Creating Unforgettable Characters

by Linda Seger

  In Broadcast News, Tom, the pretty boy who's not particularly smart, contrasts with Aaron, the smart one who's not as romantically appealing to Jane. Tom is more confident, Aaron more insecure. Tom is successful and gets what he wants, while Aaron fails miserably when he achieves his short-lived goal of being anchor.

  In the triangle, the lone female or the lone male is confronted with a choice.

  The drama from a triangle can come from either the difficulty of the decision or the consequences of the decision.

  In Fatal Attraction, Act One focuses on Dan's choices. He begins by making a choice to have a one-night stand with Alex. At the end of Act One, he decides not to see her again. The consequences of his choices become the basis of Acts Two and Three.

  In Broadcast News, Jane tries to choose between Tom and Aaron throughout the film. The story is about the difficulty of the decision. James Brooks explains: "I wanted to write a true triangle, and to me a true triangle is not loading the deck. Generally, in a triangle, there is always at least one bad guy or one flawed guy or one sexless guy—one easy choice. I determined that I would not decide which man she ended up with at the beginning of the piece—the piece itself would dictate that decision. The minute she got close to one of the men in the writing, I would bring her toward the other. I never imagined I couldn't bring her to either man, but that's how it turned out."

  The writer's challenge is to explore the difficulty of the choice, and the potential attractiveness of both choices. Although in Fatal Attraction the choice about Alex was made early, nevertheless in Act One it was clear that she was an intelligent, attractive woman. She had more energy and seemed to be more fun than Beth, and was certainly more sexually accessible than Beth. There was, in Act One, the possibility of an ongoing relationship with Alex. Dan made the choice against this possibility. Alex made the choice to fight for the man she loved.

  The choices must not be obvious, nor too one-sided, or the triangle suffers. If the choices are also moral choices, the dynamic is strengthened.

  In Broadcast News, Jane feels her integrity is at stake if she chooses Tom, particularly after she realizes that he manipulated a news story. In Fatal Attraction, Dan faces moral choices throughout: when to tell his wife, how to be fair to Alex, and what his responsibilities are to both women.

  The most workable triangles occur when each character exercises willfulness and intentionality.

  If one character sits back, refusing to act or react, the

  triangle will suffer. The triangle achieves its dynamic because there are three, rather than two, people causing twists and turns in the story.

  In Fatal Attraction, Dan's decision sets the plot in motion. It looks as if his intention (to have a one-night affair) will be easily realized. But he has not counted on Alex. At the end of the first night, Alex decides that she wants another day with Dan. Her intention convinces Dan. After the second night, Dan's intention contradicts hers. She wants him to stay, he wants to leave. It looks, briefly, as if his intention has won. He has not counted on Alex's persistence. Her intention sets the course of events for Act Two, weaving a web that Dan tries to escape. Up to this point, the relationship emphasis has been on Dan and Alex. But Beth is a dimensional character who has her own ideas and reactions to these events. At the beginning of Act Three, when she hears about Dan's affair, her intention begins to guide the action, forcing Dan and Alex to resolve this relationship.

  The film would not have worked if any one of these three characters lacked intentionality. All do their part in pushing the action.

  This intentionality leads to conflict.

  In each character duo, there are potentially two conflicts: the relationship from each person's point of view. With the triangle, it suddenly becomes six conflicts.

  In Fatal Attraction, at various times in the story, Dan has a conflict with Alex and one with Beth. Beth has a conflict with Dan and one with Alex. Alex has a conflict with Dan and one with Beth. The nature of these conflicts, seen from each character's point of view, is slightly different. Alex wants to take Dan away from Beth. Beth wants to preserve her stable family life, and her own self-esteem, which won't allow her to live with a man who's betrayed her. Dan wants to preserve the status quo—something he can no longer do. Each of these conflicts is

  very complex, and understandable from each character s point of view. Because the writer has been able to explore the inner and outer dynamics of each character, the story has resulted in continually raised stakes with each twist and turn in the action.

