by Tim Ferguson
BOB is a middle-aged real estate agent. A conflict-averse fellow, he’s beaten by life at every turn. Worse, he’s bullied by his domineering wife and business partner, BARBARA. (Fellow feminists, relax. Swapping their roles would surely be a less pleasing gender-balance, no?) They’re both in their third marriage—to each other.
DICK is a carpenter with permanently bandaged thumbs. He is Bob’s best friend. Dopey and lovable, Dick worships Bob whom he sees as a smart businessman. DEBORAH is a lightweight, flaky dreamer.
BOB BARBARA DICK DEBORAH
WANTS A peaceful life To be right always To be Bob Happy-happy joy-joy
NEEDS To stand up for himself To be valued Respect Acceptance
STRENGTH He can be sneaky Forcefulness Enthusiasm Easy-going
WEAKNESS Gutlessness She’s thin-skinned Gullibility Too forgiving
FEAR conflict Embarrassment Disappointing Bob Hurting others’ feelings
LOVES Barbara Herself Bob and Deborah Everyone
SEES WORLD As against him As full of morons, weaklings and liars As a complicated puzzle Heaven
WORLD SEES HIM/HER A hopeless loser A scary woman A lovable idiot A nice lady
BOB AND BARBARA
Bob’s greatest inner-conflict is that he wants ‘a peaceful life’ but he’ll never get one until he ‘stands up for himself’ and establishes a proper balance with Barbara. Standing up for himself against Barbara is bound to cause a ruckus.
Barbara’s inner-conflict lies in her weakness, ‘she’s thin-skinned’. Sensitivity to criticism is a sure sign that her ego, boisterous and bold as it is, has an Achilles’ heel. A thin-skin suggests conscious or unconscious self-doubt. This weakness makes Barbara less archetypal than a classic battle-axe. It allows for moments of poignancy and reflection, making Bob’s love more believable.
However, to stay on top, Barbara must suppress her doubt, deny it and guard it from ‘embarrassing’ exposure. Pushed to the extreme, Barbara is a titan standing on eggshells, a common condition.
Throw Bob and Barbara together and a world of potential conflict unfolds.
Their moral conflicts chiefly stem from dishonesty. Bob avoids conflict with Barbara by biting his tongue and being ‘sneaky’ in achieving his aims. Sneakiness is not a positive quality and, when Barbara (inevitably) catches him out, there’s little doubt she’ll make him aware of the fact—with a brick. Barbara fears embarrassment, a condition that stems from the exposure of weakness, and there’s no-one more capable of causing her embarrassment than the bumbling Bob. His dishonesty (seen whenever he agrees to things he doesn’t believe in) can only lead to greater dishonesty. Public exposure is likely to follow, placing Barbara in the position she most dreads.
Bob and Barbara’s status differential is completely out of balance due to Bob’s weakness and Barbara’s overbearing nature. Bob could be her equal if he manned-up. But any effort he makes to correct their power balance is sure to run into everything in her list.
With such imbalances, emotional conflict will arise. Frustration and self-doubt curse them both, albeit for different reasons.
Bob loves Barbara. She’s a force of nature—indomitable and passionate (albeit for her own causes). Barbara may love Bob because he meekly surrenders to her will and not despite it. Like any romantic-comedy couple, they both need each other. Bob needs Barbara to help him make decisions and give him direction. Barbara needs the affirmation of Bob’s love. Their natures, however, are not built to recognise these needs. Frustration abounds.
Sexual conflict is not immediately apparent in the graph above. But they’re married, so sex, whether it happens or not, is a critical factor in their relationship. When sexuality rears its head, Bob and Barbara are geared to be out of balance, which is where we want them.
Psychological conflicts between Bob and Barbara arise from his ‘Nemo’ status (he has no self-regard or -awareness) and her ‘ego’ (she can’t see past her own nose). One will always tread on the other’s toes. Freedom versus control is another psychological area where they’ll both struggle. Bob has neither freedom (Barbara’s the boss) nor control (the boss is Barbara). Barbara has neither control (Bob is too bumbling to follow her orders to the letter) nor freedom (as she sees it, she cannot go AWOL lest Bob screw up their business).
