|
|
QUICK NAVIGATIONThe front pageBegin here Columns Questions and answers Dictionary Library Reference list Links About me Sitemap Contact me/Kontakta mig 
|
The antagonistOne of the biggest mistakes people do when theyīre talking about antagonists, is believing that antagonist is the same as criminal. Sure, the antagonist could be a criminal. It could be a killer, a kidnapper or a monster. It can even be all that at the same time.But an antagonist could be so much more. It can be a cop, a parent, a child... anyone. It depends on who the story is about. You could easily imagine a story about some government officials having problems with a dissident who leads an army of workers and peasents, disrupting the peace but never using force. And just like that you have casted Gandhi as the antagonist, but few people would consider him a crook. Having criminals as heroes is not uncommon - THE STING, THE GODFATHER trilogy, and the television show "Sopranos" are just some examples of this. For some reason we like these criminals. And here cops can become antagonists. Yet itīs not uncommon for producers to shun when you talk about antagonists, and want you to create a more rounded character. They probably think of antagonists as flat criminals, dressed in black and twirling their moustaches. Of course they donīt want that kind of character! But even those who write about writing make the same mistake. They see antagonists as crooks. The real mistake however is trying to exclude the antagonist from your story, because, as we will see, the antagonist is driving the story.
Others, more informed, says that the antagonist has to want that the protagonist should fail to reach his goal. For example: the hero wants to have a happy relationship with his partner, and the antagonist wants to end it. Now, hereīs a seed for real conflict, but itīs not good enough. Even more knowledgable persons claim that the antagonist has to do something to make the protagonist fail. And so they write stories about saboteuring antagonists. Some of these stories ainīt bad, but still thereīs something missing. The reason for that is a quite common problem: the protagonist and the antagonist only meet once or twice during the entire story! Thereīs one meeting after one quarter of the story (for screenwriters thatīs at the first turningpoint, going into Act II), and another meeting at the climax of the story. So what else happens? Well, not a lot. Plenty of talk, endless development of friendship, and scenes about theme. Often you can guess the outcome by the end of the fifth page. What am I saying? Iīm saying that drama, or fiction, is based on relationships. Encounters. Without encounters, no relationships. Without relationships, no drama. Upside down this becomes: as there are more encounters, thereīs more drama. Iīm not saying that the antagonist should be in every scene. That would move the attention from the protagonist. We donīt want that. We still want the protagonist to be the main character. But as someone said: Act II is the antagonistīs act. Itīs the encounters with the antagonist that are interesting. Itīs these encounters that drives the story forward. Just look at TERMINATOR 2. During the second Act, T-1000 attacks a number of times: at John Connorīs step-parentīs house, in Sarahīs mental institution (and the ensuing car chase), and at CyberDyne systemsī plant. Whatever John and the Schwarzenegger model does, T-1000 is there, causing problems. Yet they must continue to fight. Dramas also have antagonists that keep coming back, as in THE ENGLISHMAN WHO WENT UP A HILL BUT CAME DOWN A MOUNTAIN, where Hugh Grantīs boss refuse to believe that Ffynnon Garw is indeed a mountain, and the reverend who blocks every effort to make make the hill a mountain. Goals and obstacles. Obstacles are the antagonistīs job. Thatīs why the antagonist should get at least a third of Act II. The "rule of threes" applies, which means that you should have three encounters between protagonist and antagonist, at the very least. This will give ample room to develop the character, twist the plot and make it more exciting. But donīt end the antagonistīs involvement there. During the first Act, one major encounter is the minimum. It should be major enough that it changes the protagonistīs life. It should be big. And during the third Act - the final struggle. The protagonist tries and tries, but doesnīt succeed. Until the trump card. Without it - no win. (Or, no loss, if you want a down-ending.) In other words, set your brain on finding about 6 to 12 encounters, or roughly 40 pages, for a movie script! (In one-hour shows on television, half of this, i.e. 3 to 6 encounters, and 20 pages!) Thatīs 40 pages where protagonist and antagonist meet, think different, betray each other, struggle, fight, argue, yes, all the things that fit you and your genre best. 40 pages of excitement.
