The Subtle Hero

I started reading a bit of Dramatica, the book that connects with the program and theory of story. I haven’t finished it, so I’m certainly no expert. But one distinction they make, that opened my eyes somewhat and made me think, is between the terms “main character,” “protagonist,” and “hero.” As I understand it (and perhaps someone better versed int he theory can correct me if I’m wrong), they delineate as follows. The main character is the focal point of the story. The one with the most significant, and probably most quantitative screen time. The protagonist is the driving force of the story. The one who takes action against the antagonist to create the drama. And a hero is someone who combines both of these roles into a single character. Many films may have a separate main character and protagonist. It is only when one character serves both purposes that he becomes a “hero.”

Somewhat flawed, I’m sure, but interesting nonetheless.

Awesome post, Craig. What’s your position regarding “character arc”? I’ve maintained to my friends that it’s not always necessary for a great character to go through a transformation or character arc - I’ve always believed that great characters are revealed over the course of whatever story you happened to be telling (like Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs, or Indiana Jones, etc) - but of course, my background is primarily in plays, not in film - I know that character arcs are an important tool for folks to understand screenplays - I’ve just always felt that the arc itself wasn’t nearly as important as a great character - what’s your view?

Another great example of this is Braveheart: William Wallace wasn’t the hero! The whole movie’s centered around Robert the Bruce’s decision to change.

In POTC, don’t Elizabeth Swann and Will Turner both qualify as protagonists/heroes? They each have their hero’s journey, they change and evolve as characters (Will learns about and comes to terms with his father’s piratical history), etc.

I don’t know that you’re entirely correct about Wallace in Braveheart - if you recall, he didn’t really want to fight the English, it was only when his wife was killed that he picked up the sword -

I’ll second Joshua: I think that William Wallace is the hero/protagonist of Braveheart. HE is the driving force for change. The fact that his new wife is killed by the British is his initial motivation to fight them; his goal is for the Scots to stand up and fight against the British. His Christ-like death in the end achieves that goal. Robert the Bruce is an important secondary character whose resultant courage to lead a charge in the finale is the ‘Show, don’t Tell’ part of Wallace’s achievement of his goal. My opinion is that Robert the Bruce is the stand-in for the Scottish people as a whole.

Alright… head’s spinning.

Craig. That answers my question on like 900 levels… and exactly plays to the character’s issue I’ve been struggling with.

That was a very interesting read. That actually helped me with one of my screenplays, in which I couldn’t pin point what was off about my main character. Now I know.

A really terrific, sensational post!

It’s “Rain Man” on a smaller scale. If your lead character is incapable of change, they serve as the catalyst for change in someone else.

Granted, Tom Cruise wasn’t exactly a supporting character in “rain man”, but the theory is the same.

No, Tom’s character was definitely the hero of Rain Man. Good example.

…(with a bit of Loki thrown in)…

ahem A bit?

I’d put money on Sparrow being Loki and Kickaha’s love-child, if such a thing were possible.

As a kid, my favorite movie was Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, and I still remember the day when I first realized that the protagonist — the Subtle Hero — of the story is Cameron, not Ferris. Ferris is fun to watch, but he has no character arc. Cameron (and, to a lesser extent, Ferris’s sister Jeannie) grows and matures over the course of the movie, while experiencing all the fear and self-doubt that the average teenager can identify with but Ferris seems immune to.

Yes, another great example!

Forest Gump…

GREAT POST! I’ve come up against this and struggled. Not with who the protag is, but with turning so much power over to someone else besides the protagonist, fearing I’d lose control of the story somehow. Even though instinctively it felt right, on some level it felt wrong.

And in analyzing POTC, I knew Jack wasn’t the protagonist, but what the heck was he? FARGO was another one. Bill Macy was the protagonist, but Marge took over the story. Maybe that example is something different.

Question — When you’re structuring things, how do you think of this christ character? Is it his story that turns on the actions of someone else? Or is he a big subplot? Or is he an inseperable catalyst? Maybe it varies from story to story.

Someone mentioned Forest Gump. Gump seems like the hero to me. If he’s not, who is?

I still think William Wallace isn’t the hero of Braveheart. He hated the British before his wife was killed. Once his wife is killed, his arc is complete. He doesn’t change for the rest of the movie. That’s just the way I see it, although I certainly respect your opinion. In the end, it’s all the same movie.

