Recently I was having a discussion with a close friend of mine and she was telling me that I tend to write alot of passive supporting characters. That more times than not the side characters just go with whatever the main character says or fail to have a serious reaction to whatever the main protagonist says. So my question to you guys and gals is what are your thoughts on passive characters and do you believe a story can be good with a fair amount of passivity? Also when you are writing what are some ways you give you character depth without being to blatant about it?
Screenwriting : Why can't there be passive characters? by Antonio James Casci
Other topics in Screenwriting:
Check out Trending Discussions
Register / Log In
1 person likes this
It's tough to structure a screenplay with passive characters unless you're writing for the US indie/experimental market or have connections into the European film scene. The problems with passive characters: 1) there's little chance of showing us who they are and what they feel through dialogue (if you love creating passive characters, write a novel -- that's where they can sometimes work well because you can tell us what's going on inside their heads), and 2) passive characters in nearly all cases don't fuel conflict that's needed to drives stories forward especially in US studio filmmaking. So passive characters in nearly all cases undermine conflict and reader/audience interest. Your second question: one of the best ways to give characters "depth" is to given them complex motivations. Then that depth you're wanting comes out through the dialogue you write for them.
3 people like this
If they just do what they are told, that's not very realistic and they basically serve no purpose... they are 2D robots. No, a story can not be good with passive characters (unless the entire point of the story is that the character is passive). What is the story purpose of each character? If they have no story purpose, flush that character because it's crap. Here are two Script Tips on supporting characters, though I have a book that is almost 200 pages on the subject: http://www.scriptsecrets.net/tips/tip69.htm http://www.scriptsecrets.net/tips/tip310.htm
You make drama out of tension. You make tension out of conflict. Simple.
I've had a problem with this. There are passive people on real life and often in fiction they are shocked out of passivity by whatever catalyst starts the story. Look at like skywalker in Star Wars. He is actually quite passive, only wants what others have told him to want. Lost in translation is about two passive characters trapped.
1 person likes this
but skywalker is going through a transformation. he is surrounded by conflict and put in dangers way all the time. he grows. starting off passive is not the problem. remaining so throughout the whole story is.
2 people like this
Passive characters are boring, just like real people in real life who have no goals or desires. Do you really want to hang out with someone like that? Probably not, and neither does your audience. Give ALL your characters a goal and an arc. If they are minor characters, give them a smaller goal and a smaller arc but try to make it thematically related to the journey your hero is taking. Skywalker was passive in the beginning and he had no confidence, BUT he was interesting BECAUSE he had a desire to be bigger and better than he was. He allowed himself to be guided by Obi Wan BECAUSE he had that desire. If he was completely passive and didn't have a goal for the entire movie, if he didn't arc and change and grow.... Star Wars would never have been the mega success that it was and is.
Yes. That is what I mean by shocked out of passivity. Nothing would have been done without those external influences. I think there is more of a problem with passive secondary characters, it looks like they are there just as functions, and even if they are merely mechanical ciphers they shouldn't feel that way to an audience. Nice to have people talk about Star Wars but no one has commented on lost in translation
If a character is completely passive and merely serves to support another character's actions and/or decisions, then I don't think you even need that character. Every character should provide a perspective, I feel, or they are simply taking up space. To use a childhood example, Boo Boo wasn't particularly active, but he very much was Yogi's conscience, so he served a purpose.
I've tried a sitcom with a passive lead without resistance allowing all the supporting character's to counterbalance. Starting to get stuff in a few places. Not sure how it will fair. Speaking of that, wonder if Silent Bob from Jay and Silent Bob would be considered passive? I'll have to cock my head perplexed and ponder. Screen and television are two different animals though.
Tell your story your way, Antonio...try not to get too bogged down in any set of opinions. There are no absolute rules. Do what you want to do and see how it sounds when you're finished, and if you're comfortable, bounce it off of any amenable Stage32 friends. Best of luck with your stories.
I think passive characters are okay, if at some point they turn active. So it's not so much the passivity or proactivity, but the process of turning.
How to make passive characters more interesting - remember that everyone is the protagonist in their own story. If they side with the main character, it isn't a problem as long as they have a reason for siding with the main character that is more than just 'he/she is their friend' and there are also some characters or other obstacles that the main character is going to face - otherwise you don't have a good story.
Narrative storytelling is all about conflict. A good method to use is to make supporting characters obstacles that are in the way of your main character trying to fulfill their dramatic need. You can tell a lot about a character by how they react to outside stimulus. Winter's Bone is an excellent example to use as a model.
Can you name some passive supporting characters in movies/TV shows that you think work well? "Orphan Black" was awesome this week, so I'll look there...nope! no passive characters! Every character initiates subplots, and that keeps the show exciting. If anyone just said, "You're doing great, Sarah! I support you," they might become redundant. If they just took orders from the main character, they'd become like robots. How do you see a passive supporting character enhancing a story? Even if they work well passive, if they became more active, can you imagine that improving the story even more? Or would that detract?
I am currently writing a screenplay with a somewhat passive main character, which is available to read off of my profile if anyone is interested. It's a bit akin to "The Great Gatsby" in that the main character acts mostly as an observed and supported of the Protagonist and helps the audience to mourn the Protagonist's passing. This can be a useful trick in stores where the protagonist dies, which doesn't happen to often in most screenplays.