When you think about it, itīs pretty obvious. How exciting is it watching someone wrestle themself? "Uh, who do you suppose will win?" No, wait. Letīs not totally condemn this idea. After all, thereīs ME, MYSELF AND IRENE. Iīm just not sure how youīre going to do that trick again, without it seeming like a rip-off. And there are inumerable novels and short stories where the main character blocks himself from reaching his goal through phobias, manias, bad habits and general bad judgement. But thatīs novels and short stories. The difference is you can enter the minds of the characters. A movie and an episode of a TV show are visual, and audiell. Barring a few experimental Smell-O-Vision movies, thatīs the only dimensions that count. And ME, MYSELF AND IRENE was about a schizophren person, where the different personalities was fighting each other physically as well as mentally. It will take as much physical activity to pull something like that off. I wonīt lie. You can use your protagonist as his own antagonist, but as far as I can tell, only in these four ways:
But is this really what my writer friend meant, when she said that her protagonist was its own antagonist? That the protagonist makes it harder for him- or herself, than it needs to be? Is it not in reality about the writer liking her main character so much that she doesnīt want it to have an antagonist, because the antagonist might hurt her hero? If that is the case, then the writer has gone from writing about a character to falling for that character. Itīs not uncommon. As a collegue, you can see it clearly: all suggestions to threaten the protagonist further, to create more excitement, and to make the story sell-able, are thrown out. You can feel that the suggestions are taken as a personal insult. Itīs like youīve just badmouthed someoneīs partner. I can fully understand it. Itīs hard to hurt your protagonist. To cause him pain, to drop her in deep shit, to paint them into a corner and then making them feel nature calling. Thatīs hard. And itīs not nice. But thatīs what the job is about. Without some measure of cold sadism towards your protagonist your story will be boring. Imagine for a moment what happened when Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel created Superman. If they had been "nice" to their cartoon hero, they would have let him lead a happy life on Earth. There would have been no supervillains, no romantic problems with Lois Lane or Lana Lang, no allergy against kryptonite or magic, and his parents would be alive and well on Krypton. There would have been no readers either. And Superman would have ended up like Don Quijote - a knight without a quest. By creating several antagonists that could match a superstrong, superfast, superintelligent flying alien who can see through walls and is nicer than, well everybody, Mr Siegel and Shuster were actually kinder to Superman.
What kind of antagonist you choose doesnīt matter one iota. There simply is no kind of antagonist that by definition is better or worse than the others! What does matter is characterisation, motivation, space in the story, and the rest of the characters. Some kinds have been done poorly in the past, but that doesnīt mean that they cannot be done better and even good. Thatīs why you donīt need to spend a lot of time inventing a new kind of antagonist. All you have to do is characterise one of the following kinds of antagonists as varied and intelligently as you can:
Your best option is to put in more time on the antagonist than on the protagonist as for motivation and characterisation. Characterisation, especially, is a far too wide an area to cover here, but motivating the antagonist is such a misunderstood subject that itīs necessary to include it. Most stories are about the audience rooting for whatever side the protagonist is on (the "good" side). The antagonist is the opposition of the protagonist, and so itīs only logical to assume that his or her motivationīs "evil". Nothing could be further from the truth. The antagonist acts as much from logic, feelings and experiences as the protagonist. Monsters and killers also act according to their belief of whatīs right. As many have commented before me: Even Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. An easy way to motivate your antagonist is by using the seven deadly sins. I for one believe that that is the lowest common denominator and that you can do much better, but sometimes low is good, so here they are: Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Envy, Wrath, Pride and Lust But how do you create a credible antagonist without using evil motives? You use good motives, and then you give them more desperation. So hereīs a short list of good motives for antagonists:
There is a deeper meaning about the whole "good motives" stuff: namely that the antagonist carries the theme. Think about it. Check whatever film or television show you want. The antagonist stands for something, the protagonist stands for something else, but itīs different sides of the same coin. It doesnīt matter where the government people in NELL stand politically, religiously or philosophically, it only matters how they feel about how Nell should be taken care of, and how it relates to the main characters feel about that same question. And when you create the theme, you should start with the antithesis. Find something that sounds wrong in your ears, but something that many believe to be true. A simple example is "Thereīs no place like home". But if your parents are abusive, thereīs plenty of places better. So by making your antagonist a strong believer in the home, and your protagonist in rescuing kids from their parents, you will have a theme, through the conflict between two opinions. The protagonistīs thesis, the antagonistīs antithesis, and the endingīs synthesis. If the protagonist right from the beginning, the story will feel flat and preachy. If the antagonist is right, the audience will be disappointed. But if neither is right, it will surprise and delight the audience. Itīs the same is in real life - noone is ever right at the start of an argument.
