I just got back coverage for my first screenplay, and the biggest issue the reader had was lack of character development in the hero. To be three dimensional, there needs to be a fatal flaw which the hero struggles with and overcomes. I don't disagree with this point, generally. The genre is creature feature. A hero steps in and kicks butt. So I looked at other films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Argo, where the hero also comes in and kicks butt, and I don't see that three dimensionality or fatal flaw. Unless I'm missing something, what is Indiana's fatal flaw? He fears snakes? Not much of a flaw, and if that's the case I'm not convinced he overcomes it by the end (and if he did, who cares?). Again with Argo, Ben Affleck's character struggles with superficial issues (to follow orders or to do what's right), but I still see no deep character arc or struggle. Even if you do consider that conflict in Argo the key struggle, it doesn't appear until the third act. And yet these are examples of very very very good screenplays that got green lit. So my question is, though I see this appear in every book I've read, is it just icing or is it absolutely essential a hero in this genre needs to grapple with a deep conflict and overcome it by the end?
Screenwriting : Fatal flaws and 3D heroes by Evan Marlowe
Fatal flaws and 3D heroes
Other topics in Screenwriting:
Check out Trending Discussions
Register / Log In
I hear many toss around the term "fatal flaw" and really this comes from a more refined idea of hamartia- an error in judgment that filters a characters perception, which in turn causes them to proceed in a manner that won't allow them to solve the story problem. Then the protagonist will have a moment of agnorisis where they realize the error and a moment of peripetia comes where they turn around the path of action. So in the case of Indiana Jones it his lack of accepting supernatural powers that are beyond his control as a scientist. He learns through his experiences and at the end turns towards his understanding of the Bible and lets go of his ego/control. This were he trusts in a force outside himself whereas before he only depended on himself and his power. The Nazis don't defer power and melt. So, it's not a fatal flaw of character. It's about Indy learning and changing even if it doesn't appear that way. The snake fear is actual a device to make him relatable as a person so audiences can identify with him. But... remember that established pros get away with a lot. It is true many screenplay are greenlit without major changes by the protagonists. A And it isn't pointed out in Indiana Jones. In many screenplay it is obvious what the protagonist must change in themselves to learn and triumph. Sorry for the length and typos. Touchscreens suck.
Thanks for the reply. I think as long as we see some kind of positive change it fits the formula of the typical Hollywood film. Thinking to Argo, I believe he had an issue with his family, but I'd have to rewatch it. In the case of my script, the change is there but it's probably too subtle. I will give the hero a family that will allow him to share his feelings and thoughts, because right now he's too stoic and in need of a device to allow him to express himself.