Scripts with two main characters

MonaLeigh

Wasting time
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
665
Reaction score
65
Location
NY
I've been working on outlining a script where I have a female mc. I'm starting to think my story is too predictable. I was looking for opinions on having a story with two mc's. Would it be crazy to bounce between the male (husband) and the female (wife) stories? I'd like to give the impression the husband is more innocent than he really is. In what I have now, I feel like right off the bat people will think the husband is the bad guy, and I don't want that.

I can't think of any movies like this, though I'm sure there are some. American Gangster comes to mind. Any thoughts or advice is greatly appreciated!
 

Plot Device

A woman said to write like a man.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
11,973
Reaction score
1,866
Location
Next to the dirigible docking station
Website
sandwichboardroom.blogspot.com
The Fugitive.

The true main protag was obviously Harrison Ford, but Tommy Lee Jones' character of the US Marshall who was out to find Ford's character had his own arc and a sizeable chunk of screentime.



And then there are a lot of romantic comedeys where the audience enjoys equal air-time between the male and the female lead. Such as Sleepless in Seattle and Fever Pitch.
 

clockwork

In the zone...
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
4,735
Reaction score
1,797
Location
Aphelion
Website
redzonefilm.net
There are exceptions to every rule but I think that although many films have two (or more) main characters, it usually just one person's *story*.

Take Se7en, which arguably has two central main characters of relatively equal footing. I think ultimately though it is Somerset's story. He has the more complete journey, if you will. I think this is the case for most two mc films, there is usually one for whom the themes and ideas resonate more and is affected the most by events. It doesn't lessen the other mc - Mills is really an equal force in Se7en - but it's just that what happens in the film has more to do with how Somerset thinks and acts, it is his theories and worldviews that are tested and strained.

Which of your characters fits this idea? Which of them has things to say and do that are particularly sympathetic with the themes of your story and the questions it asks. Who does the story really belong to?

A tougher example would be Mr & Mrs Smith where both characters really do get quite even ownership of the story but that may be because the story itself is actually about marriage, teamwork, sharing, caring etc.
 

nmstevens

What happened?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Messages
1,452
Reaction score
207
There are exceptions to every rule but I think that although many films have two (or more) main characters, it usually just one person's *story*.

Take Se7en, which arguably has two central main characters of relatively equal footing. I think ultimately though it is Somerset's story. He has the more complete journey, if you will. I think this is the case for most two mc films, there is usually one for whom the themes and ideas resonate more and is affected the most by events. It doesn't lessen the other mc - Mills is really an equal force in Se7en - but it's just that what happens in the film has more to do with how Somerset thinks and acts, it is his theories and worldviews that are tested and strained.

Which of your characters fits this idea? Which of them has things to say and do that are particularly sympathetic with the themes of your story and the questions it asks. Who does the story really belong to?

A tougher example would be Mr & Mrs Smith where both characters really do get quite even ownership of the story but that may be because the story itself is actually about marriage, teamwork, sharing, caring etc.

You can generally figure out whose need drives the story. Who the protagonist is and who the antagonist is, but occasionally, you can find a story in which the two are balanced in a perfectly symmetrical way, so that you could really make a case for either of two equally balanced characters in opposition having equal need and either being the "hero."

Something like "His Girl Friday" comes to mind. You could just as easily say that it's Hildy's story. She spends the entire movie trying to get the hell away from Walter and from being a reporter and go off and get married. And Walter spends the entire movie trying to keep Hildy from going off and getting married. And in the end, Hildy stays and they end up back together.

So you really could frame the story from either side -- the woman trying to escape her former husband and realizing in the end that they belong together or -- the husband trying to win back his former wife and succeeding in the end.

Both characters function perfectly as both protagonist and antagonist.

NMS
 

WriteKnight

Arranger Of Disorder
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
1,746
Reaction score
247
Location
30,000 light years from Galactic Central Point.
I think what NMS points out, is the dynamic of what defines a 'buddy' movie - even if its a romantic comedy for instance. Its the dynamic of the RELATIONSHIP between the two main characters. The situation is just the plot device for testing, examining that relationship.
 

