We've discussed the thesis.
Its contradiction - the antithesis,
and the compounds of the two, in other words, and excuse the tautology, the conclusion, or more appropriately, the synthesis.

We've discussed iconic scenes and their importance, especially to a general audience.

In this one we're discussing the protagonist, let's roll…

He/She/ They are the characters we follow in story, no argument. No protagonist, no story.
Sometimes this character is called the pivotal character, but the function is the same.

What are the main functions of the protagonist in story?

The character MUST struggle. No struggle, no story
They SHOULD have a flaw. No flaw, no tangible struggle, not much story.

Wait a minute, what about James Bond, what's his flaw?

He does have a flaw; he's a cynical man who uses everything at his disposal in the field, to beat his enemy. He can't be close to anyone, he ostracised himself from attachment. He hates his job but knows nothing else. That's a struggle, but a franchise as big, and as expansive, as Bond, there's only so many ways to tell a story. Usually, the origin story is all about the struggle, someone who must accept the truth, and we'll discuss this a bit later.

Character Flaws.

It's their flaw that creates the story. Action is subsidiary to Character, not the other way round. Imagine Hamlet in Romeo and Juliet, doesn't work, does it? Why? Because a character flaw is specific to that plot he finds himself in. The plot tests the character's resolve so the flaw must be specific. If any of these are out of balance, then the story's potential is not fulfilled and the audience leaves the auditorium dissatisfied.

What do characters struggle with?

We struggle to embrace our inner truth. We fight it everyday. What is inner truth? Who we actually are, and sometimes we are dissatisfied with who we really are. This is prominent in the television series, Heroes. Let's look at some examples:

Inside -- I'm here to serve humanity equally.
Outside -- I love one girl, and she comes first, above anyone else.

Inside -- I don't know who I'm helping.
Outside -- I think I know who I'm helping.

Inside -- I can't live without attachment.
Outside -- I will try to live without attachment.

Inside -- Soft and reverent.
Outside -- hard as steel, uncompromising.

Sometimes we hide our inside, the inner truth, so we portray falsehood. Human nature is to talk about ourselves, to project how wonderful we are, but when the chips are down, when we have something to hide, we draw the curtains. Become defensive.

Michael Corleone rebels against the family by joining the army, that's his outer action. Who is he inside? He's a Corleone, his early years were shaped by his family, but he objected to their way of life. He's struggling to embrace who he is and what he must do.
He even says it (excuse the paraphrase, I can't remember verbatim), "I'm not like them, Kay."

When he accepts the inner truth, he's saying that family, and all that comes with it, is more important than anything else.

Struggle is also not being able to go from A to B. Descend before Ascend. It's hell before heaven. You can't get what you want without a fight.

Let's look at some protagonist struggles:

In Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indy is always struggling to keep his paws on the Ark. He only briefly has it in his possession before it's taken away from him again. He never fulfilled his mission.

In Lawrence of Arabia, he is always struggling to win over the Arabs, but when he does, he struggles to fulfil his idealistic position. Idealists are dangerous.

Superman struggles to float both his love for a girl and humanity.

Brody struggles to keep commerce happy whilst there's a man-eating shark in the waters.

Men struggle to hold on to the old west.

Fergus struggles with the fact that he's in love with a transsexual.

Dan struggles to get respect from his family, especially in the eyes of his son.

Character growth and inheritance.

In the Flashy novels, why is Flashman a coward? In his schooldays, he was a bully, and bullies are cowards. His early life shaped his later life. It's inherent in his character.

Characters that experience one end of the emotional spectrum to the other in a film without a gradual transition loses its impact and, instead, becomes a melodrama.

A journey from unloving to loving is too expansive. The audience needs to know that they once loved; we need to why they are unloving when the picture starts.

In Casablanca, Rick's tough guy image is a front, why? He once loved Isla, when that relationship ended, it created a barrier. Inside, he's really a noble guy, his inner truth. That truth wins out in the end. Great picture.

Imagine if he was tough as nails and then Isla came into his life, and he fell for her, but in the end he sacrificed his selfish intentions so she could be happy. Would that work? No, because we don't why he's a tough guy in the first place.

Expansive change in character means we have a lot of beats to cover, and subsequently, this means that we have to glide over character growth to make our 2 hour limit. Less beats means better character study, we understand the gradual changes, not the leaps.

In Taxi Driver, we already join a lonely, disillusioned Vietnam veteran; we don't start with a law-abiding, loving guy, because it'd be too hard to swallow if he turned so easily. We don't even need to see him in Vietnam. We need to see him pick up that taxi, and see the transition from irritation to rage. Irritation to Rage is a much smaller transition, one can explore all of its facets in a reasonable amount of time.

In Hellraiser, the film dives straight into Frank's untamed hunger for pleasure beyond pain. We don't start with him any earlier; we don't need to, because before that, it's not vital to the story, just superfluous filler. Hellraiser is a unique example, and we'll discuss it in a moment.

In Star Wars, Anakin's downfall is inherent in his character, he loves his mother, and his clinging nature makes him the ideal candidate for the Emperor, who can manipulate him by pretending that he cares for him. Once Anakin learns about the potential powers of the darkside, he succumbs to it, because he thinks it will help save Padme, his attachment.

In Superman, the hero is the way he is because he grew up with the Kents; love is inherent in his character because he was shaped that way.

