What amazes me about the characters is how many of them are Attractors or Mentors, or at least have the potential to be. Chuckie, Sean, Lambeau, Skylar, all the way down to the CIA guys in their one scene - everyone wants to form or continue a relationship of some kind with Will (lover, friend, teacher, employer) and we can see how that relationship would shape Will, for good or bad, if he were to commit to it. No wonder Will's so confused - he's surrounded by conflicting patterns on which to shape his life, each embodied in a character, and all of them have something to recommend them. The other thing about the characters is just how damn well written they are! Just like Will, none of the significant characters are exactly what they seem. Everyone has hidden depths, concealed pain, secret motives. Just when you think you know what a character's doing in this story, they surprise you. Best example, maybe, is Chuckie - who may not have much in the way of smarts, but who turns out to know what Will needs better than Will ever has.

It's great to know such details about the script-to-screen evolution. It pushes us writers to write what we know and tweak it later. I watched the deleted scenes on the DVD, and it was great to find out that the scenes we read and which didn't end in the movie were actually shot. Better yet, some didn't make the final cut simply because of the time constraints. The cat joke scene, for example, had survived 5 years of rewrites, and it was shot for the movie; it didn't make it because it was too long. The same with the Skylar and Chucky scene which would have ended in the movie had the producers known the movie was going to be more than well-received.

The protagonist is Will. If we examine Will's journey carefully, we can see that what he wants is to stay in his comfort zone, with his buddies (his family) who are loyal to him and will beat anyone without asking why. He’s safe in this environment and doesn’t want to leave. The attractor is Skylar because she stirs Will's emotions after the mentor, Sean, has awakened them. Though the eruption of the repressed emotional lava doesn't take place until Sean tells him "It's not [Will's] fault". Sean and Will do develop an emotional relationship, but Sean is more of a mentor figure, a father-figure, who doesn’t just give Will the answers but helps him answer them himself. We may say that Lambeau is the trickster since he starts helping Will with his ability, than starts planning Will's future for him. But there’s also another trickster: Will’s ability. Though it helps him drive shrinks away, gains him a girlfriend, helps him hide his flaws, faults and ugly past, yet it attracts foreigners into his calm world, and it makes his best friend push him away. Maybe this ability is his Nemesis since it’s the thing that disturbed his sacred comfort zone? Not a traditional story, no traditional characters yet it works.

As far as Will is concerned, I like the fact that he has this great ability and really doesn't care all that much. He really doesn't think that he is special in any way. People who are good at things do not think they are good because it is easy to them and they want a challenge. In Will's case he chooses to flex his muscle in private. His biggest barriee is his past. One of the great factors is that Sean an Lambeau exist to not only battle Will, but each other over Will and provide that extra touch that really makes all of the character interactions work so well and thus make a great script.

Laura Deerfield posted this the other day: "The thing that struck me on this reading of the script was the fact that Will is really an asshole. I mean, he’s obnoxious and violent and cocky – and could easily have been an unlikable character. It is impressive that we end up caring so much about him." And that's a good point: Normally Hwood wants writers to create sympathetic characters. What is sympathetic about Will? And what of his Disunity state in Act One? It's certainly there. I'll add some thoughts when I have more time.

I don't remember how this ended up in the movie, but I thought Skylar's character was not well developed in the script. Well, she is interesting, but the choices she makes are not supported. Is love so blind that she'll go through the turmoil of a relationship with Will so easily. Even though she has goals and drive, she still seems like the Magic Pixie Dream Girl, who only exists to motivate Will. I would have liked him to at least have to try to win her heart, besides just showing up.

I think that, although it also shows his cockiness, Will's defeat of the even cockier college boy in the verbal sparring battle makes us root for him. He's violent, but the people he's violent with are bullies. He stands up for others and is loyal to his friends.

Ryan, I don't quite see Skylar as an MPDG, but she is underdeveloped. There are so many significant characters, though, I'm not sure there would have been a lot of room to give her more. So, it's clear that we have Will as the protag, and Skylar as the attractor. I'd call Sean the mentor who first appears to be a trickster, and Lambeau the trickster who first appears to be a mentor...but what about the Nemesis? An argument could be made that Chuckie is the Nemesis. If Will's conscious goal is to remain one of the guys, an ordinary Joe, then the person who works most directly against that is Chuckie. Yes, Chuckie's goal may be what's best for Will, but no one else's goals oppose Will's in such a head-on manner. Oh, and Scott, you were going to discuss a Beauty and the Beast theme.