Lethal Weopan: you’d think Mel’s character would be the focal point but it is actually Murtaugh’s story (Glover)

I wonder if there are two different ideas at work here. Most likely I’m still clawing at the idea, trying to get a foothold.,

I understand the basic idea, but when we start talking about Christ figures and people like William Wallace, I’ve always wondered if there isn’t a different dynamic at work.

I always thought that either the main character either changed him/herself by the end or if the main character doesn’t change, then he/she has to affect change in others.

Jesus, William Wallce, Maximus, Chance the Gardener. They don’t really change as people, but they change those around them, or they change the world.

But I suppose that if the character doesn’t change, then a secondary character must fill that role. Thus the subtle hero.

Fascinating, Craig.

Slightly off topic, but I must know.

In the movie Field of Dreams Costner’s character doesn’t let his daughter watch Harvey. She thinks it is funny. He says “The man is sick.”

I’ve never seen Harvey and I’ve always thought that there was some sort of in-joke that I wasn’t privy to.

Can anyone tell me what the deal is?

I’ve long been fascinated by heroes and sidekicks and I think there’s some sort of correlation here.

When I think of Sherlock Holmes, very much he’s this force of nature. It’s Watson, his chronicler, his “sidekick”, his warmer, humaner partner who the reader can identify with. We’ve all known someone who seemed larger than life, and admired the things in them that we sense is there, on some level, in ourselves. Part of the hero’s job, I guess, is to let themselves be changed, be influenced by this wonderful or manifestly awful person.

I’m curious what people think about Frodo and Sam? There’s a parallel between Cam’s giving the finger to his father’s car and Sam going up to ask the barmaid (I forget her name) out.

What is the danger of this approach? How do you determine if you are writing a subtle hero or writing a weak or unchanging main character?

Can’t the subtle hero be used as an excuse for not developing a main character?

I suppose an accomplished storyteller will know the difference. But could this be a mine field that young screenwriters might blow themselves up in? Or am I simply looking at this issue impoperly?

In the movie Field of Dreams Costner’s character doesn’t let his daughter watch Harvey. She thinks it is funny. He says “The man is sick.” I’ve never seen Harvey and I’ve always thought that there was some sort of in-joke that I wasn’t privy to.

In Harvey, Elwood P. Dowd is an alcoholic who “sees” his friend Harvey, a six-foot tall talking rabbit that is invisible to anyone else.

You might think a guy like Elwood is sick. On the other hand, if you’ve been hearing imaginary voices telling you to build a baseball field…saying as much to your daughter would be kind of funny.

Hence, the joke. :)

Or a voice from god telling you to run for president - oops, that one is not so funny.

Great topic. Brings up some great points about storytelling.

This whole idea of the subtle hero seems intimately related to that of the dramatic foil, only with the foil being the main character, and the hero becoming a secondary one. The foil often holds the key for how the hero will evenutually change to find success - though the means and aims of the foil will probably be aimed at a different direction (e.g. in Ferris Bueller Ferris definitely doesn’t take Cameron’s father’s car to teach Cameron the lesson(s) he learns in the end).

But there is a complexity here that can be deceiving. For example, a “false” hero can have a thematic arc, it just may not be as central (in the grand scheme of things) as the subtle hero’s (Jack Sparrow, for example). And along these lines there can be many different thematic arcs taking place but it is often the humanistic or emotional one which involves a subtle hero.

An example of this is Once Upon a Time in the West. There are a plethora of themes about the history of the american west and cinema (to name a couple) most of which revolve around the Frank (Henry Fonda) and Harmonica (Charles Bronson) characters; however, the emotional and humanistic thematic core of the movie is expressed through the Cheyenne (Jason Robards) and Jill (Claudia Cardinale) realtionship. Even the emotional final showdown between Frank and Harmonica has less to say about individual humanity (and, frankly, is more about the mythos of the west) than the Cheyenne/Jill relationship.

I think its a mistake to nail yourself down to a single dramaturgical or story theory — better to have a grasp of many of them, and draw on them all in order to create the work. That said, here’s what I think of as sort of my person theory regarding this topic:

Protagonist, hero and main character are all generalized terms, and are useful for thinking about stories in general terms. However, in order to create a specific story, you’ve got to be able to think about it in specific terms.

Also, since we’re talking about movies, it’s not enough to think about character qualities (which is what the general terms tend to focus on); you’ve got to think about character actions that both demonstrate character qualities and propel the story (because a story is essentially an ongoing revelation of characters — from the audience point of view, there is no difference between a character changing over the course of a story and the character being revealed over the course of a story — both are “character arcs,” from the audience pov).

