
Characters under pressure
Characters can only be as interesting as the forces that oppose them”
Robert McKee
Robert McKee’s axiom may seem to be self-evident but, from the writer’s point of view, it’s the implementation of that principle that is crucial. If Character and Story are aspects of the same mechanism, the way they work together is not necessarily always the same.
Yes, we identify with a character that is put under pressure by the story but it is the character’s reaction to it that matters most. For a character to really gain our sympathy, they must be capable of actively pursuing their goals, in Mckee’s parlance, “to the end of the line”.
Pinball or chess?
Pachinko machines are a Japanese obsession; an arcade game in which steel balls “cascade down through a dense forest of pins. If the balls go into certain locations, they may be captured and sequences of events may be triggered that result in more balls being released” (Wikipedia).
You don’t have to be Japanese to see how there could be something mesmeric about watching this interaction of little balls following their inevitable trajectories, how it might hold your attention. There’s a definite satisfaction in watching rows of dominoes falling.
Some films, particularly genre films, where the element of surprise matters less, appeal to us precisely because of this display of cause and effect. Comedy is another example which relies on the connections that are made within the story as a source of humour.
But often the really powerful moments in films are the ones where characters are presented with a choice; one that is difficult, where the outcome is uncertain, and where everything is at stake.
Such moments can, and often do, feel inevitable but they are should not be predictable. The reward they offer is far greater than the pleasure of watching little balls running along well-oiled tracks. If you can engineer such a moment in your story, then it is a real indication that you have integrated character and plot successfully.
Characters are born free …
But everywhere they are chained to the story-line. Therefore a good question to ask yourself when you are developing your script is:
What choices have I given my characters and how important are they to my story?
Or, in other words, have I created the kind of story where events mainly happen to my characters rather than being the result of their actions?
If you feel you have got the balance wrong, then look at your story again. Remember, you’re the one in charge. There are many ways to integrate story and character and ‘shifting the goal-posts’ is perfectly legitimate; in fact, it’s actively encouraged. Often the solution to making your character more proactive is to look at what drives them – the array of open and hidden agendas that propel them through the story.
Getting to the heart
Two very productive questions to ask about a character are these:
What is the absolute worst thing that could happen to this character? This is a way of opening up and exploring new levels of conflict that may not have occurred to you before.
What is the absolute best thing that could happen to this character? This looks at the options offered to your character within the story as well as their most secret of dreams.
Finding a relationship between these two aspects of a character is often the key to a successful film. Many redemption-themed films use the formula: “how could the worst thing turn out to be the best?”
Enemies
Antagonists are characters that personify the forces opposing the Protagonist (see Character Models). Not every film story has an Antagonist, of course, but films that do feature one give themselves an automatic advantage. Now you have a living, breathing, wilful opponent of everything the Protagonist wants that you can use in your story-telling to drive the plot along and generate dramatic conflict.
Antagonists often upstage the heroes and, in a few interesting cases, they can sometimes be more deserving of our sympathy and moral approval than the ‘official’ Protagonist of the story. It doesn’t always occur to a writer to create an antagonist in their script but, if you can justify it and find the opportunity, it’s often an excellent idea.
Oleanna 1994
In this screen adaptation of David Mamet’s play, an intellectually complacent lecturer is accused by a student of making indecent advances.
The struggle for ascendancy is very much out in the open here but Mamet’s skill is in not semaphoring the moment when the shift in the balance of power, or ‘tipping point,’ occurs. It happens in a small and subtle moment. This shows great craft and is typical of Mamet’s sense of structure.
Hard Candy 2005
A young girl meets a man online and goes back to his home. Instead of being seduced by him, she drugs him, ties him up, and tries to get him to admit to murder.
Another play adaptation, like Oleanna, this is a claustrophobic drama that manipulates the audience’s sympathies by not revealing initially who is innocent and who is guilty.
The girl, despite appearances, is much tougher than the man and prepared to go to extremes. Is he the victim or her? Suspense builds as she tries to break him and he tries to escape from her.
The Good Father 1985
In an intelligent script written by Christopher Hampton there are several layers and what seems to be a film about the war between the sexes proves to have unexpected depth.
Anthony Hopkins, in a performance that crackles with suppressed rage, plays an angry divorcee who comes to the aid of a hen-pecked husband in a marital dispute. But what appears at first to be a lively attack on a metropolitan 80’s culture where women have all the power turns about to be a story about emotional alienation instead.
Grosse Pointe Blanke 1997
Pushed far enough, antagonism, of course, is funny. In this scene between rival hitmen John Cusack and Dan Ackroyd, the paranoia and suspicion reach the level of black comedy.
Tough choices
If a character’s true nature, their so-called deep character, is revealed by putting them under pressure then the scene in a film where a character is forced to make an impossible decision is also the moment where the audience most identifies with the character. Many films contain such scenes.
In the selection of clips below the stakes that underpin the inescapable choice that the character is forced to make may vary but the pressure is a constant factor.
Nick Of Time 1996
Johnny Depp is an ordinary man travelling with his daughter who finds himself caught up in a nightmare. Kidnapped by Christopher Walken and his accomplice (Roma Maffia), he is given a choice: either he commits a political assassination or his daughter will be killed.
In this scene, an attempted rescue goes wrong and his daughter’s life is on the line. The whole film plays out in ‘real time’ which gives it an extra immediacy and urgency.
Miller’s Crossing 1990
In the ruthless gangster ruled world of Miller’s Crossing mercy is a luxury that nobody can afford so when Gabriel Byrne has to make the decision to kill John Turturro or spare him, the full weight of that world is pressing down upon him.
Not killing him will be a bad decision. He knows it and we, the audience, know it too. And yet we want him to let the victim go so that he does not kill the good inside him.
Killer 1994
In this strange and rather underrated film, a hitman, played by Antony La Paglia, has become so indifferent to killing that he does it almost by reflex until he is given the task of killing a woman (Mimi Rogers) who has offended some Mafia chief.
To his surprise, she is expecting his visit and, stranger still, she wants him to kill her. But here is the twist: he falls in love with her. The struggle between this new-found love and the pressure to do what is required of him plays out in a story that has the feel of a classic tragedy but also some of the dark, trapped quality of a classic film noir.
![]() |
SOPHIE’S CHOICE 1982 Based on William Styron’s novel, this was an early eighties love story in the ‘new America’ of European immigrants. The revelations about a survivor’s past are used as part of the film’s powerful denouement. |