An open forum question from Jeff :
Scott, I’m in the initial mapping/plotting stages of I guess what could be considered a traditional Hollywood blockbuster type movie. Y’know, tubs of nuclear-butter popcorn sold left n’ right, THX audio to shake their fillings right outta’ their skulls, eye popping 3-D that’ll cause the middle rows to ralph out their Milk Duds across the theater……the usual.
All daffiness aside, when I say ‘traditional,’ I mean classic protagonist/antagonist design.
Anyway, as I etch out my timeline, I find that the scenes/events that land on it and seem to guide me are the actions of the ANTAGONIST, since what this ‘bad guy’ (for lack of a better term) does drives what my PROTAGONISTS do. It doesn’t seem to be too skewed a design since something like that little film last summer, you may have heard of it, THE DARK KNIGHT, functions very much in the same way. Let’s face it, Batman would just hang upside-down in the batcave unless some arch villain didn’t do some underhanded deed and get things in motion, right?
Still… it looks weird not having my main character’s name plastered all over my wipe-board, y’know?
My question is, do I panic? Do I have that most foul of creatures called the ‘reactionary’ main character?
Remember… this is a BIG movie intended to make some lucky studio BIG money!
(heh heh… I’m, of course, being more than a little waggish with bold statements like that and yet…I’ve never really truly had a project like this before. I’ve always worked with the low to middle budget stuff, the quirky, the weird, the wonky. This is the first script I’ve ever tried that I could actually see, in my mind’s eye, a giant cardboard standee for in the lobby of some 20 screen mega-multi-plex.
Therefore, I’m panicking.)
Jeff, I’m sure that somewhere in this fine country of ours, a slump-shouldered, pasty-faced, mole-eyed doctoral student has written a dissertation entitled “The Protagonist’s Journey: Chasing the Antagonist’s Tale” which would answer your question directly. Until you find said dissertation, let me provide a few thoughts.
The yellow flag you raised — concern that your Protagonist(s) may be too reactive — is a legitimate one. Development execs pick up on precisely this type of thing more so, I suspect, out of a fear that A-level talent might balk at not being the character who sets the story’s agenda rather than any deep understanding of or appreciation for the nuances of storytelling.
But in fact, many movies have a Protagonist who spends most of the time trying to figure out what the Nemesis is doing, the Nemesis the active character, the Protagonist the reactive one. Here are just some examples movies with reactive Protagonists taken from the WGA’s Top 101 Screenplays list:
Chinatown
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
The Graduate
The Apartment
North by Northwest
Groundhog Day
The Sixth Sense
All the President’s Men
The Silence of the Lambs
Jaws
High Noon
Witness
Memento
Different shades of reactive Protagonists, but reactive nonetheless.
So how do these movies manage to work? For one thing, the Protagonist may spend a majority of a movie chasing the Nemesis, and yet there’s that word – active – right there in the word “reactive.” In other words, the Protagonist is actively on the hunt, actively checking out clues, actively interacting with some of the Nemesis’ minions. The Protagonist is also actively interacting with other subplots. And importantly, they often have a Transformation process, moving from one emotion state to another over the course of the story. That can be an active experience for the Protagonist as well.
Another thing: Typically the reader gets the universal view of the story, that is they can see both the Nemesis and Protagonist in action, whereas the Protagonist has a limited view. Handled properly, this can create a desirable psychological state in the reader, intensifying their allegiance too and rooting for the Protagonist to succeed.
One more thing: The inevitability of the Final Struggle – that major and climactic plot point at the end of Act Three – is present throughout the entire story. A reader can intuit that from the very beginning of the script: These two are going to meet up and hash it out. So while the Nemesis may be seemingly in charge of events throughout Act Two, we know the Protagonist will intersect with the N. That can mitigate the Nemesis-in-charge dynamic.
I’m sure GITS readers will have lots of thoughts on this. But my short answer to your original question, I would say, yes, it’s okay to have the Nemesis drive the plot – as long as you make the Protagonist active in their pursuit, active in their engagement with the plot, and active in their own transformation process.
