to the fuckin’ movies… To !

Boredom is not escape.

Give us main characters as big as life! … Characters capable of being transformed by the end of your story. As audience members of your prospective movie, we want to see different sides of your characters… We want to see their . We want to see their . We want to see how they EMOTIONALLY react to the other characters in your story. We want to see them make EMOTIONAL decisions. We want to see them make based on the obstacles you throw at them. We want to see them fuck up. We want to see them climb up SHIT MOUNTAIN.

The of your characters (the ones YOU WRITE of course) serve to develop them, create dimensionality within them, and if done correctly, make them BELIEVABLE. Just remember that believable characters do not have to be boring.

Dimensionality serves to delineate your character(s) to your audience… The transformational character arc that your character achieves by the end of your story, DEFINES your character. In other words, we really don’t know what to expect but hopefully, we’ll enjoy the ride… Your character(s) however, will keep revealing bits and pieces of his or her emotional make-up and if done correctly i.e., with tension, conflict, rising action, etc., KEEP US ON THE TRAIN.

That brings us to DEFINING YOUR CHARACTER.

Which is why it’s so important to KNOW YOUR CHARACTERS. I’m not going to say this is a RULE but knowing your characters WELL can certainly make giving him or her a believable and exciting transformational character arc a lot easier than NOT KNOWING YOUR CHARACTER WELL.

ATTITUDES and PHILOSOPHIES

One of the easiest ways to give your Protagonist a believable transformational character arc is to start them out with fairly DEFINED and then, as you take them through your story, TEST those attitudes and philosophies, causing them to DISCOVER new attitudes and philosophies that are different from the ones they started out with.

As your character(s) tackle the obstacles you’ve placed before them, their attitudes and philosophies begin to SHIFT, DEVELOP, and CHANGE into new attitudes and philosophies. Going to the extreme OPPOSITE of the beginning attitudes and philosophies makes us feel or sense the transformational character arc of your Protagonist.

Another way to make this a little easier for you is in KNOWING YOUR CHARACTERS. Did I say that already? Fuck yeah, I did! If you know your characters well enough… i.e., their attitudes and philosophies about LIFE, PEOPLE, etc., then it can be easier to plot out an extreme opposite change in attitudes and philosophies ahead of time, add that to your structure so you know WHERE your Protagonist is headed. He or she doesn’t necessarily have to follow your road map either… The better you know your characters, the easier it is for them to surprise you on the way.

The following is rather old information and very basic when it comes to MEN and WOMEN but very valuable to know before you begin to create your characters… Everyone knows that men and women are different and I’m not talking about being different physiologically… We COMMUNICATE differently from each other and KNOWING the basics of that communication before you even start to create a character will really help you with your Protagonist’s ultimate transformational character arc.

Let’s get into the BASIC difference between …




Monday: 12 March 2007|0809|Under Characters

Print This Post Print This Post
 

Comments

34 Responses to “The Transformational Character Arc Part 1”

  1. taZ on Monday: 12 March 2007|1034

    Love this.

    It’s pretty much what I say to those asking what makes a good character. However, even though I follow most of the ARC-guidelines, I tend to have difficulty when it comes to the VOICE of the characters.

    Thanks.

  2. MaryAn on Monday: 12 March 2007|1216

    Ah! ha! ha! Wikipedia lists “screenwriting gurus”!! My sides! My sides! Ah! ha! ha!

  3. Moviequill on Monday: 12 March 2007|1250

    to paraphrase Melvin Udall in “As Good As It Gets”

    you make me want to be a better writer

    or, great stuff my good man

  4. Friedrich Nietzsche on Monday: 12 March 2007|1730

    I lied. He’s ALIVE!!!

  5. Joshua James on Tuesday: 13 March 2007|0621

    Being very cautious, lest we open a can of worms, but I’ve always been under the belief (and granted, I’m in the minority) that most great characters don’t change . . .

    Great characters ENDURE and sometimes discover MORE about themselves, as do we . . . but if you think about it, how did either Vito or Micheal Corleone change? I don’t know that they did, really . . . just became more of who they are . . .

