"Character Development" Discussion

[slade]

The pupose of this thread is to discuss what is meant by "Character Development." The idea for this topic stems from this discussion.

Here are some questions to get people started (feel free to add):

• What is meant by "character development"?
• What are various ways a character is developed?
• How is character development different in film versus other mediums (i.e. theater, novels)?
• How does repeat viewings of the same movie affect one's perception of charcter development?
• What movies are good examples of character development? why?
• What movies are examples of poor character development? why?
• How does character development differ by genre?

[Rogue]

I guess I'll start. I would say a character is developed when you can have a conversation talk that character as if he/she were a real person.

For example, I could say :
"Michael tried very hard to lead a 'normal' life and distance himself from the Family (in both the literal and symbolic sense). He joined the army and attended college as a way to shield himself from his past. He promised his sweetheart that he was different from the others. However, when he saw his father helpless and in mortal danger, he saw it as his duty to do right by his family by comminting acts that he was otherwise morally opposed to. It was as if something was set off inside of him that he previously thought he could control. For the rest of his life, he suffered greatly because of the hole he dug for himself (and his family). He committed terrible acts throughout his life, and although he somehow rationalized them enough so that they could be committed in the first place, he never truly convinced himself that they were right. Therefore, despite the enormous wealth and power he achieved, he never attained happiness. In fact, he lost what was most dear to him.
It was a shame for he was a natural leader, charming, and fiercely intelligent. Imagine what he could have accomplished if he directed his efforts towards something noble. What a waste."

I am of course speaking of Micheal Corleone from the Godfather trilogy. But notice how I just typed that from the top of my head without having to think too much about it. It was as if I knew this guy. Not only that, but most of you knew who I was referring to before I told you. That's how you know a character is three dimensional.
That is my meager attempt at a definition. I'm sure there is a 'textbook' version but I don't know it. For fun, try what I did with any character from a Steven Seagal or Jean Claude Van Damm flick (if you can remember any of the names) and see how far you get.

The depth needed for your characters can of course vary by genre. An action/adventure film doesn't need the same level as a drama. However, there is little excuse for complete shallowness. Even in an "blockbuster" type film, you have to know enough about someone to care about what happens on screen. But having said that, it is unfair to say that "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is a bad film because Indy isn't as well developed as Michael Corleone.

I think a lot of movies are unjustly accused of having two dimensional characters because the viewer simply isn't looking in the right place.
In novels and in theater, characters are brought alive differently. A novel has the advantage of simply telling you what is going on in someone's head and where they're coming from. In the theatre you can have monologues to achieve this. Films rarely have this luxury.
I think sometimes people are to quick to say 'film X has no character development', simply because they weren't told what they felt they needed to know. But since this is primarily a visual medium, one cannot limit their understanding of a film like that. Rather, ask yourself, "what was I shown?" Meaning that in movies, a facial expression or action can deepen our understanding of a character as much as a novel's long winded paragraph. You just have to work a bit and look for it.
Dialogue is only one (and often the laziest) way to do it. In fact, a script that spends far too much time telling us what someone feels or why they do what they do is often a weak one.

[Porkchop]

If anyone has read Robert McKee, you'll know in a minute that I've been heavily influenced by him. I think he's the foremost expert on this subject.

When most people talk about "character development", they're often referring to things like knowing what the character does for a living, where he lives, what he eats for breakfast, etc. etc. This is not character; it is characterization. Two people can both work the same job, live in the same neighbourhood, and eat the same cereal, and yet still be completely different characters.

A character is defined not by where he's from or what his job is, but by how he acts under pressure. If those same two people above both witness a drowning man, one might leap in to save him while the other might panic or run for the police. That is when their true character comes out.

Michael Corleone, used as an example by Rogue above, is a perfect illustration of this. In the beginning he's saying he wants to be different from his family; but when his father is attacked and the pressure is on for him to take over, the real depths of his character come out.

Rogue is also right about dialogue being the worst method of character development. A character who knows himself completely and can flatly state his personality problems out loud is no kind of character at all. If, however, he says it out loud and then proves through action that he's completely wrong and his personality actually goes in another direction entirely, then that can be a rich character.

