My blog has moved!

You will be automatically redirected to the new address. If that does not occur, visit
http://www.justeffing.com
and update your bookmarks.

Monday, May 7, 2007

Character Flaws

Writers know that the main character of the script needs to have a flaw. Something flawed within the main character that will change over the course of the script. Without this inner flaw, the character is two dimensional and the adventure of the script will have no impact on them other than surviving it, getting the girl or winning the race. And that’s just not very interesting.

Characters have an outer “want” and an inner “need”. And these two are in conflict. In order to get the want, the character must fulfill that inner need. They need to change if they want to achieve their goal. And most characters are not aware of that inner need in a conscious way. But it must be addressed. So that in the end of the script, the character must give something up in order to learn and grow and then and only then can they achieve that outer want. The thing that holds them back is their flaw – the inner need interpreted and acted out as a negative.

Flaws are sometimes tricky to talk about for writers. I find a helpful way to look at a flaw is that it is a deep fear or psychic injury which has symptoms that effect the character’s day to day choices and decisions. So that at the top of the script, the character’s life is in some way incomplete or unfulfilled because this flaw holds them back.

Since symptom can be a medical word, I’ll use a medical condition to illustrate. If you have a cold – that is the illness, right? But the symptoms of a cold are a runny nose and cough. The cold is a virus and the virus produces symptoms. We treat the symptoms with medicine and tissue and hot baths simply to alleviate the discomfort.

So following that analogy, say that your flaw is that you are untrusting and insecure. Often people compensate for their insecurities. The symptoms of insecurity might be that you have a huge ego, you can never be wrong, you are a grandstander and you don’t get close to people. Most people have some basic, fundamental (perceived) weakness inside of them: I’m not smart enough, I’m not pretty, I’m not desirable, I don’t fit in, I’m not man enough, I am hurt by people, I can’t trust people – and we mask it with: smoking, drinking, bragging, hurting other people, being sarcastic, being reclusive, being over-generous – anything in order not to feel that we are not enough.

Many women have “good girl syndrome” meaning we have been taught that if we want to be loved, we have to please other people – so our flaw inside is we don’t feel loved and our symptoms are we give give give please please please so we can try to get some of that love.

So more than thinking about what your character’s flaw is, dig deeper and think about how that flaw shows itself; what are its symptoms?

The other thing to remember about a flaw is that it should be active. In fact, at the writing program I went to, they actually called a flaw a “misbehavior” – I know, that sounds weird, but the use of that word connotes that the symptoms are active. Meaning, your flaw gets you into trouble. That’s why when new writers choose a flaw like “shy” or “insecure” or “passive” or “a doormat” you never wind up with a very interesting character because those flaws don’t generate any action or conflict. The symptoms of a doormat are, logically, that things happen to the character and they simply suck it up. Not that interesting. Things can’t just happen to your character – that’s boring. But what if the flaw were a feeling of insecurity and insignificance. One symptom may be doormat behavior, but very quickly in the script, perhaps the character snaps and the doormat becomes enraged. Then you have FALLING DOWN. And that’s interesting. But this shift needs to begin to happen rather quickly in the script because how interesting is a doormat? But watching a doormat snap - that's good stuff.

On the surface, the main character of THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND, James McAvoy, would appear to be passive. But he's not. He is seduced by the power of Idi Amin; he enjoys the power, position and glamour of being Amin’s right hand man until he abuses it by having an affair with one of his wives. His flaw or misbehavior might be characterized as choosing to ignore the reality in favor of reaping the benefits. Until it’s too late and he can no longer ignore what is happening.

The flaw, or misbehavior should be inverse to the adventure of the script. What better journey could McAvoy be plunked into than consorting with a person who is powerful but very dangerous; the price tag for McAvoy’s flaw will be exceedingly high. So high that whether he will survive the realization that Amin is insane and dangerous hangs in the balance. And we know that this character will be forever changed by this experience and will never again ignore the obvious in favor of the benefits.

