"Key backstory truths"

Following up on this disucssion, one of my current online students asked this:

Re: Backstories and Actors.

Stage direction regarding food prep and the smells factor well in scenes...like in Stalag 17 when Sefton fries an egg in butter and brews coffee...in front of 30 starving men.

Now I saw an old Jessica Lange interview that showed her describing how she needed to know the backstory of her role...right down to what perfume the character would be wearing. But I never saw her performance portray a personality trait symbolized by the 'smell' of a perfume.

I've seen perfume named in many films...the same goes for novels...but aside from knowing/being told what too much 'Shalimar' smells like, I don't 'see' what that adds to the actor's performance unless they are putting it on in the scene.

Scott, how deep and elaborate should a backstory be? If a character's place in a story is underdeveloped in a film, and many aspects of that person's life are not vivified on the screen..what is the purpose of in depth backstory for every character? Is it because the director may improvise and pull from those pages? Or is often overkill?

My response about "key backstory truths" below:

As a point of reference, I typically generate 150-200 pages of background (single-spaced) in the prep-writing phase. Most of that is backstory. The best analogy I've heard is the iceberg reference: What we see in the script or movie is perhaps 10% of what breaks the surface of the 'story'; what's under the surface, that 90% of the iceberg we don't see represents backstory.

A well-written character will 'echo' their backstories in behavior and dialogue, so readers and (eventually and especially) actors will pick up on those undertones.

I have a friend who is a camera operator. He's worked with some of the best directors in the business (e.g., Spielberg, Oliver Stone, Cameron Crowe, Milos Foreman). He said that when Ridley Scott is directing a movie, he writes up a 1-2 page summary of how he understands the character. These often include backstory elements that Scott picks up from the screenwriter. By zeroing in on key backstory truths, Scott helps to focus each actor on the most important aspects of each character.

A good way to approach this subject is to find key backstory elements that have multiple layers of possible meaning. A great example is Clarice Starling in The Silence of the Lambs. Key backstory element: Her father, a sheriff, gets killed in the line of duty when Clarice is an adolescent. Look at how that ripples in her character:

* Motivation to become an FBI agent (tied to her father's vocation / wants to catch 'bad guys' like those who killed her father

* Because her father died when she was a child, Clarice assumed some guilt (this is typical of children who would rather take on a feeling that they can control -- guilt -- than live with the frightening uncertainty of random chance / violence)

* She wants to 'save' her father (hence her picking up a lamb and running away from her uncle's farm, the lamb symbolic of her father, saving him from slaughter)

* The crying of the lambs echoing her father's dying voice (symbolically)

* By saving Catherine Martin, as Lecter says, "You think you can stop the crying of the lambs"

* By killing Buffalo Bill, shedding his blood, she can achieve 'forgiveness of sins,' slaughtering BB akin to priestly ritual animal sacrifice

All of that because of one incident -- her father's death. Also her perception of Jack Crawford as a substitute father figure.

So it varies from character to character -- some may require much more backstory work than others -- but in general, writers are looking for key backstory truths around which to build a character's core essence and persona.

Movies tend to work best with characters who have a few key backstory truths. Makes sense. Only 2 hours to get to know them. Helpful to be able to zero in on those crucial personality traits.