Ian Dawson's Blog, page 10
April 21, 2023
Antagonist April: Week #3 – Antagonist Case Study #3, Colm Doherty (The Banshees of Inisherin)
It’s Antagonist April, and all this month, I’ll be doing a deep dive into those characters that give our heroes and main characters opposition to their goals. This week, we’ll analyze the roles of three antagonists in three films. Our final entry is The Banshees of Inisherin.
Let’s continue!
[SPOILER ALERT: Since this is a new film, I will forewarn you that MAJOR plot elements will be discussed]
ANTAGONIST’S NAME: Colm Doherty
RELATIONSHIP TO PROTAGONIST: Colm is Pádraic’s best friend and drinking buddy.
THE ANTAGONIST’S ARC:
• We first meet Colm as he sits alone in his home; his best friend, Pádraic, comes to get him to go to the pub, and Colm outright ignores him. Despite Pádraic’s pleas through a window, Colm doesn’t respond.
o This is our first inkling of the conflict between these two characters, especially since it’s made clear that these two have a history together and a daily routine that Colm is suddenly disrupting for no apparent reason.
• Colm eventually arrives at the pub. When Pádraic arrives and goes to greet him, Colm greets him with, “Sit somewhere else.” Pádraic has no interest in moving, so Colm exits and sits outside.
o We’re not that far into the story, and our antagonist has already caused quite a disruption to the protagonist’s daily routine. Since an antagonist’s goal is to throw the hero off-balance, Colm has definitely achieved this task.
• Undeterred, Pádraic follows Colm outside and confronts him about his behavior. Colm tells Pádraic: “I just don’t like you no more.”
o Now, the protagonist and antagonist are on the same page regarding why they are at odds. Still, Pádraic is not about to let this statement stop him from inquiring further, which helps increase the conflict between the two throughout the story.
• The next day, Colm is seated on a stone wall with his violin as Pádraic passes him with his livestock. Pádraic - who noticed the previous day was April 1 – asserts that Colm was joking with him the previous day about not liking him anymore. Colm remains silent at the suggestion, and Pádraic interprets the silence as confirmation of his theory.
• Later, at the pub, Pádraic attempts to sit down with Colm, which doesn’t go as Pádraic had planned. The two argue about having better things to do than just sitting together at the pub, “wasting fecking time.” Colm shows Pádraic what he’s been doing instead of wasting time: he’s writing a song to play on his violin. After playing some for him, he tells Pádraic: “Tomorrow, I’ll write the second part of it. And the day after, I’ll write the third part of it. And by Wednesday, there’ll be a new tune in the world, which wouldn’t have been there if I’d spent the week listening to your bollocks.”
o Colm has given us more of his motivation as an antagonist and his opposition to the protagonist: he wants to do something with meaning and creativity, something he feels his friendship with Pádraic has been preventing him from doing. This only causes further conflict – and Pádraic calling it a “shite tune” doesn’t help, either – between the two since it’s clear they are now on disparate life paths.
• Colm decides to talk to Pádraic and clarify things further since it’s clear his former friend isn’t comprehending the new situation clearly. After making it clear that he was too harsh the previous day in telling Pádraic he didn’t like him anymore, Colm says, “I just have this tremendous sense of time slippin’ away on me, Pádraic. And I think I need to spend the time I have left thinking and composing. Just trying not to listen to any more of the dull things that you have to say for yourself.” Pádraic makes a case for “good, normal chatting,” to which Colm says: “So, we’ll keep aimlessly chatting and my life’ll keep dwindling. And in 12 years, I’ll die with nothin’ to show for it but the chats I’ve hat with a limited man, is that it?”
o During this interaction, it becomes quite clear that Colm is making some valid points about life and not wasting it, while Pádraic doesn’t see any problem with how things are.
o Even when Colm gives evidence about Pádraic’s aimless chatting – “two hours you spent talking to me about the things you found in your little donkey’s shite that day” – Pádraic is undeterred, saying, “We’ll just chat about somethin’ else then.” [Pádraic’s donkey, Jenny, is an important part of the story and escalates the conflict later in the story]
o I love this conflict. It’s realistic. It’s relatable. And it’s one where you can connect at some level with both characters and their positions. Pádraic doesn’t want things to change. Colm does, but Pádraic refuses to let go.
• After a church service, Pádraic asks the priest to press Colm about the rift between them while Colm is in the confessional. This only increases Colm’s frustration with Pádraic and his inability to leave him and the situation alone.
• Colm confronts Pádraic at the pub, and here’s where things begin to escalate as Colm makes it clear to Pádraic and the other bar patrons if Pádraic doesn’t leave him alone: “I have a set of shears at home. And each time you bother me from this day on, I’ll take those shears and I’ll take one of me fingers off with them. And I’ll give that finger to ya. A finger from me left hand. Me fiddle hand. And each day you bother me more, another I’ll take off and I’ll give ya until you see sense enough to stop. Or until I have no fingers left…I feel like the drastic is the only option left open to me.”
o This is a major turning point in the story. Colm has now escalated the situation and given Pádraic clear instructions on what not to do and the consequences if he violates them. This also raises the stakes of the story and for both characters to a whole new level.
• The next day, in town, Pádraic has a run-in with a local cop, and Colm witnesses the beatdown. Colm loads Pádraic onto his wagon and proceeds to drive him home. Once Pádraic starts crying, however, Colm hands him the reigns and walks away.
o Colm shows that he still cares and has compassion for Pádraic in this moment, even if he doesn’t want to be friends with him.
• A drunk Pádraic confronts Colm later that night at the pub, doing all he can he not be dull. The next day, Pádraic goes and apologizes to Colm for his behavior, and again, Colm asks him, “why can’t you just leave me alone?”
o Unfortunately, this is the wrong tactic to try when a man has threatened to chop off his fingers if you talk to him...
• Colm arrives later at Pádraic’s home and throws his first sheared finger at the front door, then walks off in silence.
o This is the mid-point of the story and the point of no return. Pádraic’s actions have resulted in something that cannot be reversed.
• Pádraic’s sister, Siobhán, goes to return Colm’s finger. But before she goes, Colm reiterates that ending his friendship with Pádraic is “about one boring man leaving another man alone, that’s all.”
• Pádraic visits Colm at home, to which Colm asks him if he’s “fecking mental.” Once Pádraic leaves and goes to the pub, Colm chops off the remaining fingers on his left hand and tosses them at Pádraic’s front door.
• Unfortunately, Pádraic missed one of the fingers when he picked them up, and his donkey, Jenny, got ahold of one. She chokes on it and dies, which enrages Pádraic.
o This is the next big turning point in the story. Colm has inadvertently killed Pádraic’s favorite pet, and now, with his sister off to work elsewhere and his friendship with Colm over, he has no one. And he’s pissed.
• Pádraic confronts Colm at the pub. Colm tells him, “let’s just call it quits and agree to go our separate ways, for good this time.” Pádraic refuses, telling Colm about his donkey being killed by Colm’s “fat fingers.” Pádraic tells him this is the beginning of things: “I’m going to call up to your house and I’m gonna set fire to it, and hopefully you’ll still be inside it. But I won’t be checkin’ either way.”
o Another escalation, this time from the protagonist’s side. Pádraic, at this point, has nothing and nothing to lose. He even tells Colm: “To our graves we’re taking this.”
• And, true to his word, Pádraic goes to Colm’s house and sets it on fire…with Colm inside.
o We’re at the climax of the story.