MonaLeigh

Wasting time
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
665
Reaction score
65
Location
NY
Thanks for the great responses. It gives me a lot to think about.
 

ricetalks

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
665
Reaction score
48
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
There is always only one main character. The other character that makes up a buddy movies is called the bonding character. The antagonist is someone different.
 

nmstevens

What happened?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Messages
1,452
Reaction score
207
There is always only one main character. The other character that makes up a buddy movies is called the bonding character. The antagonist is someone different.

Who is the "one main character" in Dr. Strangelove?

NMS
 

clockwork

In the zone...
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
4,735
Reaction score
1,797
Location
Aphelion
Website
redzonefilm.net
Something like "His Girl Friday" comes to mind. You could just as easily say that it's Hildy's story. She spends the entire movie trying to get the hell away from Walter and from being a reporter and go off and get married. And Walter spends the entire movie trying to keep Hildy from going off and getting married. And in the end, Hildy stays and they end up back together.

So you really could frame the story from either side -- the woman trying to escape her former husband and realizing in the end that they belong together or -- the husband trying to win back his former wife and succeeding in the end.

Both characters function perfectly as both protagonist and antagonist.

NMS

His Girl Friday's a funny one because I think traditional roles start out quite simply and then shift later on, most notably the Walter character.

I feel the protaganist/antagonist separation is quite clear in the outset and throughout at least the first third because Walter is proactively trying to stop Hildy from leaving in a traditionally antagonistic way. He stalls, lies, cheats, associates with the shiftier characters like Diamond Louie and seems he'll stop at nothing to stop Hildy from leaving even to the detriment of her marriage and future.

But because we get the sense quite early on that Bruce is a bit of a dolt and that Hildy clearly belongs in the newspaper game, we tolerate Walter's shennanigans and right about the time Bruce starts to complain about Hildy's wanting to finish the story (and once we know an innocent man's life is at stake) we start to root for Walter a lot more. I actually think this makes him ultimately even more likeable because although he's not the most honest guy in the world, by the end of the film we can more fully appreciate the lengths to which he has gone to keep Hildy in his life.

I still think Hildy is the 'hero' and that she has the fuller, more complete journey in line with traditional screenwriting ideas of arcs and themes but Walter's clearly a likeable guy and as I said above, once we know his intentions (keeping Hildy) are the same as ours and that Bruce is indeed not the man for her, it's not hard to get behind Walter either. That's just my interpretation, of course. Like you said, it's open to a degree of varying viewpoints.

Amazing film, anyway.
 
Last edited:

gophergrrrl

Been a while but I've returned...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
210
Reaction score
14
So would the one main character in Pulp Fiction be Samuel L. Jackson's character? He seems to be the one that goes through the most change... Or maybe it's Bruce Willis' character. I'd have a hard time settling on just one character for PF.
 

ricetalks

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
665
Reaction score
48
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Pulp Fiction. Definatetly the main character is Sameul L. Jackson's. It different in that his transformative change happens right at the very beginning of the film. What's his main goal?
 

nmstevens

What happened?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Messages
1,452
Reaction score
207
His Girl Friday's a funny one because I think traditional roles start out quite simply and then shift later on, most notably the Walter character.

I feel the protaganist/antagonist separation is quite clear in the outset and throughout at least the first third because Walter is proactively trying to stop Hildy from leaving in a traditionally antagonistic way. He stalls, lies, cheats, associates with the shiftier characters like Diamond Louie and seems he'll stop at nothing to stop Hildy from leaving even to the detriment of her marriage and future.

But because we get the sense quite early on that Bruce is a bit of a dolt and that Hildy clearly belongs in the newspaper game, we tolerate Walter's shennanigans and right about the time Bruce starts to complain about Hildy's wanting to finish the story (and once we know an innocent man's life is at stake) we start to root for Walter a lot more. I actually think this makes him ultimately even more likeable because although he's not the most honest guy in the world, by the end of the film we can more fully appreciate the lengths to which he has gone to keep Hildy in his life.

I still think Hildy is the 'hero' and that she has the fuller, more complete journey in line with traditional screenwriting ideas of arcs and themes but Walter's clearly a likeable guy and as I said above, once we know his intentions (keeping Hildy) are the same as ours and that Bruce is indeed not the man for her, it's not hard to get behind Walter either. That's just my interpretation, of course. Like you said, it's open to a degree of varying viewpoints.

