FIRST OFF, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO IGNORE THE LARGER CULTURAL CONVERSATION ABOUT SUPERMAN'S IDENTITY AND ETHOS FOR THE MOMENT, FOR WHAT WE ARE PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH IS THE CHARACTERIZATION WITHIN THE NARRATIVE. IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT "WHO WE THINK SUPERMAN SHOULD BE," BUT "THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS SUPERMAN AS HE EXISTS IN THIS PARTICULAR STORY." DOES THAT DIFFERENCE MAKE SENSE?
COOL.
NOW, TO EXPLAIN THIS WHOLE ISSUE OF CHARACTER CLARITY HULK IS GOING TO FIRST TURN TO AN OLD SAYING IN STORYTELLING THAT "CHARACTER IS KING." WHILE THAT PHRASE IS SOMETHING A LOT OF PEOPLE HEAR, NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND IT. THE SAYING IS NOT ONLY MEANT TO IMPLY THAT CHARACTERS ARE "THE MOST IMPORTANT THING" IN YOUR NARRATIVE, BUT WE ARE MEANT TO TAKE THE ANALOGY EVEN FURTHER TO IMPLY: EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR STORY SHOULD BE DICTATED FROMCHARACTER. MEANING THEY'RE NOT JUST IMPORTANT, BUT THAT THEIR ACTIONS SHOULD SPECIFICALLY CONTROL AND SHAPE YOUR PLOT. FURTHERMORE, THE DECISIONS OR ETHOS OF YOUR CHARACTER SHOULD DICTATE ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE MOVIE ITSELF. WHICH ISN'T TO SAY YOU CAN'T FUDGE THAT LINE SOMETIMES AND HAVE FUN DIVERSIONS AND MOMENTS OF LEFT-FIELD INCLUSION, BUT YOU WOULD BE SHOCKED HOW MANY FILMS JUST DO THE OPPOSITE AND HAVE THEIR CHARACTERS REACTING TO THE PLOT AT ALL TIMES. SERIOUSLY. EVEN THE NON-DECISIONS OF PASSIVE CHARACTERS SHOULD HAVE A SHAPING EFFECT. AND SINCE CHARACTER DICTATES STORY, IT'S NO ACCIDENT THAT BAD MOVIES TEND TO GEAR THEIR STORIES AROUND A SERIES OF LOGIC-BASED MECHANISMS (THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS, BUT THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER CONVERSATION) AND GOOD MOVIES GEAR THEIR STORIES AROUND THOSE LITTLE THINGS WE CALL "CHARACTER ARCS" I.E. THE WAY THE CHARACTER NOTICEABLY CHANGES OVER THE COURSE OF THE NARRATIVE, AS THEY ARE SHAPED BY THE EVENTS AND CHOICES THEY MAKE.
GOT IT? DOUBLE COOL.
THE SECOND OLD SAYING THAT APPLIES TO OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT MAN OF STEEL IS "SHOW, DON'T TELL." THIS POINT MATTERS BECAUSE WE EXPERIENCE STORIES AS EMOTIONAL BEINGS. NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE TEND TO HARP ON THE FAILURES OF LOGIC, IT IS THE EMOTIONAL RESONANCE OF A STORY THAT ACTUALLY CONNECTS TO US. THEREFORE OUR SENSE OF TIME & PRESENCE WITHIN A NARRATIVE IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO EXIST FOR US SO THAT WE CAN BEST EXPERIENCE THE STORY IN THE SAME WAY THE CHARACTERS DO. MEANING THE MORE OF THE STORY WE EXPERIENCE FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE AT THE SAME TIME THEY DO, THE BETTER WE CAN RELATE TO THEIR SITUATION. IT SIMPLY MAKES FOR THE BEST EMOTIONAL TRANSFERENCE. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN HAVE A HERO GIVE A SPEECH ABOUT HOW THEY SUFFERED SOME HORRIFIC TRAGEDY OR SOMETHING AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE SAID, BUT IF YOU DRAMATIZE THAT PAIN (I.E. LET THE AUDIENCE EXPERIENCE THE THING INSTEAD OF JUST EXPLAINING IT) THEN YOU CAN COMMUNICATE WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY ABOUT THE A CHARACTER ON AN INTRINSIC EMOTIONAL LEVEL, WHICH ALWAYS HAS FAR MORE MEANING AND EFFECT (AND TENDS TO LEAD TO BETTER CATHARSIS).
THAT'S WHAT "DRAMATIZING" ACTUALLY MEANS. YOU ARE FINDING AN IN-THE-MOMENT, CONFLICT-RIDDEN WAY TO MAKE THE AUDIENCE EXPERIENCE SOMETHING AS IF IT HAPPENED TO THEM... AND TO DO THAT BEST YOU REALLY NEED TIME AND EXPERIENCE TO BUILD ON.