• But Colm escapes the fire, and Pádraic sees him later on the beach near his burned-out home. Colm says, “Suppose me house makes us quits.” To which Pádraic replies: “If you’d stayed in your house, that would’ve made us quits.” Colm apologizes for Pádraic’s donkey, but Pádraic doesn’t care, telling Colm, “Some things there’ no movin’ on from. And I think that’s a good thing.” Colm thanks Pádraic for watching after his dog in the wake of the fire, and Pádraic replies, “Any time,” then walks away.
o The story ends in a draw between the protagonist and antagonist, as most real-life scenarios do. While the conflict does escalate, they are both men who care about each other, even if one is determined to move on with his life and end the friendship.
THE ANTAGONIST’S FATE: With all the fingers gone from one hand and his house burned, Colm and Pádraic eventually come to a civil impasse and appear to go their separate ways.
COMMENTS: Despite its period setting, the situation is one that people go through every day around the world today. Most of us have been in Pádraic’s shoes; other times, we’ve been in Colm’s when it comes to the ending of a friendship.
While Colm takes his desire to no longer be friends with Pádraic to the extreme, audiences can still empathize with him and his need for more out of life. Colm’s motivation for creativity and his interests, working on his music, and teaching others is reasonable and justifiable.
Pádraic should have given him space to pursue his endeavors, which might have resulted in a more peaceful resolution and Colm retaining all his fingers.
I think it's also important to note that just because a character is an antagonist, it doesn't make them a bad person. Just being in opposition to the main character and creating a conflict with them can cause a character to be seen as the antagonist in a story.
ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE: Could the case be made that Pádraic is the film’s antagonist? Yes. His inability to accept Colm’s life changes and leave him alone can appear oppositional at times. Still, he’s the one whose life is upended by Colm, and he’s the one who has to adapt and change to this new situation throughout the story. That makes him the protagonist, in my view.
What do you think?
I hope you’ve enjoyed this week’s Case Studies! I’ll be back next week with some Antagonist-related writing exercises as we close out Antagonist April. See you then!
Let’s continue!
[SPOILER ALERT: Since this is a new film, I will forewarn you that MAJOR plot elements will be discussed]
ANTAGONIST’S NAME: Colm Doherty
RELATIONSHIP TO PROTAGONIST: Colm is Pádraic’s best friend and drinking buddy.
THE ANTAGONIST’S ARC:
• We first meet Colm as he sits alone in his home; his best friend, Pádraic, comes to get him to go to the pub, and Colm outright ignores him. Despite Pádraic’s pleas through a window, Colm doesn’t respond.
o This is our first inkling of the conflict between these two characters, especially since it’s made clear that these two have a history together and a daily routine that Colm is suddenly disrupting for no apparent reason.
• Colm eventually arrives at the pub. When Pádraic arrives and goes to greet him, Colm greets him with, “Sit somewhere else.” Pádraic has no interest in moving, so Colm exits and sits outside.
o We’re not that far into the story, and our antagonist has already caused quite a disruption to the protagonist’s daily routine. Since an antagonist’s goal is to throw the hero off-balance, Colm has definitely achieved this task.
• Undeterred, Pádraic follows Colm outside and confronts him about his behavior. Colm tells Pádraic: “I just don’t like you no more.”
o Now, the protagonist and antagonist are on the same page regarding why they are at odds. Still, Pádraic is not about to let this statement stop him from inquiring further, which helps increase the conflict between the two throughout the story.
• The next day, Colm is seated on a stone wall with his violin as Pádraic passes him with his livestock. Pádraic - who noticed the previous day was April 1 – asserts that Colm was joking with him the previous day about not liking him anymore. Colm remains silent at the suggestion, and Pádraic interprets the silence as confirmation of his theory.
• Later, at the pub, Pádraic attempts to sit down with Colm, which doesn’t go as Pádraic had planned. The two argue about having better things to do than just sitting together at the pub, “wasting fecking time.” Colm shows Pádraic what he’s been doing instead of wasting time: he’s writing a song to play on his violin. After playing some for him, he tells Pádraic: “Tomorrow, I’ll write the second part of it. And the day after, I’ll write the third part of it. And by Wednesday, there’ll be a new tune in the world, which wouldn’t have been there if I’d spent the week listening to your bollocks.”
o Colm has given us more of his motivation as an antagonist and his opposition to the protagonist: he wants to do something with meaning and creativity, something he feels his friendship with Pádraic has been preventing him from doing. This only causes further conflict – and Pádraic calling it a “shite tune” doesn’t help, either – between the two since it’s clear they are now on disparate life paths.
• Colm decides to talk to Pádraic and clarify things further since it’s clear his former friend isn’t comprehending the new situation clearly. After making it clear that he was too harsh the previous day in telling Pádraic he didn’t like him anymore, Colm says, “I just have this tremendous sense of time slippin’ away on me, Pádraic. And I think I need to spend the time I have left thinking and composing. Just trying not to listen to any more of the dull things that you have to say for yourself.” Pádraic makes a case for “good, normal chatting,” to which Colm says: “So, we’ll keep aimlessly chatting and my life’ll keep dwindling. And in 12 years, I’ll die with nothin’ to show for it but the chats I’ve hat with a limited man, is that it?”
o During this interaction, it becomes quite clear that Colm is making some valid points about life and not wasting it, while Pádraic doesn’t see any problem with how things are.
o Even when Colm gives evidence about Pádraic’s aimless chatting – “two hours you spent talking to me about the things you found in your little donkey’s shite that day” – Pádraic is undeterred, saying, “We’ll just chat about somethin’ else then.” [Pádraic’s donkey, Jenny, is an important part of the story and escalates the conflict later in the story]
o I love this conflict. It’s realistic. It’s relatable. And it’s one where you can connect at some level with both characters and their positions. Pádraic doesn’t want things to change. Colm does, but Pádraic refuses to let go.
• After a church service, Pádraic asks the priest to press Colm about the rift between them while Colm is in the confessional. This only increases Colm’s frustration with Pádraic and his inability to leave him and the situation alone.
• Colm confronts Pádraic at the pub, and here’s where things begin to escalate as Colm makes it clear to Pádraic and the other bar patrons if Pádraic doesn’t leave him alone: “I have a set of shears at home. And each time you bother me from this day on, I’ll take those shears and I’ll take one of me fingers off with them. And I’ll give that finger to ya. A finger from me left hand. Me fiddle hand. And each day you bother me more, another I’ll take off and I’ll give ya until you see sense enough to stop. Or until I have no fingers left…I feel like the drastic is the only option left open to me.”
o This is a major turning point in the story. Colm has now escalated the situation and given Pádraic clear instructions on what not to do and the consequences if he violates them. This also raises the stakes of the story and for both characters to a whole new level.
• The next day, in town, Pádraic has a run-in with a local cop, and Colm witnesses the beatdown. Colm loads Pádraic onto his wagon and proceeds to drive him home. Once Pádraic starts crying, however, Colm hands him the reigns and walks away.
o Colm shows that he still cares and has compassion for Pádraic in this moment, even if he doesn’t want to be friends with him.
• A drunk Pádraic confronts Colm later that night at the pub, doing all he can he not be dull. The next day, Pádraic goes and apologizes to Colm for his behavior, and again, Colm asks him, “why can’t you just leave me alone?”
o Unfortunately, this is the wrong tactic to try when a man has threatened to chop off his fingers if you talk to him...
• Colm arrives later at Pádraic’s home and throws his first sheared finger at the front door, then walks off in silence.
o This is the mid-point of the story and the point of no return. Pádraic’s actions have resulted in something that cannot be reversed.
• Pádraic’s sister, Siobhán, goes to return Colm’s finger. But before she goes, Colm reiterates that ending his friendship with Pádraic is “about one boring man leaving another man alone, that’s all.”
• Pádraic visits Colm at home, to which Colm asks him if he’s “fecking mental.” Once Pádraic leaves and goes to the pub, Colm chops off the remaining fingers on his left hand and tosses them at Pádraic’s front door.
• Unfortunately, Pádraic missed one of the fingers when he picked them up, and his donkey, Jenny, got ahold of one. She chokes on it and dies, which enrages Pádraic.
o This is the next big turning point in the story. Colm has inadvertently killed Pádraic’s favorite pet, and now, with his sister off to work elsewhere and his friendship with Colm over, he has no one. And he’s pissed.
• Pádraic confronts Colm at the pub. Colm tells him, “let’s just call it quits and agree to go our separate ways, for good this time.” Pádraic refuses, telling Colm about his donkey being killed by Colm’s “fat fingers.” Pádraic tells him this is the beginning of things: “I’m going to call up to your house and I’m gonna set fire to it, and hopefully you’ll still be inside it. But I won’t be checkin’ either way.”
o Another escalation, this time from the protagonist’s side. Pádraic, at this point, has nothing and nothing to lose. He even tells Colm: “To our graves we’re taking this.”
• And, true to his word, Pádraic goes to Colm’s house and sets it on fire…with Colm inside.
o We’re at the climax of the story.
• But Colm escapes the fire, and Pádraic sees him later on the beach near his burned-out home. Colm says, “Suppose me house makes us quits.” To which Pádraic replies: “If you’d stayed in your house, that would’ve made us quits.” Colm apologizes for Pádraic’s donkey, but Pádraic doesn’t care, telling Colm, “Some things there’ no movin’ on from. And I think that’s a good thing.” Colm thanks Pádraic for watching after his dog in the wake of the fire, and Pádraic replies, “Any time,” then walks away.
o The story ends in a draw between the protagonist and antagonist, as most real-life scenarios do. While the conflict does escalate, they are both men who care about each other, even if one is determined to move on with his life and end the friendship.
THE ANTAGONIST’S FATE: With all the fingers gone from one hand and his house burned, Colm and Pádraic eventually come to a civil impasse and appear to go their separate ways.
COMMENTS: Despite its period setting, the situation is one that people go through every day around the world today. Most of us have been in Pádraic’s shoes; other times, we’ve been in Colm’s when it comes to the ending of a friendship.
While Colm takes his desire to no longer be friends with Pádraic to the extreme, audiences can still empathize with him and his need for more out of life. Colm’s motivation for creativity and his interests, working on his music, and teaching others is reasonable and justifiable.
Pádraic should have given him space to pursue his endeavors, which might have resulted in a more peaceful resolution and Colm retaining all his fingers.
I think it's also important to note that just because a character is an antagonist, it doesn't make them a bad person. Just being in opposition to the main character and creating a conflict with them can cause a character to be seen as the antagonist in a story.
ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE: Could the case be made that Pádraic is the film’s antagonist? Yes. His inability to accept Colm’s life changes and leave him alone can appear oppositional at times. Still, he’s the one whose life is upended by Colm, and he’s the one who has to adapt and change to this new situation throughout the story. That makes him the protagonist, in my view.
What do you think?
I hope you’ve enjoyed this week’s Case Studies! I’ll be back next week with some Antagonist-related writing exercises as we close out Antagonist April. See you then!
April 19, 2023
Antagonist April: Week #3 – Antagonist Case Study #2, Dr. Paul Dreyfus (Dante's Peak)
It’s Antagonist April, and all this month, I’ll be doing a deep dive into those characters that give our heroes and main characters opposition to their goals. This week, we’ll analyze the roles of three antagonists in the films. Today, it’s Dante’s Peak.
Let’s continue!
ANTAGONIST’S NAME: Dr. Paul Dreyfus
RELATIONSHIP TO PROTAGONIST: Paul is Harry Dalton’s boss at the United States Geological Survey. He sends Harry on the assignment to check out the seismic activity around Dante’s Peak.
THE ANTAGONIST’S ARC:
• We’re introduced to Paul via answering machine, asking Harry Dalton for his opinion about “something in the Northern Cascades.” He orders him to “get down here as soon as you get this message,” which tells us he’s the boss in this dynamic.
• Once in the office, Paul tells Harry about “activity around Dante’s Peak.”
o These two scenes are the only ones we get with Paul for some time in the film. Our protagonist is now sent on his mission to see if there’s any voracity to the activity and if Dante’s Peak is in danger of eruption.
o Paul leaves the story at the seven-minute mark and returns around the 21-minute mark.
• After Harry sees a number of potential issues regarding the volcano, he calls for a city council meeting. In the middle of the meeting, while Harry asks them to consider “the possibility of an evacuation,” Paul shows up and takes Harry aside. Paul asserts his authority: “I sent you up here to have a look around, not to scare the city council.” After Harry explains why he made the decision, Paul continues to push back: “There are dozens of reasons that would account for what happened. Anything from a mild earthquake to a slight seismic shift, and not one of those reasons means that the mountain will blow up next week or next month, or the next 100 years.”
o While the city council opposes Harry’s proposition, Mayor Wando is on his side, making her an ally. Since Paul is Harry’s boss, his authority is given more weight by the city council when he reassures them that “if the time comes to call for an alert, if the time comes, it will be based upon scientific evidence, and not upon anyone’s opinion.”
o Paul has now publicly embarrassed Harry, dismissing his initial views and opinions about Dante’s Peak, which makes them even more at odds with each other. Paul’s role is to be skeptical of Harry, which is why he’s the story’s antagonist. He even tells the city council about previous evacuations that have ruined cities, which makes them even more upset toward Harry and the Mayor.
• When Paul runs into Harry at the local bar, Paul further explains, “Until you understand that there are delicate politics involved, not to mention economics, you’re only going to do these people more harm than good.” Paul once again asserts his authority and makes it clear to Harry who’s in charge now.
• When Harry and some of his team members are up on the mountain, they experience an earthquake, and a rockslide injures one of them. Paul is back at home base. When he reconnects with Harry, Harry makes it clear that they should put the town on alert. Ever the skeptic, Paul rebuffs him, telling Harry that he doesn’t “want to cause a panic over minor tectonic quakes.” Paul doesn’t want to scare everyone “over guesswork and hunches,” he then tells Harry, “Another 48 hours will tell the tale, and you get a grip.”
o The conflict between our hero and the opposition escalates further, their views on handling the situation vary widely. It’s important to keep in mind that Paul is Harry’s boss, which is why Harry doesn’t try and override him.
• After a week of no major activity from Dante’s Peak, Paul says, “first thing in the morning, we are out of here.”
• Paul’s opinions quickly change that final night when Harry appears at his hotel room and shows him “scientific evidence” that the town’s water supply is now contaminated by sulfur dioxide, which is “the same thing [Harry] saw in the Philippines on Mount Pinatubo before she blew.”
o Now shown proof that Harry has been right all along, Paul now works in tandem with Harry to figure out what to do next when it comes to evacuating the town. He even tells Harry to “call the mayor. Have her put the town on alert.”
o It should be noted here that had he listened to Harry in the first place, they could have avoided the chaos that eventually occurs (but that would make the film less exciting).
• Once the chaos begins, Paul attempts to reach Harry via radio, where he tells him: “Harry, listen. For whatever it’s worth, you were right and I was wrong. I’m sorry.”
o This is the last conversation between the two characters, and the antagonist admits defeat. The skeptic is now a believer on the hero’s side.
• Ultimately, Dante’s Peak was what Paul was skeptical about, so the eruption and aftermath cause Paul’s demise.
THE ANTAGONIST’S FATE: Paul’s attempt to save the van as the bridge breaks apart cause his ability to escape to safety untenable, and he washes away downriver (listen closely, and you can hear the classic Wilhelm scream when he falls into the water).
