Showing posts with label character. Show all posts
Showing posts with label character. Show all posts

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Characters... one word at a time.

I'm excited to tackle our second blog topic because Separation Anxiety, from the beginning, has always been about the characters. In my last post, I wrote on the evolution the story took from short fiction to stage play to film. The characters themselves have evolved, but I also want to touch on where they come from, and how a writer uses words to define a character to an actor and an audience.

The best films, to me, are built on characters that we, the audience, can identify with. We want to be the hero. Save the day. Find true love. But I don't connect with escapism (there's a reason it's called escapism). I know I'm not John McClain. But maybe I see myself in the Lester Burnams of the world. Or the Tyler Durdens (of the Ed Norton variety).

When creating a character, I sometimes pull from my own experiences, memories, beliefs, and borrow pieces of myself to form someone new. Equally, I will draw from observation—the people around me, friends, strangers, and research. And the third part of the equation is imagination. Putting myself into a situation and living it. Experiencing, or at least projecting an experience.

I don't know how all writers write. Wouldn't claim to and I won't say this is some secret formula for how to write a character in ten days. Just my take.

Quinn was the first. And in the beginning, he was me. I wrote him in a cathartic moment and it wasn't until later that I thought he might have more purpose than I first gave him. So he was slowly and carefully designed to be a facet of me, rather than a mirror. And all that is well and good, but still, most of that is just in my notes. The characters in the film were mapped out and their back stories drawn out. The trick, is to convey that through the words, since a movie script doesn't work like a novel. You don't write the intangible. "Don't write what we can't see." It's a popular idiom in film. And very helpful in forcing a writer to think visually and vocally when putting character down on paper.

Quinn, for example, is described as having a spartan room. He dresses older than he is. He drives a nice car. The things around him in the script are used to define him to both the director and the actor. Hints from the writer as to the man Quinn is, or thinks he is. This comes through in his speech pattern as well. Quinn uses longer words when he can. Not because he needs to, but because he likes to hear himself say them. In a script, the way a person uses words defines him.

Bailey, conversely, doesn't use big words unless they're the right words. He's more casual with his language. And more straightforward. He doesn't talk around things. The only time in the script he is not completely himself is when he's trying to talk about Jess to Quinn. She makes it tough for him to say what's on his mind, and when a character is otherwise great at speaking his mind, when he can't, there's reason for that.

Jess uses a mix of phrases in her speech, little saying that she makes up. Her way of playing with words. If there's something she doesn't want to talk about, she'll say it another way. Not passive, but subtle.

Mr. Palmer words skew older than the three youngsters. For him I has to go listening. I'm not his age. I didn't grow up in his life. His words needed to showcase his midwestern, blue-collar life. So as a writer, one of my first responsibilities is to listen, to read, to hear. How people talk. Go sit in a bar for a while and nurse a drink (at a bar that reflects the people you're trying to recreate). You'll be amazed at the gems you'll pick up. I heard one today at a skating party of my youngest cousin. You'll no doubt see it appear in something of mine one day (I'll let you know when that happens).

Lily was another character that required research. She speaks in languid sentences. Lots of words that give her the sense of being someone who counsels people. She asks questions and has a mix of compassion and bluntness that keeps her honest. To that end, she doesn't speak in specifics until forced. Most of her words bring us back to Quinn. She uses phrases to redirect conversation away from her in an attempt to protect herself.

One of the great challenges of any script, is creating a universe of characters that speak independently of each other. Different lilts, tones, cadence, and especially word choice will create a script full of different characters, rather than a group of people that all talk like the screenwriter.

Jess began in another play. She and her mother Ruth have their own story and I realized about three pages into it, that she knew Bailey too. That she was going through the same thing Quinn was. And that'll happen when a writer starts two project at the same time. You realize quickly that you're just writing one project and the second isn't going to make it. So you pull from it what you can and keep going.

But for all the character work a writer does, there's a group of people coming along who will take those characters and give them life. I love working with actors on a script. Listening to an actor read a line can give me a view of that character I hadn't seen. And that gets the juices flowing and then sometimes the character changes. But then I'm a collaborative writer. I know that eventually an actor will put his or her own spin onto a character I conceptualize. It's like potential and kinetic energy. I just need to make sure from my end that I give the actor the most potential possible for putting a brilliant character on the screen.

This past weekend I watched a short piece of theatre where an actress took on a role originally meant for a man. The last-minute gender switch brought such a level of importance to one line later in the show, that I can't see it written any other way. And I encouraged the writer to make the switch permanent. Because of one actress.

With another draft done for "Separation Anxiety", I'm working with Cole and Kiana to fine-tune the characters of Bailey and Jess in the film and each subsequent draft. They have both taken great care to examine the text, the words these people use, the actions they take through these words, and talk with me about them. Their motives. Their tenets. Their throughlines. A strong actor knows how to study a character, and that is invaluable to a writer.

I think all writers should take acting classes. Being on a stage, and not just to be there, but to engage and bring a piece to realization, is amazing and has, through my own experience in theatre work, taught me a bit about how actors approach their characters. How they might interpret someone I create.

Different actors have different speech patterns and different facials and movement, and that all goes into how they build the characters. And sometimes a word might work better for this actor than a different one. So lines are tweaked to play to a strength.

