Is an Actor's Word Definitive?

It's pretty common knowledge that actors bring a lot of their own ideas to the table when playing a character. Not only can they add dimensions to a performance with ad-libs and personal quirks, but they often take the extra step by inventing backstories for their characters beyond what the script provides. This is pretty common knowledge too, and it makes sense for actors to do this. Having a personal history in mind that doesn't necessarily relate to the story at hand makes their characters feel more like real people, and that gives them something to draw from when finding their motivation for certain scenes.

One aspect of this that I want to explore though is what happens when an actor's vision of their character doesn't quite jibe with what's conveyed in the final product. I'm not talking about when the actor and the writer and/or director clash over creative differences. I'm talking about when those creative differences result in a major aspect of the character being ambiguous to the viewers. Sure, writers and directors are the top creative authorities on the overall project, but the actor is the one who delivers the performance we actually see. Does that make their word the more definitive one in the end?

Take the characters Pintel and Ragetti from the first three Pirates of the Caribbean films. Played by Lee Arenberg and Mackenzie Crook, they're a pirate duo who frequently switch allegiances depending on what's more beneficial to them, as pirates do. Unlike most duos in the series though, they never once turn on each other. They're completely loyal to one another from start to finish, and even when things descend into "every man for himself," they still more or less work as a team with their shared wellbeing in mind.

The movies (produced by Disney in the early-to-mid 2000's, mind you) seem to present them as just really good friends who have each other's backs because they've been through so much together. In fact, Pintel was a solo character in the first draft of the script, so it makes sense that splitting him into two characters in later drafts would result in a duo that always works together. However, a lot of viewers genuinely believe that he and Ragetti are a homosexual couple. There's even a deleted scene from the first film where Pintel mentions that he "used to date a eunuch." What complicates this further is that Lee Arenberg has said that he and Mackenzie Crook came up with the idea before filming that their characters were actually uncle and nephew.

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, aye?

Personally, I always favored the uncle and nephew theory since it came from the actors themselves. If that was how they played their roles, then it has to be what their characters' relationship really was, right? And it wasn't like one or both of their characters couldn't still be homosexual; they just wouldn't be a couple with each other. However, this way of thinking got turned on its head just a month ago when I saw the movie Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior for the first time.

See, there's a marauding male duo in that movie too. Their names are Wez and the Golden Youth, and they spend most of their shared screen time riding on a motorcycle together while dressed in black fetish leather, complete with a dog collar and chain on the Golden Youth and "assless" chaps on Wez. Wez always sits in front on the motorcycle with those chaps, by the way. One of the heroes kills the Golden Youth during a negotiation scene about a third of the way through the film, and his death sends Wez into such a vengeful rage that the lead villain has to restrain him and remind him that every one in their group has lost "someone we love."

The intention for these two characters would seem obvious, even for a film from 1981. However, Vernon Wells, the actor who played Wez, has a reported history of getting angry at people who insist that Wez and the Golden Youth were a couple. He's also said that director George Miller left it up to him to decide his character's backstory, which Wells decided was that of a surrogate father to the Golden Youth, and that a scene clarifying this was meant to be in the film at one point. To the best of my knowledge, no proof of this scene existing has ever surfaced, not even in older drafts of the script, and the Golden Youth was originally a female character.

Taking the actor's word suddenly doesn't seem like the most credible approach anymore. Granted, there are a few differing factors between these two cases.

The Pirates movies present Pintel and Ragetti's relationship in a very broad, distant light that allows for several interpretations. Mad Max 2, in contrast, seems to give Wez and the Golden Youth's relationship one very specific undertone, unless the idea is that they just dress that way because everyone has questionable fashion in Mad Max. Lee Arenberg and Mackenzie Crook could come up with any backstory they wanted for their characters without really contradicting the writers' ideas, whereas Vernon Wells was stuck on a two-man motorcycle in assless chaps. He's going to have a harder time convincing people of his interpretation because things like the wardrobe and staging were beyond his control.

The actors themselves and the timing of their films' releases are also big factors in credibility. If Wez really is supposed to be a homosexual, it's possible that Vernon Wells was never comfortable with that idea, or else he was comfortable with it back in 1981 but his view has changed since then. Or maybe he honestly never saw the role that way during production and resents that it's been interpreted that way. Another commonly known thing about actors is that they tend to accept roles that they're not entirely passionate about or don't fully understand because work is scarce at the time, and a lot of them do look back on those roles wishing they had turned them down or played them differently. Even Viola Davis recently admitted to having regrets about her Oscar-nominated role in The Help.