When you think about flaws, think about the Big Idea of your whole script. What is the worst flaw your character could have in that situation? Create a relationship between the flaw and the adventure. If you’ve come up with a passive flaw, like “shy”, “doormat” or the ilk, dig deeper, get more specific and ask yourself – so do the symptoms of that flaw actively make the day-to-day for that character filled with self-generated problems?

In other words, your character generates the problems in the situation because of their flaw or misbehavior. They can’t help it. And when they straighten out their flaw – then and only then will things get better for them. That’s called a character arc.

Take LIAR LIAR – Carey’s flaw is that he lies. Hey, no problem, he’s an attorney. But his son makes a birthday wish that comes true and he can’t lie. Well – for a person who’s central flaw is lying to be in an adventure where he cannot use that particular coping mechanism – you see how conflict is going to arise from that?

In WEDDING CRASHERS, the Vince Vaughn character’s flaw is that he’s insincere and keeps people at arm’s length – he’s only in it for the fun. So what is his adventure? He has to spend the entire weekend with this senator’s family. Playing football, having dinner – and then the kooky daughter falls in love with him. See how that gives us instant conflict?

In FRENCH KISS, the Meg Ryan character not only has a fear of flying, she’s also a neat freak and obsessive-compulsive. So then she has to go to France. The food! The French people! The airplane! She can barely function. But she has to if she wants to get her goal – which is to win her husband back. Design the adventure of your script to be the worst possible thing that could happen to your character.

Every character needs a flaw and symptoms of that flaw that mess things up for them. And because you, the writer, get to play god as you create the world of your script, you get to somewhat sadistically plunk your character right smack dab in the middle of an adventure that could not be worse for them – because of their flaw, they are not equipped to be a hero. But be a hero they must. And therein lies a fantastic, highly entertaining arc.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm not normally a commenter on blogs, but I have to respond to your Monday offering by saying this piece is brilliant.

I am relatively new to actual screenwriting even though I've reading about it and making half-assed attempts for years. And what you've written today has clarified the biggest problem I've been having with my characters - especially the main ones.

This the first time I've heard of making an inner struggle or flaw contradict the goal illustrated so clearly. It makes perfect sense, obviously, and I can recall movies where this played a big role, but I have never understood the concept from a constructive viewpoint. You have to bake that stuff into the character for it to work so seamlessly. Brilliant.

Anyway, I loved it and you've inspired me to use wants and needs as a key structure in all of my writing - something I've not given near enough attention too before.

Thank you for the great article. I've already bookmarked it :)

Unknown said...

yea, this was very insightful. One of your best Julie :)

Unknown said...

It's so funny you blogged about this. I had sent an e-mail to a fellow screenwriter about this exact point a couple of months back. I had sort of an epiphany about how character arc typically ties back into story structure. I realized the wants vs. needs concept and how that typically plays out in a story's structure.

What I realized is that in most cases I've seen it breaks down like this:

Act 1 - Establish explicitly or implicitly what the character wants and what the character needs.

Act 2a - The character strives to get what they want.

Midpoint - Something happens that changes how they perceive what they want. Fundamentally, this moment changes what the story is about for the character.

Act 2b - The conflict between what the character wants and what they need becomes pronounced. During the second act, the character will typically lose what they want and they will have a moment in which they reflect and discover what they need.

Act 3 - The character acts based on their discovery of their "need".

I think the typical Hollywood ending is the character gets both what they want and what they need. A more "independent film" ending would be the character gets what they need but not what they want. And a completely dark ending would be the character getting neither. All can be executed well I think.

I know this is long winded but I was so excited to read this post I just had to comment.

Julie Gray said...

You sure are right, Elka, mainstream commercial movies usually do ensure that both the need and the want are met. Real life ain't like that, is it?! I am personally a huge fan of indy and foreign movies; I like the fact that the ending is usually complex and not so pat. But no matter what kind of script you're working on, it's good to have an understanding of the matrix of need, want and conflict so that you can make a conscious decision.

Unknown said...

Julie, This is a fabulous post - concise and timely. Thank you!