I am a subscriber to "The Write Practice". Each day, I get emails from the publishers, giving me useful hints about writing and becoming a better writer. But one of these days, I got a post about Villain Complexity, and it said that in order for a villain to work, it is essential that the villain have a relatable and legitimate backstory. Um...what? Why do villains have to be complex? Perhaps a greater question: Why is complexity so important these days? It seems everywhere these days, villains and heroes and even sidekicks are getting these deep and thought provoking backstories. You can see these backstories everywhere throughout movies, books, TV series, video games, etc. Hollywood seemed to work well in the old days with about 1 or 2 complex characters every three movies.
Why is the complexity of characters so important? Does a story really thrive on that? Or is there some aspect of storytelling people are overlooking in favor of unnecessarily deep characters? That's what I'm here to look at.
1. What is Complexity of Character?
Complexity of Character is when a writer or storyteller gives a specific character motivation for doing what they do or in forwarding the plot. Complexity of Character is prevalent in real life. Have you ever heard of the phrase, "There are two sides to every story?" In real life, more often than not, this statement is fairly accurate. Let's say a thief steals a loaf of bread from a grocery store. The store clerk feels angered and agitated that his bread was stolen and he couldn't make a sale on it. His motivation is his pursuit of justice to see the criminal locked away.
But what about the thief's motivation? What caused him to lash out and steal that bread? Was it desperation? Was it the need to feed his starving children? Or did the store clerk do something that hurt or inflicted suffering on the man? Perhaps the thief was once an employee and the store clerk fired him because he needed to save his money.
News stories often disregard the criminal's reasoning and allow justice to be served. Often, the criminal deserves what was coming to him, be it life in prison or the death penalty. But sometimes, a man or woman could be perfectly innocent or have a legitimate reason for doing that act and never have the chance to air out their opinions and reasons. My uncle, a NYPD officer, told me once that "An innocent man is thrown in jail every day." It seems unfair to me that severe crooks and criminals seem to get away with anything they want (Fred Wilpon and MLB Commissioner Bud Selig are guilty of this), while an innocent man is taken down because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Motivation is critical to many aspects of life.
2. Why is Complexity of Character not needed?
But it is not always essential in storytelling. More often than not, a characters actions far outweigh his judgement. When people think of "Othello", they remember that Iago was a ruthless and evil manipulator serving his own purposes. But does anyone outside of a die hard Shakespeare fan remember his motivation? When people remember the deeds over the judgment, that character is fine enough as he or she is. The same can be said for the Wicked Queen from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. We didn't know why the Queen needed to be the most beautiful in the land. All we knew was that she was willing to do anything in her power to become the Fairest in the Land, even have her huntsman kill Snow White and bring her heart back in a box. It always irks me that people say that these villains are boring because they aren't interesting or complex enough. Doesn't the attempted murder of a stepchild on TWO occasions count for something? How is that not interesting? Disney has gotten away with having little character development literally DOZENS of times with their villains. Can any of you tell me the motivation for Professor Ratigan? Why was Jafar so hellbent on acquiring Genie's lamp? Can anyone recall why Cruella DeVil desired to kill the puppies for a fur coat? Why would Scar go out of his way to murder Mufasa and banish his nephew in order to become king? Simple. I'll tell you all of these reasons in one word. Greed. But the greed goes beyond just wanting money and fortune. Jafar kept searching for more and more ways to grab power because he was greedy. Why do I need to know why he wants power? Doesn't everyone want power?
How about Emperor Palpatine? He wanted to have absolute control over the entire galaxy? Why? Does it matter? He manages to wipe out the Jedi Order, conquer the galaxy and begin construction on the Death Star. What about Sauron and Saruman? They sought the One Ring for their own desires. Saruman wanted to take Sauron's place as the lord of Middle Earth, while Sauron wanted to wipe out mankind. Why did Voldemort want to make as many Horcruxes as possible? To make sure he was immortal and unbeatable in battle.