Before I comment, let me first say that I am a screenwriter who ASPIRES to get paid, not just to write. My current occupation is SCRIPT READER, so despite my lack of professional success in my desired field, I feel like I can answer you and at least sound legit.
QUESTION: "Is it okay to have the antagonist drive the plotline?"
MY ANSWER: it's possible I interpreted the question differently. No, it's not okay for the antagonist of your script (provided that there is an equally as game PROtagonist) to drive the plotline.
I think what Scott was referring to was different than what you asked. Yes, sure it's okay for protagonists to REACT: most cop movies and chase movies do exactly that…
But as a reader, if the bad guy is the one who really OWNS the story, than A) he needs to have pathos (a la SAVE THE CAT — which would in turn, make him a PROTAGONIST), or B) he needs to be a protagonist whose revelation at the end proves him to be diabolical (think Verbal Kint).
That's just my two cents and again, I don't know shit about getting my work sold…yet.
Good luck.
Z
@Bah Bahrbahrossa: You raise a good point to counterbalance the focus of my comments. In most mainstream commercial Hwood movies, it's the Protagonist who, as BB says, "OWNS" the story. They are (typically) the character with whom the viewer identifies the most, the character through whom the viewer primarily experiences the story. And, as noted many times here, most often it's the Protagonist who goes through the most significant transformation.
So back to Jeff's original concern: In theory, an Antagonist figure can have more screen time than a Protagonist, and the story can still be 'owned' by the P due to the viewer's interest in and commitment to the P's success.
That said, upon further reflection, if I had a situation in the prep-writing where I had a lot more scenes featuring the Nemesis than the Protagonist, I would use that as an opportunity to see if I couldn't dig a little deeper into the P character to see if there isn't something else there to explore. And if the plot feels totally dominated by the N, then look at a few of the key plot points and see if there isn't a way – not forced – where the P can compel the action.
Wunnerful wunnerful wunnerful!! (why am I quoting Lawrence Welk?!)
This is GREAT. This is exactly the information I needed to set my mind at ease AND to give me perspective, forest for the trees n' all that.
My "P" has far more scenes, that much is certain. It was merely, on a PLOT based timeline, the "N" was driver of those BIG MOMENTS that each act TURNS ON (though I found, thankfully, that my P's decision to TAKE ACTION when "all is lost" around p. 89 landed all neat and tidy on my PLOT timeline so all is well in that regard.)
Still, the dangers of letting my Nemesis get the best of me AND my script AND my Protagonist… well, Scott and Bah Bahrbahrossa (my new favorite Blogger handle!), your viewpoints are most helpful.
I feel like I'm on to something this time and I really don't wish to muck it up. Not that I'm "on to something" in that I think this script will be the next big thing or even SELL for that matter, just BIG in a sense that I'm on the verge of LEARNING SOMETHING critical.
An exciting time indeed.
Thanks guys!
In Speed, the antagonist (the bus) drives the story – literally!
This is an interesting question as it does bring a specific type of story to light.
I like to call it the
"Who Shall Stand in the Face of" story where you have a pretty terrible antag who strikes fear into all hearts.
This doesn't necessarily preclude a purely "reactive" protag but it does enable it. Most of these movies, if you look, start with the vicious actions of the antag.
And then the see-saw begins. Both character-dialogs attempt to win points with the audience – look at Hannibal – and with the fates.
It does fit well in crime sagas as the questioner noted with TDK since the antag is just trying to "make a living" and has already crossed the line so is in effect more vicious while just trying to maintain their "status quo."
It's interesting – I only saw BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID recently and all my life I figured it was a frothy romp set in the old West. In fact, while there's certainly a rompy frothy side to it it's actually a pretty dark story underneath it all – the protagonists basically have their necks in a noose (figuratively) from the get-go and we're just watching the noose slowly tighten for the whole movie, and the protagonists react and struggle fruitlessly. Like a lot of popular films from that era – THE PARALLAX VIEW is another example – I don't think it would get made the same way today – audiences don't like being told they're screwed no matter what they do.
After Hours is another great movie with a protagonist who is almost entirely reactive – partially because his Antagonist is pretty much everybody else in the movie.