This was quite helpful, Rob, thanks! While, at some level, I knew that various characters could occupy the different archetypes at different times, I didn't quite grok it till now. Good stuff.

Batman Begins is a great lesson in how we can use archetypes without being confined by them. There are multiple mentors; there's a character, Ra's al Ghul, who fits a different archetype practically every time we see him... Nolan takes what he needs from archetypes and uses them as best suits his story - and I suppose we should too.

Archetypes are all about hats. They are hats that characters wear, not who characters are. Looks at a real life example: in theory, parents are meant to be Mentors to their children (yes, just like Batman's dad). But who here didn't feel at some point in their childhood like their parents weren't their Nemeses? The example brings up another point: archetypes are about relationships and about perception. In a healthy (non-abusive) household, is the mom or dad really the child's Nemesis?--No. But does the child legitimately perceive them that way sometimes?--Yes. An archtype "assignment" isn't carved in stone, it isn't eternal or immutable, and it isn't objective. And I'd venture that it lies in the eyes of the beholder. We are all the protagonist of our own stories. You may be my mentor, but odds are you are someone else's attractor and someone else's nemesis, too. Plus you're your own protagonist. Gee, that's a lot of hats. A cardboard cut-out character is always going to behave the same way--and be predictable and boring. A fleshed out, three-dimensional character is going to change hats sometimes, depending on their goals and the circumstances. From a writing perspective, rather than always and only ask "Who is the Nemesis?" or "Who is the attractor?" in this SCRIPT, it might useful to ask sometimes "Who fills a different archetype-role in this SCENE or even in this MOMENT?" Wow. Look at all the possibilities that just opened up.

Archetypes are masks. Any mask can be donned by any character. Many stories have multiple similar archetypes, what you will notice, is that the same mask is not worn by two players on stage at the same time.

Now that's an interesting thought...

Good point, Kevin! Have you ever seen the improv game "Stand Sit Lie"? They used to play it sometimes on the original UK version of "Whose Line is it Anyway?" Three characters go on stage and assume the three title poses, then begin a scene. Every time one person changes pose (as dictated by the action of the scene), the other characters have to adjust so that a balance of all three poses are maintained. (You can see this game in action here.) One of the reasons these scenes are so funny is that people do this in real life with social roles: when one person changes roles, a vacuum is created, and someone else switches roles to fill the gap--and that change often stirs up other changes for other characters, too. When my husband and I are watching a TV show or movie, and characters change roles, we tend to turn to each other and yell "Stand Sit Lie!" at each other when we catch it. It's really fascinating to watch for and it pops up all the time once you're aware of it. A great long-form example of this is The Wire, btw.

Thanks for reading!

Thank you for the post, Rob, and getting us thinking about archetypes, with the great example from Batman. (I feel like I've been a boorish dinner guest and chatted with everyone but the host. Sorry. I meant to say thank you in the first place but got excited by archetypes and then got swept away.) It takes a lot of guts to think out loud and write the kind of honest, vulnerable posts that you and the other questers have been putting up. It's great to be able to learn over your shoulders. Thank you for what you're writing.

No way, Shaula - I was glad to see some discussion pop at the end of the post. I wasn't sure that people, Scott included, would respond to the "fluid" treatment of how archetypes appear in a story. Glad to see it made at least a morsel of sense.

More than a morsel: it really resonated for me. Thank you.

Shaula, I use the word 'mask' instead of hat, but the same concept. For purposes of crafting a story, it's really helpful to drill down into a character and determine what is their absolute primary narrative function. If it is to influence the Protagonist's emotional development, that is an Attractor. Provide wisdom and guidance, that is Mentor. To test the Protagonist by shapeshifting from ally to enemy, enemy to ally, that is Trickster. Having determined their primary character function, then the writer can play around with any character wearing any archetype mask in any scene. The Attractor is always the Attractor, but can wear a trickster mask, a mentor mask, even a nemesis mask from scene to scene. This is actually innate to the human experience as we all wear 'masks' in our lives. We put on one mask to deal with our parents, another mask when we interact with co-workers, another mask when haggling with a car salesman, another mask when trying to seduce someone, and on and on. It's another way to use archetypes that enables a writer to create multiple layers and dimensions to each character so they are not stereotypical, cardboard types, but living, breathing people. So hats, masks, whatever, characters have the right to assume different ways of presenting themselves in different situations. We can use that to craft multidimensional characters who make for compelling figures in our stories.

