Complex characters, desires, opposing forces, revelations; the list is familiar amongst the people who regularly visit websites like this one.

by Joe Forrest

Objects in Cinema

So how do you convey these elements in an interesting, economic, dramatic way?

Here’s a quote from Soviet filmmaker Lev Kuleshov:

“It is not the actor but the object that creates the greatest impression.

When filmed separately and edited into a series of scenes, a glove that has been forgotten in an empty hall, a flower sent to one’s beloved, or a shawl or ring that has been tossed down create a highly distinct impression and through their very shape and psychological import are “acting” every bit as much as a model does. In other words, the significance of a model and an object in film can be equal in a skilfully edited montage.”

It is not the actor but the object
that creates the greatest impression.

Objects can be powerful. I’m talking about the ones that you are going to mention specifically in your screenplay, because they are significant to the story and characters. They may appear once, telling us something noteworthy, or several times, playing a more substantial part in your larger story. Here are some examples of how they can factor into your story:

EXPOSITION

At the beginning of Rear Window the camera tracks across James Stewart’s apartment revealing a series of photos and objects that tell us he is a celebrated photographer who has been injured in a collision with a race car. It sets up his predicament without a word of dialogue.

CHARACTER

There’s a very subtle moment at the beginning of Chinatown where private investigator Jake Gittes is comforting a broken man, Curly, who has just had it confirmed that his wife is cheating on him.

Gittes chooses to give Curly a glass of one of his cheap whiskeys as opposed to a more expensive one. It’s right there in the screenplay: “Gittes reaches into his desk and pulls out a shot glass, quickly selects a cheaper bottle of bourbon from several fifths of more expensive whiskeys.” It’s a wonderful touch that tells the audience a lot about Gittes.

REVELATION

In The Godfather a fish is delivered to the Corleone residence to signify that Luca Brasi has been murdered.

It drives the story forward as well as adding texture to the world and culture of these people.

DESIRE

Whether it’s the Maltese Falcon, the Holy Grail or an ambiguous suitcase in a Hitchcock film, a desired possession can give a story focus and direction.

Furthermore, through action you can reveal character by showing what your characters are willing to do to get it.

THE TWIST

“Rosebud.”

-Joe Forrest

Joe Forrest is a graduate of the Northern Film School in Leeds, England, where he specialised in documentary and screenwriting. Since graduating in 2008 he has worked as a researcher for both drama and documentary. Joe has made several short documentaries, written short films and is currently researching new projects.

CHARACTERS WHO CHANGE

Some films have characters who fundamentally change. They were bad, and the events of the story ask of them to change, to become good. In screenwriting terms, they have to change because of their flaw, to meet their true inner needs, to be reborn, etc.

In Groundhog Day, Bill Murray is a miserable, cynical man who sees the worst in everything. As he repeats the same day over and over again, he moves through greed, depression, helplessness and near insanity, eventually coming out at the other end a new man, able to appreciate life in all its beauty.

In The Godfather, Michael Corleone is a decorated war hero who finds himself drawn into the “family business” that he was never supposed to be a part of. The assassination attempt on his father, killing the man responsible and the accidental murder of his love turn his heart cold. By the final act he is ruthless man, capable of terrible actions.

I think of this kind of character moving along a timeline,
arcing as they go along.

When I’m studying or planning out a character journey, I think of this kind of character moving along a timeline, arcing as they go along. I mark out the key events that hit them and the key changes in personality that occur as a result.

CHARACTERS WHO REVEAL THEIR TRUE PERSONALITY

Other films have characters who don’t necessarily change, but instead are revealed to be more complex than presented at the start of the film. The chain of events in the film reveal to us (and perhaps to themselves) that there is more to them than meets the eye. These characters can be harder to empathise with sometimes, but when it’s done well the intrigue pulls you in. The secrets and lies that we keep from others lend themselves well to the voyeurism of cinema.

An extreme example would be A History of Violence. Tom Stall, a likeable family man, has his diner held up by two sadistic men. Tom springs into action and expertly kills both men. The ordeal brings more bad men Tom’s way, who accuse him of being someone else. They provoke Tom, getting too close to his family and briefly kidnapping his son. The more pressure put on Tom, the more layers are peeled away, until the dark core of his personality is revealed.

The secrets and lies that we keep from others
lend themselves well to the voyeurism of cinema

In The King of Comedy, a nervous wanabee comedian does his best to get a break into show business. He pesters the studios and agencies, and doesn’t have much luck. When things don’t work out, he resorts to kidnapping his favourite comedian.

When studying characters who reveal themselves, I tend to draw a circle with smaller circles within it. The timeline moves from the outermost circle to the innermost circle. As more pressure is put on the character, more circles are stripped away to reveal deeper, maybe darker aspects of their personality.

When studying characters who reveal themselves, I tend to draw a circle with smaller circles within it

This technique of character revelation is used to great effect in many television series – see The Sopranos, The Wire, Mad Men, Dexter, or pretty much any half decent American show.

TO CONCLUDE

The key difference between these two character types boils down to the question a writer should ask when working out their journey.

In the first type you might ask simply, “How does this character change?” You can then throw everything at the character that will incite that change. Betrayal, murder, love, etc.

In the second character type you could ask, “What is this character capable of?” Then you can work out what events are going to force the character to show their true character.

Both models are perfectly valid. But is it important for a screenwriter to know which of these two models their character fits into (if at all)? If a character murders someone at the midpoint of the story, is it important for the writer to know whether the character was always capable of such an act, or whether this is something new to them.

Do your characters change or reveal their true character? Or neither?

-Joe Forrest

Joe Forrest is a graduate of the Northern Film School in Leeds, England, where he specialised in documentary and screenwriting.  Since graduating in 2008 he has worked as a researcher for both drama and documentary. Joe has made several short documentaries and written a number of short films, and is currently researching new projects.

photo credit “Evolution”: kevindooley

photo credit “House” & “Angels”: Kay Kim(김기웅)