Point of View Character and Main Character

Do you have a source for her statement? It might be easier to understand/support/refute in context.

My immediate reaction is to note that point of view is more in the realm of literary criticism, where the text is the novel, short story, or poem itself. The screenplay is more of a blueprint or roadmap for the finished film. It's the finished film that is the text, the finished film that has a POV or multiple POV's.

Does she talk about POV in Rashomon?

I will have to check, but I recall the POV in Casablanca as third person limited.
Rick was in the majority of the scenes, more I think than any other character.

I blame McKee.

Once somebody starts depacking protagonist vs main character vs POV character, I stop listening.

If Rick isn't the POV character in Casablanca, the "POV character" concept has no bearing on Casablanca.

Edit:

Er... Actually, it sounds like she means POV character not as in "the character from whose POV we see the story", but rather as "a character who provides an audience-friendly view on the protag" -- the character who says what the audience is thinking.

Maybe.

Otherwise, it makes no sense to me.

Could she be trying to say that if the medium of film is shown through the strict POV of the main character you would never see him?

I don't know, I'm just asking.

Airbum88 said:

Who is McKee?


Even if Rick is the audience-friendly character, he is still the main character.

So I still don't understand what she means.

Click to expand...

Not sure if you're joking or not, Airbum.

But I'll repost this anyway. It's from ask the screenwriter.

Is it worthwhile to read screenwriting books and take courses on writing? Couldn't you just as easily learn the craft by reading screenplays and watching movies?
--Kevin
Have you taken Robert McKee's screenwriting class? And if so, what did you learn from it?
--Bill

To read his brochure, you'd think that everyone in Hollywood has taken McKee's course, but the truth is, I don't know anyone who has. Whenever I hear his name brought up, it makes these tiny hairs rise on the back of my neck, because it usually means the speaker is going to cite some piece of screenwriting gospel, or use a clever word like "counter-theme."

I've never met McKee and have nothing against him, but to read his bio (http://www.mckeestory.com) it's clear that he's not a very successful screenwriter and never really was. That's not to say he can't be a great teacher, just as many great film critics are not filmmakers, nor do I think that there's anything wrong with a screenwriting class per se, especially if it helps you get off your *** and write. But I would rather have dental surgery than go through a structural analysis of Chinatown.

The downfall of these classes and books (Syd Field's is the best known), is that the guru comes up with a theory about why scripts are good or bad, then manipulates the examples to prove his or her point. I remember one professor in graduate school who when confronted with counter-examples, would label some of the greatest movies ever made "failed films," simply because they didn't fit her framework.

Overall, it's worth reading a few books and taking a few classes to get a handle on how Hollywood talks about scripts and movies. Internalize what makes sense to you and chuck the rest. Kevin's question goes right to the point: You'll learn the most by reading a lot of screenplays, good and bad, and learning how they work.

The truth is, there's no magic formula for writing a great script. (Or for that matter, a commercial one.) Anyone who tries to convince you that theirs is the One True Way is deluding themselves and you.


__________________

Click to expand...

I think you read my post wrong, Airbum.

I wasn't sure whether you meant 'who is McKee?' in the literal sense.

Or 'who is McKee?' as in why should anyone listen to him.

So the post sort of covered both bases.

I'm still trying to figure this out...

It might boil down to, if there isn't a character around (friend, sidekick, whatever) who experiences and appreciates the main character's struggle and angst, then the experience isn't as empathic for the audience.

Would we have appreciated Rick's sacrifice as much if Louis hadn't been there to witness it and understand the magnitude of what Rick just did?

Hmm, maybe not, what applies to Rick doesn't apply to Scarlett, Roxie and Lester, no one's really there to understand and appreciate what happened, they're pretty much alone.

I'm still trying to figure this out... Wait, I said that already.

-Derek
My Web Page - naked women, bestial sex, and whopping big lies.
Stop reading this and get some writing done instead.

Airbum88 said:

It is from her book "Screenwriting is Storytelling"


She says

Clients and students often ask if the main character can also be the point-of-view character. In literature, the answer is yes. In film, the answer is no, not for the screen. The audience needs to identify with an on-screen character who gives teh audience continual understanding and insight about the inner struggle of the main character. Some of the most meorable charavters in the history of cinema are point-of-view characters:

She goes off to list

Casablanca's Rick
Gone with The Wind Scarlett O'hara
Chicago Roxie Hart's
American Beauty Lester Burnham

Click to expand...

An example of what she's talking about might also be found in Shane. We practically see it from the boy's POV throughout, although Shane is our main character.

But that's not to say that this happens all the time. I'd say it's more of a device used in some screenplays, but not all. IMO, the audience identifies with the main character through many different POV's , and by empathy towards the character through his/her own actions/journey.

Plus, I wholeheartedly agree and share the confusion of others at some of the examples she quotes.

Personally, I think she's trying to invent a term/concept and isn't supporting it very well. Which to me means she's just doing it to sell her book.


Rick is the main character and POV character of Casablanca. It's his gin joint she walks into. She and Victor have a mission, and they're carrying it out; but it's not their story. He's the one who tells her to leave. He realizes that he can't live inside his gin bottle anymore and has to deal with the world.

It's Rick's story. Told from Rick's point of view.

George Lucas claims that the original trilogy is the story of Darth Vader told from Luke's POV.

And, someone's already mentioned Shane. It's been a long time since I've seen the movie, or read the book.

I'd almost buy into her idea if there were more support for it.

However, modern screenwriting demands that the POV character have a significant story arc. So, I'm not so sure her idea holds up under the more modern model of writing.

I've seen movies where the narrator is the main character, they are telling you the story, and you follow them from their specific point of view, and sometimes look through their eyes. So I have no idea where she gets her theories from.

Love Potion #9 is one where you have character narrator and character POV and main character all as one.