Debbie - I could write a whole series on Batman Begins. The most forgotten of the Nolan Batman films, I really think it's an incredible piece of writing (and execution). The structure. The themes. The characters. The pacing of victories and defeats. The grounded approach to exaggerated design/costumes. The digestion of rich source material. The list goes on and on... It was a revelation. It deserves more credit - for the reasons you mention, as well.

Could you explain the archetypes some more? I only know some of them.

The Archetypes were the brainchild of Carl Jung, who described them as the ancient river beds along which our psychic current naturally flows. Jung argued that the unconscious is an active agent in human life, that is is a potent, dynamic force shaping people's actions, even though we can't have a direct experience of it. He went further and suggested that something we all share by virtue of being human is a collective unconscious which is "identical in all men and thus constitutes a common psychic substrate of a suprapersonal nature which is present in every one of us." Archetypes are the critical content of the collective unconscious; they are the primary forms, the original patterns of the human mind; forms that cover a range of concepts that make up the basic elements of our human psyche: e.g., "evil", "mother", "happiness", "wisdom" ... All of us have these primary forms in our collective unconscious -- we know what they mean, together. Archetypes are ideal building blocks for enabling human connections because they embody a form that is essentially a source code for the understanding of certain types of behaviour ... unconsciously they can't be observed or experienced directly, but they can be expressed through the conscious forms of character and as such, they can be observed. People's dreams, ambitions, desires and wants originate in the depths of the psyche, which means it is impossible to accurately identify the genesis of these forces. So the function of archetypes helps raise the consciousness of motivating forces. Joseph Campbell and Bruno Bettleheim both asserted that mythology, folklore and fairy tales provide the most natural expressions of archetypes in society. Campbell's work shows us that myths are seemingly organic creations of culture -- which includes (broadly) stories, traditions and icons that are meaningful to the culture under examination. It is through mythology that archetypes create universal connections, and therefore a way for us to recognise aspects of our own unconscious in the characters who act out roles in the stories we engage with. We see part of ourselves in in the characters -- both their bravery and stupidity -- and realise that the story is really the story of Everyman. The myths work because they bring archetypes (what we see in ourselves) to life through the characters (what we see in the stories), and they offer us a universality in lessons that we know viscerally: the bad guy is dangerous, the mother is nurturing, the joker is unpredictable, the wise old man can be trusted, and so on. Different writing coaches over the (fairly recent) years have worked to rename and re-identify many achetypes, but irrespective of what they are called, they have the same functions. Here's a few >>

