Quintessentialism

[Unknown Screenwriter]

Along with DILEMMA, I've also been noticing an element called quintessentialism...

Here's the definition of quintessential from Dictionary.com:

quintessential

adj : representing the perfect example of a class or quality

What the hell is filmy talking about?

Your characters in your films... They should ideally be the QUINTESSENTIAL example of that type of character... If you have a bum as a character, he should be the quintessential bum.

If you have a rookie cop, he should be the quintessential rookie cop...

In other words, you must reveal this characteristic of being quintessential in this person's actions and dialogue as well as what other people think of them through dialogue...

I have yet to see a screenwriting book mention this but the very best movies I am watching lately seem to SCREAM this element...

For example, let's take A FEW GOOD MEN.

Tom Cruise's character is the quintessential plea bargaining Jag officer. This is revealed when Cruise meets Demi Moore's character for the first time... i.e, "One more and I'll win a set of steak knives..."

Demi Moore's character is the quintessential rules of law attorney. She certainly knows the law but she doesn't know how to use it in court... This is revealed by the two officers that ask her to leave the room... Through dialogue, they reveal that she dragged a case on for weeks when it could have been concluded a hell of a lot faster.

Jack Nicholson's character is the quintessential commanding officer. Totally ego maniacal and expects to be treated with much more respect than is usually offered up in the military. Again, this is revealed through a lot of his own actions and dialogue where he acts as though he is beyond reproach.

I could go on but I hope you get the idea...

This is a big key in making your characters stand out and thus, making your screenplay and film stand out.

filmy

 

[knightly]

So if my Hamlet was an arthouse filmmaker, he'd be the starving artist, frustrated he can't get distribution, always going on rants about "the next film", but he'd also have to be the BEST arthouse filmmaker, and CONSTANT thinker/brooder. Ok- am I getting this? LOL!

Way to bring that one home!

 

[NicklausLouis]

So if my Hamlet was an arthouse filmmaker, he'd be the starving artist, frustrated he can't get distribution, always going on rants about "the next film", but he'd also have to be the BEST arthouse filmmaker, and CONSTANT thinker/brooder. Ok- am I getting this? LOL!

Define BEST here. See I think the quintessential arthouse filmmaker is what you described, but what do you mean by him being the BEST? The only reason I am confused is maybe because of my own preconceived notions of arthouse filmmakers - they're not nearly as good as they think they are, thus the quintessential art house filmmaker is one who is the starving artist, can't get distributed, always going on rants...but he's not very good at filmmaking.

Poke

 

[knightly]

Define BEST here. See I think the quintessential arthouse filmmaker is what you described, but what do you mean by him being the BEST? The only reason I am confused is maybe because of my own preconceived notions of arthouse filmmakers - they're not nearly as good as they think they are, thus the quintessential art house filmmaker is one who is the starving artist, can't get distributed, always going on rants...but he's not very good at filmmaking.

Poke

He/She would be really starving (mooching food), Prolific with ideas which he shares with everybody, shelf full of films that are in negotiations. It's everything you mentioned. That's the picture you have in your head, s/he is not hints of that, but that specifically in every way!

 

[clive]

So if my Hamlet was an arthouse filmmaker, he'd be the starving artist, frustrated he can't get distribution, always going on rants about "the next film", but he'd also have to be the BEST arthouse filmmaker, and CONSTANT thinker/brooder.

Guys, I'm not ready for a bio pic of my life yet.

But the whole reason that the film maker has to be the real deal, but still unable to get recognition (in other words the quintessential artist) is because if s/he is less than brilliant s/he becomes pathetic and the audience losses the opportunity to identify with his/her struggle.

I don't think Hamlet is a good example though; Hamlet isn't a quintessential character. Hamlet isn't the quintessential prince, he's a more complex character than that. Hamlet is in fact a study of what happens to a sane person when you put them in an insane situation.

So, if Hamlet was an independent film maker he'd be a brilliant writer/director whose film was butchered in post production by his business partner; who, after bankrupting him then sets up in business with his ex-wife. At which point Hamlet goes insane with anger, thinks of suicide and in the end stabs his ex-business partner and ex-wife to death, on film, in tribute to British film masterpiece Peeping Tom. (But as I said, I'm not ready for a biopic yet)

If you're looking for a quintessential character in Shakesphere then Richard the Third is your boy. He is the quintessential bad guy, the Machiavelli of English politics.

 

[NicklausLouis]

Just reread my last post - Before anyone takes offense to what I said, I don't think all arthouse filmmakers aren't good filmmakers, what I was saying is that it's the perception, and if you have your Hamlet filmmaker be the BEST, I think it takes away from the Quintessential aspect of the term "art-house filmmaker."

To be Quintessential I don't necessarily think the character has to be the best at what they do, just the best representation of that type of character.

Poke

 

[Spatula]

So, if Hamlet was an independent film maker he'd be a brilliant writer/director whose film was butchered in post production by his business partner; who, after bankrupting him then sets up in business with his ex-wife. At which point Hamlet goes insane with anger, thinks of suicide and in the end stabs his ex-business partner and ex-wife to death, on film, in tribute to British film masterpiece Peeping Tom. (But as I said, I'm not ready for a biopic yet)

Wow- that's almost eerily similar to the screenplay I'm writing... I guess that means I've chosen well, because it is a plausable real-life scenario.

I'm not ready to elaborate on the details until the first draft is solidified, but it's pretty much a combination of "Supergun Cinema" and "Hamlet".