Bob is not going to enjoy being controlled in all things. Barbara is going to be frustrated because she feels responsible for everything.
Bob fears conflict. Barbara will never give up until she is shown to be right.
Overall, Bob and Barbara’s relationship seems to offer enough conflict and pressure to keep them in strife for a lifetime.
It’s worth noting that, like the lovers in a romantic comedy, if Bob and Barbara were combined into one person, that person would be a complete adult, capable of great sensitivity and determination.
Sitcom is largely about locking opposite personalities together and watching them struggle. Comic duos tend to feature opposite personalities (e.g. flighty versus plodding, mousy versus domineering, easily-distracted versus single-minded) who can only achieve their goals when they temper each other’s natures and work together. If we took the best of each and rounded out the extremes, a nigh-perfect human would result. For example, Mother and Son features a manipulative mother, Maggie and an easily-manipulated son, Arthur. If they were one person, they’d make a well-rounded person capable of cunning and thoughtfulness, strength of will and compassion.
NO-CONFLICT CONFLICT
One level of conflict that often goes unconsidered is the conflict a character has with the audience. When a domineering character goes unchallenged by those around them, it can be maddening to witness. Our blood boils when David Brent in The Office bullies his co-workers and no-one stands up to him. The conflict is with us. We squirm in frustration, yearning for a champion who will put him in his place. (In the second series of The Office the writers bring on our champion in the form of Brent’s new boss, Neil Godwin, who eventually sacks him.)
In Bob and Barbara’s case, Bob ‘loves Barbara’ but she ‘loves herself’. The conflict here is desire versus disregard. When Bob’s weakness meets Barbara’s brutality, there’s no competition. But the audience cringes as they witness it.
Conventional morality dictates that a character’s moral actions will inevitably bring consequences, good or bad. If Barbara or David Brent continue to act badly, they’ll eventually be caught in a net of their own making.
If no-one will challenge Barbara, the audience must wait for fate to do the job. The wait can be agonising. Meanwhile, with desire versus disregard as Bob and Barbara’s running condition, the writers must invent further conflict between them and outside forces. These conflicts must play upon their essential dynamic without forcing them to resolve it. Once it’s resolved, the series is over.
DICK AND DEBORAH
Moving on to Dick and Deborah, the same process as above will highlight the conflicts available to the writer.
Deborah is ‘happy’, ‘easy-going’, ‘forgiving’, sensitive to others and ‘well-liked’. At best, Deborah is a bit dippy. Her marriage to Dick would appear to be conflict-free. Her qualities don’t suggest any intrinsic conflict with the other three characters. And, as her Want and Fear both relate to maintaining a happy atmosphere, she’s not in conflict with herself either.
Nor does she have a conflict with the audience. We might want her to snap out of her Martha Stewart daydream but that would stem from personal politics and not a contradiction of conventional morality on Deborah’s part.
Lying, cheating, point-scoring or rumour-mongering go against Deborah’s easy-going nature. She’s more likely to let matters slide than confront them. For example, if Bob is trying to clinch a deal with an old-fashioned client who declares that a beautiful wife is the sign of a good businessman, Bob may decide that Barbara’s homely appearance will jeopardise the deal. So he might ask Deborah to pretend that she’s Barbara (without informing Barbara, of course). The ever-positive Deborah wo
uld probably tell Bob that Barbara is beautiful in her eyes, ‘and she must be beautiful in yours or you wouldn’t have married her three times!’
To force Deborah into dishonest action, Bob would have to concoct a once-off provocation that puts Deborah’s happiness and home at risk. And he’ll have to invent a new provocation each time he wants Deborah to become involved in mischief. Such goads spark storylines of their own, an unnecessary complication for the writer.
Characters should be built for independent action. If we want a fluffy character like Deborah to stay in the show, she’ll need a quality or two that will get her into strife, either inadvertently or deliberately. For example, what happens if we intensify her fear of ‘hurting others’ feelings’ to a more manic fear in the same vein? A woman who fears ‘the slightest ripple in social equilibrium’ will have more reason to act in the name of keeping the peace.
