To a first approximation, a character in a movie is interesting to the degree their motive is strong without being legible. Think Ahab or Tyler Durden, Phil Connors in Groundhog Day, Andy Dufrese. If there’s a clear motive, it tends to be nominal (whale, anarchy, girl, escape)
-
Show this thread
-
Notice that the behavior of such characters tends not to be efficient in pursuit of the nominal goal. Exceptions like the Terminator (a robot) prove the rule. But it’s not inefficient either. It is just distorted somehow in a characteristic/signature way. Hence strong characters.
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
By contrast genre fiction characters efficiently pursue their nominal goals, at least within a formulaic notion of efficiency, tied to a virtue. Liam Neeson’s “particular set of skills” in Taken for example. Genre comedy characters merely flip it to inefficiency.
2 replies 0 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
Occasionally, such stock genre characters rise above formulaic efficiency via what we tend to call a stylized presence, like John Wick. They go from character to idea.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
A strong character compresses a how+why coupled motivation into an identity. The can’t just win, they have to win in a characteristic way. They can’t just apply their skills to anything, they have to have characteristic goals. Eigencharacters driven by eigenvalues on eigenvectors
2 replies 1 retweet 15 likesShow this thread -
A dead giveaway of a 2d character is a generic goal like “save wife/child” which is not an eigengoal. A more subtle giveaway is a generic skill like martial arts as opposed to Holmes’ unique abductions/deductions. Eigenskills.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Venkatesh Rao Retweeted Venkatesh Rao
This is the intuition I was trying to capture in my 3 laws of how/why in this rather cryptic tweethttps://twitter.com/vgr/status/1011433895697379328?s=21 …
Venkatesh Rao added,
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread -
Venkatesh Rao Retweeted Venkatesh Rao
This is also what I was getting at here.https://twitter.com/vgr/status/1011050265082859520?s=21 …
Venkatesh Rao added,
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Venkatesh Rao Retweeted Venkatesh Rao
And finally, this is what I was getting at here as well.https://twitter.com/vgr/status/1010939432017408000?s=21 …
Venkatesh Rao added,
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread
I’ll throw in: deep characters are generally engaged in deep play a la Geertz’ Balinese Cockfight. It’s reaching for an infinite game from inside a finite game, in a way that defines the self as a non-null element. Affirmation rather than annihilation of the self. Anti-mysticism.
-
-
Replying to @stevesi
why do people insist on simplifying nicely complicated ideas? smh
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
-
Replying to @slashdottir @vgr
the self feels like nothing because it fits more comfortably than the best made shoes.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.