Anyway, what I think about are necessary character actions — the actions that must occur in order for the story to unfold as intended (if you tend to work out the way the story unfolds before you start composing scenes) or determined (if you tend to compose scenes as a means of working out how the story unfolds).

In Pirates, Elizabeth performs the necessary actions that propel the story — she takes the medallion from Will (as opposed to anything else she could have done), she puts the medallion on before the ceremony (as opposed to anything else she could have done), she calls for parley (as opposed to anything else she could have done), she lies about her last name (as opposed to etc), she burns the rum (as opposed to etc), she agrees to marry Norrington (as opposed to etc), and so on, right up to the end where she steps in front of the rifles pointed at Jack and Will — eliminate any of those actions, and the story does not unfold.

Oh, sure, Will would still love her from afar, and Jack would still come to Port Royal, and get arrested after rescuing her … but, after that … nothing that happened would have happened.

One reason Pirates is a bit hard to pin down is because Terry and I try to make sure that all the characters have at least one necessary action to perform (even if its performed by a collective of characters, as when Jack’s crew refused to help save Jack and Will and sailed away in the Black Pearl — but that action is only necessary within the constraints created by the necessary actions Elizabeth takes)(so I guess that action should more appropriately be called a “sufficient action”).

But, by design, the majority of those actions belong to Elizabeth … and a character who takes the majority of actions necessary to propel the story must be considered, in a movie at least, to be the main character (or the protagonist or the hero, although none of those terms are actually interchangeable — its entirely possible to have a movie where the main character, the hero and the protagonist are three different characters)(at least, according to the way I define the terms : ) )

-

Wow - good stuff Ted (and kudos to Craig as well) -

I’ve always been curious about the movie Training Day and how these questions would relate to it.

Clearly, the main character is Denzel Washington’s character. He won the best actor oscar, while Ethan Hawke was nominated for supporting actor.

HOWEVER!

Ethan Hawk’s character is clearly the protagonist, Washington the antagonist.

And —

Our “main actor” (Washington) actually has less screen time than our “supporting actor” (only by a few minutes).

So it raises for me interesting questions about what a hero truly is, and what a main character is, and that they don’t have to be the same.

I’m getting tired, so I couldn’t study all of this as exhaustedly as I wanted to (which I will first thing tomorrow), but how does this apply to something like the Sixth Sense? Both characters (Bruce Willis and Haley Joel Osmend) help each other change, and help each other make decisions. Is it a multi-protagonist story (and how do they come into all of this)?

Also, I’m pretty sure most people would consider Clarice the protagonist and main character of Silence of the Lambs, but could Hannibal be considered a christ-figure (ironically, Hopkins won the Oscar despite only having 17 minutes of screentime). Similar to The Sixth Sense, Clarice wouldn’t have done much to change or solve the case without Hannibal’s help.

Happily, neither Oscar awards nor Academy-determined categories nor screen time are essential parts of story-telling.

In fact, there’s a 100% chance you won’t know much about any of the above when crafting your tale.

I don’t think Hannibal is a Christ figure. He’s definitely more in the mold of the Greek gods who would appear to true heroes (like Odysseus) and present them with challenges and wisdom. Those gods were often bloodthirsty and certainly didn’t obey any sense of Judeo-Christian morality.

The fact that a character changes isn’t enough to make a character a protagonist.

I define the protagonist as the character who changes in order to live his or her life by propositional argument of the theme.

Per that definition, Bruce WIllis’ character is clearly the protagonist of Sixth Sense.

But Bruce Willis’ character was dead. Oh never mind.

Hence, according to Craig, “Jules” as the protagonist for “Pulp Fiction”, NOT “Vincent”, despite Vincent having more screen time (and having gotten a “Best Actor” nod instead of “Best Supporting”, as Jackson did.)

Protagonists are defined by their relationship to the plot. Aristotle said the plot causes the hero to exist. Another way to look at it is, without he hero, the plot could not exist. That’s basically saying what Ted said, but not nearly as clearly as he did :)

The hero is the one who is the primary cause/perpetrator of the actions which advance and ultimately resolve the plot. It doesn’t matter who you like the most or who has the cleverest dialogue or who has the most screen time. The role of the protagonist is a function of dramatic structure.

At risk of sounding like a boob, I’ll ask the following question.

Is the subtle hero the character who doesn’t change (jack Sparrow)?

Or is the subtle hero the character who does change (Elizabeth)?