Deborah loves ‘everyone’. Don’t fall asleep! Let’s add two words to that description: Deborah loves ‘everyone but Asians’. Got your attention now? A sweet but stupid lady with a racist streak is not unknown in the Australian political scene. But even this nasty addition is not enough to keep Deborah in regular conflict unless we move the show to Hong Kong or make Bob Chinese.
Even if we did that, Deborah poses no threat to either Bob’s or Dick’s equilibrium. And Barbara needs, if not a worthy rival, someone who will question her dominance with a degree of impunity. Not only that, but the names ‘Barbara’ and ‘Deborah’ sound similar. Character names should be readily discernible or they risk causing confusion during production and for the viewers.
The quartet already has two softer characters (Bob and Dick) who are unable to challenge Barbara.
Hmmm … It’s time to accept the fact that ‘Deborah’ must be pushed off a cliff. She must be replaced with someone who can challenge Barbara, the most antagonistic member of the cast so far, while rocking the boat with Bob and Dick.
Introducing ‘Delores’. For maximum conflict potential, Dick’s wife Delores should be built to compete with Barbara on psychological, temporal, status and physical levels—‘My friends are closer, my diamonds are bigger, my marriage is stronger and my new breasts are a marvel!’ Each of these claims will hit Barbara where it hurts, intensifying her dim view of the world and poking her thin skin.
Using Barbara’s graph, we can instil Delores with qualities that’ll vex Barbara in a variety of ways, opening up a broad range of story possibilities. For example, Barbara’s need is ‘to be valued’. By making the world see Delores as ‘a desirable woman’, we give her the admiration Barbara wants. This will provoke Barbara’s envy, an emotion that can inspire dishonest or unfair actions.
To make this juxtaposition really sting Barbara, we can base the world’s appreciation of Delores upon shaky ground. Barbara will be even more outraged at the attention Delores receives if Delores’ weakness is that she’s ‘a compulsive (but careless) liar’. If Delores gets away with lies and distortions that Barbara can see through, it’s doubtful Barbara will be able to contain herself.
Next, let’s give Delores some ambition. A want and fear based around the achievement and maintenance of social status will make her strive for equality with, if not complete dominance over, the high-status Barbara. This ambition will drive Delores to lie (badly).
To match Barbara’s strength (‘forcefulness’), Delores can have a quality that works on a mind-over-muscle principle—Delores’ Strength can be that she’s dumb-like-a-shark. Cunning will make Delores capable of undermining Barbara’s forcefulness. It will also enable Delores to devise schemes that manipulate Barbara’s fear (‘embarrassment’) and re-enforce the world’s view of Barbara as a ‘scary woman’.
By elevating Delores’ physical appearance, we can challenge Barbara’s view of herself as master of all she surveys. So let’s give Delores beauty plus Botox plus boobs. Beauty will give Delores an ace in her competition with the average-looking Barbara who can only match her with lashings of Botox and breast upgrades, procedures that Barbara will undergo in the name of dominance. This is a level of competition that has no end, a rivalry that can operate under the guise of being ‘best-ever friends’—just ask middle-aged actresses. The fact that it’s pathetic is all the more reason to exploit it—small-mindedness and weakness are both playgrounds of character comedy.
Beauty and the sexual power that comes with it are weapons Delores can use to dominate and manipulate dopey Dick and bumbling Bob. For Dick, Delores’ beauty and fashion come at a hefty financial cost. For Bob, Delores’ under-the-radar flirting will be frustrating and alarming. Bob’s decent enough to prefer she desisted from flirting, but he’s smart enough to know that raising the issue would surely be met by Delores’ tearful denials—and there’s no doubt she’d give her own version of events to Barbara …
Of course, Delores’ flirting with Bob wouldn’t be genuine. She’d never have sex with someone so plain, but she wants to hear him begging her for it. Stealing the heart of Barbara’s husband would prove to Delores that she’s Barbara’s superior.
For a minimal back-story, let’s make Delores come from a poor family. This can provide the basis for a world-view, that everyone is ‘looking down on her because of her poor upbringing’. It’s an insecurity that Barbara can play upon. (Poor Dick may not even know the truth.) Compensating for her original low social status will present a chronic problem for Delores. There’s not enough money in the world to make her feel equal to those around her and no-one’s reassurances can erase the fact that she’s from the wrong side of the tracks.