This doesn't just have to be with villains either. What were the reasons Han Solo was a smuggler? He wanted money. He wasn't evil because he was greedy. He knew what was right and wrong, but he didn't have to act like Luke in order to be considered a hero. What about Indiana Jones? Why was he an archaeologist? Did he have a tragic backstory? No. It wasn't needed. The adventures he went on were more important than his beliefs and reasonings.
Why did Aragorn return to be King of Gondor? Did he have a traumatic experience as a child that forced him to accept his responsibility? No. His motivation was not as important as the quest to destroy the Ring.
People seemed to gravitate just fine to Cinderella and Aurora without them being as deep and interesting as Belle. We were able to care about them because we learn to care about people out of empathy. They didn't need these deep and interesting backstories or big dreams. They took the roles that their societies had played out for them.
3. When is Complexity of Character needed?
Stories tend to be told in two different ways. The first is by allowing the events to guide the story. Such stories include:Raiders of the Lost Ark
Superman
Star Wars: A New Hope
Pinocchio
The second is character driven stories, where the character is the reason the story moves and flows. It's more interesting to learn why the son of two of Gotham's most beloved citizens decides to become Batman, than to learn about an alien who comes to earth and is given instructions to make the people a better race, like Superman was.
That is the key to Complexity of Character. If the character's beliefs and actions keep the story moving forward, that character needs to be complex. In Batman Begins, we get to see Bruce Wayne begin to search for reasons as to why criminals act the way they do, and why someone would want to make a city corrupt. He meets R'as Al Ghul and begins to train in the ways of learning to conquer his own fears and doubts and becomes a powerful warrior.
Nolan didn't corner the market on this, though. When he first appeared on film screens in 1977, Darth Vader was viewed as a cool looking cyborg villain doing the business of the Empire. But we learn from Obi-Wan that he was once a Jedi, so something must have corrupted him. In Empire, we learn that Darth Vader is Luke's dad, Anakin Skywalker. And in Jedi, we get to see his characters redemption. Had George Lucas not fucked up the the Prequel Saga as badly as he did, than Anakin Skywalker may have been the most tragic character in all of storytelling.
But the Complexity of Character award for a single character has got to be Severus Snape in the "Harry Potter" series. J.K. Rowling kept us on our toes with Snape. We never knew if he was a villain or a hero with all of his actions he took. We watched him allow Harry to be nearly tortured by Umbridge, but we saw him rescue Harry when his broom became defunct. We watched him kill Dumbledore, but we learned about the truth behind his actions. We learned that he was in love with Lily Evans and was willing to do anything to protect her and her son when Voldemort began hunting them. He vowed to protect Harry when he learned he had lost her. Even when Dumbledore was gone, he aided Harry. I am still perplexed by him.
4. Is Complexity of Character overused?
The short answer is yes. The long answer?
Did anyone ask about the Wicked Witch's motivations? I know I didn't, and I have been unable to watch The Wizard of Oz the same way since I saw Wicked. What about the entire Harry Potter world? The way I saw it, everyone but Harry himself got at least a huge scene of character development. Ron Weasley
Hermione Granger
Albus Dumbledore
Sirius Black
Draco Malfoy
Remus Lupin
Cedric Diggory
Ginny Weasley
Neville Longbottom
just to name a few.
Frozen had the disprivilege of having multiple characters having these deep motivations: Anna for wanting to rekindle her relationship with Elsa, Hans for his desire to become King of Arendelle, Elsa for her desire to be free from responsibility, Olaf for wanting to be part of Summer, even Kristoff for his desire to get a new sled, then to keep Anna alive from the curse Elsa placed on her.
It's not just using Complexity of Character too much. It's using it improperly. Did we really have to sit through the scenes with Olaf wanting to be part of Summer? Or did we really have to sit through scenes of Anakin Skywalker's dreams of becoming a Jedi as a child?
