The Vital Role of Panties in Screenwriting

There’s been another very good piece about character development written by Unk, over at unknown screenwriter. A piece written in response to the question:

“Once you’ve created that quin·tes·sen·tial character… I mean, you’ve got this fucker painted on the poster art in your head. How do you expand on his philosophy? How do you add more of those little layers, that slowly peel away revealing character? Does it come out of the dialogue? Via ‘dragging the character through the mud method’?Or do you have a preconceived plan before you start a scene, THEN drag him through the mud?”

Unk as usual has given a very good answer… however, I’d like to have a shot at expanding on his answer from my own perspective, which is, that most character development fails to do the job for which it’s intended, because it’s approached with the wrong attitude.

In my experience there are three different levels in learning to be a screenwriter:

The first is level is when you think all you have to do to write a screenplay is sit at a computer, in front of a blank page, start at page one and write until you hit page 137… this is what I call the “naive” phase. That’s not meant as an insult; pretty much everyone starts off that way… and, some people never get beyond this way of working.

Common errors at this level are scripts that are all dialogue and no action, scripts where all the characters talk the same way, scripts where nothing at all happens, except for people talking about things that really ought to be action instead (exposition)… and, the bottom line is that most of these scripts are barely readable.

At the second level, you find writers who have realised that level one approaches don’t work, have attended some screenwriting seminars, have read some screenwriting books and have done some basic research into formatting… all this happens round about the time they buy a copy of Final Draft and decide to “get serious” about screenwriting. I call this the “Syd and Bob” phase.

Common errors at this stage are dogmatic usage of whichever technique their “guru of the week” says is the right way to do it, scripts that are formulaic… but more importantly than that, scripts where the techniques are used in a “cart before the horse” style. So, the writer knows there needs to be an inciting incident by about page ten, so, on page ten they lever one in… whether it makes any sense or not… or, the writer knows they are supposed to write back stories as part of character development, so they write it… but the back-story never influences the behavior of the characters.

This is a common “notes” conversation with a “Bob and Syd” screenwriter…
ME (Myself… not my nemesis over at indieclub! LOL)
I’ve read your script and I don’t understand why MICKEY hits his girlfriend with a peace lily on page ten?

WRITER
It’s my inciting incident… and, you see, the protagonist’s back story (”Bob and Syd’s” love jargon) is that he has a tumor on his adrenal gland, just like Ice T in that episode of House… and it means he randomly rages out.

ME
OK, but how is the audience supposed to know that?… and wasn’t it Ice Cube in that episode?

WRITER
I don’t think you really understand what I’m trying to say… if you’d just listen, it’s back story. It’s just who this guy is! Jeez, don’t you know anything about screenwriting? What do you want me to do? Put it in exposition… like “hey, I feel really angry because of the tumor on my adrenal gland… I think I need to hit you with this japanese piece lily as a tribute to both Leon and Hot Fuzz… nothing personal… it’s a glandular thing”… you’re a doofus, haven’t you ever read Syd Field!

At which point I tend to bow out of the conversation.

Then there is level three: at this level a writer has managed to understand how the use of theory is applied to a screenplay… but is able to use it as a set of tools, rather than rigidly applied rules. At this stage, writers are focussing more on telling a compelling tale and developing an original voice, than they are on the nuts and bolts of screenplay theory.

The only real mistake a level three writer can do, is spend too much time giving notes out to level two writers… LOL

The biggest hurdle most screenwriter face is the transition from being a “Syd and Bob” writer, to finding their own voice… and the vast majority never make it, because they get too many rejections of their perfect “Syd and Bob” scripts and quit writing before they make level three… which is when the sales start to happen.

When it comes to character development, the move from level two to level three is about understanding both where character development comes in the process… and also how it’s used.

Character back stories have to be done prior to plotting… sure, you go back and rework them as you write… but, all the real work gets done before the story is broken out into sequences and acts. Now, before anyone takes this too literally… that’s not to say you can’t have a story idea, which is the inspiration for a character… but between noting that down and formally plotting you need to understand exactly who this person is.

The question that many screenwriters struggle with is: how much do you need to know?

Well, in my opinion, there is no point in plotting your story until you know what kind of underwear your character is wearing… and, what kind of shoes.

Shoes and underwear are very personal and semi-private choices we make about who we are. Shoes tell you how people wish to be perceived in the outside world… shinny Italian leather says one thing (banker… or something that rhymes with that)… my five year old, frayed and faded, Converse All Stars pretty much tell the whole story…

Underwear, tells you how the character relates to their self image and their sexuality… a woman who needs to wear Victoria Secret underwear to the office, even on days she knows no one is going to see it, is the kind of woman who uses her sexuality in power struggles. She needs to feel sexy all of the time.

Pretty much all the ways people are going to react and interact with other people can be figured out by using underwear and shoes as touchstone.

So, John McLaine in Die Hard… my guess is comfortable, old, but clean boxer shorts and generic, good quality, but non-brand jogging shoes… whereas Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon is probably going commando (no pants at all) and wears Converse All Stars… ratty ones.

Now, on the surface a lot of writers would see Bruce Willis in Die Hard and Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon as similar characters… but once you strip them down to their underwear and shoes… the differences really start to stand out.

Now, what about if we do the same with Drew Barrymore and Sandra Bullock… …. … actually, I think I’ve made my point and I’ve just remembered something urgent I need to take care of… LOL

LATER:

OK… so, the point of all this, is that character development at level three screenwriting isn’t just a hoop you leap through in order to justify dodgy plot choices… you don’t do it as part of a step by step, formula… which is meant to guarantee you can’t fail. At that level, character development is about intimate knowledge of what makes your character tick… in real terms character development IS THE WHOLE NINE YARDS… there really isn’t anything else of real importance… and yet at the same time, it doesn’t have to be about answering ten million questions… it’s just about understand how the character wants the world to see them (the shoes)… and who they really are (the underwear).

Clive (going commando today… currently wearing ratty converse all stars, with holes in… and no socks… Hey, I’m Mel Gibson! But in a good, Lethal Weapon way… not in a drunken, anti-Semitic way, obviously)

Your email:  
Subscribe Unsubscribe