So, where Barbara has too much self-regard, Delores hides the fact that she has none. They’re both playing from the wrong ends of the field, with Bob and Dick as the indecisive linesmen.
Delores is now a living human inspired by the personality requirements of the show. She’s been created through juxtapositions with others, but her weapons, tactics, goals and vulnerabilities are her own.
Importantly, Delores has a variety of inner- and outer-conflicts that stem from the answers to eight simple questions. Unlike ‘Deborah’, Delores would relish the idea of pretending to be Barbara so Bob could fool his sexist client (above). Delores would take Bob’s request as an assurance of her physical superiority to Barbara, and the hoodwinking of the client would appeal to her manipulative streak. She’d throw herself into the role with gusto, and that’s where the trouble would start.
Delores’ graph reads as follows:
WANTS Social status
NEEDS Genuine reassurance
STRENGTH A cunning manipulator
WEAKNESS A compulsive (but careless) liar
FEAR Losing status
LOVES Jewellery
SEES WORLD Looking down on her because of her poor upbringing
WORLD SEES HIM/HER A desirable woman
INTERNAL AND INTERPERSONAL CONFLICTS
While there are several layers of conflict arising from the profile graph above, devising a graph detailing the internal and interpersonal conflicts of your characters can help pin down the intrinsic, ongoing conflicts within and between the characters.
A conflict graph will also show the balance of the basic conflicts between your characters according to their natures.
BOB BARBARA DICK DELORES
BOB Bob wants a peaceful life but needs to fight his wife to get it Bob is sneaky to avoid Barbara’s wrath Bob is frustrated by Dick’s dopiness Bob is frustrated and shaken by Delores’ sly flirting
BARBARA Barbara expects the worst of him Barbara’s weakness is that she’s thin-skinned but she wants to be right all the time—an impossibility Barbara hates how Dick takes Bob’s side without question Competition! Barbara must be better than Delores on every level
DICK Dick’s not smart enough to follow Bob’s lead Dick is hurt by Barbara’s jibes Dick wants to be Bob but he needs to be his own man Dick is stressed-out by Delores’ bottomless insecurities
DELORES Delores is offended and annoyed by Bob’
s resistance to her flirting Delores and Barbara compete over every little thing Delores is frustrated by Dick’s good nature and dim-wittedness Delores wants social status at any cost, but needs genuine reassurance
Now that we’ve locked in the core qualities of the characters, there are two other questions. Warning: they can shatter any composure the previous questions haven’t already destroyed.
WHY ARE THEY FUNNY?
Don’t panic, there is a reliable answer to this question. By juxtaposing two or more of the qualities you’ve identified in your answers to the questions above, contradictions and tensions within a character should emerge. Like comic reversals and negations, the warring qualities within a character work to make them intrinsically funny.
For example, Larry in Curb Your Enthusiasm, wants society to be more civil but his weakness is insensitivity. In trying to correct the small breaches of etiquette that others commit, he’s capable of appalling rudeness. For example, when a nurse gives higher priority to a young female patient over Larry because of petty adherence to an administrative guideline, Larry vows to correct this breach of commonsense and courtesy. On the way to his next appointment he races against and wrestles with the poor girl as he tries to get into the surgery before her (‘Interior Decorator’ by Larry David).
Another key to finding the funny aspects of a character is to identify how the character’s qualities limit their world view. Cliff Clavin in Cheers is a know-it-all. His confidence that he has all the answers to life’s mysteries blinds him to the fact that he doesn’t have a life.
If we use the scenario of Bob’s ruse to substitute Delores as his wife to impress a client, some comic carry-on emerges. Delores will take on the role of masquerading as Bob’s beautiful wife with gusto. But she is prone to push things too far to cement her position as Most Desirable Wife. After exaggerating the joy of their ‘marriage’, she might even turn her guns on the client himself. Meanwhile, Bob will desperately try to contain Delores—an impossibility. As he’s a fumbler, it’s likely he’ll make the situation worse by clumsily escalating the lies.