COMMENTS: Paul’s role as a skeptic questioning Harry’s finding around Dante’s Peak makes him the antagonist. Unlike Harry, he has to work within the politics of the job, ensuring not to cause unneeded alarm to the citizens and bureaucrats of the community.
Ultimately, his skepticism is found to be incorrect, and the resulting eruption of the volcano leads to death, destruction, and Paul’s demise.
Come back Friday as we look at the antagonist for the film The Banshees of Inisherin! See you then!
Let’s continue!
ANTAGONIST’S NAME: Dr. Paul Dreyfus
RELATIONSHIP TO PROTAGONIST: Paul is Harry Dalton’s boss at the United States Geological Survey. He sends Harry on the assignment to check out the seismic activity around Dante’s Peak.
THE ANTAGONIST’S ARC:
• We’re introduced to Paul via answering machine, asking Harry Dalton for his opinion about “something in the Northern Cascades.” He orders him to “get down here as soon as you get this message,” which tells us he’s the boss in this dynamic.
• Once in the office, Paul tells Harry about “activity around Dante’s Peak.”
o These two scenes are the only ones we get with Paul for some time in the film. Our protagonist is now sent on his mission to see if there’s any voracity to the activity and if Dante’s Peak is in danger of eruption.
o Paul leaves the story at the seven-minute mark and returns around the 21-minute mark.
• After Harry sees a number of potential issues regarding the volcano, he calls for a city council meeting. In the middle of the meeting, while Harry asks them to consider “the possibility of an evacuation,” Paul shows up and takes Harry aside. Paul asserts his authority: “I sent you up here to have a look around, not to scare the city council.” After Harry explains why he made the decision, Paul continues to push back: “There are dozens of reasons that would account for what happened. Anything from a mild earthquake to a slight seismic shift, and not one of those reasons means that the mountain will blow up next week or next month, or the next 100 years.”
o While the city council opposes Harry’s proposition, Mayor Wando is on his side, making her an ally. Since Paul is Harry’s boss, his authority is given more weight by the city council when he reassures them that “if the time comes to call for an alert, if the time comes, it will be based upon scientific evidence, and not upon anyone’s opinion.”
o Paul has now publicly embarrassed Harry, dismissing his initial views and opinions about Dante’s Peak, which makes them even more at odds with each other. Paul’s role is to be skeptical of Harry, which is why he’s the story’s antagonist. He even tells the city council about previous evacuations that have ruined cities, which makes them even more upset toward Harry and the Mayor.
• When Paul runs into Harry at the local bar, Paul further explains, “Until you understand that there are delicate politics involved, not to mention economics, you’re only going to do these people more harm than good.” Paul once again asserts his authority and makes it clear to Harry who’s in charge now.
• When Harry and some of his team members are up on the mountain, they experience an earthquake, and a rockslide injures one of them. Paul is back at home base. When he reconnects with Harry, Harry makes it clear that they should put the town on alert. Ever the skeptic, Paul rebuffs him, telling Harry that he doesn’t “want to cause a panic over minor tectonic quakes.” Paul doesn’t want to scare everyone “over guesswork and hunches,” he then tells Harry, “Another 48 hours will tell the tale, and you get a grip.”
o The conflict between our hero and the opposition escalates further, their views on handling the situation vary widely. It’s important to keep in mind that Paul is Harry’s boss, which is why Harry doesn’t try and override him.
• After a week of no major activity from Dante’s Peak, Paul says, “first thing in the morning, we are out of here.”
• Paul’s opinions quickly change that final night when Harry appears at his hotel room and shows him “scientific evidence” that the town’s water supply is now contaminated by sulfur dioxide, which is “the same thing [Harry] saw in the Philippines on Mount Pinatubo before she blew.”
o Now shown proof that Harry has been right all along, Paul now works in tandem with Harry to figure out what to do next when it comes to evacuating the town. He even tells Harry to “call the mayor. Have her put the town on alert.”
o It should be noted here that had he listened to Harry in the first place, they could have avoided the chaos that eventually occurs (but that would make the film less exciting).
• Once the chaos begins, Paul attempts to reach Harry via radio, where he tells him: “Harry, listen. For whatever it’s worth, you were right and I was wrong. I’m sorry.”
o This is the last conversation between the two characters, and the antagonist admits defeat. The skeptic is now a believer on the hero’s side.
• Ultimately, Dante’s Peak was what Paul was skeptical about, so the eruption and aftermath cause Paul’s demise.
THE ANTAGONIST’S FATE: Paul’s attempt to save the van as the bridge breaks apart cause his ability to escape to safety untenable, and he washes away downriver (listen closely, and you can hear the classic Wilhelm scream when he falls into the water).
COMMENTS: Paul’s role as a skeptic questioning Harry’s finding around Dante’s Peak makes him the antagonist. Unlike Harry, he has to work within the politics of the job, ensuring not to cause unneeded alarm to the citizens and bureaucrats of the community.
Ultimately, his skepticism is found to be incorrect, and the resulting eruption of the volcano leads to death, destruction, and Paul’s demise.
Come back Friday as we look at the antagonist for the film The Banshees of Inisherin! See you then!
April 17, 2023
Antagonist April: Week #3 – Antagonist Case Study #1, Veronica Corningstone (Anchorman)
It’s Antagonist April, and all this month, I’ll be doing a deep dive into those characters that give our heroes and main characters opposition to their goals. This week, we’ll analyze the roles of three antagonists in the films, starting with Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy.
Let’s get started!
ANTAGONIST’S NAME: Veronica Corningstone
RELATIONSHIP TO PROTAGONIST: Veronica is initially seen by Ron Burgundy as a potential love interest, but he quickly finds out that Veronica will be part of his news team, which is a no-no in Ron’s male-dominated new world.
THE ANTAGONIST’S ARC:
• Ron first meets Veronica at a pool party, where his attempts to hit on her are met with her being wholly unimpressed and walking away.
o This sets up an awkward and sexist dynamic between Ron and Veronica before her position at the TV station is revealed.
• When Veronica arrives at the station and is introduced to everyone, the men – especially Ron’s news team – are not happy (“It’s anchorman, not anchorlady, and that is a scientific fact!).
o What makes this film such an interesting cultural satire is that the sexist men are seen as the film's protagonists. In contrast, the woman is seen as the Opposing Force there to upset their established dynamic. If this were a drama, we would probably be following Veronica’s journey, and Ron would be the story’s antagonist.
• Veronica gives us insight into her mindset dealing with the sexism she faces at each station: “Women ask me how I put up with it. Well, the truth is, I don’t really have a choice. This is definitely a man’s world. But while they’re laughing and grab-assing, I’m chasing down leads and practicing my nonregional diction. Because the only way to win is to be the best. The very best.”
o We now know what Veronica’s motivation is regarding her career and why she’s willing to deal with the sexism that dominates her chosen field. Along with that motivation, we are shown her goal: “to be the best. The very best.” We know that Ron and his team are already beloved by San Diego – especially Ron – so what will Veronica have to do to achieve the same level of respect and love from the community?
• After being ordered to cover the story of a cat fashion show, which she is opposed to doing, she runs a gauntlet of sexist pick-up attempts by Ron’s news team. She handles each sleazy attempt with ease and uniquely rebuffs each man.
o It’s a nice run of scenes that shows that Veronica isn’t a woman who is easily distracted by or privy to their usual chauvinistic tactics. Here she shows that she is not a woman to be messed with and demands a level of respect that the men seem incapable of showing to her.
• It is Ron’s attempt to hit on her that causes a visceral reaction from Veronica. She makes it clear to him: “You are pathetic. This has to be the feeblest pick-up attempt that I have ever encountered. I expected it from the rest of them but not from you.” But Ron turns things around and gets Veronica to take a tour of San Diego with him.
o Both Ron and Veronica have differing motivations for this outing together, Veronica making it clear that it’s not a date, while Ron clearly thinks otherwise.
• [While it’s not a scene with Veronica, it is a scene of foreshadowing of what’s to come involving her and Ron. At the end of a newscast, someone accidentally wrote a question mark at the end of Ron’s outro, making him say, “I’m Ron Burgundy?” The station head makes a point to tell the control booth (and the viewer), “For the last time, anything you put on that prompter, Burgundy will read.”]
• The next set of scenes shows us that Veronica is better educated and more aware of the world than Ron is.
o Since she is the antagonist, it is important that she be more skilled and better equipped than the hero, which she clearly is. But he has the skill of playing the jazz flute that impresses her.
o In this scene, Ron reveals his life’s goal: “To one day become a network anchor.” And it seems that he and Veronica “share the same dream.” Now we know that the protagonist and antagonist have a similar goal, which means they will both eventually end up in conflict to achieve this goal.
o In the end, Ron and Veronica wind up sleeping together and going to Pleasure Town. Veronica clarifies afterward that “it’s very important that I be viewed as a professional” and that “we should keep it fairly quiet around the station.”
• Ron, of course, yells at the top of his lungs at the station the next day that “Veronica Corningstone and I had sex, and now we are in love!” and on the air when he tells the viewers, “we are currently dating and that she is quite a handful in the bedroom.”
• Both moments tee up Veronica’s anger toward Ron in the following scene, where she is upset about his declaration on the air. She is concerned about this hurting her goal to become a network anchor, fearing that people will only see her as Ron’s “bimbo gal pal.”
o Ron woos her back and earn her forgiveness. They remain a couple.
• In Ron’s sudden absence at the station, Veronica makes her case to the station head and demands to anchor the news. She gets her chance and nails it, resulting in a rift between her and Ron when he finds out. In his mind, her goal of becoming an anchor “was a joke,” which leads to their break up.
o This is a big moment in the story and when the conflict between Ron and Veronica really heats up. Now, they are at war with each other.
• Veronica is announced as co-anchor of the news, which infuriates Ron even more, causing his childish behavior to escalate against her. Luckily, Veronica overcomes his immaturity and continues to thrive.
o Veronica’s oppositional behavior toward the sexism in the office has a strong effect on the other women working there, which causes the men to become more frustrated with her. Veronica is not just an Oppositional Force in Ron’s life but a Change Agent against societal norms. Neither bodes well for our chauvinist hero.
• When Veronica demands to use the tape machine Ron uses to watch his Emmy acceptance speech, the two get into a fight in front of the entire newsroom. Her final insult against Ron telling him his hair looks stupid leads to a literal fight between the two.
• In the next scene, Helen asks Veronica if she’s ever considered “fighting fire with fire.” Then she proceeds to tell Veronica that Ron “will read anything that is put on that Teleprompter.”
o As we discussed, this was foreshadowed earlier to establish that this was true. Now, we see this insight possibly being used as a weapon by our antagonist against the hero.
• And that’s what Veronica does, sabotaging this Teleprompter and causing Ron to say, “Go fuck yourself, San Diego” instead of “You stay classy, San Diego.”
o It’s a huge blow against the protagonist by the antagonist, resulting in his immediate firing from the station and destroying his reputation in the city. For the time being, it looks like the antagonist has won.
o Veronica does regret what she did afterward. However, her sabotage still gets her to her goal of being the lead news anchor for the station.
• When the panda, Ling Wong, goes into labor at the zoo, Veronica goes to cover the story and ends up being pushed into the Kodiak bear paddock by a rival news anchor. Trapped and unable to yell for help out of fear of waking the hibernating bears, Veronica is eventually rescued by Ron, his news team, and Ron’s dog Baxter.
THE ANTAGONIST’S FATE: Veronica and Ron end up a couple once again, and she winds up co-anchoring the network news with him. Both achieve their goals.
COMMENTS: Veronica’s role as the antagonist in the story is clever. She’s not evil; she’s the opposition primarily because she’s a woman in a male-dominated field. This helps add to the conflict between her and Ron due to their office romance and her desire to anchor the network news.
Their fates ending up in the same place – as a couple and as co-anchors – shows the protagonist’s growth as a character and also shows that the antagonist has reached their goal as well. Both are happy at the story’s end.
Come back Wednesday as we look at the antagonist for the film Dante’s Peak! See you then!
Let’s get started!
ANTAGONIST’S NAME: Veronica Corningstone
RELATIONSHIP TO PROTAGONIST: Veronica is initially seen by Ron Burgundy as a potential love interest, but he quickly finds out that Veronica will be part of his news team, which is a no-no in Ron’s male-dominated new world.
THE ANTAGONIST’S ARC:
• Ron first meets Veronica at a pool party, where his attempts to hit on her are met with her being wholly unimpressed and walking away.
o This sets up an awkward and sexist dynamic between Ron and Veronica before her position at the TV station is revealed.
• When Veronica arrives at the station and is introduced to everyone, the men – especially Ron’s news team – are not happy (“It’s anchorman, not anchorlady, and that is a scientific fact!).
o What makes this film such an interesting cultural satire is that the sexist men are seen as the film's protagonists. In contrast, the woman is seen as the Opposing Force there to upset their established dynamic. If this were a drama, we would probably be following Veronica’s journey, and Ron would be the story’s antagonist.
• Veronica gives us insight into her mindset dealing with the sexism she faces at each station: “Women ask me how I put up with it. Well, the truth is, I don’t really have a choice. This is definitely a man’s world. But while they’re laughing and grab-assing, I’m chasing down leads and practicing my nonregional diction. Because the only way to win is to be the best. The very best.”
o We now know what Veronica’s motivation is regarding her career and why she’s willing to deal with the sexism that dominates her chosen field. Along with that motivation, we are shown her goal: “to be the best. The very best.” We know that Ron and his team are already beloved by San Diego – especially Ron – so what will Veronica have to do to achieve the same level of respect and love from the community?
• After being ordered to cover the story of a cat fashion show, which she is opposed to doing, she runs a gauntlet of sexist pick-up attempts by Ron’s news team. She handles each sleazy attempt with ease and uniquely rebuffs each man.
o It’s a nice run of scenes that shows that Veronica isn’t a woman who is easily distracted by or privy to their usual chauvinistic tactics. Here she shows that she is not a woman to be messed with and demands a level of respect that the men seem incapable of showing to her.
• It is Ron’s attempt to hit on her that causes a visceral reaction from Veronica. She makes it clear to him: “You are pathetic. This has to be the feeblest pick-up attempt that I have ever encountered. I expected it from the rest of them but not from you.” But Ron turns things around and gets Veronica to take a tour of San Diego with him.
o Both Ron and Veronica have differing motivations for this outing together, Veronica making it clear that it’s not a date, while Ron clearly thinks otherwise.
• [While it’s not a scene with Veronica, it is a scene of foreshadowing of what’s to come involving her and Ron. At the end of a newscast, someone accidentally wrote a question mark at the end of Ron’s outro, making him say, “I’m Ron Burgundy?” The station head makes a point to tell the control booth (and the viewer), “For the last time, anything you put on that prompter, Burgundy will read.”]
• The next set of scenes shows us that Veronica is better educated and more aware of the world than Ron is.
o Since she is the antagonist, it is important that she be more skilled and better equipped than the hero, which she clearly is. But he has the skill of playing the jazz flute that impresses her.
o In this scene, Ron reveals his life’s goal: “To one day become a network anchor.” And it seems that he and Veronica “share the same dream.” Now we know that the protagonist and antagonist have a similar goal, which means they will both eventually end up in conflict to achieve this goal.
o In the end, Ron and Veronica wind up sleeping together and going to Pleasure Town. Veronica clarifies afterward that “it’s very important that I be viewed as a professional” and that “we should keep it fairly quiet around the station.”
