Off topic, but 1500 GITSers! Congrats!

Scott, I have a question. Do you think this way while you are writing? Do you say, "This character should be a Trickster and behave such and such a way". I understand the archetypes but just don't think this way. And don't quite understand the usefulness of breaking down a movie into archetypes, especially since you've said before that these things are subjective and there is no right or wrong answer. So in short, do I need to put more effort into assigning characters into archetypes or is it simply one way of doing things?

Thanks, Teddy. Combined with the 2800+ people who follow GITS via Google Reader and the 4,200+ followers on Twitter, that's like 8,500 GITS followers. I'm only 9,991,500 followers away from my goal of 10 million. Hope to reach that before the next millennium. BTW my Twitter handle is: @GoIntoTheStory. I'm featuring daily Tweets from GITS archives as well as the occasional thought that pops into my head, so please check that out.

C.S., beginning with the caveat that there's no right way to write, every writer is different, and every story is different. Archetypes may work for you. They may not. Here's why they work for me: 1. In a screenplay, I believe that on a fundamental level, each character has a narrative function. A character does not exist for any reason, but rather to tie into and advance the plot by their interactions with other characters. A script is short-form storytelling where every word counts. We do not have the luxury of tossing in characters who have no purpose other than to entertain. That's why this is one of my principles of screenwriting: Character = Function. 2. Some may think that is a reductionist approach that somehow restricts a character's development. I see it in exactly the opposite light. When I dig into a character, I am going deeper and deeper into them to surface their most central, base, fundamental personality elements. I call that their 'core essence' or 'core of being.' I ask my characters questions like: What do you want? What do you need? What do you fear most? I try to find the most fundamental aspects tied to the development of their psyche. Learning that core 'stuff' allows me to turn around and develop them from that base, shaping choices of all sorts related to beliefs, behaviors, backstory and so on that are consistent with the character. In other words, as opposed to struggling with a bunch of disparate personality traits or conceptual elements about who they might be, I use this work to try to develop grounded, multidimensional, flesh-and-blood characters. 3. In this process, I invariably learn what archetype function they play in the story. And that helps me to see how they are related to the Protagonist, both in terms of the Plotline and Themeline, and in terms of the narrative as a whole. 4. Furthermore I flip the process and look at those characters as projections of the Protagonist which provides whole other layers of meaning and interpretation -- about the Protagonist him/herself and the other characters. 5. So what I end up with is a story that arises organically from developing the characters -- starting with the Protagonist and moving out from there -- the plot emerging from characters, and a story where each character provides a clearly defined, yet organic function. For example, let's consider Toy Story 3 and let me ask this question: Why does Bonnie exist? I am 99.9% certain I know why Michael Arndt and the Pixar filmmakers came up with and developed the Bonnie character and that is this: They needed a character to whom Andy could bequeath his toys. Once they determined that Andy was not going to take his toys with him to college, what are your options? Well, he could throw them away, a dynamic they play around with in the plot, but not a satisfactory ending. No, since we have all grown to love Woody, Buzz, Hamm, Rex and all the rest of those toy characters, we want them to be happy. And how are they happy? When they have a home. So if they can't be with Andy, then need to be with someone who is a substitute Andy. Hence Bonnie. That is her function, that is why she exists in the story. But that's just the start with her character. Now we need to figure out the core nature of the relationship of Andy to Bonnie. Since Andy is going to be giving up these toys with which he has bonded for so many years, that is a fundamentally emotional decision. Read the denouement again. There is emotion infused on so many levels in what transpires there. And at one level, Andy is symbolically and in essence giving a piece of his heart -- in the form of the toys -- to Bonnie. So I see her as playing an Attractor role with Andy. He needs to feel like -- in his heart -- she 'gets' the toys the way that he does. That is the only way he -- and by extension we -- can feel a positive, if bittersweet resolution at the end. The toys belong with her. Now flip the relationship: What is Andy's narrative function in terms of Bonnie? Again read the denouement: Clearly what he is doing is schooling Bonnie about his toys, their unique personalities, and such. Moreover he also engages in play-acting with her to show her some of the possibilities that exist with these toys. So in that respect, Andy provides a Mentor function in relation to Bonnie. He initiates her into the rite of passage, where she will carry on the tradition of play with Woody, Buzz and the rest. He bestows that 'wisdom' upon her. Does that feel artificial? I'd say, no, it feels perfectly consistent with the story and is innate to both characters, drilling down into the core essence of each. A final point: In the larger scheme of things, and as I continue to analyze movies using archetypes, I see these five narrative functions present over and over and over again: Someone whose story it is, someone who provides opposition, someone who connects to their heart, someone who connects to their head, someone who tests them. Protagonist. Nemesis. Attractor. Mentor. Trickster. If, indeed, many if not most movies have these character archetypes at work in them, might we benefit from approaching our stories with them in mind in terms of our characters? If I said, "Most movies have a love interest," you would probably wouldn't bat an eye. Well, oftentimes that's what an Attractor is. Or if I said, "In most movies, the Protagonist has a sidekick," you'd probably have no problem agreeing with that. Oftentimes that is how a Trickster manifests him/her/itself. Often I find it's just a matter of writers becoming familiar with the idea of these archetypes and the way I use them. Perhaps it's because I've worked with this set of ideas for so many years now and taught it successfully to hundreds of writers, but it feels quite natural to me. But as I say, there's no right way to write. If a writer doesn't resonate with archetypes, don't use them. For some examples of my movie analysis using the five primary character archetypes: True Grit Star Trek The Social Network The Town Inception The Wizard of Oz Up