    This character transformation, all the rage with the gurus, can make a good movie . . . but it’s not the ONLY way to make a good movie, we can have a great character who doesn’t change, can’t we?

    Like Marge Gustovson in FARGO . . . she didn’t go through and transformation . . . she endured a murder investigation and a pregnancy, but didn’t become anyone else . . . if anything, she’s the same decent person at the end of the film that she was at the beginning.

    Though I think she discovered a lot about herself, which is key to great characters . . .

    The transformation idea is more of a story point than a character point - great characters, to what I’ve seen, endure and discover more about themselves, rather than change.

    But Unk, I swear I ain’t trying to pick a fight with you . . . just pointing out something I’ve always thought and wondered about . . . so I bring this up politely, respect, yo . . . tell me where I’m wrong and why . . .

    And hey, my L.A. trip was fun . . . tell ya about it sometime . . .

  6. Richard on Tuesday: 13 March 2007|1308

    I think that in order for a reader to engage with a script or an audience a movie there must be transformation of the main character or if they remain the same then a “side kick” character or ally(ies) must go through a transformation.
    Enjoyed the post.

  7. Unk on Tuesday: 13 March 2007|1642

    Josh, Josh, Josh…

    What good is it to have a blog unless we open LOTS of cans O’ worms???

    Come on now… We BOTH grew up on films where the Protagonist didn’t always undergo a transformational change but to MY thinking…

    The best stories DO have their Protagonist undergo a transformational change.

    Audiences today, need that special element of STORY to help them get on board the sympathy/empathy train.

    Michael Corleone CERTAINLY undergoes a transformational change in the first GODFATHER… He goes from NOT wanting to be involved in the family business to RUNNING IT.

    But you’re right… Great characters don’t always undergo a transformational change… We RARELY see it in sequels… You don’t NEED to have the Protagonist go through a character arc because of the built-in audience.

    Marge definitely did not undergo change but then Fargo only made something like $25 Mil in the U.S. $60 Mil worldwide so it definitely made money since it was made for under $10 Mil but what IF she had undergone a transformational change?

    Additionally, that’s a Cohen Brothers film… They get to do whatever they want. LOL.

    If anyone wants to write a script without their Protagonist undergoing an emotional change… So be it. Notice I didn’t say a character arc is a rule but overall, I would definitely say that films where the Protagonist DOES undergo a transformational character arc have LASTING POWER.

    Can CLOSED?

    Unk

  8. Joshua James on Tuesday: 13 March 2007|1708

    Not entirely . . . the BEST movies are the one’s where the characters are transformed?

    That’s a whole other can of monkeys right there . . . and we can probably argue all night about Micheal Corleone . . . his desire changed, but his character did not (and, I remind you, he was nominated for supporting actor in G1, Vito was best actor in G1 and didn’t change) and he was the main guy in G2 and didn’t really change, though we discovered more about him as he did . . .

    Godfather 1 and 2 are right up there with Citizen Kane as being considered the greatest films ever made.

    As an aside, wasn’t John Cazale just the fucking greatest actor in the world? He only did like six movies, but every one was a classic and he kicked ass in each . . .

    And who changes in DOG DAY AFTERNOON?

    Back to the topic . . . no, I think the movies with lasting power are the ones in which the STORY transforms us, not the characters . . . sometimes it’s the movies about characters who refuse to change despite everything that happens to them that really rings our bell . . . Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times? Any of Buster Keaton’s movies . . .

    And it’s unfair to note how much money FARGO made when you compare it to stodgy, stubborn INDIANA JONES who won’t go anywhere without that same sad fedora and bullwhip . . . he made mucho dollars . . .

    What about Henry Hill in GOODFELLAS? He was basically the same criminal con man at the end that he was at the beginning . . .

    I believe great characters are the ones who are endlessly fascinating, the ones that we always want to know more about and who never fail to surprise us - Stories are about discovery, and to be interesting, we like to discovery more about the people within it . . . they don’t necessarily have to find Jesus and become transformed to have LASTING POWER . . . sometimes just what they had to endure as people is enough (like, Griffin Dunne in AFTER HOURS or Susan Saradon in DEAD MAN WALKING) . . . when we endure what they do, and we empasize with them, that’s when it has lasting power . . .