Here are 4 examples of Complexity of Character done perfectly:
The Lord of the Rings: The story keeps the focus on the world around the characters instead of keeping it on Frodo's dreams of adventure or Aragorn's desires to become King. Characters are given certain scenes in the story for their personal development, but not much else. Imagine if it had been overused, and we had to learn all about Gimli's motivation? Or about why Gandalf was a good wizard while Saruman was evil?
Avatar: The Last Airbender: Much like LOTR, Avatar manages to keep the focus on the terrible war that is engulfing the entire world. We learn bits and pieces of Katara and Sokka's dreams and personal goals, but that doesn't steal too much time from other characters and situations.
But Prince Zuko is the one who undergoes the complete physical and mental transformation from a snobby and self-centered exiled prince of the Fire Nation, to an ambitious and confused adolescent, to a mentor and true friend to Aang and the team. It never seems too forced or too contrived, and we get to see what a true redemptive cycle looks like, rather than have it all squeezed into one package as in Return of the Jedi. Zuko's flip flopping between good and evil is necessary, because it forwards the story.
The Chronicles of Prydain: The stories in Pyrdain hardly give time for other characters and their motivations, keeping the focus on the two main characters: Taran and Eilonwy. But it won't shy away from giving a character development if it meant that it could help forward the story. Prince Ellidyr in The Black Cauldron is sort of a reverse Faramir from LOTR, where he actually begins to commit bat deeds in favor of restoring his name, but ultimately becomes a true good guy and aiding the companions in their quest to destroy the Black Cauldron.
Return of Jafar: The writers made a surprising choice by allowing Iago to have a much larger role, after having him depart from Jafar's services and begin to look out for himself. And while he manages to trick Aladdin and co. into accepting him, he actually begins to care for them, and we see the suffering he has to endure when Jafar forces him back into his services. There wasn't much need for Aladdin's character to develop or Genie's or Jasmines. They kept the focus on Iago, and that's what matters.
5. What is the most important aspect of storytelling?
This brings me to the most important question: What is the most important aspect of storytelling? Is it the development of complex characters, a deep and thought provoking story, or is it establishing a vivid and expressive scenery and character design? The answer:
All of the Above.
There is no surefire formula for a masterpiece novel, or a sweeping epic movie. The only way for the entertainment medium to truly impact us on a high and serious matter, is for a proper balance of all of these aspects.
The Lion King could have been a disaster of a film had it not been for it's thought provoking message and epic take on storytelling. The characters in this film are not deeply complex, they help forward the plot of the film, and that is the most important idea.
Imagine if Darth Vader's introduction and redemption were done in one film. Would we have had that cultural connection to one of the greatest tragic characters had he been revealed to be who he was at the end of A New Hope? George Lucas and his writing team allowed Vader's character to develop throughout the trilogy, never giving in to their own selfish desires about making millions of dollars (at least until 1981).
Imagine if Frozen was as rigid and stale as the original fairy tale written by Hans Christian Andersen. Would we have grown to care for Elsa had she been a villain? Would we have grown to care for Kristoff had he been in love with both Elsa and Anna? Would we have cared for Hans if he was a Jafar-like villain?
There is no way to fully predict the ebb and flow of a movie/book/video game's impact on popular culture. It needs to have an adventurous story, a few complex characters, and a rich tapestry of design and scenery.
But in Hollywood, people tend to overcompensate a weak storyline with numerous plot holes with an entire menagerie of complex characters, even when it isn't needed. Sometimes, as in Harry Potter, we have a ton of interesting side characters and villains, but an incredibly weak main character that is given no room to mold his character into something believable. Or in the case of Once Upon a Time in Wonderland, we get 3 amazing and well developed characters in Jafar, the Red Queen, and the Knave of Hearts, and two disgustingly nice and good main leads we don't care for.
Complexity of Character is indeed important, but without a well written story or great scenery and setting, does it all really matter?
No comments:
Post a Comment