Kill the hero - SPOILERS!

[pansy]

Is it ever ok to kill the hero? Or, the hero dies due to his or her own mistakes at the end of the story.

I know it's done, but rarely.

A


www.alexwhitmer.wordpress.com (http://www.alexwhitmer.wordpress.com)

[zeprosnepsid]

Sure. Look at Shakespeare.

(spoilers...)
Exorcist, Easy Rider, Network (although it's arguable whether or not he's the hero), Crouching Tiger sort of. Also a lot of sword and sandal - Gladiator, 300, Spartacus, etc....


--
The problem with killing the hero is that the audience can sometimes feel robbed of a fulfilling ending. But as long as the hero has fulfilled his journey, and 'won' in some way (or satisfied his quest in some way), and/or that the death is the best/only way to achieve the end of the journey then I think it's fine. But you just have to work hard to make sure that people leave satisfied.

[pansy]

Indeed he has completed his journey, and did it well.

It is his own inexperience that gets him killed in the end. All the while his protogé gains momentum, and in the end fills the shoes.

Robbed, but given a good consolation prize.

[icerose]

I echo Zep's sentiments. You have to tread very very carefully. If you are going for shock value. Don't.

One really good example from an off-the-wall movie is in Sin City. The cop played by Bruce Willis. He dies at the end of his little section, the girl is safe, the bad guy is dead, or at least wounded enough to where he won't hurt anyone. He sacrificed himself for her, twice.

There are other examples, I'll try to think of them, but it has to be meaningful. It has to be important. And it's really easy to tick off your audience if you don't pull it off just right.

Example, Alien 3. A lot of people were ticked off that she died. I liked the story, I loved her character, and I felt it was a very satisfying ending. However, most people did not. Probably because she had already lost so much. She had lost everyone she had ever cared about.

If you are catering to a Euro or UK audience. They look on those kinds of things much kindlier than we do.

Saving Private Ryan is another example. The main guy dies saving Private Ryan. In fact most of them die. But it's riveting and emotional, and the satisfying part of it all is that he was saved, and that the sacrifice was worth it.

So really, just handle it with great care. Make sure it's absolutely neccessary.

[Boo_Radley]

Ditto.

If the hero's death is absolutely necessary and serves the story, yes. If it's for shock value alone, scrap it.

Night of the Living Dead...

...SPOILER.....

...is a great example of a film in which the hero's death serves the story and its themes, but is also shocking. A very difficult trick to pull off.

[Sunshine13]

Speaking from personal opinion, and really just agreeing with everyone else, if it is done right, sure. But I absolutely end up hating the movies in which the hero is killed and I feel left without answers. Like "What the hell?!" And I let everyone know afterwards what a let down the ending was. So as long as, like everyone else has already said (sorry to be an echo), it is done right, and he or she has fulfilled he or she's destiny, than go after it. :)

[Plot Device]

A lot of heroes are Christ figures and therefore need to die a sacrificial death. Often times, a writer will try and appease the audience (and also try to appease the Christological aspects of the story) by having TWO heroes instead of just one. So that way, one hero dies and the other survives (and usually gets the girl).

Sometimes, the hero dies the sacrificial death and somehow comes back to life again (like Christ rose from the dead) and then he/she not only satisfies their messianic role but STILL gets the girl (or guy!)

::ETA::

I initially dropped the "t" in the word "Christological." It's fixed now.

[scripter1]

planning and thinking really comes into play.

You have to truly understand your story and the character.

I loved the ending of Gladiator because he found what he was after. He had saved Rome and was returning to his family. His death brought us back to that wonderful opening image and so the story really did come full circle.

An ending I did NOT like and FELT like a death to me was Castaway.
Here we were just left in the middle of the road. I understand that it was all about him still being a lonely castaway but it was very unfullfilling.
I felt the film should have ended with some hope.

And by all means if you are going to kill your hero make it a GREAT death.

[jonpiper]

Did the hero in Titanic fulfil his journey before he died? I don't think so, not completely, yet he died, and somehow the ending worked.

[888seed888]

Another good example of this is "The Departed." Although it was probably more for shock value then anything else, I liked it.

[NikeeGoddess]

Braveheart trumps Gladiator
and on a different level... Million Dollar Baby made grown men cry

[My-Immortal]

Did the hero in Titanic fulfil his journey before he died? I don't think so, not completely, yet he died, and somehow the ending worked.

Yes he did...he was the catalyst that changed Rose and allowed her to become the woman she wanted to become (rather than a prisoner within her own life). He freed her - his 'journey' was complete.

But we don't need to argue about it. ;)

Take care all-

[zeprosnepsid]

Not to be overly contrary, but I'd say Rose is the MC of Titanic, not Jack so it's not entirely killing the 'hero' if by 'hero' you mean the actual main character. Their love and their relationship is something that can only exist and does only exist in the world of the ship and can't live outside it. So it needs to end somehow when the ship is gone.

And I thought Castaway did end with hope. He found the lady with the angel box. I always assumed something would come of him and the lady with the angel box. But maybe I was just reading something into it that wasn't there.

But those are simply my opinions!

I think the point everyone is making, despite their personal views on certain films, is that everyone wants to leave satisfied feeling like the journey is complete and has come full circle.

It's too bad this isn't a full script review site because I'd be interested to read yours. Let me know if you put it up on Triggerstreet or Zoetrope eh?

[scripter1]

is actually a very interesting film to study because Rose is the main character while Jack IS THE HERO.

And they also killed off Rose there at the end, though she died of old age.