    Oh Unk, we need a keg a beer, a picnic table in the shade and a shitload of nacho’s with jalepeno’s to talk about this . . . we could go ALL night . . . LOL!

    Sorry if I ranted a bit . . . it’s a bit of a peeve of mine . . . great characters (like Hannibal Lector, for example) SHOULD NOT CHANGE, because then they lose what makes them great (for example Chili Palmer in GET SHORTY and Chili Palmer in BE COOL) . . . no one needs to find Jesus just to be cool . . . they just have to be cool, in my humble opinion . . .

  9. Unk on Tuesday: 13 March 2007|1830

    Josh…

    Again, I think we’re treading on SEMANTICS here… Don’t worry about the ranting — that’s what this stuff is all about!

    To ME (notice I did not say OTHERS), the LESS OBVIOUS the change, THE BETTER. It’s perfectly okay to have a Protagonist with STRONG BELIEFS from the get-go. If YOU or anyone else can write a strong story around THAT KIND of Protagonist, OUTSTANDING.

    A transformational character arc can AND OFTEN DOES include a Protagonist that comes into a story with STRONG BELIEFS from the get-go and in what I consider to be some of the best movies (for instance, COOL HAND LUKE), his beliefs just get STRONGER.

    The prison warden and guards TEST THE FUCK out of Luke… Wouldn’t you agree? Most people would say there is no transformational character arc because Luke holds on to his beliefs…

    In my own humble opinion however, Luke DOES CHANGE to the point that he is WILLING TO DIE to hang on to his philosophy. In other words, his belief gets STRONGER and to me, that is CHANGE.

    And to me, COOL HAND LUKE will ALWAYS last as a film.

    But we can always agree to DISAGREE.

    Unk

  10. Unk on Tuesday: 13 March 2007|1835

    NOTE to readers… In my previous comment, I wrote APPARENT when I actually meant OBVIOUS i.e., “To ME (notice I did not say OTHERS), the LESS OBVIOUS the change, THE BETTER.”

    So I edited it.

    I for one feel that less obvious changes are still absorbed by the audience yet have GREATER impact down the line which helps make a film LAST like COOL HAND LUKE.

    Unk

  11. Enzio Pesta on Tuesday: 13 March 2007|1845

    You’ve outdone yourself this time, Unk.

    GREAT FREAKING POST!

    The links alone will keep me busy for a week.

  12. Unk on Tuesday: 13 March 2007|1857

    Enzio,

    And to think, you’re not only NOT a screenwriter but you HATE screenwriters… LOL.

    Unk

  13. Ann Wesley Hardin on Wednesday: 14 March 2007|0258

    How about the strength of a character who doesn’t change, but changes others? One of my favorite types of story is what my mom and I call “the small movie.” One where lives are changed just by meeting a person who already knows what it’s all about.

    Two examples: Bahgdad Cafe. Jack Palance doesn’t change, although everyone else does. And Sling Blade. In Little Miss Sunshine, the mom doesn’t change, but her attitude is the catalyst for others.

    There’s still change and growth within the characters and story, just not where you’d expect to find it.

  14. Joshua James on Wednesday: 14 March 2007|0642

    Semantics is words, and the soil we toil over . . . hah! Like that one?

    Still, I think it’s important enough to note that most GREAT characters don’t undergo a radical transformation of character - YET that’s exactly what McKee clones expect when they read a script (this character is GREAT but he doesn’t undergo an arc, he doesn’t change!) which is precisely what bothers me about this whole transition / transformation thing . . .

    It’s what they endure, what they suffer, that makes it special . . .

  15. Unk on Wednesday: 14 March 2007|0727

    Ann,

    Interesting…

    Josh,

    I’ll agree that SOME great characters haven’t undergone a radical change but a lot of great characters HAVE done exactly that… Notice I keep saying I don’t like to make it OBVIOUS? Too obvious a change (to me), simply isn’t as believable to me if you’re starting out with a strong character.

