We've all heard of method acting where the actor immerses themselves so far into a role they become the character, even to the extent of living as that character outside of the film set - but is there such a thing as method writing?
I believe there is, but is it as simple as matching your mood to the genre or character you are writing, or do you have to dig deeper than that? When I wrote Faith, my coming-of-age drama which won the Prequel to Cannes Screenwriting Prize 2011 (a bleak tale of a street prostitute and her fight to escape the streets that would eventually consume her), I was in a very dark place. I had been suffering from depression for about three years and the incredibly bleak story of Faith was born directly from my experience of that depression.
To be a great writer I believe you have to have empathy with your characters, a connection with them which goes beyond the norm, that makes them important enough to you to spend several months, maybe even years with them. If you don't know enough about your characters, or have anything in common with them, how can you expect your audience to? There is the saying, "write what you know," and never was a truer word spoken. I'm not saying you need to go and live as a street prostitute to be able to write about one, but at the very least you must be able to understand her desperation at her situation.
If you're writing about a destructive mother and child relationship then think back to your own childhood and all the bad times you had with your mother, think about them every day, analyse the fuck out of them, make them ten times worse in your mind than they actually were, take those examples further and then you're on your way to getting into that character's mind set. At the very least it's bloody good therapy.
If you're writing about an overly optimistic person, hunt one down. Watch them - how they act, interact, what they say and how they say it, and then become that person - copy how they do things, become the overly optimistic character you're going to write about.
What I'm trying to say is your characters aren't going to be real on the page or to the audience if you don't make them real to yourself, and you can only do this if you immerse yourself into their world. Joe Cornish spoke about researching Attack The Block at LSWF 2011 last month. He told how he went to several youth clubs in London to interview inner city kids and came away with more material then he would ever use. He spent so much time with those kids he began to think like them, or at least understand how they thought, enabling him to write convincing characters.
Every character I write, even a peripheral character with a walk on part, has a little of me, or of someone I know, in their make up. I give a little of myself to all of my characters, do you?
8 comments:
"If you're writing about a destructive mother and child relationship then think back to your own childhood and all the bad times you had with your mother, think about them every day, analyse the fuck out of them, make them ten times worse in your mind than they actually were, take those examples further and then you're on your way to getting into that character's mind set. At the very least it's bloody good therapy."
Gotta disagree with you there, Dom - that's bloody awful therapy! Negativity breeds negativity; therapy is about understanding - and so is good characterisation.
"Therapy is about understanding - and so is good characterisation."
That's exactly what I AM saying.
If you analyse these incidents you come to understand them and then you can make them ten times worse, or better, for what you're writing. Although this was one example you could use this in almost every situation.
Say for instance you weren't very sporty as a child but you did win the egg and spoon race in primary school. Why did you win? What was the reason? What did it feel like? How did others treat you when you did? When you have analysed that make it bigger, expand on it, apply it to different situations, imagine how you might have felt in those new situations and how you might have acted or reacted, so you can better understand a moment of triumph and the effect it has on your character.
What I'm saying is it doesn't only apply to negative feelings but also positive ones as well.
What I feel strongly you should never do is go, 'right, my character is shy so he won't talk to people and mumble all the time,' then think you know what it's like to be shy and know enough to write about it. You have to walk a mile in that person's shoes to fully understand where they are coming from - negative or positive. That's what I mean about method writing.
Your example of Joe Cornish's ATTACK THE BLOCK was a good one, let's look at Pest: he's a very challenging character throughout what is an otherwise fun film, the voice of reason/social conscience if you like. When the female lead proudly says her boyfriend is away, helping the children of Ghana, Pest immediately counters, "What about the children of Britain?" Do you think one of the kids Cornish met said that?? In my experience of working with teens and Mr C's, I doubt it MASSIVELY.
And that's where ATTACK THE BLOCK sparkles. It's not "authentic" or "true" cos Cornish spent some hours down a youth centre talking to some kids. It's authentic and true cos Cornish has invited the audience to participate in the narrative and challenge their preconceptions of what/who these kids are, via the character of Pest.
Too many scripts I see have very little shades of grey and I think it's cos writers try too hard to nail down on paper *their* feelings about an issue or situation by representing a character *as that*, with very little room for audience participation, which is why Cornish deserves his success.
IMHO good writing appreciates there are many different ways of seeing the SAME THING. The best characters and dramatic situations are not black and white. Take this week's Hollyoaks and its finale to the Gilly/Jacqui rape storyline. Gilly did an abhorrent thing. He didn't just only rape Jacqui physically, he raped her again by not taking responsibility and allowing the court - and her community - to call her a liar.
What he did was totally vile. Is Gilly a VILE, BAD, EVIL person? No. He's a weak man who can't face what he did. Gilly is a very simple characterisation - the devil was in the details. Just like Pest.
A different writer would have written the same character a different way. Maybe better, maybe worse. But why they had done a different job on the same character/situation would vary, because to me it's not just about "walking a mile in the other person's shoes", but appreciating you're on your own journey too and a writer cannot help but contribute their own interpretation of the world to that character's journey. The best writers build that in, I reckon.
That's what I was saying!
Pffft not from where I was standing! : P
*Being* your character might be a good START - but the concept of "Method Writing" is an oversimplification IMHO - what about character role functions and how they interrelate? What about plot? Arc? Subtext? Denouement??
Knowing what makes your character tick is not even HALF the game.
But that's the POINT of the post, getting into the character's head.
The 'other' stuff is another blog post entirely.
Did you actually read the post ;)
What is the point in getting into a character's head on *some issue or experience* if you have a catalyst event or resolution in the plot that negates that mindset/experience ENTIRELY?
The short answer: you're wasting your time.
At uni, lecturers always said: "you have to know EVERYTHING about your characters, even what they had for breakfast this morning!"
Then they said: "if it doesn't form part of the story and have a REASON to be there, get rid of it."
I rest my case.
But if the issue or experience *is* relevant to the plot...oh never mind!
You're having one of 'THOSE' days, aren't you ;)
Post a Comment