  Each of these conflicts reveals insecurities, character flaws, bad decision making, and desperate emotions.

  None of the characters are perfect—all are driven by their own personal psychology, and by the issues unresolved in their own lives.

  In Broadcast News, Jane has never been able to figure out what she wants. She's opinionated, obsessive in her work, too smart for her own good. Aaron has his own identity crisis, not realizing that his talent doesn't lie with being an anchor. He's sometimes petulant, insecure, even contrary. And Tom has given up the struggle about integrity, being less smart, less aware, and less concerned than Jane or Aaron. As James Brooks explains, "I worked really hard to have three flawed people, to make it true. I could tell you what was really deeply wrong with the characters, what needed fixing at the center of them. Tom is not qualified for his job. He has no sense of purpose and nothing to serve beyond himself, but he has great manners, good feelings, and decency, a sense that life should be fun and that responsibility begins and ends at home. Aaron is brilliant, dedicated, has a great sense of integrity, but has something of the intellectual snob in him. He snipes at people. Jane borders on compulsive behavior. But she has a deep feeling of purpose, she will always come through for people. She is so damn right, so damn special, that she was pulled along by her brain instead of having control over it, which is another definition of compulsive behavior. So I thought about these characters in terms of their flaws. But I also constantly try to figure out what makes somebody a hero—what are their special qualities? I think we know about weakness. I think we can all get frailty from ourselves and our imaginations, but to understand what's heroic about humanity takes some time and thinking."

  Character flaws are sometimes the catalyst for the story. Certainly Dan's decision to have a discreet affair could be seen as a flaw in his character. Jane has trouble making a decision because of her own imperfections.

  Both of these triangles are stronger because the characters are complex, with their own struggles, their own emotional drive, their own willfulness.

  Often, character flaws and imperfections occur because at least one of the characters is driven by the shadow side of his or her personality.

  Dan, in Fatal Attraction, is a traditional, happily married man—a nice guy. The shadow side of his personality is deceitful, secretive, lustful. It is this shadow side, not his happily married, loyal, family-man side, that is attracted to Alex. Alex, on the surface, is an attractive, high-powered, sexy, career woman. Her unconscious is driven by feelings of insecurity and desperation that cause her to misinterpret Dan's response to her.

  When creating a triangle, generally one of the characters (maybe more than one character) will be driven by this shadow side. Although it isn't as evident in Broadcast News, it is clear in a number of stories with triangles, such as The Phantom of the Opera and Dangerous Liaisons.

  In Dangerous Liaisons Madame de Torville is tremendously virtuous, but her shadow side (sensuality and desire) push her into a liaison with Valmont. Amazingly enough, the shadow side of Valmont is virtuous. This is rare, since the shadow side generally is thought of as the dark or negative side of a personality. But the shadow, technically, means that which is "in the dark, " or the repressed side of the personality. In Valmont's case, he has an innate decency. It's his ability to feel and give love that has been repressed and that gets awakened by Madame de Torville. The conscious side of his personality is deceitful, manipulative;
the unconscious side contains love and empathy and caring.

  The triangle is strengthened if something is hidden from the other characters.

  Motives may be hidden: Beth doesn't know that Alex is actively seeking to take her husband away from her. Actions may be hidden: Jane doesn't know that Tom faked the news story. Attitudes may be hidden: Beth doesn't know about Dan's attraction to Alex. Jane doesn't know that Aaron is in love with her.

  Sometimes what is hidden is some quality of the character's psychology that drives the story and character, yet isn't even known to the person. Alex is probably unconscious of the power of her desperation. She's unconscious of her projection on to Dan, of her misinterpretation of the relationship. Her unconsciousness further complicates the story.