    I wholeheartedly admit that what they endure and what they suffer is PART of the equation but for me… DEFINITELY NOT ALL OF IT. For me, I like to see a character take in ALL the information and change his philosophies even if it’s SLIGHTLY but again, I don’t want to be hit over the head with it… I want to absorb it. I want to THINK about it LATER… Experience it later.

    And to be honest… I think I could DEBATE you on great characters that have undergone change… But we should do that over a beer. LOL.

    Unk

  16. Joshua James on Wednesday: 14 March 2007|0837

    many beers, and nacho’s too!

    HOld ya to that, pardner, and one of us just may change by the end - LOL!

  17. Enzio Pesta on Thursday: 15 March 2007|0559

    Not only am I NOT a screenwriter, but after reading your male/female characteristics, I just discovered I’m NOT a man!

    I seem to have all the traits of a woman, which is not such a bad thing.

  18. $1000 on Thursday: 15 March 2007|1338

    I think where many people get confused by the whole “character much change” thing, is that they assume that the change must be of an “Oprah Winfrey” style emotional transformation, where the person ends up being a better person through self realization.
    When, in fact, the change can be an external change in circumstances with little change in the individual.
    So, in the James Stewart movie “Harvey” the whole point of the movie is that everyone else changes because of this drunk and his six-foot invisible rabbit. And he doesn’t change at all — and yet he goes trough the character arc, and the power of it is definitely in his willingness to sacrifice for the happiness of his family.
    And yet, his life is transformed, because at the end his family accept him.
    Like all screenwriting tools, character arc is hopeless when it’s used in a crude and unthinking way — you only have to see enough “movie of the week’ efforts where the characters all “learn and grow’ in a sickening manner.
    However, if you use the movement of the character arc as a way to place the character’s relationship to the story, it’s very, very useful.
    One thing I did want to pick up on was the discussion about character motivation and revelation.
    I think the whole point of the second act (in a four act structure) is to show how the character “reacts” when forced to deal with particular stressors — whereas in the third act we see the character “act’ rather than “react.”
    This is where the real gift of Unk analysis comes in.
    Rather than dealing with that second act void (a problem with trad three act character arcs) you have a very clear transformation.
    I love that and it’s become the heart of the way I structure.
    Where I really take my hat off is in the very obvious statement that “the character should be revealed to the audience throughout the movie, rather than arrive fully formed in the first act.”
    Great stuff as ever.

  19. Ryan Rasmussen on Thursday: 15 March 2007|1513

    Hold on, UNK. *I* do not go to the movies to escape from anything. I go to be moved, inspired, challenged — in short, to be transformed myself. That’s what I want, and that’s what the best stories deliver.

  20. $1000 on Thursday: 15 March 2007|1527

    can somebody remind me not to post when I’m:
    a) in too much of a hurry to proof read
    and
    b) dog tired! LOL

  21. Unk on Thursday: 15 March 2007|1608

    Josh,

    As long as we can skip the cheese on them nachos… Just dump a pound of jalapeno peppers on ‘em and get out of the way…

    Enzio,

    LOL. People discover lots of things about themselves here at The Unknown Screenwriter… LOL. Every trait but TWO. I won’t mention what they are…

    $1000,

    Give that man a CIGAR!

    Ryan,

    That isn’t a form of ESCAPE? LOL.

    Great comments as always… You guys are making ME THINK… I like that.

    Unk

  22. Enzio Pesta on Thursday: 15 March 2007|1937

    If it has to do with anything physiological, I lost those a long time ago when I got married. And coincidentally enough, my wife seems to have grown quite an impressive pair. Ah, the price you have to pay for your craft…

  23. Joshua James on Friday: 16 March 2007|0632

    You like thinking?

    Me too, but it scares the bejesus outa me?

    Penn: [to Sarah Ryback] You know I have never been afraid of anybody. But that uncle of you scares me… and I like it.

    From Under Siege 2: Dark Territory.

