Alex started it. I took a kick at the can. The Artful Writer chimed in, but in the end, John August came up with the best reason to do a diversity pass: It makes your script more readable, and therefore, better. (Whether you do it as you're writing or after, I don't think it matters...though I'm sure there's a contingent who would say it does.)
For the record, I think what John August articulates is probably another way of saying what Alex was talking about in the first place.
Anyway, sayeth Mr. August:
John goes on to make the point that coming up with a cool ethnic name does not abrogate your responsibility to make the character interesting.Screenplays are read quickly. Unlike a novel, you don’t linger for a few paragraphs getting to know minor characters, setting up their memorable quirks. Rather, you meet them on page 20, then see them again on page 64. As a screenwriter, you want the reader to instantly recall that they’ve encountered a certain character before.
A reader is much more likely to remember an international banker named Abebayehu Tegene than Abe Thompson.
You can debate why this is. Maybe it’s just that the name is more interesting. But in most cases, I think it’s because we’re hard-wired to match race to surnames. We see Abebayehu Tegene and we think, “This character is black. Not only that, he’s probably African.” We form a mental picture of “African banker,” then move on.
With Abe Thompson, the reader has nothing to latch onto. Abe Thompson is just a name.
Most of the time, when I'm reading scripts from new writers trying to figure out if they have any talent, the thing that convinces me is how well drawn the three-and-four line parts are. You get sensitive to that in Canada, especially if you have a lot of actor friends, because when American movies come to shoot here, those parts are the ones they give to all the Canadians. I've helped a lot of friends run lines in my time, which means more often than not going over a lot of sides with cliched, dull, four-line parts. You learn a lot about a writer when he or she can communicate a full and rich life for a character we only see once for a moment.
(All this assumes, of course, that you already have compelling leads, and a story that isn't too FUBAR.)
None of this deals with the problems of race in America (or Canada) but then again, we're screenwriters. Not like we're going to fix that one anyway.
(And if we did, a director or actor would probably take the credit.)
2 comments:
Could you give an example of a 4 line exchange that communicates a deep character?
Sure.
Serge.
Bronson Pinchot's character in the original Beverly Hills Cop. He's got a few seconds of screentime, and you remember him because he's interesting and iconoclastic.
Amy -- the ex-girlfriend of Paul Rudd's character in 40-Year-Old virgin.
It's relative, of course. You're not going to be able to communicate a "deep" character, necessarily -- nor is that needed or even desirable. (You don't, for instance, want people wondering where that character went -- you want the focus on your hero.)
But if you've got secondary characters who just lay pipe and communicate info and say things like, "Mr. Johnson will see you now..." well--that's dull to read, dull to act, and dull to watch.
To give an example from something I just finished; here's an exchange between two characters. Dave is the main protagonist, 40s. The other character, Red, is an old man -- ex hockey player. Here's what I wrote first:
DAVE
Okay. When we get in there, you
just be your charming self, and let
me make the sale.
RED
I don’t want anything to do with
her.
DAVE
That’s the spirit.
She’s a horrible shrew. But you
can’t let her shake you.
RED
I won’t.
DAVE
Don’t look into her eyes. That
startles her.
RED
Okay.
DAVE
And try not to mention the 60’s.
RED
The what?
DAVE
Trust me, don’t get her off track
or we’ll be there for hours.
Okay. I want Red to be irascible. I want him to be cantankerous. I want him to have personality. But that dialogue above gives me none of that. So when I revised I went to this:
DAVE
Okay. When we get in there, you just be your charming self, and let me make the sale.
RED
There better be cake.
DAVE
That’s the spirit.
She’s a horrible shrew. You can’t let her shake you.
RED
I have a plate in my head, Dave.
DAVE
Don’t look into her eyes. That startles her.
RED
I’m old. Not an idiot.
DAVE
And try not to mention the 60’s.
RED
No worry there.
DAVE
Trust me, don’t get her off track or we’ll be there for hours.
Now, not that that's brilliant or anything (especially out of context of the story, but in the second version you certainly get more of a personality.) I would dare say that if you got the second set of sides and you were a character actor, you'd be a lot further to figuring out who that character's supposed to be than if you read the first version.
"Deep" is relative. Don't get hung up on the semantics of it -- grok the spirit of what I'm saying.
Post a Comment