|
| |
Compellingly Satisfied
By Joe Catoe
I recently received an e-mail from a reader who had just completed his first screenplay and was somewhat perplexed about the use of
flashbacks in his story. Having read a previous column of mine abhorring the use of flashbacks, he asked if there was another way of
revealing more of a character's backstory and motivation.
My answer, yes there is. Simply don't reveal a character's backstory or motivation.
"What's that?" you say? Don't flesh out a character? Don't reveal their
motivation? That's exactly what I said, and I'm sure every cookie cutter screenwriting
"guru" like Robert McKee or Syd Field will tell you differently. That's okay though, because most
screenwriting "gurus" are complete idiots, too concerned with selling books and selling out overpriced seminars to provide any
real insight.
Sure, there are plenty of ways to reveal more about a character's history and therefore
his reason to act as he does. You can use a flashback or dialogue exposition or my favorite cliché, a character
looking at a nicely framed picture of his loved one. All of these methods will work nicely, and allow the screenplay reading drone to
check off a box entitled likeable characters, which will surely leave the reader and the film's eventual audience satisfied. But why would
you want to leave anybody satisfied?
Well, I guess you could argue a film with a satisfied audience leads to a bigger box office return, and I might even agree with you. I would
submit, however, that it is far better to leave an audience compelled than satisfied. If you tell everything there is to know about your
characters, the audience will never be compelled. How can they be? They can never wonder or guess or imagine why a character does
what he does. They are told why, and therefore there is no room left for any questions. And if there are no questions to ask or nothing left to
discuss, a movie is certainly not compelling. It may be satisfying in a second grade sense, but it's not compelling. For that reason, I
would argue that just about any device to reveal more about a character's past will produce a far worse screenplay.
What's wrong with simply leaving the character's background up to the viewer's imagination? Why does the audience have to be aware of the
character's motivation? Why can't a character just be what he is without explanation? Sure there is a reason why the character is the
way that he is, but why does the audience have to be told? Less is always more, and many times leaving out information serves to drive the
story forward and make it more interesting as well.
Why treat the audience is as lifeless lumps that must have everything explained to them like
children? Why is there some overriding need to dumb a story down to make it more satisfying to the
audience? Make it more compelling instead. Leave the story open for discussion and
debate. Let the audience think.
Case in point. I recently saw Red Dragon, the Hannibal Lecter inspired prequel to The Silence of the Lambs. Now Red Dragon is an okay movie,
at least in the cookie cutter sense. It was an entertaining thriller with the requisite never-ending ending that seems so fashionable in
Hollywood today. I left satisfied and didn't feel like I had completely wasted my eight dollars. But let's face it, Red Dragon was
nothing like The Silence of the Lambs, and I don't think there is a single person in the world that would argue that Red Dragon was the
superior film.
Why? Both films had essentially the same plot. A perverted serial killer is on the loose and a rattled FBI agent uses the psychotic
Hannibal Lecter to help crack the case. Both films also had more or less the same characters, a lot of the same locations, and acting that
was acceptable if not similar. So why was The Silence of the Lambs so much better?
Simple. Because the Hannibal Lecter character in the original was so much more compelling. It wasn't Anthony Hopkins' performance that was
different, it's how his character was presented. In The Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal was a mystery. He was creepy, eerie, and downright
frightening. He was a highly gifted psychiatrist, almost superhuman, who had a history of killing people and then eating their remains.
That's all we knew of Lecter's past, and the only other information we were given was how he acted in the present.
The character of Hannibal Lecter made you want to watch. He drove the story. Every instant he was on the screen was
pure electricity. His character was truly captivating and caused plenty of discussion once
the movie was over, all because we weren't told an awful lot about him. The audience was left to wonder and come to their own
conclusions. He was compelling because the character left so much to our imaginations. That is what made the character of Hannibal Lecter
and The Silence of the Lambs truly great.
Flash forward ten years and we have Red Dragon. The first thing that happens in Red Dragon? A flashback to Hannibal Lecter's original
arrest and capture. The flashback makes Hannibal look ordinary, and instantly Hannibal goes from a crazed but controlled, incredibly
perceptive superhuman to an ordinary serial killer who just happens to have a college degree and like opera.
Suddenly there is nothing left to wonder. Nothing left to discuss. We are told all there is to know about Hannibal. He's no longer
compelling and his moments on screen are no longer electric but banal exercises in exposition. All because we are told about his past. Sure,
the audience's natural curiosity about Hannibal is satisfied, but at what price? Did having information about Hannibal's past really drive
the story forward? Did it improve it in any way? No, it simply watered down a truly great character to satisfy the audience in an
effort to make as much money as possible.
The moral of the story? Well, if I told you I'd be giving too much away, now wouldn't I? Isn't it much better to think for yourself and
figure it out on your own? I thought so.
Joe Catoe, originally from Cincinnati, graduated from Ohio State
University in 1998 with a degree in business administration. Since then
Joe has authored over half a dozen screenplays as well and written and directed
two short films not available for public consumption.
Currently, when not writing film criticism and commentary, Joe works as a
financial analyst for a national accounting firm. His articles have appeared in
the University of Cincinnati News Record and numerous other underground
publications and websites.
Consumed with obtaining funding to direct his very own Quentin Tarantino
knock-off, Joe spends his down time bothering the affluent population of the
Cincinnati metropolitan area. His long term plans include falling out of love
with Nicole Kidman and sniffing Sharon Stone.
| |
Sponsored links
Ring binders
Make a Real Living as a Freelance Writer!
How to find a
book publisher
|