• Ron, of course, yells at the top of his lungs at the station the next day that “Veronica Corningstone and I had sex, and now we are in love!” and on the air when he tells the viewers, “we are currently dating and that she is quite a handful in the bedroom.”
• Both moments tee up Veronica’s anger toward Ron in the following scene, where she is upset about his declaration on the air. She is concerned about this hurting her goal to become a network anchor, fearing that people will only see her as Ron’s “bimbo gal pal.”
o Ron woos her back and earn her forgiveness. They remain a couple.
• In Ron’s sudden absence at the station, Veronica makes her case to the station head and demands to anchor the news. She gets her chance and nails it, resulting in a rift between her and Ron when he finds out. In his mind, her goal of becoming an anchor “was a joke,” which leads to their break up.
o This is a big moment in the story and when the conflict between Ron and Veronica really heats up. Now, they are at war with each other.
• Veronica is announced as co-anchor of the news, which infuriates Ron even more, causing his childish behavior to escalate against her. Luckily, Veronica overcomes his immaturity and continues to thrive.
o Veronica’s oppositional behavior toward the sexism in the office has a strong effect on the other women working there, which causes the men to become more frustrated with her. Veronica is not just an Oppositional Force in Ron’s life but a Change Agent against societal norms. Neither bodes well for our chauvinist hero.
• When Veronica demands to use the tape machine Ron uses to watch his Emmy acceptance speech, the two get into a fight in front of the entire newsroom. Her final insult against Ron telling him his hair looks stupid leads to a literal fight between the two.
• In the next scene, Helen asks Veronica if she’s ever considered “fighting fire with fire.” Then she proceeds to tell Veronica that Ron “will read anything that is put on that Teleprompter.”
o As we discussed, this was foreshadowed earlier to establish that this was true. Now, we see this insight possibly being used as a weapon by our antagonist against the hero.
• And that’s what Veronica does, sabotaging this Teleprompter and causing Ron to say, “Go fuck yourself, San Diego” instead of “You stay classy, San Diego.”
o It’s a huge blow against the protagonist by the antagonist, resulting in his immediate firing from the station and destroying his reputation in the city. For the time being, it looks like the antagonist has won.
o Veronica does regret what she did afterward. However, her sabotage still gets her to her goal of being the lead news anchor for the station.
• When the panda, Ling Wong, goes into labor at the zoo, Veronica goes to cover the story and ends up being pushed into the Kodiak bear paddock by a rival news anchor. Trapped and unable to yell for help out of fear of waking the hibernating bears, Veronica is eventually rescued by Ron, his news team, and Ron’s dog Baxter.
THE ANTAGONIST’S FATE: Veronica and Ron end up a couple once again, and she winds up co-anchoring the network news with him. Both achieve their goals.
COMMENTS: Veronica’s role as the antagonist in the story is clever. She’s not evil; she’s the opposition primarily because she’s a woman in a male-dominated field. This helps add to the conflict between her and Ron due to their office romance and her desire to anchor the network news.
Their fates ending up in the same place – as a couple and as co-anchors – shows the protagonist’s growth as a character and also shows that the antagonist has reached their goal as well. Both are happy at the story’s end.
Come back Wednesday as we look at the antagonist for the film Dante’s Peak! See you then!
April 14, 2023
Antagonist April: Week #2 – Developing An Antagonist – Part Three
It’s Antagonist April, and all this month, I’ll be doing a deep dive into those characters that give our heroes and main characters opposition to their goals. This week, we’ll discuss developing a compelling antagonist for your story.
Let’s continue!
Let’s Talk About the Opposition to the Opposition
After all, without this individual, the antagonist would have free reign to create chaos and do whatever they want. And while that’s fine in theory, the protagonist exists to give the antagonist some pushback against what they want to achieve. This, in turn, creates conflict, increasing the story’s stakes.
Both characters need to have something to lose if they fail. The back and forth between the two should lead to an escalation in the stakes, and this escalation helps to propel the story forward.
“For the actions of the main character to be experienced as heroic, you need a very powerful antagonist. The more powerful the antagonist, the greater the likelihood that the main character will be perceived as heroic” (Dancyger & Rush 60). Let’s talk about a familiar movie: Die Hard.
When John McClane enters Nakatomi Plaza, he’s an unarmed NYPD cop just there to visit his ex-wife during a Christmas party. Little does he know that Hans Gruber and his goons are on their way to disrupt and wreak havoc throughout the building.
McClane is outnumbered but slowly takes out the opposition, goon by goon. But Gruber has the upper hand all the way to the climax when he has McClane’s wife at gunpoint, and stakes are escalated to a fever pitch.
Die Hard shows us that it’s okay – in fact, important – that your antagonist be stronger and more resourceful than the hero. Suppose they begin their conflict at the same level, or the protagonist has the upper hand from the start. In that case, it can drain any potential conflict or drama from the story. So, knock that hero off his pedestal. Have him wrongly accused of murder (The Fugitive), have them captured by terrorists and seriously injured (Iron Man), or send them to law school where they’re ostracized and an outsider (Legally Blonde).
At the same time, make sure the antagonist has the upper hand. They have all the tools, resources, and people to cause problems for the main character. Make the hero work for their goal, and allow the antagonist to enjoy their time, making the hero suffer.
Have Fun
I’ve said this in past posts, but it’s worth repeating: you must have fun and enjoy the process. Writing can be challenging, but creating a compelling narrative with strong characters should be an enjoyable experience.
Creating and developing a worthy opponent for your hero can be a cathartic experience. Most antagonists play by their own rules and moral code, so you can have a great time making them as eccentric and evil as you wish. This is the time to get it out on the page and explore this character’s many dimensions.
What can you bring to your antagonist that will make your hero fight harder than they ever have? What can you create that will make readers perk up even more when the antagonist appears?
If you are having issues and problems with your antagonist, you may want to look at their relationship with the protagonist and figure out how to mold the opposition into a character that really gets under the hero’s skin. One thing to think about as you create this important character is that “[a]ttacking the hero’s weakness is the central purpose of the opponent” (Truby 95).
Play around, enjoy the process, and have fun creating this key character in your story!
Week #2 Wrap-Up
This week we explored ways to develop a strong antagonist for your story. We discussed crafting a backstory for the character to give them depth and events in their past that could influence their current actions. We discussed their motivations within your story and talked about why they oppose the protagonist.
Then we discussed crafting an arc for your antagonist and ways you can elevate this character from a one-dimensional villain to a person with substance and nuance.
And finally, we discussed how this character’s role is to make life hard for the hero.
Once again, I’ve enjoyed sharing my thoughts and insights on antagonists, and I look forward to sharing more with you in the coming weeks.
Starting Monday, we’ll look at Case Studies focused on three movie antagonists. See you then!
Sources:
Dancyger, Ken & Jeff Rush. Alternative Scriptwriting. Focal Press, 2007.
Truby, John. The Anatomy of Story. Faber and Faber, 2007.
Let’s continue!
Let’s Talk About the Opposition to the Opposition
After all, without this individual, the antagonist would have free reign to create chaos and do whatever they want. And while that’s fine in theory, the protagonist exists to give the antagonist some pushback against what they want to achieve. This, in turn, creates conflict, increasing the story’s stakes.
Both characters need to have something to lose if they fail. The back and forth between the two should lead to an escalation in the stakes, and this escalation helps to propel the story forward.
“For the actions of the main character to be experienced as heroic, you need a very powerful antagonist. The more powerful the antagonist, the greater the likelihood that the main character will be perceived as heroic” (Dancyger & Rush 60). Let’s talk about a familiar movie: Die Hard.
