Who Cares if you were Teased as a Child? Dimensions of Character

By: Danielle | in: Movies |

Has anyone but me noticed a more relaxed approach in films of late when it comes to character?

So ‘Ted’ grew up to be a serial killer – (in the land of make believe that is) - how vital is it for us, the audience, to know if Tommy, the school bully, stole Ted’s lunch money every day until he developed facial hair, in order to attempt to give some semblance of explanation as to why he developed into a notorious murderer? How much does this kind of detail really matter towards making a believable, well-rounded main character that makes the story all that it is? Or are we okay with settling for the fact - just going along for the ride – getting lost in the ease of a story being laid out for us? To watch, not think.

Story and character pretty much go hand in hand. You can’t have The Godfather without Don Corleone, Forrest Gump without Forrest, Indiana Jones without Indiana, The Shawshank Redemption without Andy Dufrane…and so on. Wouldn’t you agree?
Think about why these characters are so memorable. On some level you can relate, identify, or really feel like you know each one of these characters - almost like you know your best friend, or a family member. Even the Hannibal Lecter’s out there – they’re utterly evil yet something compels you to them. Not all of them are Academy Award winning roles - that’s not the point. The point is when you have a film that is balanced just so the story and character become one, inseparable, so seamless that you don’t have to wonder, or question, or shake your head. The character is so carefully crafted, and developed that you’re not wondering, or left wanting – needing - to know more.

$fracture.jpg$

I recently saw a few movies that left me wondering, wanting to know more as far as characters go – Fracture with Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gosling, and Notes on a Scandal with Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett. Both pretty good movies that, in my opinion, could’ve been pretty great if a little more time was spent on the characters. In Fracture, Ryan Gosling is a real go-getter, needs to be the best but his perseverance doesn’t seem too justified because we don’t know why. Likewise, in Notes on a Scandal we see Judi Dench play a magnificent portrayal of a seriously, emotionally repressed woman but all the angst, and action are never really explained. Hints of it seem to suffice but personally I left a little unsatisfied. Since Notes on a Scandal was an adaptation some of those details may have been lost in the screen version. But I can’t rely on Anthony Hopkins masterful portrayal of a psychopath in Silence of the Lambs to carry him through his evilness in Fracture. He definitely pulls off being creepy, and certainly a little cuckoo, and you’re almost rooting for him but his back story wasn’t really given the time it could’ve been.

So just how many times have you seen a kick ass trailer and then after you’ve spent your week’s wages on popcorn, soda, and candy, the movie turns out to be a major disappointment? All the good parts were in the trailer – nothing left to be revealed. There is supposed to be more, right? I realize the state of the movie industry is seriously compromised and Hollywood is what it is – concerned with financial profits. The bottom line seems to always be the top concern. Does saving money mean you have to compromise story and character?
Granted, you can’t exactly have Spiderman without Spiderman, Shrek without Shrek, or Austin Powers without Austin either. I suppose it comes down to preference. Yes, Hollywood will continue to make 50 more Spiderman sequels if we, the viewing public keep giving them reason to – money, money, money. But for every one of those sequels that equates to one less Sideways, Little Miss Sunshine, or insert the name of any one of your favorite indie flicks.
If bigger explosions, effects, surprise endings, and re-makes are a sign of the times, then what do you think is coming? Are we going to rely on cable television to develop good stories, and characters over a season? Makes me wonder. Or straight-to-Internet movies that are the indies of the future? Hmm…What do you think?

[Subscribe to this feed]

Posted on July 4, 2007

Comments

7 Responses to “Who Cares if you were Teased as a Child? Dimensions of Character”

Alibastard on July 4th, 2007 8:38 am

Danielle. Great post. Light and insightful. I’m not sure what the answer is myself. Probably some combo situation. Film seems to necessitate character AND story, which is what you’re suggesting. And I guess they have a kind of simbiotic kind of rapport, don’t they? “People are what they continually do”. We seem to be at this crossroads with film - a kind of limbo land. “Indie” has been pretty exclusively co-opted by major film companies, making all the edge and quirk now milktoast and obligitory. So its between milktoast indie and BIG BIG movies, too BIG to make some ballsy choices. Things will blow up soon. We’ve been living in grey too long.

Rustycat on July 4th, 2007 9:17 am

Welcome aboard Danielle!
Always great to read interesting thoughts.
Looking forward to reading more from you..

Charbarred on July 4th, 2007 9:23 am

I know it’s summer blockbuster season, but this year I couldn’t find one original film in my local cinema. It’s either cartoons, cartoon adaptations, comic book stuff or sequels. I was honestly looking for an upcoming film that isn’t one of the above, but as far as the UK is concerned, nothing till September. I don’t mind the blockbusters, but I’d love to have some choice.

Kendall on July 4th, 2007 11:10 am

Danielle! Putting that film education to good use! WOOT WOOT! I do admit I like smart indie films, BUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTT, I can’t wait to see Transformers.

Charbarred on July 4th, 2007 11:38 am

I never liked the Transformers as a kid, but the trailer for the film looks amazing.

DThompson on July 4th, 2007 1:36 pm

Thought provoking review there Danielle. I suppose I find myself enjoying mindless entertainment with poorly drawn characters and lots of bang bang as much as I do more well drawn films. Cinema is also movies and occasionally just a flick. I’ve noticed that computers are confusing to older folk who are used to machines doing a single function while your desk top is a single machine that performs infinite functions. Cinema is much the same. Everything isn’t going to be Casablanca, the perfect marriage of action and character. Some films are going to be just plain bad. Who was it that said 99% of everything is crap? The movies you’re talking about (I think) are the ones that hurt the most because they were ALMOST good movies, or worse, almost great movies. But every year a handful of greatness is released. This year I’ve already seen at least two truly great movies. An excellent review!

Ipodwheels @ Auto Parts for Brains on July 8th, 2007 10:07 pm

Little Miss Sunshine. Just thinking about it gives the little boy in me the giggles. Lol. I agree that effective characters make good movies great. The good ones are those that manage to make their characters, fictitious as they are, real to the audience. Think about Blairwitch project. Having known that that was all fiction, I still cannot help but think that the characters portrayed were real. One, though, must learn to discriminate between character movies like Forest Gump, Elizabeth, or Ronin versus special effects blow-up movies.

Me, I enjoy both.