The bottom line seems to be that while actors do play a key role in bringing characters to life, they don't own those characters. Therefore, their word only holds so much weight. As viewers, we can still believe them if we want to—it's always good to view art from more than one perspective—but if you want the definitive word on something in a movie, show, or stage play, you're probably better off asking the writers and directors, the people who had to envision the bigger picture.

And for the record, I still prefer to think that Pintel and Ragetti are uncle and nephew. That's partially because I've written a 155,000-word fanfiction series based on that idea, and I like it when the words that I write hold a little weight.

When is a Character Really a Character?

I recently watched the first three films in the Sigourney Weaver Alien series back-to-back. I know that many people would recommend only watching the first two films, but I've always liked Alien 3 just as much as its predecessors, and it's become a hobby of mine to analyze why the film is so hated. The day will come when I write a blog entry about that, but I wanted to start off today's essay by mentioning one of Alien 3's biggest controversies: the death of the character Newt in its opening scene.

Seeing a child die in any movie is obviously not a cheerful experience, and after everything Newt goes through in Aliens, it's understandable that people would want to see her get a happier ending. However, watching that movie back-to-back with Alien 3 for the first time and observing her role in the overall series changed my perspective on the issue. Newt's death isn't as depressing in the grand scheme of things because, in my mind, she isn't really a character.

Okay, she's a character in the sense that she's a living entity who participates in the story, but she doesn't have much personality to speak of and she really doesn't grow or change by the end of Aliens. Although she helps the adults occasionally with her knowledge of the xenomorphs and the layout of the colony's ductwork, her main purpose in the story is to be looked after and protected by Ripley so that the audience can see how compassionate their heroine is. Newt is kind of just a more sympathetic version of Jones the cat from the first Alien movie.

So what then is the definition of a character? Is it just a general term that applies to any person in a story, or is it more particular than that?

Webster's Dictionary defines the word "character" as "a person represented in a drama, story, etc.", but that's only the fifth definition that it offers. The first definition that it offers is "the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of a person or thing."

Judging from this, it seems that the presence of characteristics, or personality, is what determines whether or not someone in a narrative is truly a character. Characters are supposed to represent people, according to Webster, and people in the real world have personalities. They have opinions and dispositions that are constantly subject to change, and those changes are brought on by the things that they experience in their lives. If someone in a story is just there to have a certain effect on the plot or on one of the protagonists, then that someone is really more of a plot device.

Take for instance the fellow named Holbrooke in the 2010 comedy film Date Night. Holbrooke, played by a perpetually shirtless Mark Wahlberg, is a secret agent and former real estate client of Tina Fey's character. After Fey gets into trouble with some mobsters over a case of mistaken identity, she and her bumbling husband played by Steve Carell seek help from Holbrooke, and the muscle-bound sleuth uses his tech skills to locate a few places and people for them. He's only in a couple of scenes, he gets no funny or memorable lines, and his very last scene ends with Carell begging him to put on a shirt.

It's pretty clear what Holbrooke's purpose in the film is. He exists to make Steve Carell's character feel insecure and to give the couple their next lead so that the story can progress. He's not a character; he's a plot device that talks. This is perfectly fine, since the encounter with him does play a major part in the development of both Fey and Carell's characters, but Holbrook probably couldn't get away with being so one-dimensional if his role was bigger.

Another example is Mercer from the second and third Pirates of the Caribbean movies. As the henchman of the villain Lord Beckett, Mercer's role in both movies is to spy on the heroes, report information about them to Beckett, and occasionally be a detriment to someone else's plans. We don't know how he's able to track down the heroes in places like Tortuga and Singapore or how he's able to report back to Beckett so quickly, but he always is able, and every time we see him, he's stonefaced and deadpan.

Mercer does have a much bigger role than Holbrooke, but he's still more of a plot device than he is a character. He's a means of keeping the villain aware of what the protagonists are doing, which would otherwise be difficult to do in a movie set in a time period before satellites and tracking devices, and he leaves a relatively small impression for all that he does in the story. It's only fitting that once the climactic battle between the pirates and Beckett is under way and there's no more need to spy on anyone, Mercer gets killed off.

