Ditto on the greatness of Barry Lyndon and the 3-dimensionality of the character.

And:

Why is it BAD? If the writer or Directors had no intention of developing these characters so what? Just asking....


What about SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION? To me the only one who grew was Red. Andy stayed the same smart guy he always had been but he didn't change much just like the other characters.

Wouldn't Citizen Kane be consitered with good character development.

I think the audience just needs to be able to relate somehow to the characters, whether you see yourself as that character or you know someone who acts that way. And that's good development. Pulp Fiction has great character development through great dialogue.

character development is overrated.... look at the yearly sales of the porn industry and it tells you something, action speaks louder than words!!

\


But if you can't imagine banging the hot chick on the screen then that's not good right?

I just reading the script review for X-men 2 and they said that that was the major downfall of the movie that there were too many characters and not enough character development.
Too bad.

Wow - did you see a Bizzaro Universe Star Trek or something? The one I recall seeing had interchangeable characters no matter what season you picked up the show in.

As for good character development - all you have to do is look to Jaws. Here's Quint, a reasonably one-dimensional character - salty old sea dog. Then, in the middle of this action flick, you get a slow scene where Quint tells the back story of the Indiannapolis and his 3 days in the shark infested waters.

BOOM! Backstory, motavation and development all in one scene. Suddenly everything he does - the irrational behaivor, smashign the radio, pushing the engines too hard and stranding them in the middle of the ocean - makes sense now.

Dont get me started on Trek. Old Trek had character devlopment but it is true about interchangable characters on the shows these days. Just watch Voyager or Enterprise. They are streotypes with no real demension.

Well said, I totally agree. IMO, "character development" has NOTHING to do with whether or not the character has an arc or whether or not the character is any different at the end of the story than they are at the beginning. "Character development" is mostly about how well did the storyteller let you get to know the characters.....thier thoughts, their likes and dislikes, their motivations, their personalities, their habits, their obsessions, their compulsions, thier desires....... Whether or not a reader or observer thinks a character is well developed can be subjective....if the storyteller manages to make a character seem like someone you do know, or could know in real life...then your own prejudices will further develop the character from your own perspective.

ok...i may be having semantic confusion with garmonbozia, but i don't believe you always have to have superior character development to have a good film.
there are films that are character driven and there are films that are plot driven.
a mystery, if the mystery is the center of the plot and not just an incidental event, is an example of a plot driven film.
in some cases, characters can be developed too much so that they end up taking attention away from the major thrust of the story. if a plot is hurtling straight ahead, taking time out for little character 'bits' is invariably going to throw something off.

one reason i'm so high on the first X-Men movie, is that it is much more character driven than plot driven.
i heard people complain about that one that we didn't get to know all the characters very well, but the movie wasn't really about all the characters.
it was mostly the story of wolverine and Rouge.
we had just enough information about the others to understand the relationships etc.
if they had tried to give equal time to the 4 or 5 difft characters, and render each one fully, the film would have been a mess.

right now X2 could be the biggest disappointment i've had at the movies in a long time, because so far it looks so damn good.
and it's a follow up with the same creative team as the first one- a movie i've really come to love.

but i'd be suspicious of these guys 'reviewing' scripts. two different actors could read the same lines and your left cold and indifferent in one case and you get goose bumps in the next.
a lot of things can happen in the translation.

a good script is essential just like bones are in your body. but other craftsmen have to supply the muscle and skin.

as long as all the parts serve the whole, rather than the movie being a showcase for just a few elements ( like great production design, or a prima donna role), then it should be a blast.

What about William Wallace, the main character?

-THIS- is what I was getting at and trying to understand. It is why I posted this.

He doesn't go through any change. He's stubborn and vengeful through the whole movie.

One example of a movie w/ well developed characters that does not include a character arc or growth, is My Dinner With Andre. Our perception of these characters changes somewhat over the course of the movie (as we learn more about them), but Wally and Andre, themselves, remain unchanged—they leave the restaurant the same as they entered. Yet, we know these two people by the final act.

Hopefully this movie will be re-released someday with the decent transfer and sound it deserves.

good example.

I mean, even a one character, one act play (with nothing but a long monologue) could have good character development.

ok, i've been thinking about this over the weekend, and i think what (i'm) getting hung up on is semantics.

two of the definitions of develop are ' to explain more clearly, enlarge upon' and 'to become larger fuller, better, etc; grow or evolve, esp by natural process'

i think those are two equally valid ways to look at character development- and not necc. exclusive.

a) as either a clear elaboration, deliniation of the character
or
b) character evolution (which would be what i was calling an arc)-a character that evolves from one state to another

both of these would imply that you see more than one side of the character (i.e. multi-dimensional, developed) .


i've often heard actors describe their favorite parts by saying that they liked such & such because the character had an arc, in other words, they get an opportunity to portray a range of emotional qualities- not the same thing throughout the movie.
they could have been sweet and nice in the begining and ended up a bastard by the end, or vice versa etc.

it would probably be better to discuss specific movies in general.

i havent watched MDWA or braveheart lately, so i'm a little fuzzy on those.

here's an example everybody should get;

in star wars, Han is portrayed as a braggert, selfish, good at what he does (piloting), somewhat of a coward at times, somewhat irresponisible, mostly self-centered until the end when he has a change of heart and puts his own interests aside to help luke.

