Screenwriting : Contrary to popular opinion, your Protagonist does NOT have to have an internal arc. Don't believe me? Read on... by Brad M. Johnson

Dan - thanks for commenting! This is a fun conversation to have. While a lot of what you're saying is true, I'm not actually suggesting that people abandon the concept of a character arc for their Protagonist. My advice also isn't specifically geared towards new writers. It's vital that new writers learn all of the industry preferences (I prefer that term to rules due to the fluid nature of what HW wants from their scripts). Live, Breath, and Eat the rules. But don't blindly follow them once you have. You need to feel free as a writer to construct your script in the way that best helps you tell the story you're trying to tell. It's true that most scripts will have a character arc for their Protag, but knowing when and where to break a "rule" is just as important as knowing it. As for your statements about readers. I understand the heart of your point, but I would counter that a reader would be just as harsh on a script with a thoughtless, shoehorned in character arc, as they would be for one without one. It's all about execution at the end of the day. Finally, my column is specifically addressing a character arc for Protagonists. My point was specifically relating to that character, not to the concept of arcs and growth in particular. Sometimes your Protagonist arcs. Sometimes your Antagonist does. Sometimes it's both, and sometimes it's more of an abstract arc where it's the city, humankind in general, or some other aspect that completes the "arc" of a film. Well constructed and executed emotional arcs are vital to a great film, but they don't need to be limited to your Protagonist as so many writers seem to believe.

Thanks, Dan! This was a fun discussion. Feel free to spread the word; I post my Script Magazine columns every week (usually Tuesday or Wednesday), and I'd love if it opened up more lines of discussion like this one!

Thanks for sharing, Brad, Jacqueline, too.

Did a flash read thru - forgive if I missed it, but....

Another angle on NO Character Arcs

The perfect movie with the protag's perfect ARC - would mean the protag has overcome his fears, addressed ALL his flaws and won the day - zilched, pickled, jailed, executed, beaten-up or married the antagonist.

[for those that dont know - in LOVE STORIES each partner in the romance is the antagonist of the other]

So, IF THIS IS THE PERFECT MOVIE, any SEQUEL means: our protag has nowhere to go. There's only 360 degrees in the widest arc [cheating a bit there!] and in the PERFECT movie quoted - he went the full 360 - knocked out every flaw known to man/woman. So he can't have an ARC in the next, I suggest.

This is particularly true of ACTION movie franchises. JAMES BOND never had an arc, really. Although Daniel Craig comes along and they do give him "emotions" . [He cried when he lost "freckles" in the Venice cage] And switching an ARC to the antag results. Thanks for pointing that out, guys! It reminds us all to flesh out our antags - make 'em real! That's my two cents worth, anyway.

I'm sure there's a lot of truth in what you say, Dan.

Many producers won't risk their jobs with any non-conformist movie [with no ARC] gambling that it will beat the sytem and put bums on seats.

But this ARC business, as enforced by gurus relying on their living from books promoting it, you could say, is really based on the psychology behind:

WHY people LOVE a movie.

It wasn't 'cause BRUCE blew up the gorilla, melted the ice covering NYC, blasted the aliens from the skies over Washington - it was because BRUCE "learned to love his mother!"

The audience ESCAPE from their dreary lives in the movie action

But LEARN A LASTING LESSON of LIFE from the ARC -- which hit the spot in their own lives, warming their hearts towards the protag

But I wonder:

DID ANYONE ever leave a cinema, call all his friends and say:

"WHAT A CHARACTER ARC! YOU GOTTA SEE THIS, BUDDY"

And, so: Is this ARC really so necessary?

What needs to be understood, is that there are multiple types of Arcs. Not all arcs are what you would expect. We as writers are acutely aware of the character that changes through the story. (ex. a wimpy kid learns to become brave, a man learns to overcome his addiction, whereby growing as a human being), but quite often (and especially in action and horror) the protagonist's only goal is to survive and/or complete the mission. For example, in Die Hard, how much does John McClaine change as a human being? The event takes place over less than 24 hours. His arc is simple. He beat the bad guys and saved the day. Or what about Sydney in Scream? How did she really change? She merely survived. Yeah, she got a little braver, but in the end, she was the same girl she started out as. Or what about Liam Neeson's character in The Grey. He starts out as a bad ass and ends as a bad ass, but he didn't learn anything in the process. Or what about the three guys from The Hangover? Yes, Stu grew a pair of balls, but Phil remained an asshole and Alan remained a man-child. The arc was finding Doug. And they did just that. The point is that it comes down to the story and what the story requires.

All art contains a dynamic arc (s)... or it would just be essay or documentary or boring or experimental. The best story arcs ( rising conflicts going to denouncement and then to resolutions) are the ones that you don't analize as a film maker or writer on first viewing, but just feel as an undercurrent of emotion that magically resolves. The story arc is the magic, the mystery of entertainment, of amusement, of fascination... and everyone loves a mystery. In novel writing the writer must be very aware of manipulating the story arcs (using chapters mainly) for different character and actions. Ideally, individual arcs should constitute one focused and over-all story arc that is constantly ascending.... to the WIZZ-BANG ending! Regarding THE FUGITIVE, the story arc for Kimble is that he digs himself a deeper hole with each of his desperate acts. Dramatic irony is at work here, for as we know, someone else killed his wife. If one were to graph the character's arcs, Kimble is in the negative and Gerard is in the positive... but each character is in an arc (including Nichols) that returns to a baseline of plot denouncement (resolution and mystery solved) and $400 million is made. The real miracle would be to make this kind of money without a story arc for the protagonist... lol. One story comes to mind that screws with the arc of the protagonist and that is , Jude the Obscure.... here, perhaps screwing around with the story arc, that an audience expects in traditional storytelling mode, is in itself a way to elicit unique aspects of fascination in storytelling. Just jabbering...