Amazing film, anyway.


Sometimes you have to sort out the difference between "hero" in the sense of good guy vs. bad guy and the more structuralist sense of protagonist vs. antagonist in the sense of the character that has the need that drives the story.

In the latter sense one can construct HGF with either character as protagonist or as antagonist (remember that "character arc" is a recent addition to ideas about dramatic structure, not a traditional part of it).

That is, Hildy wants to escape to a life in the country, Walter stands in opposition or -- Walter wants to keep Hildy from escaping and Hildy is doing her best to escape.

They're both introduced at virtually the same time, the parallel stories unfold (her attempt to escape, his to keep her) in tandem.

It really does work that way (and I don't think that The Front Page really does -- that pretty much is the *male* Hildy's story).

There are odd cases where the character we very much think of as the villain in a story, when you look at it structurally, is really the protagonist -- because that character is the one who has the goal, who acts to achieve it, who has to face opposition.

Take something like, "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle" -- the impulse is to say that the Mom at home is the "hero" -- and on some level she has the "need" to protect herself and her family from the crazy predatory nanny.

But the fact is, she doesn't even realize that the Nanny is a villain until virtually the end of the movie, and thus has no capacity to take any action at all.

So while she has a need, she has no goal and takes no action -- and so can't really be in any structural sense the Protagonist.

The Protagonist, structurally -- is the Nanny. She is the one with the need -- to "take over" the family. She is the one who faces opposition, who acts to overcome it. Ultimately, she fails to achieve her goal -- but if you really break the movie down, structurally, the Nanny is a "tragic hero" -- she is the Protagonist.

But since she is clearly "the bad guy" as we currently understand the term, we don't think of her as the "hero" of the story.

Well, let's face it -- by any current definition, MacBeth is also a thorough-going bad guy. He murders his king, his friends, orders the slaughter of innocent children. And comes to a bad end.

Yet he is also "the hero."

NMS
 

clockwork

In the zone...
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
4,735
Reaction score
1,797
Location
Aphelion
Website
redzonefilm.net
Yeah... I see what you're saying but I guess I just don't view Hildy and Walter as equally as you do. I can certainly see how it could be said Walter's the protagonist but it's not as much of an impactful story for me with that viewpoint. For me it's simply that Hildy wants to escape, Walter wants to stop her. Walter seems to put up far more obstacles for Hildy to overcome than vice versa. Most of the time Hildy seems to just react to Walter's tricks, she doesn't do much to stand in the way of his goals - although, admittedly, writing and then tearing up his precious story is a noteable exception.

Not saying you're wrong and I'm right, it's just not how I see it whenever I watch the film. But it's not your typical film anyway and I do think roles shift as the plot develops. Newer antagonists come into the story like the police, the sheriff, the corupt mayor, Earl Williams himself who is difficult to get to cooperate and the tries to kill himself... and strangely, although I think of Hildy as the protagonist, it's Walter's goal/plan that ultimately turns out to be the successful one...

Screwball comedy indeed.

The Hand That Rocks The Cradle is really interesting based on what you've said. I was going to say that's like the recent Mr. Brooks but he's probably a little more complex in that he's a more tortured, struggling protagonist who wants to do good but can't. Rebecca DeMornay is more simplistic and resolute. She goes through Cradle with the idea that everything's justified in her head. Interesting example though.

To get back to the OP's question, I guess there really aren't any rules about this per se but there are more traditional, expected ways of telling stories and it's up to you to decide whether you want to embrace or challenge them.
 

icerose

Lost in School Work
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
11,549
Reaction score
1,646
Location
Middle of Nowhere, Utah
This thread makes me sooooo happy I don't deal with the technical terms of writing. I just write the things. Though I'm sure the terms would help me understand certain layers better...
 

zeprosnepsid

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,006
Reaction score
90
Location
LA, unfortunately.
The terms are so you can communicate concepts with others. I'd be aware, as your career grows, that you will need to learn this stuff. Good luck talking to agents and creative producers, nevermind the possibility of working in TV, without knowing the language. You don't need to know it in order to write well, but you will need to know it if you want to forge a real career. I know you have had some success, but I wonder if you ignorance of screenwriting language isn't holding you back from having bigger success.