  These hidden qualities—whether inner or outer—have the potential to drive the characters to a crisis. An important moment in this kind of story is the reveal—the moment when what has been hidden is found out. When Beth finds out about Alex, her actions create a crisis in her marriage. When Jane finds out about Tom's dishonesty, the discovery leads to a crisis in her developing relationship with him.

  Working out character triangles is analogous to juggling many objects and keeping them constantly in play. Some of the knottiest script problems I've encountered have involved the creation of the character triangle. There is much for the writer to sort out and to figure out. However, in spite of the complexity, some of the most powerful character relationships have come from this complex relationship.

  A CASE STUDY: "CHEERS"

  "Cheers" is an example of a series that has had to go through a number of new discussions of character dynamics, since there have been several changes in the show during its long history. It premiered in the fall of 1982. In the 1984-1985 season, one of its major actors, Nicholas Colasanto, who played the role of Coach, died. The creators of the show had to decide what kind of a character was best to replace him, a character that would keep the same dynamics. In 1987, Shelley Long, who had played Diane, left the show. The creators had to decide how to replace her, to create a new character dynamic for the show.

  James Burrows, one of the creators (along with Glen and Les Charles) and a director of many episodes, explains the process:

  "We wanted to do a show about a sports bar, and we wanted to create a Tracy-Hepburn relationship. We liked the contrast of that relationship: Miss Uptown, Mr. Downtown. The prag-matist, the idealist. The guy that says it can't be done and a woman that says it can be done. It's a clash everybody knows. It makes for great marriages. So the original idea of the show was that a girl owned the bar and a guy worked for her. But when the script was written, the writers came up with the idea of a college student who wanders into a bar that is run by the ex-jock.

  "As we further defined the characters, we made Sam an ex-alcoholic, and we gave Diane a father who died and a cat who died in the first year. We gave new dynamics to their characters by getting them together and taking them apart.

  "So in creating these characters the challenge was in keeping Diane upper-crust and sympathetic and to keep Sam a jock but not to make him too dumb.

  "We decided also that we wanted to do an evolving sitcom, where the characters change throughout the series. Not all the

  -irpF 3

  critics liked this, since most sitcoms don't evolve; but we liked it and found it gave our characters more definition—more that we could explore.

  "So those were the things we tried to do, and they wrote a script, and it was wonderful, and we were lucky enough to get two actors to play it who had incredible chemistry. That's what it is. It's luck, casting. Those two people came in and made those characters come alive so that the characters became more important than the bar.

  "We tried to create strong relationships with the supporting characters also. We always felt that Carla had the hots for Sam, which she did and still does, and we always felt that she was at odds with Diane because Sam liked Diane. She would pick on Diane and you'd feel sorry for Carla, so she would get away with being hostile. Now those dynamics over the years evolved and they were great. I think that subliminally Carla felt Diane was smarter than she was. She might have been smarter on an intellectual level, but Carla's street smart. Diane's home life was happy, Carla's wasn't. Carla's saddled with a number of children, Diane is free.

  "The sitcom is driven by the character conflict. In the early days, it was the chemistry between Sam and Diane that drove it—and how Carla reacted to Sam, everybody reacting to Cliff and how much of a loudmouth he is. With these kinds of characters, we could do a simple show like Diane borrowing some money from Sam and then before paying him back buying sweaters and clothes for herself, and his reaction of, Why can't she pay me back?

  "With Shelley leaving the show, now, we're back to the old original premise, which is about a woman who owns the bar. Everybody loves Sam. So that's the entree to the show. If we were to lose him we couldn't do the show. It's Sam's bar and he's the one people feel comfortable with. With the arrival of Kirstie [who plays Rebecca], we've gone back to everybody being important—it's more of an ensemble show now.

  "When we first created Rebecca, we thought of a character who was a total bitch. We had decided not to go comedienne, since I don't think you can find anybody funnier than Shelley. We decided not to go blonde, not to go with another waitress. Kirstie was the first actress we saw. Jeff Greenberg, our casting director, came in and said, 'I've got the lady for you.' So Kirstie read for us, and she had this vulnerable quality, and none of us had ever seen or thought of this in that role. I remember Teddy saying after the reading that he wanted to hold her. And we thought about it and we said this would be a different way to go, but it may be a great way.