Character struggle must be structured otherwise, as said before, the transition becomes a leap rather a gradual transition. Let's look at Superman III, and how the protagonist's struggle could have been improved with structure.

Let's start with characters Christopher Reeve plays:
Daily Planet Clark
Clark with Lana Lang
Superman
Evil Superman
Clark in the junkyard.

Let's take the first three characters he plays, that's three personalities he must have on tap at the click of a finger. So Kal-El has a multiple character disorder, he grows to dislike subterfuge. The junkyard sequence plays out this turmoil. What could trigger this resentment? Jealousy, perhaps?

At the start of the film…
…Let's say that Lois has a new guy. And what makes it worse? She's always talking about him, man that hurts. He's relieved that he can getaway from the Daily Plant and attend the Smallville school reunion. He meets Lana, woah, my luck is in. Uh oh, Brad shows up. How come all the good girls are taken?
Clark is deflated, anger is bubbling, but when humanity calls, he still answers. He stays under control, just.

This resentment - of himself - is the impetus of his mid-story downfall. When he accepts the tampered Kryptonite, it brings those negative feelings to the fore and, more importantly, into the action. Now we have a reason why the rock affects him the way it does, and it's not because of an arbitrary story decision. It's directly related to how he's been feeling throughout the film -- up to being handed the rock.

Now we know why Evil Superman wants to destroy Clark Kent, he hates everything he represents - the iconic messiah adhering to a strict code, whereas Evil Supes has no conscious; a licence to do whatever he wants. Human nature is to be free of rules. Evil Supes represents us.

Lois's role is now important than it was in the actual film, and we still keep her screen time, more or less, as originally planned. When Lois returns at the end, Clark has accepted the new guy in her life, or he's relieved she's dumped him, whatever works for the story.

Back to the Future is a great example of character structure.
Marty McFly, what do we know about him?
In the 1st act, he dreams about being in a rock and roll band, but he can't get a break, even at the school dance.

In the 3rd act, it's that dream of being a rock and roll star that gets his parents moving on the dance floor, which leads to the kiss. Marty loses all his inhibitions, and plays out of his skin.

Imagine if we didn't have that opening scene with Marty and his guitar or, more importantly, the competition scene, we'd struggle to accept Marty on that stage. It's not enough that we hear it through dialogue, we must see it. We must see Marty playing that guitar and failing, so when it matters most, we are behind him to win it.

Can we talk Hellraiser? This is a testing one but let's sees if we can break it down and deduce the protagonist of the story.

The film starts with Frank, and then it shifts to Julia and her unhappy marriage, then back to Frank and Julia. Kirsty becomes an important character in the second half of the film, and who sends Frank back to hell. The cenobites are a threat throughout the film, and the little we saw of Pinhead was more terrifying and mysterious then seeing him as the focal point of the story.

Kirsty, and this is my opinion, skirts on the boundaries of the story until she is forced to act in the middle of act 2. It's definitely not her story although she solves it.

Julia feeds Frank with dead bodies, but her role is to support her lover. Her role fits in with the theme. She, too, is unsatisfied, she seeks new thrills, and that is with Frank.
Is it an ensemble piece? No, not really, I don't see Kirsty's story tying in with the plot and premise. Ensemble pieces need to be in the DNA of the plot.

Frank must be the pivotal character. We spend an awful lot of time with him and his plight. Sure he's evil, but doesn't he represent human nature? To go beyond our humane boundaries, to satisfy our continuous thirst for fulfilment, no matter the consequences?
I see Julia as a best friend's mother - so don't deny that a certain thought wouldn't cross your mind when you are in her company - because, remember, it's human nature to lust after someone.

Maybe the character of the film is Pandora 's Box, the puzzle?

It's a character but it is not the protagonist of the story.

Characters that don't grow.

We briefly discussed The Travelling Angel - one who doesn't change, but saves the world, or the people around him. These characters serve the franchise, mass entertainment. Bond is the perfect example of this, same story, over and over again, in different disguises. There have been genuine attempts to change direction and the great thing about Bond in the past as been its ability to survive. Audiences love Bond, and it's easy to see why - it's true - men want to be Bond, women want to be done by Bond.

Franchise characters rarely grow once they've been established. On Her Majesty's Secret Service explored Bond much more than any of the others up to that point. Bond is a lonely man, and can never have close attachments. So it's a shame that Diamonds Are Forever didn't continue the revenge story in a more gritty style. Connery played it for laughs, undermining the importance before it.

Archetypes and Stereotypes

Archetypal characters are broad designs of personality, and are rooted in mythology. Within that personality, you add unique emotional traits, creating your own protagonists within in the archetype model.

Superman's roots are derived from Greek mythology, but it's the creators who added the unique specs, giving it life. Greek mythology is probably the most influential in character archetypes, but I feel that this comes from Hinduism, because the similarities between the Greek Gods and Hindu Gods cannot be a coincidence - there must have been shipping line between the two countries. Hinduism is the most ancient of all religions, and the beginnings of the great stories, like the Mahabharata, are similar in tone and style to the great stories from Greece. The TV show Heroes takes its cue from both Greek and India - destiny and fulfilment are two of the main underlying philosophies in their texts. Jeph Leob even has a picture of Shiva in his office.

Stereotypes are generalization of character types, most often than not, they are offensive, simplified and exaggerated. The Goonies is choc-a-block with them.

That's the protagonist, and there is a whole lot more, but I think I've covered some of the more important underpinnings of the pivotal character.

<<<Special Features