![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I am watching the commentary on Die Hard -- the subtitled commentary, not the verbal one. I've had the DVDs for years but never watched this commentary. However, I'm on a Die Hard kick and thought I'd see what it had to say. It's very will done, interweaving comments from the director, writers, actors and reviewers, etc.
At one point, while discussing the character of Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman's first film role) De Souza (one of the writers) comments: If you want to get technical, John McClane is really the antagonist of the movie. The protagonist of the movie is Hans Gruber. People mix up hero, villain, protagonist, antagonist. This is where most screenplays go wrong. The hero isn't always the protagonist. The villain isn't always the antagonist. The protagonist is the person who starts the ball rolling, the protagonist of Die Hard is Hans Gruber when he decides to rob this building. You write a movie like this by asking, "What does the protagonist want? What does he have to do to get it? What does the antagonist do to thwart him?" This film works so well because everybody working on it knew the difference between the protagonist and hero and because we always go back tot he protagonist to see what he does to offset the counter-move by the antagonist, who is the hero!
This is an interesting concept because usually protagonist is defined as the main character or hero of a story whose actions and goal drive the plot forwards and is most often defined by the words hero or central character whom the audience identifies with or cares about in a story. From those definitions, I would say that McClane is the protagonist. He is the character we (or at least, I) care most deeply about. It could be argued that his goal of rescuing his wife, Holly, and his actions toward that goal are what drive the plot forward. Action/reaction and move/counter-move are always a little fuzzy in my mind and I think it could be argued that both Gruber and McClane act and react. However, the first defining act that sets everything into motion definitely belongs to Gruber, with McClane immediately falling into the role of opponent.
De Souza goes on I know it's confusing, and maybe that's why so many people fumble it. And that's why a lot of action movies just meander from a car chase to a scene of interrogating a witness. Police, firemen, doctors are all essentially trapped into being the antagonist of any kind of drama. The fireman can't just say, "Let's put out a fire!" The fire has to start. Once you realize that the hero in these movies is usually making the second chess move, you realize your obligation to give serious credence to the plans of the criminal.
This is where I am having the most problems in my story. I have a main character, a heroine, who is complex and interesting and flawed and driven. I do not have an equally complex and interesting and flawed and driven villain. In fact, I think the biggest problem I have (besides the fact that I'm just not writing at the moment) is that I'm missing a believable villain. This becomes even more important because my heroine is not in a position to be the instigator of the action. It's not that she can't take charge or that she's directionless, but her situation is such that she wouldn't be the one who starts everything in motion. Going by the above definition, she wouldn't be the protagonist. It is her desire to stop something from happening that drives her. Looking at all the situations and scenes that I have set up, my heroine is always reacting to things that are going on around her, she is always making that second chess move. She is the antagonist.
Therefore I need to better define my protagonist -- my villain, for lack of a better term. Right now, I have three different villains/people my heroine comes into conflict with. I need to redefine the concept to give me a single, definitive protagonist. This will give my heroine a purpose and will stop the story from merely meandering from scene to scene.
It shouldn't surprise me that my heroine is turning out to be the antagonist. The shows, movies, and books I like best all tend to have the hero in the "antagonist" position. The very best of all of those works have the strongest villains. I never realized that the story setup of hero/antagonist vs. villain/protagonist necessitated that type of villain.
Now, if I can only fine my villain/protagonist, I may actually get some writing done.
At one point, while discussing the character of Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman's first film role) De Souza (one of the writers) comments: If you want to get technical, John McClane is really the antagonist of the movie. The protagonist of the movie is Hans Gruber. People mix up hero, villain, protagonist, antagonist. This is where most screenplays go wrong. The hero isn't always the protagonist. The villain isn't always the antagonist. The protagonist is the person who starts the ball rolling, the protagonist of Die Hard is Hans Gruber when he decides to rob this building. You write a movie like this by asking, "What does the protagonist want? What does he have to do to get it? What does the antagonist do to thwart him?" This film works so well because everybody working on it knew the difference between the protagonist and hero and because we always go back tot he protagonist to see what he does to offset the counter-move by the antagonist, who is the hero!
This is an interesting concept because usually protagonist is defined as the main character or hero of a story whose actions and goal drive the plot forwards and is most often defined by the words hero or central character whom the audience identifies with or cares about in a story. From those definitions, I would say that McClane is the protagonist. He is the character we (or at least, I) care most deeply about. It could be argued that his goal of rescuing his wife, Holly, and his actions toward that goal are what drive the plot forward. Action/reaction and move/counter-move are always a little fuzzy in my mind and I think it could be argued that both Gruber and McClane act and react. However, the first defining act that sets everything into motion definitely belongs to Gruber, with McClane immediately falling into the role of opponent.
De Souza goes on I know it's confusing, and maybe that's why so many people fumble it. And that's why a lot of action movies just meander from a car chase to a scene of interrogating a witness. Police, firemen, doctors are all essentially trapped into being the antagonist of any kind of drama. The fireman can't just say, "Let's put out a fire!" The fire has to start. Once you realize that the hero in these movies is usually making the second chess move, you realize your obligation to give serious credence to the plans of the criminal.
This is where I am having the most problems in my story. I have a main character, a heroine, who is complex and interesting and flawed and driven. I do not have an equally complex and interesting and flawed and driven villain. In fact, I think the biggest problem I have (besides the fact that I'm just not writing at the moment) is that I'm missing a believable villain. This becomes even more important because my heroine is not in a position to be the instigator of the action. It's not that she can't take charge or that she's directionless, but her situation is such that she wouldn't be the one who starts everything in motion. Going by the above definition, she wouldn't be the protagonist. It is her desire to stop something from happening that drives her. Looking at all the situations and scenes that I have set up, my heroine is always reacting to things that are going on around her, she is always making that second chess move. She is the antagonist.
Therefore I need to better define my protagonist -- my villain, for lack of a better term. Right now, I have three different villains/people my heroine comes into conflict with. I need to redefine the concept to give me a single, definitive protagonist. This will give my heroine a purpose and will stop the story from merely meandering from scene to scene.
It shouldn't surprise me that my heroine is turning out to be the antagonist. The shows, movies, and books I like best all tend to have the hero in the "antagonist" position. The very best of all of those works have the strongest villains. I never realized that the story setup of hero/antagonist vs. villain/protagonist necessitated that type of villain.
Now, if I can only fine my villain/protagonist, I may actually get some writing done.