  "Kirstie added neurotic, a scatterbrain, to our character description. And it worked. The show has new life.

  "When we saw this direction for Rebecca, we started to create her backstory. We found out she went to the University of Connecticut and had a nickname, and was a failure in other jobs.

  "With this new character, there was a new set of dynamics to create between Rebecca and Sam. We thought it would be funny that she was a woman that was not attracted to Sam and he couldn't believe it. And, of course, he had to react to her like he reacts to any girl: 'I can have her anytime I want her.' We haven't progressed with that as much as we had with Sam and Diane-—their characters haven't moved that much in these two years—although they have become friends.

  "Rebecca also changed the dynamics with other characters. Rebecca and Norm have a great relationship. They care for one another. We felt in one show that Rebecca needed to talk about herself. If you use Sam for that function he's always going to want to go to bed with her. So we thought it would be interesting to hear Norm talk to her. He has no ulterior motive. He's a listener. This way we could get out more information about her life.

  "Carla's suffered a little because Rebecca was her boss and she couldn't take shots at her. So their relationship isn't as dynamic as Carla and Diane. But we did give Carla a husband. So she could play off that.

  "We also had to replace Nick Colasanto since he died during the end of the third year. We knew for a year he was sick. We had some time to figure out what to do. We had to have a bartender. We had no choice. We didn't want to go old, we wanted to go young. 'Family Ties' was getting such a big youth audience ahead of us, so we had to go young to get the youth in. We had to go dense, because Nick was doing the dumb jokes. On a comedy it always helps to have somebody who's not too together because you can do dumb jokes and explain the plot to them. It's a good writing device. So we decided to go farmboy. Woody wasn't the conception. The conception was a thin kid with big teeth and Woody came in kind of like a hokey farmboy, and he was hysterical. There was no question he was the best.

  "Woody and Coach are both quite similar—they're both doing the same kind of joke. You do lose the 'father figure,' which Nick had. With Woody you have more like a son. But you lose little else.

&nb
sp; "We've gone through a number of overhauls and changes in the show. It's rather a miracle that these changes have worked!"

  APPLICATION

  The concepts I've discussed can work with any kind of relationships. Whether between main characters or supporting characters, creating a stronger relational dynamic can bring life and excitement to your story. As you think of your own characters, ask yourself:

  ■ Is there conflict between my characters? Is it expressed through action, through attitudes, through values?

  ■ Have I contrasted my characters so there are differences between them?

  ■ Do my characters have the potential to transform each other? Will the audience or reader understand why

  these two people should be together? Is the attraction between them clear? Is the impact they have upon each other also clear?

  SUMMARY

  Drama is essentially relational. It is rarely about people alone, but usually about people who interact with others, influence others, and who are changed as a result of this interaction.

  Without dynamic relationships, characters can become bland and uninteresting. It is the conflicts and contrasts that provide drama between characters, and prove that relationships can be just as compelling and memorable as any individual character.

  Adding supporting characters to a story expands its palette. Like a painter who keeps adding details to round out the painting, a writer adds supporting characters to give further depth, color, and texture to the story.

  Many of the same principles apply for supporting characters as for major characters. The characters need to be consistent, to possess attitudes and values and emotions, and often to be paradoxes.

  But there are important differences. Imagine a painting of a wedding. There is much detail around the two main figures of the bride and groom. And there are many figures, most of them somewhat indistinguishable from each other. But among them there are several who are sharply and broadly drawn: a young girl in red, for instance, in the foreground, playing with a kitten who has wandered into the scene; the minister, looking self-important, in full view as he stands on the top steps of the church; the mother of the bride, in a bright yellow lace dress, hovering near her daughter, weeping with joy.