now in the sequel.
he is still somewhat of a braggert although this has toned down, he is still very good at what he does (the asteroid chase), but
he is also becoming more responisble (his first inclination early in the film is to go back and pay off jabba the hut- and his appelation of commander would imply more responsibility), he is arguably braver, a little more thoughtful and introspective, his feelings for leia are expressed more deeply, etc, etc.

the character was great in the first film ( and he did have an arc), but instead of just rehashing that template for the sequel, the filmmakers expanded upon it- used it as the starting point to go even deeper. ( and at least one aspect of his character has an arc in the second film as well- his relationship to leia- )

ESB is actually a great script to study as it is full of literary devices, and sound structure and is damned entertaining (which is what is really important anyway)

so i'll agree with the other notions of what character development means, and hopefully i've been able to better explain the ideas in my earlier posts .

Some random thoughts…My take is that an arc alone doesn’t create good character development. I think we’ve all seen examples of good guys turned bad, or the gruff gangster with a heart of gold, or the tame housewife driven to murder, or.... Without adequate development, these characters remain ill defined caricatures that we recognize but do not relate to as human beings.

Take Kevin Bacon’s character in Hollow Man for example. Here’s a character that undergoes profound physiological and psychological changes, yet remains as thin as the paper on which he was penned.

Don’t get me wrong; I believe the arc is a powerful device. I’m just saying that a character change does not ipso facto equate to good development. I also think that using techniques that alter the audience’s perception of a character, who essentially remains static, is just as powerful (e.g. Sophie in Sophie’s Choice)—even more so in some cases, than a character who undergoes a transformation of some kind.

great character development?
look at coen brothers, what do u remember most from their movies, great, quirky, strange characters.
u feel like u know the characters, even the minor ones, even though, u haven't been given much details about them, but u never feel like the character was one dimensional or under written.
heck, jesus, in the big Lebowski, is a great character, and he is there for may be 2 scenes max, but in those 2 scenes u related to him, or knew where he was coming from or u know characters like him in real life.
and who can forget the dude from big Lebowski, or the character billy bob plays in 'the man who wasn't there'.

some people i have known relate to characters played by seagal and van damme and don't see them as under developed and it works out just fine for them.

If the character is real to u, thats a well developed character.

late thought:

while on the topic of coen brothers, I would love to see coen brothers work with
.
william hurt
daniel day lewis
jeremy irons

i think the combination would create great characters

Braveheart is the film that turned me to filmmaking, and I never thought it ever had poor character development. For a moment, you had me fooled. But consider the insane irish character. When they first meet him, he's uncontrollable. But soon, he proves how loyal and brave he really is. By the end, it's unmistakable how humane and sane he really is. William Wallace. Hello? They killed his father and his brother, but he was sent to battle a minute later. They killed his secret wife, and that's what provokes him to change. Then he becomes more and more brave and daring, inspiring other to do the same. In the end, he dies because he chooses not to give up to the highest enemy at the highest stakes. That's a grand and mighty choice folks. And the princess? She wasn't the devil, but she soon became convinced of Wallace's true motives. I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with you. A powerful film like that can't be based on such little character development.

Unfortunately, I have a friend who is just like this. He's in a rut, just like he was five years ago, just like he will be five years from now. And there's nothing I can do or say to get him out of it. And with all his talents, it's really sad. Same for another friend, in fact. I think I've only met one dynamic person in my life, and she was ****ing amazing. Assunta, wherever you are.....

I agree partially with what you say, since I always savor the unique character nuances a film can give me. However, you can't have one without the other. If you there's no character arc, then you have a character who sits there, staying the same, having a million different conversations that go nowhere. This, in my opinion, is much, much less memorable than a character with an arc.

Can you name films where your definition fits and it's a great movie? Usually you find a lot of that stagnant crap that shows up in most indie films. Some have mentioned The Big Lebowski, but if it wasn’t for the plot that kicks in after he comes home from the supermarket, you’d have a pretty boring movie. That plot kicks him through the film, forcing him to react to situations, along with his friends.

(*I have yet to see My Dinner with Andre*)

I would say that it is really hard to have that arc without initial character development, though. In fact, I would say that character development is a requirement of a "character arc". You need to establish that starting point before you can make the change.

That being said, I also think that the arc continues to refine that character. You get an even better idea of who they are as they change, but only based on their initial character. Otherwise, how would you be able to appreciate the arc.

Additionally, I don't think that that arc can ever be affective if it goes against the initial development. Otherwise, it is not believable. I can't think of a movie in which a "bad guy" has "gone good" without you knowing ahead of time that there was something decent about them to begin with on which to base that change (or, as Luke would say of Vader, "There is good in him, I've felt it." ).


As to your second point, I agree that a character that never changes from an initially set character wouild lead to a boring movie, but the other option is to dedicate the movie to the initial defining of that character. Take The Craft, for example (don't ask me why I used that one . . . it, for some reason, was the first example to pop into my head ). The entirety of the movie is, basically, about the main character discovering who she is (and the audience along with her). It is not so much an arc from one point to another as it is shuffling through a bunch of personality details to discover which ones are accurate to the character.

Just an opinion, of course . . .