Great article.

I've been mulling even more as of late ... certainly I don't disagree at all with what you've written ... for me, I think, the most important thing is that the audience goes on an emotional journey, which means the characters in ones story have to either be affected by what's going on or affect the audience by their actions ... quite often, all of the above.

there are many movies in which I don't feel that the characters have necessarily transformed -- I loved THE WRESTLER, loved it, and I thought the reason it worked was because it was about a character who needed to change and, in the end, refused to do so ...

Which affected me, mightily ... I know it's an indie film, but it reminded me of Nolte in NORTH DALLAS FORTY, to be honest.

And for those who argue that those character indeed transform (many try to argue Gump and Chauncey change, too) I never quite buy it based on what I watch / read.

I think, though, that watching characters who are emotionally invested in what they do and why, to me that's more important than any transformation.

My wife and I just watched NOTTING HILL again, it's one of our favorites (that film covers the passing of time really well, too) ... and it occurred to me that the leads themselves don't really change who they are ... they are affected by what happens, they're scared of getting involved with each other, but at the end of the day, they're still the same people ... they have a huge obstacle between them (she's famous, he is not) and make choices which affect what happens ... but those choices are rooted in emotional logic we understand ... and when they make other choices, it's not because they've changed, per se, but because they've made a different decision on what they want.

Which is argued by some as change ... I don't see that as change, myself.

Which is why I guess this always comes down to a question of semantics - LOL!

But what I hope, with what I do, is to transform the audience ... and sometimes that means the characters transform and sometimes they do not.

which, in a sense, is close to what you're saying, perhaps, with the protags as the agents of transformation ...

Sorry for the long comment, Scott, I'm just thinking out loud.

thanks,

Scott --

You think Taxi Driver is a negative change? I'm curious as to why.

Here's my take on it -- Travis Bickle at the midpoint is arming himself to assassinate a public figure. He tries and fails.

By the end he saves a 13 year old girl from her pimp and the hedonistic lifestyle which Travis despises which is clearly illustrated in his opening V.O. But now he's actually doing something about it, instead of being a casual observer to the depravity.

Anyway, another movie where the protagonist doesn't arc, but is a catalyst for those that do is BEVERLY HILLS COP.

Joshua,
Don’t know that I agree with your assessment of Mickey Rourke’s character in The Wrestler – I think he does change.

During a majority of the movie he cares deeply about life, about living, and we learn he loves his daughter and he loves Cassidy, Marisa Tomei’s character. He cares enough about life to give up the thing he loves most – wrestling. It’s only when he is rejected by the people he loves – his daughter and Cassidy – that he returns to wrestling, the one thing in life he can count on. But he’s not the same man.

Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson goes from an over-the-hill pro-wrestler who loves life to a physically and psychologically damaged man who just doesn’t give a sh*t.

Only my two cents.

Keep Writing!

Mike, I think you forget what happens in THE WRESTLER ... Ram tries to change and is unable to ... his daughter rejects him becuz he again lets her down (missing the dinner) and when Cassidy finally goes to Ram to take him away, rather than go with her, he hears his cue and goes on out.

It's not that Ram doesn't try to change ... after his heart attack, he does try ... that's when he reaches out to his daughter, that's when he takes a regular job, that's when he makes his first progress with Cassidy ...

But Ram cannot live with being Robin instead of Randy, he can't handle it ... he has to go back to wrestling, even as a spectator ... which gets him into trouble (the fireman kind) ... he just can't make the whole adjustment.

He isn't able to change, that's the whole point of the movie, really- if it's not, I don't know what else it would be ...

I wanted to add, I think the above experience underlines why transformation is often demanded ... people feel Randy the Ram changed becuz THEY felt changed, watching as an audience ... even though he didn't, we were changed by what happened to him but he refused.

To me, the emotional transformation of the audience, that's what I aim for ... and it can be done without the characters changing, I think.

Again, that's not to say films with character who change are bad, not at all ... just that there's more than one road to nirvana.