Character Change

Another, unwritten “rule” of screenwriting and character development is that a character should change during the course of their story. They should learn something on their journey that makes them a different and/or better person. Starting in the status quo of their current lives, something happens that throws them into their new world and makes them reappraise the situation they were in and the beliefs they held.

Taking one of my favourite examples, It’s  Wonderful Life, we see George Bailey go through a lot of trials, hankering to get away from Bedford Falls, a place that he has seen as a weight around his neck since childhood. Everything conspires against him in the story, to the point that he reaches a very low point; penniless, hating himself and, sadly, even resenting his own family. Through a mysterious stranger George is given the opportunity to reflect on his life and literally see what the world would have been like without him. He learns a lot about himself, his family and friends, finally realising that he is, in fact, the richest man in Bedford Falls despite thinking he has nothing. His WANT – to leave Bedford Falls and make his fortune is replaced with the realisation of his NEED – to stay in Bedford Falls where he already has everything he will ever need. Although George is an all round good guy, he does undergo some change during the film as he makes this realisation.

But, do characters have to change?

Of course not!

It wouldn’t be a screenwriting “rule” if we didn’t encourage each other to break it. Many would argue, for example, that Ripley doesn’t change at all during Alien – she’s a kick-ass character all the way through. In fact,  some characters are more about the change and effect they have on the people around them in the story. Check out Forrest Gump for an example of that.

The reason for posting this is because I recently caught up with Nightcrawler. I enjoyed the film, but I wasn’t “blown away” as I was led to believe I would be. Jake Gyllenhaal does a great job with Louis Bloom, a man of questionable morals who lies, fights and kills to get to the top. Ultimately, I just didn’t really like the character and, at the end of the film felt that he hadn’t learned anything on his journey – he was just as amoral at the end of the film as he was at the start. He may actually have been worse.

However, the film, like Bloom, has a way of getting under your skin in the days after watching it – which was probably the point. The more I thought about it, the more I thought this is more like Forrest Gump than It’s a Wonderful Life. It is more about the effect Bloom has on those around him; most notably TV Exec, Nina and Rick, his ill-fated assistant. Their desire to “get on” are probably matched by Louis’ but their characters are corrupted (further?) by getting involved with Louis and his slightly twisted view on the world. Nina’s slightly dodgy ethics worsen in her desire to get bigger and better videos for her station and Rick’s desire to help and be successful are his downfall when partnered with Louis’ desire to get the “shot” regardless of the cost.

That’s when I started to realise that Nighcrawler wasn’t really Louis’ story – it is Nina’s and Rick’s – as an exploration of the effects of corruption. Louis is like a physical force blowing through the film; an amoral tornado tainting everything it touches.

Like the feeling when you have been up all night, Nightcrawler  seeps in unexpectedly, taking you by surprise (much like Louis’ introduction in the film) and, like the announcements on his police scanner, takes you by surprise, just when you think you have figured it out.

Any film that makes me think for more than a few hours after the event is more than worth a look, and I am sure it would stand up to repeated viewing. It certainly grew on me. Definitely recommended as an exploration of character and the perfect example of a protagonist who doesn’t change.

Just because a character doesn’t change, doesn’t mean they can’t be interesting.

Do you think all characters should change?

Thanks for reading and feel free to comment below!

Advertisements

Posted on June 15, 2015, in Character, Films, Uncategorized, Writing, Writing Rules and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.

  1. Nah, not necessarily. Sometimes, a character needs to stay the way they were in order for the story to work, and sometimes, that’s absolutely fine. Though yeah, usually my characters do change quite a bit. ^_^

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Definitely – it’s another one of those “rules” we learn early on and then struggle to realise that not all characters DO need to change to have an effect on the story or for a story to work or be interesting!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Fiona Faith Ross

Author Blog

Dead Letters

El blog de la serie de TV para teatro

atwhatpriceliberty

learning the freedom to do anything...in VFX & animation

Sabina Giado

Muslim. Mom. Filmmaker. Hopeless romantic.

The Novice Screenwriter

A friendly blog and resource for writers, screenwriters and wannabes young and old

Mumblings & Musings of a Rookie Screenwriter

...you might want to avert your eyes.

Barataria - The work of Erik Hare

I don't break news, I fix it.

Elan Mudrow

The Ridges of Intertextuallity

1001 Scribbles

Random and Abstract Lines

theuniverseity.wordpress.com/

educational astronomy articles and videos

Storyshucker

A blog full of humorous and poignant observations.

Above the clouds

My adventures with amateur astronomy

Grady P Brown - Author

Superheroes - Autism - Fantasy - Science Fiction

Pancakes

are like screenplays. The first one is usually a mess.

%d bloggers like this: