ACT 1: CHARACTER MODELS
Since the early days of theatre, opera and film, writers and dramatic advisers are looking for models that explain why some stage plays are more successful than others and why a certain movie has a bigger impact on the audience than another. Behind this search is the wish to find a blueprint for a successful work of art. This is why there are countless new attempts to capture structures and proportions in order to figure out which arcs of development, turning points or conflict constellations are obviously working. The oldest recorded text of this kind is Aristotle’s fragment POETICS. After him, dramatic advisers such as Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Gustav Freytag and Béla Balász have continued to develop Aristotle’s axioms throughout the centuries up until now.
When Syd Field first published his book THE SCREENWRITERS WORKBOOK in 1984, he triggered a boom of non-fiction literature about the structural aspects of screen-writing which is still going on today. In their research, all of these books feature the successful structure of movies and screenplays very thoroughly. But they all share the same weakness by neglecting the importance of the character in favour of structural patterns. There are books which extend to 300 pages and more and contain only one chapter about the characters – mostly in a general way. I think this is an omission if not more than that – an error of thinking. The focus on the questions of structure blocks out something more essential.
It is mostly the characters who advance the plot. They act towards a goal, propelled by who they are, because their inner being can only act in a certain way and not another. Authentic characters are the backbone of each plot.
Drama (comedy, tragedy etc.), can only unfold, develop and resolve itself when the characters are obeying their patterns of behaviour in a consequent way, where they have to face the conflict and confront their own inner abysses and limitations.
As a black military leader, Othello is an outsider. He is used to being surrounded by enemies and conspiracies. Therefore, he only trusts his few chosen friends. When Jago cheats him into believing that Desdemona has betrayed him with Cassio, his profound love turns into infinite hatred. Othello cannot act differently, he has to follow his behavioural pattern. Only the consequences of his character traits make Othello’s tragedy possible.
Billy Elliot is an outsider, too. He wishes to become a ballet dancer, which is highly unusual for a boy of his age who lives in an English miners’ town in the mid 80’s. Normally, such a boy would be encouraged to box, but Billy has found a way of expressing himself through dancing – he just can’t help it. He succeeds in asserting himself against his father, his brother, his social surroundings and his origins. Because he is the way he is, the character of Billy Elliot cannot evade the conflict. That is why this movie is so powerful and has such a wide range in the hero’s rise and fall. The movie has a happy end for Billy, but the character acts in such an uncompromising way, that a tragic ending would have been feasible, too.
Both dramatic works, OTHELLO and BILLY ELLIOT – I WILL DANCE draw their magic power from the consequent conception of their characters. This is what makes drama possible. The structure of both scripts, as devised by the writer, derives from the credibility of the characters’ actions and from the full realization of their potentials.
At this point I would like to explain my understanding of a few dramatic concepts. When I address writers, I am talking about the originator of characters in a broader sense. Actors, directors or set designers who have to invent a space for characters, may all fall under this category.
We have to make a clear distinction between people and characters. Whereas people are moulded by a myriad of impressions, are capable of acting in many diverse ways and of having a highly complicated structure, characters are an entirely different matter. Characters are created by writers. They can be individuals or types. Individuals are quite unique and are able to develop in the course of the plot. With types, on the other hand, this trait is neglected - mostly, they represent a group (the taxi driver, the waiter, the member of a gang) and do not have the space to develop. Still, they may have an important role to play within a scene or a whole script. Therefore, types are not some badly drawn individuals but different kinds of figures.
Characters, on the other hand, can be as thoroughly devised and as profound as the writer wants, they will never be as divers and individualistic as a human being. On the contrary – characters should only be as individualistic as necessary. They should have exactly the attributes they need in order to be credible within the scope of a certain script. Some unnecessary traits may even be omitted so that the audience’s attention is not diverted from the essentials of the story.
The term ‘character’ can be interpreted in many ways. Sometimes, it is used in the sense that someone does not have many personal distinctions. In this case, the word has a clear moral connotation. Also, we have the dramatic term ‘character’ as an antonym to ‘types’. When I use the plural of this word in the text, I am always talking about the dramatic term. Generally, it is used objectively for the sum of the mental properties of a character.
In addition to the character (the mental attributes of a person), there are two other components of a figure that are not to be neglected. Firstly, the character has a physical appearance that the audience will judge them by. Part of this are gender, age, hair colour, physical appearance, subjective beauty etc. Secondly, the character has a social attitude. This is expressed in the way they move, facial expression, attire, education, profession, status symbols etc. I intend to slightly neglect these two visible components of a character because they are easily devised by the writer. In this text, I would like to concentrate on the invisible side of the figure – their character.