At the same time, every word a character says has to be carefully considered. A hesitation in the wrong place and they look weak when you wanted them to look strong. A vulgarity for no reason in a character that doesn't use them looks sloppy. Hip new phrases rolling off the tongue of an old fashioned guy (not being used for comedy or effect) looks odd. The words they use in dialogue, and the words I use for their description, should shape them, grow them, and more than anything, define them.

So like the actors, I go through the script. A pass for each character. Tracing their steps. And each time through I see something new. Something I missed before or just caught in a different light.

Overall, I look to give each character a distinct voice. A clear motive in what they do—a character says one thing but does another, and that incongruity grates against the audience. And honestly, they just need to speak to me. I identify with each of them, and through that I keep developing them. My goal is to make them real. Because if they're ever displaying anything that makes the actors and audience question that, then I've missed a step in their development.

Great topic... but now I'm going to answer our first question. Look for the posting tonight as well. More next week.

Read more...

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Topic #2: Character

First of all, apologies for the delay. You wouldn't know it yet, but we actually have a schedule that looks something like this:

John: Monday-Tuesday
Cole: Wednesday-Friday
Jeremy: Saturday-Sunday

So, as you can see, I've missed my deadline, and were it not for Cole's incessant pestering, I probably would have missed it further.

I've been delayed blog-wise due to final bits of color correction on the trailer and getting everything in order for our sound designer, Jordan Fehr, to take a quick look at any mixing and design tweaks necessary before next week. Why next week? Because Glass City Films is going to the Trail Dance Film Festival in Oklahoma, and we're hoping to have a solid version of the trailer and an investor packet to give to potential producers and distributors.


But enough with excuses and awesomeness. This week's topic centers entirely on character development, something that always seems to be lacking in most of the scripts I work on in Chicago as a cinematographer. One of my central edicts for good storytelling is that plot should follow character, not the other way around. I cite the difference between LOST and Heroes as prime examples of the former and the latter: whereas LOST's conspiracy theories and mythology are firmly rooted in the characters and the emotions that drive them to do such things, Heroes's characters seemingly change on a dime because the plot dictates that they must. One minute, someone has to be a villain; the next, that same person will be saving the life of a person who should be strong-willed yet has decided for this string of episodes to be a flip-flopper.

Cue frustration and rant. But I digress.

What drove me to Separation Anxiety, and what ignites me about its writing, is its to-the-core focus on character development, almost at the expense of what would be considered a typical three-act "plot". Bailey, Jess, and Quinn - and Lily and Mr. Palmer, as well - are all complex characters with shades of grey about their major characteristics, all of which are motivated by choices and events in their lives. I look forward to reading Jeremy's ramble on how he crafted those characters, but that is not my job on this film. My business is cinematography, and how to illustrate each character with imagery and lighting.

My favorite shots in the trailer - look for it next week - are those that evoke certain emotions and feelings about a character or a scene, regardless of what is prettier or not. For example, in Jess' initial confrontation with Mr. Palmer, as she goes to leave, her face is lit with a strong, cool side light, to separate her in color and feeling from Mr. Palmer, who is bathed in a more orange, gentle light. It's not to cast judgment, however, but rather to illustrate that, at this point in the story, Mr. Palmer has settled on his thoughts, and Jess is struggling to come to terms with all of it. And we see that in the wear and tear of the image.

The beauty of feature film work, as opposed to short films, is that the length of the project leaves room for a great deal more nuance. Rather than committing to a single style or a single visual arc, multiple arcs can co-exist. Robert Elswit (Magnolia, There Will Be Blood) and the late Conrad Hall (American Beauty, In Cold Blood) are terrific examples of cinematographers who use all the tools in their bag to achieve these multiple arcs. So too is Robert Richardson, who uses a minimum of six film stocks on almost every film he shoots (JFK, The Good Shepherd) because each stock has its own life and character.

For Separation Anxiety, a few thoughts we had discussed: Jess and Quinn's journey through grief can be a subtle transition from cool, flat tones and hard fixtures to more shapely soft light and warm color schemes. Mr. Palmer's rigid manner can be reflected in claustrophobic framings with longer lenses, but can give way later to wider shots that leave room to breathe. Lily and Quinn's relationship, over the course of the film, can start with a strong degree of contrast and morph into a less harsh, high-key low-fill lighting scheme. All within a general visual scheme dictated by the timeline of events: flashbacks are saturated, almost like porcelain dolls, and the present is melancholy, with a bleached, worn look to it. Think of the way memory is toyed with visually in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (my favorite film, but that's for another topic).

Another idea brought up was to keep elements of Bailey and Mr. Palmer's faith life present in the frame. As Mr. Palmer's faith is so tested by the possibility of Bailey having committed suicide, we thought it a nice visual reminder as opposed to a wordy explanation of Mr. Palmer's history with God and with church. In the trailer, there's a simple but effective image through the mirror of Mr. Palmer crying on Bailey's bed. A crucifix plays in the foreground, subtly, and the image is incredibly evocative.

So, that's it for my ramble. Don't want to give away ALL the surprises, do we?

Let's hear your thoughts and comments. Based on your general knowledge of the script, what visuals come to mind? What films best play in your head as using multiple visual paths to tell the same story? Do you prefer the more stylized visuals of, say, a Quentin Tarantino film or a Steven Spielberg film, or the subtle drawings of the Robert Elswits and the Anthony Dod Mantles of the world? (The latter, by the way, recently shot Slumdog Millionaire, and I encourage you all to go see it multiple times.) Have at it!

Read more...

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP