John August

Search Results for: hero main character protagonist

Stay away from this girl

Genres, Rant

Wait, how did I not know the [Manic Pixie Dream Girl](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ManicPixieDreamGirl) existed as a trope? Nathan Rabin gets credit for first [calling her out](http://origin.avclub.com/articles/the-bataan-death-march-of-whimsy-case-file-1-eliza,15577/):

> [Elizabethtown’s Kirsten] Dunst embodies a character type I like to call The Manic Pixie Dream Girl (see Natalie Portman in Garden State for another prime example).

> The Manic Pixie Dream Girl exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures. The Manic Pixie Dream Girl is an all-or-nothing-proposition. Audiences either want to marry her instantly (despite The Manic Pixie Dream Girl being, you know, a fictional character) or they want to commit grievous bodily harm against them and their immediate family.

The OnionA.V. Club lists [sixteen examples](http://www.avclub.com/articles/wild-things-16-films-featuring-manic-pixie-dream-g,2407/) and further clarifies just what’s wrong with this archetype:

> Like the Magical Negro, the Manic Pixie Dream Girl archetype is largely defined by secondary status and lack of an inner life. She’s on hand to lift a gloomy male protagonist out of the doldrums, not to pursue her own happiness. In the late ’60s and early ’70s, MPDGs often took the comely form of spacey hippie chicks burdened with getting grim establishment types to kick back and smell the flowers.

She’s simply awful. She’s the [navigable air duct](http://johnaugust.com/2006/air-vents-are-for-air) of female antagonists, something that exists only for cinematic convenience. Let’s stop using her.

Like villains, love interests need to have a plausible reason for why they’re there and what they want. Always ask yourself, “What would this character be doing if the hero never showed up?”

If you can’t answer — or if the answer is boring — you need to go back to the drawing board.

There’s nothing wrong with kooky females, by the way. Anna Faris has made a career of them. But in films like The House Bunny, it’s always clear what she’s after — and it’s never about getting a nice guy to loosen up.

If we played by the rules right now we’d be in gym

QandA, Story and Plot

questionmarkI have read countless things about what makes a screenplay sell, however, when I look at a film like Ferris Bueller’s Day Off I can’t help but wonder how a screenplay like this sold.

All I’ve heard from the experts is that you need character arcs and all that jazz but I just don’t see that in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. He wakes up and gets back in bed the same person, right?

Obviously it’s a great film, an instant classic but it just seems to defy everything a “great screenplay” should have by today’s standards. Any thoughts?

— Nick
Rhode Island

answer iconYou could spend a semester studying what makes Ferris Bueller such a classic, but the character arc thing is easily answered:

Ferris doesn’t change. Cameron does. Cameron is the reluctant protagonist, literally dragged along by Ferris. By the end of the story, Cameron has changed a little, with plans to stand up to his father. Arcs don’t have to be epic.

As I’ve [said before](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2005/whats-the-difference-between-hero-main-character-and-protagonist), the main character doesn’t have to protagonate. Yes, in most movies, your hero is the protagonist and it’s all cut and dried. But it’s not the only way a story can work.

If you’re ever confused, refer to Michael Goldenberg’s advice: The protagonist is the character that suffers the most.

In this case, that’s Cameron.

Scribble version, final version

Words on the page, Writing Process

In my post on [How to write a scene](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2007/write-scene), I showed the “scribble version” of a scene as an example of the process. In hindsight, it was a little unfair to show the bones and not show the body. So here’s the scribble version again, followed by the final scene. On real paper, it runs exactly two pages.

Scribble version
===

DUNCAN waiting edge of seat

ITO

I was one of the doctors who worked on your wife accident injuries severe, trauma team, sorry, couldn’t save her.

(sits, reflex)

nature of injuries, concern fetus wouldn’t survive in utero. paramedic able deliver caesarian boy healthy

(nodding not hearing)

nurse can take you to see him, know a lot to handle

what

a lot to handle

take me to see him?

yes

see who?

your son. paramedic was able to

(grabs clipboard)

I know this may seem

My wife wasn’t pregnant

Your wife didn’t tell you...

My wife has never been pregnant. been trying three years. fertility clinic last week

I examined the baby myself. nearly at term.

I don’t know whose baby, not hers.

Full scene
===

INT. ER WAITING ROOM – NIGHT

PAUL DUNCAN, 38, sits on the edge of his seat, vigilant. He watches every DOCTOR and NURSE who passes, waiting for the one who will talk to him. Finally, he notices the TRIAGE NURSE speaking with a doctor, GERALD ITO. The coordinator hands him a patient folder, then gestures towards the waiting room. Duncan stands as the doctor approaches.

Ito speaks with a practiced calm, making horrible news sound straightforward:

ITO

Mr. Duncan, I’m Dr. Ito. I was one of the doctors who worked on your wife.

DUNCAN

They said she was in an accident.

ITO

Her injuries were severe. The trauma team did everything they could. I’m sorry. We couldn’t save her.

Duncan nods. He wasn’t expecting to hear she was alive, but he had held out some hope.

Almost by reflex, Duncan sits down. Ito joins him.

ITO (CONT’D)

Because of the nature of the injuries, there was concern the fetus wouldn’t survive in utero. The paramedic was able to deliver the baby by Caesarian section. It’s a boy. Healthy and stable.

Duncan just keeps nodding. It’s not clear how much he’s hearing.

ITO (CONT’D)

If you’d like, in a few minutes, I can have a nurse take you up to see him. Or if you’d like to wait, I understand. This is a lot to handle.

Duncan looks at the doctor strangely.

DUNCAN

What did you say?

ITO

I said, this is a lot to handle all at once.

DUNCAN

(confused)

You would take me to see him?

ITO

Yes.

DUNCAN

See who?

ITO

Your son.

(patiently)

The paramedic was able to deliver the baby your wife was carrying. He’s healthy.

A beat. Duncan suddenly grabs the folder Ito is holding. He checks the name: Pamela Lynn Duncan. What’s more, her driver’s license is clipped to the file.

ITO (CONT’D)

I know this may seem unreal. A dream. That’s very common in a situation like...

DUNCAN

My wife wasn’t pregnant.

Choosing his words carefully...

ITO

Your wife didn’t tell you she was pregnant?

DUNCAN

My wife has never been pregnant. We’ve been trying for three years. We were at the fertility clinic last week.

Trying to remain calm...

ITO

Mr. Duncan, I examined the baby myself. It looked to be nearly at term.

DUNCAN

I don’t know whose baby that was. It wasn’t hers.

Why this scene? Well, I picked it because it’s pretty self-contained, and doesn’t feature any characters who had been set up earlier. It’s also an example of how the purpose of a scene is what you need the audience to learn, not necessarily your protagonist. The hero is not even in the scene, and these two characters never appear again.

Why is Charlie so passive?

Charlie, Projects

questionmarkIn Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, why is Charlie so passive in the movie?

As the main character I would think he would do something during the big adventure in the factory but he does nothing. He faces no challenges. He is not tested in any way. He doesn’t even have the opportunity to make a single mistake.

He is simply the blandest and most uninteresting character in the entire group. He doesn’t even merit a song. I just don’t get it.

–Gilbert

Congratulations, Gilbert. You are now a studio executive.

The one consistent note Tim and I got from Warner Bros. about the script was, “Shouldn’t Charlie be trying harder?” To which we answered, “No.” And because Tim Burton is Tim Burton, they eventually stopped asking.

The world is full of movies where scrappy young heroes succeed by trying really hard, by being clever and saying witty things. But that’s not Roald Dahl’s Charlie Bucket at all. We didn’t want a classic Disney protagonist, so we left Charlie the way he was: a good kid.

Here’s what I wrote a [few weeks ago](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2005/whats-the-difference-between-hero-main-character-and-protagonist) about this issue:

However, Charlie is not a classic Protagonist. Charlie doesn’t grow or change over the course of the story. He doesn’t need to. He starts out a really nice kid, and ends up a really nice kid.

In terms of Classical Dramatic Structure, that leaves us one Protagonist short, which leads to the biggest change in the screenplay versus the book (or the 1971 film). In our movie, Willy Wonka is the protagonist. He grows and changes. We see his rise and fall, along with his nervous breakdown during the tour. Charlie’s the one who’s always asking – ever so politely, in the Freddie Highmore Whisperâ„¢ – the questions that lead to Wonka’s flashbacks upon his rotten childhood. (In Classic Dramatic terms, that makes Charlie an Antagonist. Not to be confused with a Villain. Are you sure you don’t want to read about some squirrels?)

As I pitched it to Tim: Charlie gets a factory, and Willy Wonka gets a family. It’s the whole want-versus-need thing. Charlie doesn’t need a factory. Wonka really needs a family. Otherwise, he’s going to die a giggling misanthropic weirdo.

Charlie “wins” because he’s genuinely good, in a quiet, unassuming way. He doesn’t get a song because the Oompa-Loompas only sing about rotten children.

I’m sorry that doesn’t float your boat, Gilbert, but I think the real issue may be how much you’re preconditioned by all the movies you’ve seen with plucky kids who outthink the adults. If you hurry, you can probably catch one at the multiplex.

[Deciding which parents get to visit the factory](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2005/deciding-which-parents-get-to-visit-the-factory)