When John McClane enters Nakatomi Plaza, he’s an unarmed NYPD cop just there to visit his ex-wife during a Christmas party. Little does he know that Hans Gruber and his goons are on their way to disrupt and wreak havoc throughout the building.
McClane is outnumbered but slowly takes out the opposition, goon by goon. But Gruber has the upper hand all the way to the climax when he has McClane’s wife at gunpoint, and stakes are escalated to a fever pitch.
Die Hard shows us that it’s okay – in fact, important – that your antagonist be stronger and more resourceful than the hero. Suppose they begin their conflict at the same level, or the protagonist has the upper hand from the start. In that case, it can drain any potential conflict or drama from the story. So, knock that hero off his pedestal. Have him wrongly accused of murder (The Fugitive), have them captured by terrorists and seriously injured (Iron Man), or send them to law school where they’re ostracized and an outsider (Legally Blonde).
At the same time, make sure the antagonist has the upper hand. They have all the tools, resources, and people to cause problems for the main character. Make the hero work for their goal, and allow the antagonist to enjoy their time, making the hero suffer.
Have Fun
I’ve said this in past posts, but it’s worth repeating: you must have fun and enjoy the process. Writing can be challenging, but creating a compelling narrative with strong characters should be an enjoyable experience.
Creating and developing a worthy opponent for your hero can be a cathartic experience. Most antagonists play by their own rules and moral code, so you can have a great time making them as eccentric and evil as you wish. This is the time to get it out on the page and explore this character’s many dimensions.
What can you bring to your antagonist that will make your hero fight harder than they ever have? What can you create that will make readers perk up even more when the antagonist appears?
If you are having issues and problems with your antagonist, you may want to look at their relationship with the protagonist and figure out how to mold the opposition into a character that really gets under the hero’s skin. One thing to think about as you create this important character is that “[a]ttacking the hero’s weakness is the central purpose of the opponent” (Truby 95).
Play around, enjoy the process, and have fun creating this key character in your story!
Week #2 Wrap-Up
This week we explored ways to develop a strong antagonist for your story. We discussed crafting a backstory for the character to give them depth and events in their past that could influence their current actions. We discussed their motivations within your story and talked about why they oppose the protagonist.
Then we discussed crafting an arc for your antagonist and ways you can elevate this character from a one-dimensional villain to a person with substance and nuance.
And finally, we discussed how this character’s role is to make life hard for the hero.
Once again, I’ve enjoyed sharing my thoughts and insights on antagonists, and I look forward to sharing more with you in the coming weeks.
Starting Monday, we’ll look at Case Studies focused on three movie antagonists. See you then!
Sources:
Dancyger, Ken & Jeff Rush. Alternative Scriptwriting. Focal Press, 2007.
Truby, John. The Anatomy of Story. Faber and Faber, 2007.
April 12, 2023
Antagonist April: Week #2 – Developing An Antagonist – Part Two
It’s Antagonist April, and all this month, I’ll be doing a deep dive into those characters that give our heroes and main characters opposition to their goals. This week, we’ll discuss developing a compelling antagonist for your story.
Let’s continue!
The Arc of the Antagonist
Once you’ve established where they came from and their motivations, you have to decide where the antagonist is in their life when they enter your story. Much like the protagonist, they are doing something else before they come across their current situation and are determined to reach a goal by the end of the story.
Both characters, of course, are out to prevent the other from achieving their primary goal. And, like the protagonist, the antagonist should be “as complex and as valuable as the hero” (Truby 89). So, while your main focus when writing your story should be on your hero and their actions, motivations, goals, and arc from start to finish, it’s also essential to give time to the antagonist and see what’s going on with them as the story unfolds.
After all, if they are human, they are experiencing emotions, feelings, setbacks, and victories, too. For readers to connect with the antagonist on some level, we have to be given insights into them as the story unfolds.
Look at Scar’s arc in The Lion King. His backstory – being second-born and having a nephew in line for the throne – motivates his desire to wipe out Mufasa (and Simba, too) so he can become king of Pride Rock. And his plan actually works! But he’s an ineffective leader. Once Simba returns from his self-imposed exile, Scar must face the consequences of his actions and is ultimately vanquished.
When it comes to “[a] novel, play, or any type of writing, really is a crisis from beginning to end growing to its necessary conclusion” (Egri 117). Giving readers a strong hero is important, but the opposition has to be equally as compelling and interesting to keep the story moving. You want to keep the audience in suspense, unsure how that hero will defeat their adversary or if evil will win in the end.
Think about other films or books where the antagonist has a strong story arc. These are usually the ones we remember best and have become a part of pop culture.
The Elevated Antagonist
What makes us like a villain? What makes them intriguing to us? What aspects of who they are can make us sad to see them go?
They aren’t just cookie-cutter, boilerplate bad guys. There’s something more to them. Something about them that connects with the audience. They make us laugh. They have a way of speaking or emoting that captivates us. We know they are the antagonist of the movie or book, and we know that we should be rooting against them. But when they’re around, we can’t look away.
The antagonist’s stance is “powerful and compelling, but ultimately wrong,” but that doesn’t mean they have to be a one-dimensional character (Truby 90). Finding ways to draw the audience into their world and humanizing them is a great way to give this character something more.
As you develop their backstory, jot down other activities they enjoy. Do they cook? Garden? Play board games? Do they enjoy dad jokes? Puns? One-liners? These are all things that can influence who they are and give readers a stronger sense of who they are as people.
The villain in your story “can only be humanized by making them vulnerable” (Vogler 74). Maybe they’re lonely and long for love, friendship, or happiness. Could you give us a relatable connection to them? It can still inform their actions and motivations even if it’s not mentioned outright.
Who are some antagonists that you have connected with and why?
There’s more to come! Antagonist April continues on Friday and all month long. See you then!
Sources:
Egri, Lajos. The Art of Dramatic Writing. Simon & Schuster, 2004.
Truby, John. The Anatomy of Story. Faber and Faber, 2007.
Vogler, Christopher. The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers. Michael Wiese Productions, 1998.
Let’s continue!
The Arc of the Antagonist
Once you’ve established where they came from and their motivations, you have to decide where the antagonist is in their life when they enter your story. Much like the protagonist, they are doing something else before they come across their current situation and are determined to reach a goal by the end of the story.
Both characters, of course, are out to prevent the other from achieving their primary goal. And, like the protagonist, the antagonist should be “as complex and as valuable as the hero” (Truby 89). So, while your main focus when writing your story should be on your hero and their actions, motivations, goals, and arc from start to finish, it’s also essential to give time to the antagonist and see what’s going on with them as the story unfolds.
After all, if they are human, they are experiencing emotions, feelings, setbacks, and victories, too. For readers to connect with the antagonist on some level, we have to be given insights into them as the story unfolds.
Look at Scar’s arc in The Lion King. His backstory – being second-born and having a nephew in line for the throne – motivates his desire to wipe out Mufasa (and Simba, too) so he can become king of Pride Rock. And his plan actually works! But he’s an ineffective leader. Once Simba returns from his self-imposed exile, Scar must face the consequences of his actions and is ultimately vanquished.
When it comes to “[a] novel, play, or any type of writing, really is a crisis from beginning to end growing to its necessary conclusion” (Egri 117). Giving readers a strong hero is important, but the opposition has to be equally as compelling and interesting to keep the story moving. You want to keep the audience in suspense, unsure how that hero will defeat their adversary or if evil will win in the end.
Think about other films or books where the antagonist has a strong story arc. These are usually the ones we remember best and have become a part of pop culture.
The Elevated Antagonist
What makes us like a villain? What makes them intriguing to us? What aspects of who they are can make us sad to see them go?