  24. Ann Wesley Hardin on Friday: 16 March 2007|1859

    Jet lag or not, Clive’s post is brilliant.

    *salaams*

  25. Ann Wesley Hardin on Friday: 16 March 2007|1909

    People discover lots of things about themselves here at The Unknown Screenwriter… LOL. Every trait but TWO. I won’t mention what they are

    Okay, I’ll bite (I’m buzzed, Unk, so I know you won’t wanna miss this…)

    1) The Asshole Trait. A true asshole never, ever sees him/herself for what s/he is.

    and

    2) Dysfunctional. Oh sure, it’s a faddy catchphrase and EVERYONE is jumping on the bandwagon. But are people really aware of their own, particular dysfuncion? I think not. I am though. I’m “schitzotypal” and “avoidant”.

    Am I right?

    BTW, these character flaws are great additives to the writing.

  26. Clive on Sunday: 18 March 2007|0730

    Don’t give me a cigar — I’ve just quit! Again!
    I’m only allowed a cigar now when I finish a script or wrap a movie.
    This, I think, should motivate me to write two screenplays a day!
    Wish I could claim jet lag, but sadly no, just plain old stupidity!
    By the way, just emerging from my second divorce and have decided as a screenwriter I’ll have to marry for money next time.
    So, if anyone is looking for a middle-aged English trophy husband, looks good in a suit and is ammusing at dinner parties, please apply!

  27. The Transformational Character Arc… Part 9 » The Unknown Screenwriter on Sunday: 22 April 2007|1738

    [...] You probably thought I was all done with The Transformational Character Arc huh? Well, we’re definitely getting there and no, I haven’t pre-written any of [...]

  28. Christian Howell on Monday: 23 April 2007|0857

    Great post. It really got me thinking. Especially the discussion between you and Josh. I find that in the stories I write I find myself somewhere in the middle.

    That’s the beauty of screenwriting. You can have the same exact character have a different “arc” in two different movies.

    I like to base my characters on their surroundings as much as basing the plot on the character. If I’m writing a character that witnesses a murder, it will be different than a character who has emotional struggles.

    The best way I find to create an “emotional arc” is to define a set of environmental conflicts. Like if the person works at a bank, embezzlement comes to mind along with robberies or extortion.

    A character that has drinking problems could have a relationship with someone who doesn’t drink or who drinks even more.

    Admittedly, emotional dramas are the hardest to write because “actions” that illicit emotion are different than “actions” that can cause physical harm as with action films or thrillers.

    Emotional dramas are more fun though because of that, though.

    Keep writing as writing is the revealing of the soul.

  29. Architecture of Emotion « Impulsive Hearts on Friday: 5 October 2007|1342

    [...] Michael Hauge’s article Screenplay Structure and The Unknown Screenwriter’s article on Transformational Character Arcs. She also recommended the book Emotional Structure: Creating the Story Beneath the Plot by Emmy [...]

  30. Screenwriting structure Part 7 The Monomyth » The Unknown Screenwriter on Thursday: 29 November 2007|1300

    [...] Yup. Otherwise known as your Protagonist’s transformational character arc. [...]

  31. Screenwriting structure Part 7 The Monomyth : The Unknown Screenwriter on Saturday: 3 May 2008|1631

    [...] Yup. Otherwise known as your Protagonist’s transformational character arc. [...]

  32. The Transformational Character Arc Part 9 | on Thursday: 24 July 2008|1309

    [...] You probably thought I was all done with The Transformational Character Arc huh? Well, we’re definitely getting there and no, I haven’t pre-written any of this [...]

  33. The Central Question Part 2 | on Thursday: 24 July 2008|1342

    [...] with stories and movies containing Protagonists that DO undergo a transformational character arc, this works even better. For lack of a better phrase — a kind of internal structure for your [...]

  34. Andrew Haute on Saturday: 26 July 2008|1134

    Hey, what’s wrong with your page formatting? Lots of strange chars appearing. Must be an encoding problem. I tried all I could (Iso latin 1, unicode, firefox, the works), but I couldn’t satisfactorily display the page. Could you please fix this? Thanks!

Leave a Reply