In the character archetypes course I’m currently teaching online, we have some fascinating discussions digging into the lead characters in the movie Witness. One in particular who has gripped the imagination of students is Rachel Lapp (Kelly McGillis) who is the story’s Attractor. Some of the points of discussion:
* Why did the writers start with her character as having just lost her husband (death)?* At the funeral, why does Rachel not appear to be grieving?
* Why does she only have one child, her 8 year-old son Samuel?
* After her husband’s death, why does she decide to leave the community to go visit her sister in Baltimore?
* Why does she appear to be indifferent to the obvious affection of Daniel, her Amish suitor?
* What is it in John Book (Harrison Ford) that attracts her to him?
* What does her brief romantic fling with Book mean to her?
Here are thoughts I had about the ongoing discussion we’ve had about Rachel’s character and the importance of writers delving deeply enough into their primary characters to uncover “backstory truths.”
All this conjecture about Rachel, her relationship to Daniel, her relationship to her deceased husband, her relationship to Amish community at large, it may be right, it may be off-target — hard to say finally because the information we have is pretty thin.
However the bigger writing lesson to take from this extended discussion is this:
This is precisely the type of thinking we should be doing as we develop our own characters and our own story.
For example, what if the writers of Witness had gone through their brainstorming process and everything we have been saying about Rachel — from her possible problems in her previous marriage to the backstory on her relationship with Eli — was precisely the ‘stuff’ that the writers dredged up when developing Rachel’s character.
Most of that specific information / backstory may not have ended up as dialogue in the movie or the focus of any scene. However it would have doubtless influenced the way the writers approached their understanding and articulation of Rachel’s character on the printed page of the final draft of their script. These “backstory truths” may be reflected in the way Rachel reacts at the funeral (not betraying any sign of grief), the choice she made to go visit her sister in Baltimore, the manner in which she relates to the Amish community in general and Eli specifically, why she is so open to John Book and seemingly so indifferent to Daniel.
When each of us first watched the movie or read the script, we may or may not have had any of these questions re Rachel come to mind. She works in the story as is and more than likely, we just rolled with events and accepted her as she presented herself as a character in those events. But here we’ve spent three days delving deeper and deeper into her background – and it’s been a fascinating discussion, reflecting the levels of depth that exist in this character.
So in that sense, Rachel is a great example of a multidimensional character, one who has layers of ‘backstory truths’ roiling within her persona. The filmmakers, including the actress Kelly McGillis, have created a character who has had a full life before the writers typed FADE IN and the director first cried, “Action!” on the set for that first day of shooting.
For all we know, what we experience of Rachel’s character in the movie is perhaps 10% of what the writers, director, and actor mined in her character, all the rest of it showing up in her subtext and shrouded intentions.
But because the writers did due diligence, spent ample time thinking about and living with Rachel, finding out as many ‘backstory truths’ as possible, they given to viewers a vital character with all sorts of curious and fascinating angles to explore in her life-story.
And that is a sign of good screenwriting.
As David Sontag, my colleague on faculty at UNC’s “Writing for the Screen and Stage” program says, so much of the quality of a script is determined by how much the writer delves into the characters and “the life before FADE IN.”