Thanks, Scott! I think it might just be a matter of labeling. I definitely go through point 2 like you do and I am much more comfortable with labels like Love Interest and Sidekick but I think I resist the terms Trickster and Attractor because they sound so academic. : } Perhaps after a few more weeks of Script Reading and Analysis, I'll be able to throw those terms around like an old pro!

"Character = Function" That's a good way of looking at it. Didn't think I'd agree with you, huh? Mystery Man on Film calls it "Cast Design." Here's a quote: "You have a protagonist who is basically the sun around which all of the other supporting characters rotate. But you have to carefully construct your cast design. You have to make sure that your supporting characters serve a storytelling function by having each one bring out very specific, very distinctly different dimensions out of your protag." That way you create a protagonist with depth. Of course this goes more than one way between all the characters, not just the protagonist. They all bring something out of each other that will show different point-of-views of the story. I do think your "switching protagonists" exercise is helpful for figuring out view points. It reduces the risk of making your story one-dimensional.

MMOF said that? Well, there you go, he and I agreed on yet another thing. And let me go one step further, something I have discussed before which you may remember. Jung talks about how a person's psychoanalytic task is to engage all aspects of their psyche, even those they repress or deny especially their shadow (dark impulses, negative associations, etc). He said that if a person does not do that, the universe will create circumstances that force them to. This is a perfect take on writing a story: In their life up to FADE IN, a Protagonist has been making do, combining a set of beliefs, behaviors, defense mechanisms, and coping skills to create their persona. But in almost all cases, there is all this 'stuff' inside that they have not embraced or connected with. That is the 'stuff' of their Authentic Self. Here comes the Story Universe. Wham! Something happens in the middle of Act One in the form of a herald's call to adventure or an event (plot point) which tosses the Ordinary Way Of Living up in the air. Eventually by the end of Act One, they have left their Old World and entered the New World (of Adventure) and off you go. Now what if we think, as I suggested in this thread previously, of the primary characters of our story as projections of our Protagonist? In other words: * The Nemesis exists in order to provide opposition to the Protagonist (a projection of the P's Shadow). * The Attractor exists in order to force the Protagonist to get in touch with the emotional aspects of their psyche (a projection of the P''s Heart). * The Mentor exists in order to force the Protagonist to get in touch with the intellectual aspects of their psyche (a projection of the P's Head). * The Trickster exists in order to test the Protagonist's will (a projection of the P's Will or lack thereof). Now you have a 'cast design' that isn't arbitrary, but derives organically from who the Protagonist is, what the nature of their Disunity-to-Unity psyche journey is, and so forth. Again what I find is simply by immersing oneself in the story universe and those characters, digging deeper and deeper into them, these dynamics emerge naturally. It leads me to wonder that if it is true that stories have a innate plot structure, at the very least Beginning, Middle and End, and perhaps variations of The Hero's Journey, might they also have a character structure: Protagonist, Nemesis, Attractor, Mentor, Trickster? And if the latter is true, then we have a new and different way to approach the story-crafting process, one that takes seriously the concept "character equals plot" because this is a character-driven approach to story structure. These are the ideas that keep me occupied for many hours of every day as I continue to watch movies, read books, work with writers and students, write my stories, and so forth.