Again though, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with this kind of storytelling. If any element in any narrative has enough of an effect on the plot or the protagonist, then its use is justified. What I am saying is that it's important to note the difference between true characters and people in stories who just do things. Knowing that difference can help a writer to create more engaging characters, and in the case of someone like Newt, it can tip the scale enough to make plot device figures engaging enough for audiences to get attached to them as well.

It's certainly not a good idea to write characters who bore audiences to sleep. If the Alien films have taught me anything, it's that nothing good ever happens to anyone while they're sleeping...

Fanfiction Friction

I don't know if this is something to be embarrassed by or not, but I have a confession to make: I used to write fanfiction. A lot.

For those of you who don't know, a fanfiction ("fanfic" for short) is a piece of literature that ties in with a movie, book, TV show, etc. and is written by a fan of that franchise rather than the official writer or writers. It can be anything from a short poem to a novel-length story with multiple chapters, and it usually centers around pre-existing characters from said franchise. Anyone can write one, and there are entire websites such as Fanfiction.net, Deviantart.com, and Justexpressing.com that are dedicated to sharing them.

So why is it semi-embarrassing for one to admit that they write fanfiction? Well, there are two main reasons. The first is that, as stated before, anyone can write it - including people who simply can't write. For every decent fanfic out there, there's probably a hundred terrible ones, so the practice is usually viewed as a joke among serious writers. It doesn't help that a large portion of those terrible stories are full of idiotic romance (often with fan-made characters who are obviously stand-ins for the fanfic writers themselves) and loads of disgustingly detailed smut. I've never put anything like that in my stories, and that seems to make fanfics like mine a rarity.

The second reason, which I do take some blame for, is that fanfiction tends to be a huge waste of time and effort. You spend days, weeks, months, and sometimes even years writing a story that you can't publish once it's finished because it's about characters whom you don't own the rights to. Sometimes you can change their names and make a few other adjustments to turn out something original, like E.L. James did for Fifty Shades of Grey, but normally the details are so specific that there's no way to cover up who the characters are supposed to be. I have four or five novel-length fanfics out there, and only one of them has a chance of becoming an original work that I can publish. My Kindle library could be almost triple the size it is now if I wasn't so obsessed with Lord of the Rings, Pokémon, and Pirates of the Caribbean in high school.

At the same time though, there are some benefits to writing fanfiction. If you're serious about it, it can be a great exercise tool. I can honestly say that my writing style, character development, and overall storytelling skills have improved ten times since Deer Lake, and that's thanks to practicing on fanfics and getting constant feedback from online readers. Feedback isn't something you get on a regular basis when working on a book. The only downside is that when you write about characters that have previously been established in other works of fiction, you don't get much practice at creating any from scratch. That's why it's hard to get away from writing fanfics and focus solely on original works; you get more story ideas for characters that you already know.

So the question for anyone else in this position is, how do you make that transition? How do you take that urge to write about your favorite fictional characters and harness it to help you create your own great work? The answer is fairly simple: trick your brain into thinking that you're still writing fanfiction.

For instance, if you're a huge Jack Sparrow fan, then come up with a character for your book that exhibits Jack-Sparrow-like personality traits, then picture him in their place every time you write a scene for them. It doesn't matter if your character looks nothing like him, just picture him in their place anyway. Ask yourself how Jack would react to the situation in the scene you're writing, and the ideas will most likely come to you. The goal is that eventually your character will outgrow their Jack Sparrow training wheels and take on a life of their own. You might even decide to go back and change some of their earlier scenes to make their behavior more like your re-envisioning of them and less like Captain Jack. I do this all the time with my characters, and so far, it's worked very well.

Another strategy that I've recently started to use is "reassigning" fanfiction scenes. Suppose a really interesting scene for a potential fanfic just materializes in your head one day. Instead of writing it about Jack Sparrow or whomever you picture as the subject, look at the cast in your book and decide who among them is most like the person in that scene. Make a few adjustments to the scene, and you've suddenly got a really interesting moment in your book. I took a bunch of ideas for things I'd like to see in the next Hobbit movie and turned them into what I think is a funny and heartfelt mini plot for Part 2 of my sci-fi/fantasy series. Heck, I've even got half of an outline for a Pokémon fanfic that I'm in the process of developing into a prequel to my series.

Bottom line, fanfiction can be both a curse and a blessing to writers in this day and age. The trick is learning how to rein in that wild horse so it can pull your carriage and get you rolling.