I'd agree in spirit, Kathleen, but there's some logic to it as well. There are certain standards expected in most scripts by readers/execs. It's important to know what they are looking for. And, while it's acceptable to break a "rule" if it works for your story, you need to know the rule - why it's there - what it's purpose is - how to execute it inside and out - BEFORE you even consider breaking it.

Question. Wouldn't Kimble's character arc be a man who is emotionally tormented to a man who in the end is at peace with himself?

Have to agree with your: "locking your creativity in a cupboard". Kathleen. Well said.

Reminds me of the TRUE FACT that:

Most people follow rules in a civilised society. Some would argue that's why it's civilised. BUT certain (creative -my word) people ask: why is that a rule? And, I will NOT follow it. Those NONCONFORMIST/awkward people are responsible for ALL the CHANGE & PROGRESS and are the reason NEW Rules are adopted in an even more civilised society.

In our screenwriting world - the likes of Tarantino ( a dollar for all the others?) had no easy path to success.

So i agree whole heartedly, K . Dismantling creativity to learn a rule - can lead to suppression of ideas. But as others are so rightly saying, how do you get that "different" script past the "we only do it this way" trained reader? I think the best way forward is to write two versions - one gets you in - the second shows them how you wanted to do it.

By coincidence, Max Keanu [see post] is just saying that he writes TWO [or more] scripts for other reasons - CAMERA DIRECTIONS - but for the same purpose - GETTING PAST THE GATEKEEPER!

Interesting angle.

[Note: "angle" not "ANGLE" - I'm not DIRECTING, promise!]

On your "just write a good story" angle, Kathleen, I think that could mean many wasted years for some, however brilliant their stories are [to their narrow audience sector]. For example, [be warned: this is an exaggeration!] suppose you only wrote about a cult of paraplegic tortoises organising marathons to save the last dandelion on the planet. That might just not appeal to many people.

As Michael Hauge proclaims: Hollywood wants to know it can make money. Something LIKE your screenplay that did make money previously brings great comfort. Highly Creative is a hard act to sell, he says, name some?

To which Mr Tarantino mighta said: If ANYTHING out there is in ANY way like this - then I won't make it. Next!

I think Life of Pi - was pretty ground breaking cinemaphotography, myself. But you get his drift.

But choose a "marketable" subject -- is what we might agree on?

Kathleen, I'd agree with you for the most part, but there are certain realities that, if you choose to ignore them, you're just making things more difficult on yourself. You need to know and understand the mindset of the HW studios. There are certain genres that historically are tough to sell to the public, and tend to not make money: Westerns being the prime example of this. Another example would be a bug-budget (200+ million) sci-fi spec filled with expansive sets and heavy CGI. These kinds of specs are rarely, if ever, purchased. It's not that they CAN'T, but it's wise for a writer to understand the truth of the situation going into it. If the story you HAVE to tell is a western, or a big budget sci-fi, by all means, tell it! But be aware that you are, right out of the gate, making your odds of successfully selling that script, significantly lower than they would be otherwise. It's the nature of the business.

Nicely clarified, Brad. Thanks. If I may also kinda put your comments into perspective, Kathleen? Your BIO tells us that you have a remarkable talent as a writer. I bet YOU could make anything into an interesting captivating story [cult paraplegic tortoises included] and probably knew people you could get interested in marketing it before you wrote it. But MOST out there couldn't and don't. And as Brad rightly says: Why would any unproduced writer [seriously wanting to sell a script] choose to make all that sweat and tears tentatively unmarketable - for the sake of a different concept?

This concept of the "rules" has always been a strange one to me. I understand the need to follow certain principles, but I find the need to adhere to them as if they are some absolute dogmatic rule of law to be not only limiting, but in the end futile and a waste of time. Here is my perspective. If your screenplay is compelling and it makes the reader want to continue turning the pages, I don't care if your inciting incident is on page 10, 12, 15 or 25. The rules need not apply. If your screenplay is magical and awe inspiring and a producer "sees" this movie as he/she reads it, then I don't care if your screenplay is 105 pages long or 145 pages long. BUT... if your screenplay has isues and problems and isn't interesting or it isn't compelling and the producer/reader can't "see" it, then this is where these pesky rules will come into play. Then it would be good to try and figure out what is not working and holding it up against the screenplays that do. I think better than worrying about rules, would be to see what the masters have done before you and use that as your paradigm. This is the old school system of learning known as master and apprentice... and I'll tell you what, it is a system that still holds up today. I'll give you an example outside the world of screenwriting. I am an art school graduate. In the world of art, the theory is that you must learn from the masters until you become a master yourself, and then disregard everything the you learned from said master. In a sense, I believe this is a smart course of action for a screenwriter, as well. Figure out what some of the greats wrote and how they wrote and what they did that was great and try to emmulate this. Copying the masters isn't a bad thing. Just don't let this be a crutch. If it wasn't for Mozart and Hayden there would have been no Beethoven. If it wasn't for Michelangelo there would have been no Raphael. If it weren't for Spielberg, there would have been no JJ Abrams... I think you get my point. I think once you get an understanding of what the best of the best have done, then it is easier to diverge from them to find your own voice. But I could be wrong.