The Hero (also known as the Protagonist. Although Phillips and Huntley in Dramatica suggest that the Protagonist is only the Hero when it is the main character, and they can be separate. Essentially this is the guy who is seeking the goal of the story. He represents fortitude, courage and victory.) The Villain (also the Antagonist, and Scott identifies this as the Nemesis, and others suggest Anti-Hero, Vogler calls it the Shadow, Jim Frey the Evil One. This character is seeking to prevent the Protagonist reaching the goal. He represents destruction and the attraction of evil.) The Guardian (also the mentor, sometimes a threshold guardian, the wise old man, the anima, the unavailable young woman. This character seeks to assist the Protagonist reach the goal. Is often sacrificed for the greater good. Represents experience, advice and heritage.) The Contagonist (a name I believe coined by Huntley and Phillips to represent the character who plays opposite the Guardian. This character seeks to deflect the protagonist from the goal, but is not always in the service of the Antagonist, he has is own agenda. Also known as the Trickster, or Tempter. Can also be a Threshold Guardian. Represents inner demons, neuroses, and the restriction of conscience.) Sidekick (also the Loyalist, a faithful supporter of whatever goal the main character to whom it is attached is pursuing. Sidekicks have no particular allegiance to the Light side or the Dark side, but they are unquestioningly faithful to the Protagonist or the Antagonist with whom they are involved. Quite often, they can be seen to change allegiances.) Sceptic (in balance to the Sidekick’s total confidence in its leader, the Sceptic represents doubt in its leader’s ability to achieve the goal. The Sceptic raises the voice of the indicators that portend failure. Often the potential of the Story Mind’s success is dramatised through the conflicting interactions of the Sidekick and the Sceptic. Like the Sidekick, Sceptics can also often be seen to change sides.) Reason (functions on the basis of logic; is calm, collected and cool, or even cold. Often a character that lacks ‘empathy’ and is used to point out logical flaws to the proposed solution, making grandiose plans that fail because the personal concerns of others have not been taken into account.) Emotion (in the same way that the Antagonist opposes the Protagonist, so does Emotion oppose Reason. The Emotion character is quick to anger, and quick to empathise; it is frenetic and disorganised and passionately pursues its goals. Often it finds that its advancement is frustrated due to wasted energy from thoughtless pursuit of unfulfilling enterprises. Here is where we usually find the love interest.) Ally (can be seen as an extension of the Sidekick archetype. The Hero usually needs someone to stand by them, stand up for them and stand with them against greater adversaries. As such, Allies can serve a variety of functions for the Hero: Companion, Sparring partner, Conscience, Comic relief, Messenger, Scout, Driver ... main function is to bring out the humanness of the Hero character, adding extra dimension and challenging them to be more open. Both Mentor and Threshold Guardian characters can act as Allies from time to time; and Allies can assume the masks of other archetypes from time to time.) Trickster (the Trickster is an archetype that can be used to extend the Sceptic character, and the mask of the Trickster may sometimes be worn by an Antagonist or a Guardian. Tricksters bring Heroes and audiences down to earth by provoking the Hero and his chosen direction. A Trickster character has little faith in the Hero, pointing out folly and hypocrisy in the Hero’s actions. This action is a powerful catalyst for change because it can draw attention to a situation that isn’t going anywhere, especially where characters are taking themselves too seriously. Tricksters are often needed to inject a little humour into the situation so the audience can see where the Hero is making mistakes. This allows the audience to come down hoping the Hero corrects his ways, knowing the consequences of what might happen if he does not.) The Herald (issues challenges and announces the coming of significant change. They can be seen as an extension of the Reason character, acting as keepers of records, responsible for planning and providing the audience with identification of other characters in their roles. Most stories begin with a Hero in some sort of repressed state, but one in which they have managed to ‘get by’ one way or another. Then, all of a sudden, a new energy enters the story, one which makes it impossible for the Hero to continue as he had. The new energy is that of the Herald.) The Shapeshifter (Heroes often encounter a Shapeshifter in the form of the opposite sex, and can be seen as an extension of the Emotion character. In stories where there is a love interest, the Emotion character is usually the primary focus of this interest, and in the turbulent development of a love affair, this character will change from one form to another in often violent and dramatic turns from the Hero’s point of view. Shapeshifters change appearance or mood, usually at pivotal moments in the story, and are difficult for the Hero to pin down. The Shapeshifter serves to provide the necessary balance in allowing the Hero to become ‘whole’ but can also frequently throw things completely out of whack by being too much too quickly. Sometimes this character functions as a teacher or a member of a family who is close to the hero but ‘unavailable’ in terms of close relationships.) The Ultimate Strength (has an awesome and indomitable presence, strength is frequently tested throughout the story, with the tests becoming increasingly difficult and needing proof, represents strength, performance and endurance. May be a hero, sidekick or guardian.) The Siren (brings innate sexual drives to the story, could also be Femme Fatale, Nymph, Woman-as-Goddess. Represents the universal power of attraction and the possibility of destruction.) The Creator (clearly God-like, an icon of masculinity and invention and creativity, can be an extension of Reason, represents imagination and inspiration.) There are some others that are to some extent self-revelatory: Woman as Mother The Fool The Change Master The God with Clay Feet The Crone The Rival The Saint The Whore The Woman as Bitch The Powerbroker The Mother of Goodness The Enigma

To read more about archetypes see CG Jung, The Archetypes and Collective Unconscious; Christopher Vogler, The Writer's Journey; James N Frey, The Key; Chris Huntley and Melanie Anne Phillips, Dramatica; Kent Wertime, Building Brands and Believers; Joseph Campbell, Hero with a Thousand Faces.

Ian, there's a great deal of information on character archetypes on the site. Here's a link to all of the GITS posts tagged with "character archetypes", which primarily focus on the five screenwriting character archetype paradigm of Protagonist, Nemesis, Mentor, Attractor, Trickster. Kevin has also provided you a great overview of Jungian archetypes. (Nice work, Kevin.) In addition to what Kevin's written, when it comes to Jung I'll point out the obvious: his archetype theory has received heavy criticism from feminists for its patriarchal nature ("The Whore"? "Woman as Bitch"? Is that the best you can do, Carl?). If your interests extend beyond the five screenwriting archetypes that Scott discusses and you want to venture into the wider world of Jungian archetypes (which is interesting stuff), it's a good idea to look into feminist reponses to Jung as well. A good starting point is: - Elizabeth Davis and Carol Leonard, The Women's Wheel of Life: Thirteen Archetypes of Woman at Her Fullest Power. New York: Penguin, 1996. - James Hillman, Re-Visioning Psychology. New York: Harper and Row, 1975. - Estella Lauter and Carol Schreir Rupprecht, Feminist Archetypal Theory. Knoxville: U of Tennesee P, 1985.

Thanks, Kevin, for this great overview of the subject of archetypes. As you note, there are plenty of people out there with a wide variety of iterations of various archetypes as well as ways in which they are used, everything from psychotherapy to the creative arts. I encountered the concept for the first time when in college studying "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" and then eventually Jung through Campbell, who was heavily influenced by the Swiss thinker. In fact Campbell edited an indispensable book "The Portable Jung" which if anyone is interested in Jung would do well to read, along with the book you mention, "the Archetypes and Collective Unconscious". Both books are pretty heavy and heady reading, but important. What I discovered when wading into Jung this last decade is confirmation and inspiration related to the ideas I had been pulling together as I started to teach screenwriting. Vogler did a fantastic thing in drawing a connection between The Hero's Journey and contemporary storytelling, specifically movies. However my experience of the intersection of those two is that the focus has almost all been on screenplay structure, which essentially has come to mean 'plot'. Moreover any of the so-called screenplay paradigms, including what often happens to the 12 'stages' of The Hero's Journey (Vogler's version of Campbell's original 17 aspects) is that they seem to get, for lack of a better words, 'codified' so that writers are writing to formula, and that results in the constant complaint from people in Hollywood [and frankly moviegoers, too], about formulaic stories. So I began to wonder where is character in all this discussion? Shouldn't there be a balance between all this talk about screenplay structure [read: plot] and character? Does the adage "character equals plot" have any truth to it? If so, is anyone actually exploring that in terms of screenwriting? That became a major point of focus in what I was thinking, researching, and writing about in the hundreds screenwriting classes I have led over the last 10+ years. The first thing I noticed was there seemed to be in most mainstream movies the presence of five narrative functions, personified by what I started calling primary character archetypes: Protagonist, Nemesis, Attractor, Mentor, Trickster. There are hundreds of archetypes, which is great and we can use them to help shade and shape our characters, but there is something about these five that seems innate to movies. So I began to wonder if The Hero's Journey reflects a universal shape of narrative structure, could these five primary archetypes represent a common shape of character structure? I analyzed movie after movie. Time and again, I saw where these five narrative functions appeared, everything from classics like The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, The Apartment to contemporary movies of all types like The Social Network, The King's Speech, The Shawshank Redmeption, Bridesmaids, Juno, Sideways, True Grit, virtually every Pixar movie, and many, many more. When reading Jung and digging into his ideas about archetypes, I found one reference or idea after another that confirmed much of what I had been writing in lectures and discussing with participants in my class, then eventually blogging here on GITS. Perhaps the most profound idea of Jung that I've encountered was about the notion of "individuation," the process of one's integrating all aspects of one's psyche, including the darker, repressed dynamics. That is our fundamental human task, part of a goal of moving toward "wholeness," even though we can only approximate that, never achieve it fully in our lifetimes. Furthermore Jung asserted that if we did not move to know, understand and embrace all aspects of our psyche, the universe would create circumstances in our lives which would force us. When I read that, my mind was officially blown because what if we translate that into the idea of story? A Protagonist begins in a state of Disunity, disconnected from key aspects of their psyche which lie dormant or repressed in their unconscious. What if the story universe presents a set of circumstances to the Protagonist that COMPELS the Protagonist to move out of the comfort of their Old World and venture into the New World of adventure? In other words, the events and characters with which the Protagonist intersects in a story are tied intimately to the implied destiny of their psychological journey. Now we no longer have a plot that is formulaic, but rather one infused with emotional, symbolic, and psychological meaning, all linked to the call to the universe's call to the Protagonist to change, and move toward Unity. This lies at the base of what I teach, indeed is the very heart and soul of The Quest, to get writers to reorient their thinking to what I call a character-based approach to screenwriting. With any story-crafting process, we start with the Protagonist, exploring who they are and why they are, asking a key set of questions, and from that beginning point, everything else emerges, the other primary characters, the Plotline and Themeline, everything. It not only offers the opportunity to find plot through character, it takes the writer away from formulaic writing because by engaging characters in a direct "I-You" experience, approaching them as living, breathing entities with free will in their own 'real' universe, we can follow the story where it leads us. Now I happen to believe that most stories are going to have the broad movements of The Hero's Journey, not necessarily the 12 or 17 'stages,' but rather the Big Three: Separation, Initiation, Return. And I also believe most stories are going to have those five narrative functions as exhibited in primary character archetypes: Protagonist, Nemesis, Attractor, Mentor, Trickster. There are some other bells and whistles I include in what I teach about writing a screenplay, but I do everything I can to stay away from formula or secret patterns or golden paradigms or whatever. There is no right way to write. Every writer is different. Every story is different. Stories are by nature organic. Anyhow circling back to Jung and archetypes, I don't consider myself a Jungian, rather I follow the path of an alchemist [one of Jung's notions]. I take what I find of value in Jung and Campbell, and apply it to screenwriting, then see what sticks. I believe I'm only on the front edge of this journey, so who knows where this will lead. But it is exciting. And if these ideas can filter into the broader conversation about screenwriting, even to a minimal degree, hopefully they can have a positive effect resulting in writers writing better stories, more original stories, less formulaic stories, and more good movies. Thanks again, Kevin, for your post. Whatever we all can do on this blog to feed writers' imaginations, the better.