(That shoe fits CLIFFHANGER, doesnīt it?) Donīt fall for it. Because thatīs the beginning of the end for the protagonist. Thatīs right, the protagonist. Let me explain. Without a strong antagonist, thereīs nothing to push the protagonist to create great things anymore. If the protagonist isnīt pushed anymore, his or her deeds will seem unnescessary, braggy. Just think of a Superman without enemies, flying around, showing his powers. He wouldnīt be a hero. The audience doesnīt want that. They want provoked greatness. Nothing about this is new or strange. So why does some writers continue to write about antagonists over the hill? I can think of three reasons: First, they have picked the wrong protagonist. They wrote about the girlfriend, when they shouldīve written about the jealous boyfriend. They wrote about the cop, when they shouldīve written about the criminal. Or they wrote about the monster instead of the creator. Or the opposite. Thatīs not easy to correct in a rewrite. Nearly every scene would have to be changed. Parts of the story might have to cut, and others included. And thatīs not something that everybody wants to do. Especially close to deadline. But without that rewrite, chances of getting the thing sold are slimmer. The choice is yours! But I promise - after doing such a rewrite, or after not doing such a rewrite, youīre much more prone to put pressure on your protagonist next time around... Secondly, they have written a too strong beginning for the antagonist, and so they have no idea of how to keep his or her story going once the antagonist has done all that the writer imagined from the beginning. When the "wrong" guy have started dated the girl, how can you make things worse for the protagonist? When the only witness has committed suicide, how can it possibly get any worse? And when the enemy has won the war, what more can you lose? This problem is a planning problem. But actually, this is fun. This is where you can imagine what you would you like to do if you only could. Let your conscience rest for a little while, and just aim ahead. The skyīs the limit. Besides, thereīs another trick from TERMINATOR 2 you should try. Ever think of when we get to see some of T-1000īs abilities? Some emerge quite late, just when we thought it couldnīt get any worse. Thatīs how you do it! Thirdly, they write about antagonists over the hill, because they are afraid that the antagonist will win. They fear that if they give the antagonist too much power, or that if they give the antagonist too much advantages, the protagonist will never catch up. But... YOU ARE NOT YOUR PROTAGONIST. That means that you do not have to hold back to be sure that the protagonist will win. Protagonists usually think of something. And if you are scared that the antagonist will win, how do you think the audience will feel? If the audience is scared, then you have succeeded. So my advice is, strand your protagonist in a jam, think of a way to get out it, and then make sure you canīt get out of it that way. Then you think some more. This is what they pay you for.
Those antagonists want something, they have strategies, and they increase the pressure on the protagonists. Those films are exciting. So why donīt all antagonists have real plans? Well, thatīs such a good question Iīll put it again: Why donīt all antagonists have real plans? I donīt know, but perhaps itīs something like that... A. Itīs HARD to come up with good plans that donīt fall apart during the first meeting with the protagonist. And itīs really, really hard to come up with original plans, with unique goals and unusual strategies. B. It takes TIME to create a plan. Many writers canīt be bothered and hope that they will think of something later. (But it only gets harder the longer you write.) But would you plan a bank robbery without at least think about how you would get out afterwards? Or would you try to catch the robbers without a plan? Of course, the antagonist doesnīt have to be aware of the entire plan at the start of the story, because of all the unexpected events that comes in its way, including the protagonist, but you as a writer should know the plan, I mean really know it. RANSOM exemplifies this well, by not using this technique completely. Here Mel Gibson plays a man who refues to pay his sonīs kidnapper (not in kidnapperīs plan). Then, the police discovers the kidnapperīs location (not in kidnapperīs plan), which the kidnapper uses to paint himself a hero by killing his co-kidnappers (not in kidnapperīs plan). But the recognises him (not in kidnapperīs plan), and he is forced to kidnap Mel Gibson to get the money (not in kidnapperīs plan). This far into the movie, we have begun to root for the kidnapper because heīs the underdog. (Do you recognise the Declining Antagonist theme?) But my point about RANSOM is that the writers did know everything that wasnīt in the kidnapperīs plan. They invented the kidnapperīs every move to make it seem that they were improvised. And a better "improvised" final strategy would definitely have made RANSOM more interesting. But I still havenīt answered the question youīre asking yourself: how do you create a plan for the antagonist, then? Well, here are some pointers:
Should your plan (of which the antagonist may or may not be aware entirely) have a weak point, place it as soon as possible. Then at least the ending will be solid.