By "Best" arthouse filmmaker, it means "Hamlet, the filmmaker" is great at making low-budget, cultish, satirical works of art, but all his Producer (Claudius) can find is foriegn/shady investors, the promised "funds" always turn out to be lower than expected, and there are a few moments when Hamlet-the-director arrives on set to find new additions to the script, or such. I can't go further into it- I haven't even pitched it to Supergun Cinema yet!!

More later, but the idea I was conveyed by Filmy, is that "Hamlet-the-filmmaker" should at least be percieved as "the best". That way, I can throw bigger challenges at him, raising the stakes, and increasing the dilemma!

Ok- does any of this make sense? I'm on break from work at a cyber-cafe... I might be rambling incherently... gotta go!

 

[Spatula]

double post- oops!

 

[Billy]

This is and isn’t the same as creating a quintessential character, but it’s one of the ways
the quintessential HERO is or can be used when approached as quintessential = The Best.

1. The meteor is headed towards earth, the bomb is ticking, the President has been kidnapped.

2. The ONLY ONE that can save the day is the Best! (No, not the Best!!)

3. Cut to the trailer park, the golf course, the vacation island, the bar, Skid Row.
(The Best is now out of shape, an outcast, a drunk, a bum, a vegitarian- whatever
it takes to make the audience say “HE'S the best!?”)

4. When the Best speaks we are curious about his/her past and/or identify with their present.
(We are drawn in because this bum has to save the world.)

5. Now the Best has to confront not only the present problem, but face down demons of the past.
(The kid that got shot, the partner he couldn’t save, that day over Macho Grande.)

6. Sometimes the Antagonist is so cunning that he knew they’d call on the Best and so he
kidnaps the Best’s wife or friend or another kid. (This is the terrible “I’ve been expecting
you Mister Bond..” situation.)


When we are predisposed to the fact (Told) the hero is or once was the best, he has to
live up to it and he probably has a fault directly or indirectly related to the central conflict.

When we know he or she was the best we are constantly comparing that fact to their actions,
words and the situation.

If the situation AND the character isn’t REALLY GOOD (Unique) on their own
(Unless it’s screwball comedy maybe) then forget this angle or it will be that
day over Macho Grande.

-Billy-

 

[Mikey D]

I am curious to know what happens when a character isn't QUINTESSENTIAL.

I have been trying to come up with an example of a film that suffers because through failings of the writer, director, or editor one or more characters are not QUINESSENTIAL characters but haven't been able to think of any.

 

[Unknown Screenwriter]

Off the top of my head...

I am curious to know what happens when a character isn't QUINTESSENTIAL.

I have been trying to come up with an example of a film that suffers because through failings of the writer, director, or editor one or more characters are not QUINESSENTIAL characters but haven't been able to think of any.

Most films that you'll see in a theater or that actually have a budget will most likely have this element... It's mainly used to give your characters and film a certain "largeness."

A lot of low budget Indie films would probably suffer a little from not having this element... Having said that, I'm sure there are some Hollywood films that do not contain this element within their characters and still work. My original point was that this "could" be a way to help a low budget Indie film compete within the market.

As for a film actually suffering from not using this element, how would you define suffer?

I would think that you would define it one way as poor box office receipts since that means most people are voting with their wallets... However, I saw THE WEATHERMAN a few weeks ago and thought it was a good film but knew right away it would fail at the box office... But that's only my opinion that the film was good.

filmy

 

[Mikey D]

As I have thought about this concept and try to apply it seems that every movie I can think of, even the ones I have hated, have had characters that were the best example of whatever they were. I was curious to see what happens to a story if a character doesn't meet that criteria.

At first I was thinking I would find a character that was just an average joe, but even in those stories that character would be the best example of an average joe. Where are the non Quintessential characters. I mean other than in some of my own writing. But even then it seems that in some cases I have intuitively used quintessential characters. But where I haven't I can defiantly see how the story could be improved by changing some of the character traits. It would seem to immediately make the story more interesting and exciting. So yeah it would seem that non quintessential characters would cause the story to suffer in that it would not be as interesting and exciting for the viewer.

However if someone could think of an example where a non quintessential character was not a detriment to the story I would be interested in that as well.

Most films that you'll see in a theater or that actually have a budget will most likely have this element... It's mainly used to give your characters and film a certain "largeness."

It makes sense that by time filmmakers reach that level these sort of characters would become the general rule.

I suppose a better question then would be; are there any exceptions and how has that effected the story and the reception of the film by critics and audiences?

 

[Jijenji]

That's a very interesting concept.
Where do we draw the lines for quintessentialism and archetypes? Essentially, they mean the same thing, but I would tend to think treading closer to quintessential characters might, in the end, be interpreted as cliche, even at the point when the actor reads the script. How would you reccomend making characters archetypal but not treading into cliches?

I could be wrong, but I think what filmy is trying to say is, that you have to prove your character is what you say they are.

Viewers are smarter than they think. They might not realize what they are thinking, but on a subconscious level if things aren't adding up it will pull up red flags for them, as it should.

You have to have some depth to your depiction. The examples that filmy gave show how that depth exists.

The type of characters you use in your movie, their personalities, viewers encounter that same personality every day or every so often. On a deeper level in their brain they are used to these people behaving a certain way and the characters in your movie should also behave similarly. I call it "consistent persona".

Without it, you essentially have a schizophrenic character masquerading as a sane person. Even if that was not your intent. Again, the viewers may not be consciously aware of this recognition, but it is there.

This is NOT the same as character development though. IMO, I prefer to have the main characters go through ordeals that change them and/or their outlook over the course of the plot. I think you can still do both and force the viewer to question things.