Oh, and switching protagonist? If there is only one way you use archetypes, use that one. It's a hugely helpful way of dimensionalizing all the characters: seeing the world through their eyes as the Protagonist.

I'm still not sold on the Archetypes or The Hero's Journey and I don't think I will ever be. I prefer to leave all the characters open as far as their function goes whether I'm analyzing or creating a story. They will tell me eventually why they're there. That's not to say that you could possibly take most stories and assign them these Archetypes. I'm not denying they exist and I never have. I guess it's personal preference how to use these various storytelling elements. Whatever works. Next week will be interesting. I will try to express how I see structure, character arcs and theme as not separate entities, but inseparable devices to tell a story. I have to do a lot of thinking... Here's the MMoF article. Part of his Character Depth study: http://mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com/2006/09/character-depth-articles.html

Teddy, I know it may be hard to wrap one's head around these ideas, but one of the reasons they excite is precisely because they merge character, plot, and them as an organic whole process. Of course as in any story development, you will spend time with a character here, brainstorming plot there, ponder theme and what not, but the very idea of a story as psychological journey envelopes, at least in my mind, all of these elements, not as "separate entities," but as part of a holistic process. I look forward to reading your thoughts as anybody's on the subject. I'm just glad to be talking about screenplays beyond structure which is what so many people seem to obsess over. Yes, screenplays are structure, but so much more. And perhaps even more important, the process how a writer gets to that structure.

We veered off into some interesting areas, but managed to avoid some basic questions re Toy Story 3. Such as: * Who is the Protagonist? * Who is the Nemesis? * What the hell is Buzz's deal? * Is Andy's mother completely clueless or an agent of 'evil'? Finally who is your favorite character in TS3?

Woody's journey isn't one where he proves to the other toys that he is right and they are wrong. It's a deeper inner journey through which he learns that he has to choose between Andy and his friends, the other Toys. We clearly see this at the midpoint, when he chooses between going home/being a college toy and saving his friends from the evil Lotso at Sunnyside. And which leads to Woody's most important decision at the end of the film: Going to college with Andy or staying in the attic with his friend? He not only chooses his friends/family but also understands that toys should "be played with" and that they need a new owner; thus, donates himself and his family to Bonnie, an owner he did want at first because he was still attached to Andy. (In one of Scott’s comments on this page, he writes about Andy’s journey, and how Andy plays with his toys one last time as he hands them to Bonnie, paralleling Woody's journey in Michael Arndt's words - mentioned in the post above) P.S. Hope Bonnie’s mom doesn’t tell her daughter, “you have too many toys; lets’ take some of them to the day care.” That will be a whole new Toy Story!