Why is that so bad? Where do I begin? First, it will be difficult to explain what the story is about. A pitch will mostly be about what enemies the protagonist have, and the story will lose focus, and get hard to handle. It will also seem episodical, like a child telling about its day. "First... and then... and then... and then..." which is not what you want. You want a story that progress naturally. Second, every antagonist diminishes the previous ones, both in space and in intensity (as stated in the law of diminishing returns). Often this will result in the antagonists fighting amongst themselves, which leaves the protagonist without a task. Third, a plethora of antagonists will reduce the protagonist to a pinball, who lets himself be pushed from conflict to conflict. That kind of protagonist will end up passive, even if the sequences may seem to be filled with activity. Keywords here are: combining antagonists and maximising every conflict. The reason why so many writers use several antagonists is that its hard to find any one antagonist that will do the trick. Another antagonist can seem like a way to cut the character down to normal proportions, so as not to seem impossibly larger-than-life, or out of context. Thatīs simply a variation of the old argument: "thatīs not how a real person would act". So what, this is fiction. Nobody can act in fiction as in reality, or vice versa. Accept it, or try the documentary department down the hall.(More on that subject here.) Donīt get me wrong - you can have more than one antagonist. But for that you need a strategy to get the antagonists to work in your favour, and not be in each othersī way. I will give it to you. I was watching the old TV show "The A-team" when it occured to me how it should be done. I donīt know if itīs your cup of tea, but just bear with me for a while. Almost every episode begins with a couple of hoodlums threaten some innocents to get them to leave a certain business (as driving taxi, fighting fires, or pumping gas). Those innocents seek out The A-team, who confront the hoodlums with a warning. The hoodlums call for back-up, catches the team and imprisons them. But they get out, catch the crooks and escape, just in time to evade the military police. Well, you donīt watch "The A-team" for its brilliant plots, but for the humour and the charm. And you can always learn a lot about plotting from simple stories. But letīs concentrate on the antagonists. There are two groups in almost every episode: the crooks and the MPs. But we rarely see those antagonists together. They make up different stories. There is one story for every antagonist, and they donīt mix, which means that the protagonist is forced into a two-front war. This two-front war is most effectly told like this:
Check out how the antagonists cover for each other. When one is off-scren, the other one is active. And in the climax, both antagonist attack at once, which makes it harder for the protagonist, but easier for the writer. This way, one antagonist can also function as a deadline for the protagonist. And this type of deadline is much more interesting than the old ticking bomb ploy. Here you can let the time run out, and have the protagonist have to engage two antagonists at once. Of course this can also be done with three antagonists, or even four, but weaving the plot will get much harder. And similarly, this strategy can be used, just as effectively in romantic films, film noir, and musicals. The difference in plotting is not that big, the difference lies in how you tell the story.
Naturally. Letīs start: The society or the idea - the society is not the antagonist in THE MATRIX, itīs the representative, Agent Smith. Itīs the same in any good film which criticises society, you fight representatives. The drug or the disease - itīs not visual (if you donīt do as in FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS), it takes a long time, and there is no real antagonist. You can do it if you include a representative of an antagonistic society. The lazy and/or talky villain - as long as you pay an actor to act, you may as well give him or her something to do. You will ruin the surprise and effectiveness of an antagonist by just having him standing around and talk. Begin the story when the plan is ready and add a couple of steps in the end instead. The insulting villain - sheer menace doesnīt come from insults. If your antagonist will resort to insults, she doesnīt have enough real conflict in her. Try to write a couple of scenes where no dialogue is needed. The "evil" villain - the mustasch-twirling antagonist only gives antagonists a bad name. Give him or her a real motive. Otherwise you risk that the audience feels that he or she is just misunderstood or that the protagonist is judging her too hard. The stupid or clumsy antagonist - donīt let your antagonist tell the protagonist about his plans, and then leave the hero to die. Or fall for the first bluff. Or miss the person hidden in the closet. Or believe that he will "make someone" love him. Or give up. The only one whoīs clumsy here is the writer. The boring antagonist - every type of character needs to be exciting, but this goes especially for the antagonist, since they drive the story. Pitch your antagonist, and if you think that itīs an interesting character, even outside the story, then you have a good antagonist. The old faithful servant - or the cliché bad guy. You can almost judge what decade a film or TV show is from just by watching what antagonists are present.
1930s - indians and pirates Some antagonists can be included almost every time: the sadistic prison warden, the conservative teacher, the sect leader, the mean parent, the problem child... yes, you know. Thatīs when you do the opposite. When everybody makes out hackers to be antagonist, make one a protagonist. By showing the other side, you will automatically have a story.
But thereīs one question left. How can I know so much about antagonists? My answer... Bwahahahahahaha! Moahahahaha! Ehehehe! By Lennart Guldbrandsson |
Chapters
The absent antagonist "The protagonist is his own antagonist"
|
