Character vs. Story
Saturday, 28 July, 2007I read a quote somewhere on someone’s blog (or possibly I’ve read it in several places, I’m not sure - I get hit in the head a lot) by Tony Jordan which was a rant something along the lines of:
“You have to start with characters, mother fucker. Characters first and then you can start work on your fucking story, you twat.”
I’m paraphrasing, obviously. There may have been a bit less swearing and a bit more information, but that’s it in a nutshell.
And I can’t help thinking … it’s wrong.
If you start by thinking up some characters and then find a story to fit them in, you end up with, well, a soap opera.
I just don’t think that works for feature films, it’s more of a TV drama thing. I can’t believe, for example, that when they wrote ‘Back to the Future’ they sat down and worked out Marty McFly’s character and then tried to find a story to fit him into. Surely the story must have come first then?
Or at least the basic concept?
The character is the one best suited to tell that film’s story, true; but the story probably came first. And I think that’s true of most of my favourite films, I can’t imagine …
It’s at this point my thinking comes off the rails.
Indiana Jones, Batman, Superman, James Bond … all these films must have started with the character, even the original comics/novels must have started with the character and then found stories to fit them.
So maybe he is right?
Except, I can’t believe ‘Hustle’ started with the characters. That must have been the concept first, then the characters, then the individual stories?
I can’t believe he started with “What about a character who, on paper, sounds like Hannibal from ‘The A-Team; but in reality is about as charismatic as a damp sponge. Now, let’s think of a TV show to put him in.”
Surely it started with “Let’s do a TV show about conmen who get into all kinds of entertaining scrapes, just like that movie ‘The Sting’.”
But is that story or characters first?
And that’s for a TV series where you’re generating new stories every week. In a feature, do you think up the characters or the story first? Or does one define the other?
For example, once you’ve come up with the character of Superman, you’re unlikely to then think of a story about him battling to get his social security money from an unfeeling bureaucrat so he can bring up his kid as a single parent.
Or if you start with that story, you’re unlikely to end up with a character like James Bond.
This got me thinking about what is a film? It’s the story of someone who does something, or the story of someone who has something happen to them.
Can you come up with the concept for a film without coming up with story and character together? Surely they are interdependent, you can’t have one without the other?
Except in the case of Superman, Batman, James Bond, Indiana Jones … etc. Quite clearly every new film starts with the character and then looks for a story. With varying degrees of success.
But then again, as soon as you come up with Superman, you’ve defined your genre and the type of story you’re going to tell. So maybe …
After a little lie down, I came to the following conclusion:
Tony Jordan IS wrong*, but only in so far as trying to generalise. Sometimes the character comes first, sometimes the story comes first; but mostly they arrive at roughly the same time.
Or to put it more succinctly: there are no hard and fast rules, stop pissing about on the net and get back to your writing.
———————————————————————-
* I’d like to add as a disclaimer, I may well have misread the original quote and taken this whole thing out of context - I do that a lot. Comprehension is not really one of my skills, neither is paying attention, listening or concentrating for more than thirty seconds at a time.
Posted by phillbarron






