Today’s readings explore the idea of character in narratives, ranging from how we construct characters in our minds while watching a film to how long-term serials establish character arcs. Which ideas particularly interest you? How might they relate to films and television that we’ve screened? How might games establish character in similar or different ways?
4 thoughts on “Responses for 9/28”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m particularly interested in television narratives. The idea that character arcs can go on for years or that past actions can fade into the background only to reemerge later when we least expect is fascinating. It’s delightfully realistic and encapsulates everyday life in a means more comparable to a novel than cinematic narrative. Although active memory is utilized as a narrative tool in movies as well, the scope of television, ranging from a few years to decades (I’m thinking The Simpsons), is immense and awe-inspiring. It is almost unimaginable creating a character that lives for so long. It is tough enough creating credible characters for a 90 minute film or even a fifteen page short story, and then to be able to do it for television and when plots are dictated by ratings and fan approval is unreal. I suppose it is less impressive when characters are flat or when the series is episodic and does not entail serial development, but when the narratives are complex, as with Lost and the Wire and so many other shows now a days, writing for television takes a degree of vision and flexibility that is hard to maintain. I find this admirable.
As to videogames, I was impressed and then disappointed by how Portal told narrative spatially. The caves with the red writing and the handprints on the wall made me believe that there had been some predecessor to our protagonist, some other character who would reemerge later and further help the protagonist escape. Perhaps I missed the narrative explanation of these caves. Perhaps I made a wrong left turn and did not hear Hal’s witty remark– excuse me, Glados’ witty remark that explained their significance. But I suppose one of videogames’narrative weaknesses (and perhaps strengths) is that each player takes a different route. Some players may not take the time to note the caves and their writing. Narrative details can be lost as a result. But I can also imagine a game that would use its environment to aid an attentive and inquisitive player, even more so than Portal did.
I want to add, to avoid giving the wrong impression, that I really enjoyed Portal and its premise. Great gameplay. Brilliant idea. I just think its narrative could have been even more ambitious than it was.
In Michael Newmen’s essay, he states that “The human face has always been a key feature of cinema’s appeal to filmmakers and spectators alike, one source of it’s special powers”, a statement that directly refutes Fotis Janindis’ article on character, in which character is described as the words written on a page. On this issue, I could not agree more with Newmen’s analysis and would add the human body to hid description. “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia”, my favorite show currently on TV, sticks out to me because the characters are always in character. While their lines, setting, and situation (all parts of the show that can be written down) are terrific, it is the distinct faces of each character (Dee’s look of disgust at anyone more successful than her a.k.a anyone, Mac’s face of seriousness when his karate skills are questioned), their unique body movements ( Dennis’ contortions when showing off his physique) that make the show unforgettable. The same idea can be applied to films we’ve watched in class. While “Away from Her” is even adopted from a short story, placing many of the story’s lines directly into it’s characters mouths, most of the films power is achieved throughout the facial expressions of the characters (Fiona’s look distress when she can’t remember where mail goes), something that simply can’t be written down.
Here, videogames run into an issue. While graphics continue to improve to an almost lifelike quality (I’ve been duped by madden on more than one occasion), it is still not a human face the player is staring at during cut-scenes or in-game narrative. Because of this, I feel games fall in line more with literature than film. Memorable video game characters are not defined by facial expressions or body movements, instead remembered for unique voices (Super Mario), Good Dialogue (any GTA character) and other things that can be written onto paper.
First, I want to say that trying to find the right language to talk about actors and the characters they play/assume/portray, and what that relationship is, and where you draw the line between the person and the character, and if a character is a person, is really, really hard. If I knew Russian, I would try to substitute by own words. As it is, I’m just going to stumble along.
I am having some trouble applying Jannadis’ ideas on literary characters to characters in media. He talks about characters as either created by the text or individual entities. Given a character in a film, could you say that he or she is created by the text—or the script? According to Newman, a character is a person, but I’m not sure I agree with that. In non-animated media, a character is tied to the actor. The actor is a person, but when they play(?) a character, do they become different person? Recognizable actors, like Bill Murray, bring certain assumptions to the characters they portray totally separate from what the script of a film might call for. Bruce Willis is a very “alive” actor. The characters in Groundhog Day or The Sixth Sense are created not only from the script, but also by the actors, and by the audience’s perception of and expectations for the actors. But I’m still not sure this makes them people.
As for video games, it’s hard to think of Chell (I think that’s her name) from Portal as a character. In a first-person shooter, the gamer is the character. You almost never see yourself, and you dictate (almost) all of your actions. In The Legend of Zelda, which is the game I’m playing, there are a lot more cut scenes where I get a sense of who Link (my character) is as a person(or a character). The game is shown through what I would call a limited third person narration–I only see what Link sees, but I’m also watching Link. My assumptions about him continue to change as his “personality” is revealed to me through dialogue with other people/characters/town folk. In Portal, I basically forget that I am a character. I don’t understand what her motivation is for wanting to complete the tasks. I know very little about her back-story. My only visual is a distant figure stepping through a portal at the same time I am, which makes me identify with her even less, since we seem to be two different people. You don’t even see her hands holding the gun. So even though Portal is first-person, it creates a completely different effect than a written first-person narrative, or a point of view shot in a movie.