Akira Kurosawa said that writers should study great dramas. "You must consider why they are great. Where does the emotion come from that you feel as you read them?" Sometimes when working with writers on developing characters its good to talk about similar characters that they like and deconstruct why they like them, what gives them depth and what makes audiences care about them.
Screenwriting : Using what you love to help your writing - Why do you like what you like? by Ewan Dunbar
Works at Red Stag Entertainment ♦ Director of Development, Producer, Distributor
3 years ago
Using what you love to help your writing - Why do you like what you like?
Other topics in Screenwriting:
Check out Trending Discussions
Register / Log In
1 person likes this
Thanks for the tip, Ewan Dunbar.
3 people like this
This may seem totally backwards, but Akira Kurosawa taught me to love characters that I absolutely loathe and despise. I love being able to see the world from a different perspective. From characters who are absolutely despicable and awful. That's not to say I don't write characters who are inherently good, quite a lot of my characters are. But Kurosawa's use of actor Toshiro Mifune is a remarkable study at writing heroes and villains who are 3 dimensional.
3 people like this
Not backwards at all. The same principle can be applied to anything where you like how the creator has accomplished something. Even characters that are great to hate! Asking yourself why you think it is done well or has made such an impact, good or bad, is a great way to expand your own understanding and understanding of your own tastes.
Hmm. Deep question. Multipart answer:
First, the human brain is hardwired to react (fight or flight) to specific visual and aural stimulus. No healthy person can be indifferent to a tiger running toward a helpless baby. Our instincts prompt an ego investment in this peril for the purposes of collective survival. Anything that looks like a predator, or eyes, or a head, or a snake, or a spider, or a baby, or the object of one's safety and procreation is a pituitary trigger.
Secondly, identification. Who's on my team? Who's on my side? Who for the most rudimentary reasons offers utility to me? We care about those who care and protect us, who mate, who provide food, drink, security, warmth and sanctuary (Maslowe's hierarchy of Needs). Who is curing cancer? Preventing others from stealing my food? I'm invested in their success for selfish reasons.
Third and last is altruism (and whether or not it too is selfish). When I can empathize with a sentient intelligence (even an animated figure), I put myself in their position. I'm invested in them as an extension of my own place in the universe. Their narrative becomes a vicarious experiment testing the parameters of my life, my family, our society. This ego investment requires a clear protagonist, conflict, consequence with which I'm already familiar... (to leverage memories of pleasure, stress, worry, fear and desire)... and positive reinforcement to stick around and find out what happens.
In all these ways "what I like" is what is relevant, and what I've already come to know for either instinctual, utilitarian, or sociological reasons.
Hmn. Makes me think of that ending of Stray Dog -- incredible emotion that comes out of the very fabric of the whole film, building to that moment. I think that it is great because the story soaks the audience in the milieu, getting us to feel the stress, the heat, and the heartbreak. Curious to note how much work is in the directing, though, and to think about how to write towards supporting such elevated cinema.