What we want for the main character is to have peace.
Sometimes that can only be achieved through dying.
So I guess as long as the death will bring peace to the hero we will accept it. If there is still tragedy and sorrow in the death then we won't accept it.

[jonpiper]

is actually a very interesting film to study because Rose is the main character while Jack IS THE HERO.

And they also killed off Rose there at the end, though she died of old age.

What we want for the main character is to have peace.
Sometimes that can only be achieved through dying.
So I guess as long as the death will bring peace to the hero we will accept it. If there is still tragedy and sorrow in the death then we won't accept it.

Romeo and Juliet?

[scripter1]

that is a great tragedy because they never got to be together.
Death didn't join them and niether one had died AT PEACE.

Romeo thought Juliet was dead and so he killed himself.
And then Juliet knowing that Romeo WAS dead, killed herself.
Great, great tragedy.

[jonpiper]

So, it seems that it's ok to kill your hero in a great tradgedy, for the hero's unhappy death at the end punctuates the ending and serves the story.

Pansey, also read Boo Radley's post.

[zeprosnepsid]

is actually a very interesting film to study because Rose is the main character while Jack IS THE HERO.

I believe I understand why you are saying this, but I'm not sure I agree with it. Saying Jack is the hero infers that Rose is the damsel in distress which completely undermines her journey and her arc. Jack has no character arc, he's the same at the end as he is at the beginning. Since he has no inner journey, he can't really be the Hero (since he has no hero's journey, no inner dragons to slay). He is simply the catalyst of Rose's journey. Jack is heroic, but he is not the hero. He does teach her how to be the hero though and in that way almost serves more of a mentor capacity.

At least that's my thinking, why do you think Jack is the hero?

[scripter1]

Rose is most definitely a damsel in distress.
Such distress in fact that she tried to throw herself off the back of a very large moving ship.
Being the damsel in distress in no way undermines her journey.
It is in FACT her journey and what Jack hoped to acomplish. She goes from being a weak, controlled ..... damsel in distress, to a very strong woman who lives a grand life of her own making.

Jack is the hero in the very sterotypical sense that people think of as HERO. He is handsome, strong, basically unflawed, and selfless. He doesn't need a personal journey, he exists only to save others.
Which he does over and over again in Titanic.

See, hero and protagonist are USUALLY the same character, and hence have a "hero's journey." ( as in StarWars, Indy, Die Hard, Pirates)
BUT in the case of Titanic Rose is the protag, she goes on the journey, BUT she is not a hero arch type.

I would accept the idea that with Jack's death Rose takes on the mantel of hero. As is evident in the many pictures of her life she would indeed seem like a hero to her family and friends.

I would consider Molly Brown as the mentor. She helps Jack who in turn uses that help to save Rose.

The wonderful thing about the arch types of the Hero's Journey is that they aren't exactly stuck in stone. They can shift slightly from one character to another.

Piper, I don't know much about tradgedy, but yeah, I would say in a great tragedy it is okay to kill the hero. :tongue

We've kinda come back to the main agreement. Killing the hero has to be a natural ending to the story.

[clockwork]

I think Rose and Jack were both heroes but their hoerism manifested itself differently. Jack is very much the dashing, never-say-die adventurer whose heroics are largely physical. Rose is the 'internalised' hero - whose battles are with her own demons and the people around her and although she appears the damsel in distress, even Jack tells her "You wouldn't have jumped."

I would have preferred a little more fracture inside Jack and a little more courage inside of Rose.

And this is probably the most anyone has ever analysed Titanic. :)

ETA - my gut tells me Rose is both the hero and protaganist. Jack, to me, is more of a catalyst to spur the hero on. Perhaps that has more to do with Cameron's 'Jack Lite' screenwriting.

[pansy]

Far more films than I realized! All great examples with informative info.


I am writing my first 'Hero's death' screenplay, so I need to really tread carefully. It has a purpose, but I now realize it better be a satisfying exprerience for the audience.


Wasn't there a Mel Gibson movie where he dies after being freed from a time capsule??

Dying Young?


I once worked with a Producer putting together a treatment where the hero died. The relationship ended abruptly, with him screaming 'never, never, never kill your hero'. But I want to, I replied. Hm, wonder why he don't call.

p

www.alexwhitmer.wordpress.com (http://www.alexwhitmer.wordpress.com)

[scripter1]

Forever Young.

He is in a cryogenic sleep and then is accidentlly released.
Old age catches up to him as he races to find his true love.

Well, I think we are kinda talking about the difference between want and need.

It has to be far more then just wanting to do something unusual.

[jonpiper]

Piper, I don't know much about tradgedy, but yeah, I would say in a great tragedy it is okay to kill the hero. :tongue

We've kinda come back to the main agreement. Killing the hero has to be a natural ending to the story.

Neither do I know much about it.:) So I googled it and found the following site. http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/DRAMA.HTM

The Aristotelian tradition, defined tragedy as a drama which concerns better than average people (heroes, kings, gods) who suffer a transition from good fortune to bad fortune, and who speak in an elevated language. Tragedy, in the Aristotelean tradition, serves the purpose of purging the soul of the "fear and pity" which most of us carry around (Aristotle called this catharsis ).

Tragedy isn't necessarily "tragic" (many tragedies have happy endings), so any neat definition doesn't really work.

However in many of Shakespeare's plays, the hero or protag is killed in the end.

[scripter1]

Jonpiper!

I try to poke fun at you for a typo and you come up with an excellent educational blurb.

[jonpiper]

;):)

[bluejester12]

And this is probably the most anyone has ever analysed Titanic. :)



Yeah, and they're good posts too.