Briefly, many characters play important roles in TS3. Each assumes a different function per act, per sequence and even per scene. Here’s my quick breakdown of Character = Function per act: Act I: P: Woody – GOAL: be there for Andy – N: Toys – A: Andy – T: Jessie & Buzz ? Act IIa: P: Woody – GOAL: go back home – N: Toys – A: Andy – T: Buzz – M: Chuckles Secondary P: Toys – GOAL: Get out of Caterpillar room/Go Home - N: Lotso – M: Mrs. Potato head’s eye – A: Woody, Andy Act IIb: P: Woody – GOAL: rescue friends from Sunnyside – N: Lotso – A: Toys – M: Lifer T- Buzz? Act III: P: Woody – GOAL: get back home – T: Lotso – A: Family Overall Story: P: Woody – A: Family (toys) vs. Andy – M: Chuckles, Lifer – T: Toys (esp. Mr. Potato head, Jessie, Buzz) – N: Lotso I repeat the Q: What’s Buzz’s deal. He seems like a major character, but after the breakdown, I started to wonder: what is his real function? I think Andy’s mom isn’t clueless but the source of clues for the toys. Mom: Donate your toys to Sunnyside – Jessie: Hop in the box let’s go to Sunnyside Well, maybe she’s clueless at the end, or she simply doesn’t care – Andy: You real think I should donate these? – Mom: sure, whatever you want honey,(thinkin’) as long as they’re out of my house.

Anna, nice analysis. One thing that jumps out at me just looking at your distillation of events, isn't it interesting how characters' attitudes and points of focus shift throughout the story. In part that's because events happen which change the course of the narrative (this takes us back to the discussion the other day about 'plot points'). In part, too, it reflects how those events alter a character's perspective on things, even forcing them realize truths not only about what's going on in the world of the plot, but also inner truths about what's going on in the world of their Self. While that is essentially a natural result of character interacting with plot, I also think it reflects the nature of story itself: That is a good story [at least long-form ones like screenplays] puts characters into situations where they confront the possibility or need to change. That is not only compelling to us as readers, but also helps purely in terms of story as entertainment; that is a character who goes through shifts in attitudes, goals and points of focus is more entertaining than a one-note character who just persists on a single track [unless, of course, it is they who change others]. Re Buzz: It feels like his function is primarily to support the course of the plot. In the beginning he's part of the team and Woody's pal. At some point, he gets manually 'brainwashed' so he becomes a key authoritarian member of Lotso's gang. There is the whole Spanish persona (recalling TS2). Then eventually back to part of the toy family. Feels like a Trickster to me. And that's interesting because it suggests to me the filmmakers came to this big fork-in-the-road: Whose story is this? And while they certainly wanted to involve Buzz as much as possible, clearly they decided that this is Woody's saga. That circles all the way back to the original dynamic that existed in the very first scenes of the first Toy Story: Andy and his most beloved toy -- Woody. That is reflected in the Arndt quotes in today's OP where he views the entire trilogy through the vantage point of Woody's "personal development." That choice -- in effect to make Woody the Protagonist of the story -- was a critical one, the foundation for every other choice in the story-crafting process. And it allows the story to explore some nuance of Woody's "personal development," as your analysis here suggests: He has the choice to live with his more 'infantile' grasp of his prime directive -- to be Andy's toy -- or choose a more mature tack, one based on his own life experience -- opt to try to rescue his friends (the other toys). In other words, he has two faces of love at work: For Andy and for his Friends. In the first Toy Story, I think it's fair to say we don't feel that level of love for his Friends like we do in TS3. And that's why the Final Struggle -- where the toys are seemingly heading to the incinerator -- is so riveting, why them holding hands as they face their collective demise so emotionally powerful. And now that I think about it, that is yet another reason why the denouement is such a great sequence. Normally a denouement is like 1-2 pages, a quick opportunity to see the Protagonist in whatever version of their Unity state they have achieved. In the script for TS3, the denouement is nearly 5 pages long and I'd be surprised if the movie version isn't even longer. When I saw the movie, I thought how terrific that the filmmakers transformed the denouement into this wonderful resolution to the trilogy. What they did in effect was switch Protagonists: The denouement is about Andy's psychological journey, his emotional resolution about the toys. And as I'm working through these thoughts here now, I can see how that works even more beautifully than I had first thought because it follows on the fact that Woody has already done his job: He went back for his Friends, he made his choice, a truly selfless act of filial love. Now it's Andy's turn, not only to resolve his own need -- to move from childhood to adulthood and go off to college -- but also service the toys' need: To find a new 'Andy' [in the form of Bonnie]. I hope that makes sense as I'm just working that out as I type.