I understand the concept. I’m just not 100% sure which character that value is assigned to.

I ask this on behalf of all safety-helmet wearing screenwriters out there.

Ms. Swan is the subtle hero. :)

You’re absolutely right about Gatsby. Apparently the realisation that Nick was the identifying character of that story allowed Fitzgerald to finally get a handle on the novel.

Pretty Woman is the same — Edward changes, not Vivian. She just waits for him to come around to her values, and what’s great about that concept is that it’s the whore who teaches the guy living the straight life about morality.

Love this kind of movie, but it cuts against what studios want … the character with the most lines to have the largest arc. Next time I’m arguing this point, guess I’ll just whip out Craig’s article.

Christ was an adventurer in favor of a theme.

Wikipedia says “The protagonist is also characterized by his ability to change or evolve.”

However I just finished Lajos Egri’s book The Art of Dramatic Writing, and he describes the protagonist as the character with an iron will who does not change, and who forces the other characters to change.

Who is right?

bscottw…

I think both. You’re protagonist’s iron will for whatever the cause sets the story in motion, but good stories never allow them to stay the same.

There’s a good article, The Hero Aims Low, that Craig did speaking to this. Take Shrek, as he suggests… all Shrek wants is to get his swamp back, so he goes to get the girl. His iron will is to get back to status quo. The story is good because that doesn’t happen. Shrek, the protagonist with the iron will of an ogre, changes… without changing the fact that’s an ogre.

Thanks trey.

But in Lajos examples he makes it a point to say that the protagonist does NOT change.

I really enjoyed his book, and am just trying to get a grasp on all the terms and theories, because many of them are not consistent. I know I don’t need them to write with, but would like a full understanding anyhow.

I think it’s possible that Lajos Egri is just plain wrong.

Is he an author of actual drama…or just non-fiction about drama? That may be an important clue. :)

It could be that he is wrong, or merely misusing protagonist for another term.

He states that characters like IAGO from Othello and KROGSTAD from A Doll’s House are the protagonists because they are the ones who move the play along.

Maybe there is another term for this Iron willed character who sets action in motion?

An example story he uses to illustrate a protagonist is (Summary):

A dog follow a man home from work. The man tells the dog to shoo but the dog does not. Every day the dog is steadfast and continues to follw the man. Finally the man gives in and take the dog inside his home. But the man’s wife doesn’t want a dog. She tells the man to get rid of it. But the dog still has an Iron will and follwos the man home everyday. The man begins to resent the wife. They begin to have conflict and the man sees a side of his wife he hadn’t before. Meanwhile the dog keeps following the man and always waits outside of his home. The man grows angry and decides to end his marriage, but when he arrives home he sees the wife had a change of heart.

That summary was from memory and may not be exact. It shows how two characters begin to change because of the steadfast will of the dog. How he is the one who sets the events in motion. What kind of character is that dog? I would agree the man is the protagonist and the woman the antogonist. The dog?

That’s not the most dramatic example… kind of funny to find it in a book called The Art of Dramatic Writing. But anywho…

The dog kind of sounds like Donkey in Shrek… to use something a bit more dramatic.

All fascinating, but it sounds like many are saying that a character without an arc can’t be the protagonist. Not so. James Bond and Dirty Harry never changed but they were hero/protagonists. They changed others (like killing bad guys). And as mentioned, Jesus Christ is the protagonist/hero of the Gospels - because it’s an action film (a reactive hero rescues a world under siege). Jesus saves us from sin, and the disciple’s response proves the victory.

The way I determine the protagonist is to look at who answers the essential question, then go back and see how earlier decisions brought them there. In Braveheart (action film), William dies to give the Scot’s the dream of freedom, and that changes the country. Robert becomes the extention of William’s decision to fight the English after his wife is killed. This extention thing is also true of Red (extention of Dufresne’s will in Shawshank Redemption) and the big indian guy (of McMurphy’s will in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest). These are all people who resolve the plot after the protagonist has passed them the baton.

Harvey is a different animal. :) Not sure of the genre - Travelling angel story? I haven’t seen it in years but Elwood is like Mary Poppins. The essential question is what to do about this catalyst/ lightning rod protagonist whose mission, stated or not, is to change others. To me, Harvey is a multi-plot - multiple main characters who act as variations on the theme, but the one who answers the essential question is his sister Vita - she demands Elwood not get the injection. Then everyone else concedes, and the story resolves. And I think it’s fitting for Vita to answer the question because she’s the most emotionally involved.