[C Roberts]

I think probably the best example for this for me would be Pulp Fiction. The movie is pretty much all dialog with little (if any exposition). None of the characters are really introduced like "This is Mr. Wallace. He loans people money." kind of thing. The viewer is left to determine who the characters are based on what they see them doing and how they talk to each other. You see Jules being the hitman at the start and know that he is a bad motherf**ker right away. But then he starts talking about his spiritual side and going on walkabout and his character becomes more three-dimensional. He's not just a bada** hitman running errands for his boss, but a character in his own right.

Another example from that movie would be of a lesser used character, Eric Stoltz's character Lance the drug dealer. Now obviously the setting for his character (the apartment, the wife, the stoned girl visiting) contributes to the development more than anything he says or does. So the character is defined more by his environment than his actions. But he still comes off as there being more to him than just a dealer because you see his life in the background. But since they didn't have a lot of screen time to develop him with that method seems like it was best. Many other movies I think wouldn't go through the trouble of making a minor character like that have a life outside his part in the movie.

[santeethrash]

wow those are very good explanations of character development cant do much to improve open them.

id like to add on the flip side that sometimes you can go over the top on character development such is the case in one hour photo by Mark Romanek. I loved the premise of the movie the direction was good and i think that the acting was ok. but they focused on the development of robin Williams role too much and the supporting characters were kinda left in the shadow. it built up to this climax and the end was a stupid breakthrough of the character but we knew his unstable nature already so we suspected it and there for wasn’t much of a break through. the movie disappointed me.

on the other hand Mark Romanek did an awesome job on donnie darko he focused on donnie throughout the movie but you also had an idea what the rest of the characters situations were. i just don’t think that drew Barrymore belonged in that movie though but that’s neither here nor there. I just hope that he didnt waste all his good ideas on donnie darko and cant wait for another Mark Romanek film in hopes it will prove he didn’t.

[Marq]

Originally Posted by santeethrash

on the other hand Mark Romanek did an awesome job on donnie darko he focused on donnie throughout the movie but you also had an idea what the rest of the characters situations were. i just don’t think that drew Barrymore belonged in that movie though but that’s neither here nor there. I just hope that he didnt waste all his good ideas on donnie darko and cant wait for another Mark Romanek film in hopes it will prove he didn’t.

Mark Romanek had no involvement in Donnie Darko.

The definitions of character development as a concept have been pretty good so far. What I'm interested in is exactly how much it is actually needed. Certain films require it (like, say, Malcolm X) or use it perfectly (like Pulp Fiction or Taxi Driver or The Godfather), while others exists brilliantly without it, or a minimal amount of it. Oftentimes, the filmmaker will even go out of his/her way to NOT provide prior context to the character, allowing the audience to accept them for who they are and how they're behaving. A movie like Lost in Translation barely mentions anything about Bob and Charlotte's "origins" but manages beautifully to have them develop as the film progresses. Even without knowing anything about their past, we rationalize their present and future.

Even more extreme, is the complete ignoring of character development. Last year Gus Van Sant released two films, Gerry and Elephant. Both never had the camera leave the primary characters, but the story never bothers to present any background for them. In Gerry, we don't even know the only two characters real names, but we find ourselves immersed in how they handle themselves and are fascinated by what's in store for them. While Pulp Fiction brilliantly used non-expository dialogue to have us relate to the characters and develop them, in Gerry they barely even speak, and yet despite this lack of development, the film works both as an experiment and as an argument against needing any character development (though it's certainly an exception to the rule).

Similarly, in Elephant Van Sant presents his characters without any motivation or direction, but instead choses to present them strictly as a documentary might (without the interviews or voice-overs). The audience is just a casual viewer to how the characters are behaving. Considering the film deals with such tragic and powerful violence, the viewer feels all the more uneasy when watching the violence occur since there have been no easy answers or context or development provided to explain why the characters are behaving as such.
Such instances go to show that while character development is usually an essential element to quality cinema, experimenting with how it is done, or even minimizing its role, can result in truly original film experiences.