There are a few things a screenwriting professor told me that make a character likable/empathetic. I might have forgotten a few... Early introduction (we don't care about Private Ryan in Saving Private Ryan because he's introduced so late) A special skill or talent (Bobby Boucher in Waterboy/any superhero movie) Undeserved Misfortune Good Looks Sense of Humor Pet the Dog/Save the Cat Moment Relatable And Will has all of these. To answer the question on what makes will likable. Yes he is an asshole. But he is a likable asshole. My thoughts on one of my favorites types of characters, "The Likable Asshole." I know comedy best so some other examples of comics who are likable assholes... Daniel Tosh, Mike Destafno, Corey Holcomb, Bill Burr. Check these guys out if you have a chance. Basically what these guys have in common is that they speak their mind, but do so in a way that is likable, much like Will. I'll go to the scene where he intellectually dominates Clark. Clark is that archetype douche we all hate. Rich, good looking, smart, pompous, has everything and isn't afraid to flaunt it. He's someone who in society has "the power." But Will does what we all want to do and beats him at his own game, sticks up for his friend and then gets her number. One point to Will! Another asshole moment that we end up liking, also his his "pet the dog moment,"/"save the cat moment." This is when he kicks the shit out of the guy who bullied him. First, he gets revenge on the bully (something we all at one point in time wish we could do). Second, he sticks up for a girl that just got disrespected. He has manners, in some sort of sense. Another point to Will! He's funny and goes back and takes another shot at the douche. "How bout them apples!" Another point to Will. We see him as a Janitor. We get a sense of undeserved misfortune. Why is such a smart guy mopping floors? Another point to Will. All of that stuff happens pretty early in the script. but what keeps the likability factor going, what keeps us in our seats for two hours is HOPE. It's his genius in action, those trailer moments, those moments where he is being an intellectual bad ass, those moments that make us sit back in awe, those moments that give us a taste of his potential, that give us HOPE. HOPE that he will one day break out of his comfort zone and fulfill his potential. It's the same way we HOPE for the super talented athlete from a bad neighborhood to succeed and as they say "get out." And its also why we're so crushed when the football player dies in "Boyz in the Hood." Yes he's an asshole. But he's an asshole to the right people in the beginning and he I HOPE I made sense...

Tommy, that is excellent analysis. And to tag along with your observations, your point about how "all of that stuff happens pretty early in the script" is an important one because you want a reader to buy into and connect with the Protagonist as soon as possible. If you do that, it buys your story an enormous amount of good will [pun intended]. This allows you room to stretch what is expected per conventional wisdom -- slow pace, nonlinear narrative, flashbacks -- because the reader is rooting for the Protagonist, they want to see what happens to him/her. One other point: The beatdown of Bobby does score Will some points on the likability front, but as I noted elsewhere, how the scene ends with this scene description [P. 11]: ANGLE ON WILL -- SAVAGE, UGLY, VICIOUS AND VIOLENT Whatever demons must be raging inside Will, he's taking them out on Bobby Champa. He pummels the helpless, unconscious Champa, fury in his eyes. This is not just an arbitrary save the cat moment, but rather a window into Will's soul. The unexplained presence of "demons" [metaphorical, of course] and Will's rage initiates a mystery: Why is this young man so angry? Where did his demons come from? And per your last line, Tommy: Yes, you made very good sense!

Laura, thanks for the reminder. It's been a hectic day, but if memory serves me, I think I posted something on that in today's theme thread.

If we abandon the idea that the Main Character and the Protagonist are always the one and same, it opens up some more possibilities. If the story goal of Good Will Hunting is to get Will to change, and if we define the Protagonist as the character who pursues the story goal, that makes Lambeau the Protagonist with the help of Sean. They are the ones who are actively pursuing this goal. And that would make Will the Antagonist. He is trying to prevent the Protagonist from achieving his goal. Thus making Will the Main Character of this story and also the Antagonist. Seen this way, everybody's goals become much clearer.

I noticed this as well. Lambeau's story starts by following a traditional paradigm: Inciting incident: Theorem Solved Key incident: Janitor is genius; Lambeau has to find him. Then come "tests, allies and Enemies": Will vs Shrinks, Sean Then he starts to plan Will's future and ends up losing everything : Will leaves him. There's also the Sean thread which makes it more likely that the story is about Lambeau and his need to find a prodigy and by doing that return young and prove to himself why the path he chose was the right one. (More on this in Themes) If Lambeau is the Protagonist, he ends up losing to Will and Sean.

I will grant that any of these archetype designations are - finally - artificial as characters are organic and can't be constrained within a box. And I will also state that I'm a huge fan of a writer going into each primary character and seeing the story universe through their eyes as a Protagonist, a fantastic way to give the writer insight into all the characters. And I have no problem in some stories making a distinction between a Protagonist and a Lead Character. But in my view, that does not pertain to GWH. Why? Because I think a Protagonist character typically involves the following: • The Protagonist usually goes on some sort of physical / emotional journey. • That journey creates the spine of the plot. • The Protagonist’s goal almost always dictates the story’s end point. • All the other major characters are linked to the Protagonist and his/her journey. • Of all the story’s characters, the Protagonist generally undergoes the most significant personal metamorphosis. They don't have to hit all of those, but typically will. Now I will grant you Will's goal is rather obtuse. What does he want? Eventually that boils down to a decision between staying in Boston or moving to California, but that doesn't even become apparent until well into Act Two. But it is there and is the critical end point of the story, providing the movie's most important emotional resolve. That combined with the fact that Will's story embraces all of the other dynamics above translates into him being the Protagonist. And oh by the way, the movie is called "Good Will Hunting." The character's name is Will Hunting. That's a pretty big damn hint who the filmmakers thought was the story's Protagonist. But as I said, it's great to look at Lambeau, and while we're at it, Sean, Skylar, and Chuckie as the story's Protagonist as an exercise to understand each of them more clearly. I teach this in my classes, calling it "switch Protagonists." Really is great stuff.

One last point: Isn't it interesting that three major characters are each suffering from a significant loss in their lives? * Sean: Lost his wife (death). * Skylar: Lost her father (death). * Will: Lost his parents (death). I suppose you could even add another layer re Will who lost his own childhood due to being shuffled around from one foster home to another, then the physical abuse. What does that mean? Not sure...