Scott, this is way too good to get lost in the comments! Please put this up some time as a post of its own, where more people will see it.

Right on, right on. Possibly Nolan's best movie (could be The Prestige depending on what day it is), the best Batman movie and, to my mind, the best superhero film yet made. It really is an incredible piece of writing, which I really can't say about TDK or TDKR. They're also pretty terrific, but compromised by some shady plotting and overzealous ambition. Batman Begins is not. It's tight and right and damn-near flawless. I am utterly convinced that, in time, it will deservedly be recognized as the best of the bunch.

Excellent stuff, Scott. I'm not sure I would agree that Vogler's process is either plot based or formulaic. In fact he goes to great lengths to insist that it is not about formula but about process. He also spends considerable time on the functions of character, less so on their creation however. A far more informed approach is Jim Frey's (How to Write a Damn Good Novel I & II, The Key, How to Write a Damn Good Mystery, HTWADG Thriller). His mantra of course is, "It's all about who." I've been teaching storycraft in schools for six years, and I find the eight core archetypes I use a most useful way to demonstrate the character types we find in nearly all stories, and show the way archetypes can be used to power the story through character behaviours. I work on the model that a story is 'a narrative of consequential events involving worthy human characters who change as a result of those events.' This means that at the heart of the story is a human character who is worthwhile writing about. Consequences come as a result of actions and decisions taken by characters. Ergo, a story can only be shaped by character, and the Protagonist's relationships with other characters and the situations that arise from the circumstances surrounding them are the issues that generate change.

Kevin, I'm not saying what Vogler present is formulaic, indeed it is not [I saw Chris speak at the WGA in 1988 well before his book comes out, so I'm pretty intimate with his thinking]. Rather my point is that is what writers often take away from what they read. Understandable I suppose in that everyone is frantically trying to figure out a screenwriting 'system' to simplify and organize the process, when in reality all we're doing when we write a screenplay is wrangling magic. To support my point, check out this post and in particular the quote from a Hollywood producer. Here it is:

Killer Films producer David Kaplan made a comment on twitter denouncing Campbell. I asked him why and he told me that 90% of the scripts he reads follow the same formula and this, he insinuated, made them flat and, well, formulaic. These books can only give you so much guidance, it’s up to us to inject soul, heart, voice, and identity into a story.

Anybody who promotes any approach to screenwriting can run into this, whereby they may NOT be teaching formula, but what gets translated into the masses IS formula. Again writers desperate to reduce the craft to a system when I would argue there isn't one. So just to be clear and re-state my point: I think what Vogler did and continues to do is great. Hopefully writers have the ears to hear and eyes to see what he is really saying, echoing what Campbell says: Stories are organic and The Hero's Journey itself is limitless in how it can be adapted and shaped. I would argue it's the same thing with character archetypes. There's no right or wrong, we're all just blind men trying to describe the elephant. Some writers respond well to one blind man, other writers to another blind man. And what you are articulating sounds very much like you and I are hanging around the same part of the elephant! Please continue to contribute your thoughts here. We need more focus on characters!