They aren’t just cookie-cutter, boilerplate bad guys. There’s something more to them. Something about them that connects with the audience. They make us laugh. They have a way of speaking or emoting that captivates us. We know they are the antagonist of the movie or book, and we know that we should be rooting against them. But when they’re around, we can’t look away.
The antagonist’s stance is “powerful and compelling, but ultimately wrong,” but that doesn’t mean they have to be a one-dimensional character (Truby 90). Finding ways to draw the audience into their world and humanizing them is a great way to give this character something more.
As you develop their backstory, jot down other activities they enjoy. Do they cook? Garden? Play board games? Do they enjoy dad jokes? Puns? One-liners? These are all things that can influence who they are and give readers a stronger sense of who they are as people.
The villain in your story “can only be humanized by making them vulnerable” (Vogler 74). Maybe they’re lonely and long for love, friendship, or happiness. Could you give us a relatable connection to them? It can still inform their actions and motivations even if it’s not mentioned outright.
Who are some antagonists that you have connected with and why?
There’s more to come! Antagonist April continues on Friday and all month long. See you then!
Sources:
Egri, Lajos. The Art of Dramatic Writing. Simon & Schuster, 2004.
Truby, John. The Anatomy of Story. Faber and Faber, 2007.
Vogler, Christopher. The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers. Michael Wiese Productions, 1998.
April 10, 2023
Antagonist April: Week #2 – Developing An Antagonist – Part One
It’s Antagonist April, and all this month, I’ll be doing a deep dive into those characters that give our heroes and main characters opposition to their goals. This week, we’ll discuss developing a compelling antagonist for your story.
Let’s get started!
Backstory
A strong narrative “requires that the Adversary be an actual person,” and it’s essential for you as the writer to know who they are and where they came from (Edson 57). This may be information that only you know; past experiences, traumas, or victories this individual had in their life before the story you’re writing. But these elements help add dimension to your antagonist. These aspects can assist you in deciding how the antagonist approaches problems, makes decisions, and how they react to a variety of situations.
You don’t have to travel back to when they were born, but if there are events in the antagonist’s childhood that explain why they are the way they are, then jotting those moments down can be helpful.
By giving your antagonist a past, you lift them out of the realm of a one-dimensional villain. There’s something in their background that affected them to the point that they have decided that your protagonist is their current opponent. The person who’s preventing them from getting what they want.
Taking the time to think through a bullet-pointed timeline of the antagonist’s life can also come in handy if they need to explain themselves at any point during the story. There has to be some legitimate reason – in their mind – why they are doing what they’re doing. Having those moments decided ahead of time gives you a story from their past to utilize.
In Avengers: Infinity War, Thanos has a moment like this with Doctor Strange.
https://youtu.be/-VtzR9l3QJw
In this brief conversation, Thanos reveals aspects of his backstory that inform his quest to acquire the Infinity Stones and eliminate half of all life in the universe. Notice how Thanos perceives himself versus how Doctor Strange perceives Thanos and his plan.
What’s My Motivation?
What is the reason the antagonist is doing what they’re doing? Why do they oppose the hero and their goals? Something happened in the antagonist’s life, either in the past or currently, that has driven them to the point where they must stop the main character at all costs. It could be something the protagonist did to them (Changing Lanes). It could be a plan the antagonist had in place that the protagonist tries to stop (Die Hard). No matter what it is, the antagonist must be motivated in their actions against the hero. There has to be a WHY!
While they can have the motivation to stop the main character, there has to be something larger in the antagonist’s world that they want to achieve. This is the element that the protagonist’s actions are preventing.
What motivates them? Greed? Power? Revenge? Those are fine motivations. But suppose we don’t know why they are motivated toward these goals. In that case, the character lacks any real weight, dimension, or interesting qualities.
Let’s look at Syndrome from The Incredibles. When he was younger and went by the name Buddy (aka Incrediboy), he wanted to help Mr. Incredible. Instead, he was told to “fly home.”
https://youtu.be/-f4oNHyHXpc
This rejection by his favorite superhero motivated Buddy to become Syndrome. His backstory influenced his motivation to transform into a supervillain determined to exterminate all superheroes from existence except himself. His final goal and motivation are given in the video below:
https://youtu.be/ea8ebpKM2JU
Notice that Syndrome and Thanos both have motivations based on past events that influence their behavior and goals in the present. This is why taking the time to create a backstory for your antagonist can often assist you in crafting a strong motivation for them as the opposition in your story.
We’re getting started! I’ll be back on Wednesday as we continue to explore antagonists all month! See you then!
Source:
Edson, Eric. The Story Solution. Michael Wiese Productions, 2011.
Let’s get started!
Backstory
A strong narrative “requires that the Adversary be an actual person,” and it’s essential for you as the writer to know who they are and where they came from (Edson 57). This may be information that only you know; past experiences, traumas, or victories this individual had in their life before the story you’re writing. But these elements help add dimension to your antagonist. These aspects can assist you in deciding how the antagonist approaches problems, makes decisions, and how they react to a variety of situations.
You don’t have to travel back to when they were born, but if there are events in the antagonist’s childhood that explain why they are the way they are, then jotting those moments down can be helpful.
By giving your antagonist a past, you lift them out of the realm of a one-dimensional villain. There’s something in their background that affected them to the point that they have decided that your protagonist is their current opponent. The person who’s preventing them from getting what they want.
Taking the time to think through a bullet-pointed timeline of the antagonist’s life can also come in handy if they need to explain themselves at any point during the story. There has to be some legitimate reason – in their mind – why they are doing what they’re doing. Having those moments decided ahead of time gives you a story from their past to utilize.
In Avengers: Infinity War, Thanos has a moment like this with Doctor Strange.
https://youtu.be/-VtzR9l3QJw
In this brief conversation, Thanos reveals aspects of his backstory that inform his quest to acquire the Infinity Stones and eliminate half of all life in the universe. Notice how Thanos perceives himself versus how Doctor Strange perceives Thanos and his plan.
What’s My Motivation?
What is the reason the antagonist is doing what they’re doing? Why do they oppose the hero and their goals? Something happened in the antagonist’s life, either in the past or currently, that has driven them to the point where they must stop the main character at all costs. It could be something the protagonist did to them (Changing Lanes). It could be a plan the antagonist had in place that the protagonist tries to stop (Die Hard). No matter what it is, the antagonist must be motivated in their actions against the hero. There has to be a WHY!
While they can have the motivation to stop the main character, there has to be something larger in the antagonist’s world that they want to achieve. This is the element that the protagonist’s actions are preventing.
What motivates them? Greed? Power? Revenge? Those are fine motivations. But suppose we don’t know why they are motivated toward these goals. In that case, the character lacks any real weight, dimension, or interesting qualities.
Let’s look at Syndrome from The Incredibles. When he was younger and went by the name Buddy (aka Incrediboy), he wanted to help Mr. Incredible. Instead, he was told to “fly home.”
https://youtu.be/-f4oNHyHXpc
This rejection by his favorite superhero motivated Buddy to become Syndrome. His backstory influenced his motivation to transform into a supervillain determined to exterminate all superheroes from existence except himself. His final goal and motivation are given in the video below:
https://youtu.be/ea8ebpKM2JU
Notice that Syndrome and Thanos both have motivations based on past events that influence their behavior and goals in the present. This is why taking the time to create a backstory for your antagonist can often assist you in crafting a strong motivation for them as the opposition in your story.
We’re getting started! I’ll be back on Wednesday as we continue to explore antagonists all month! See you then!
Source:
Edson, Eric. The Story Solution. Michael Wiese Productions, 2011.
April 7, 2023
Antagonist April: Week #1 – What is an Antagonist? – Part Three
It’s Antagonist April, and all this month, I’ll be doing a deep dive into those characters that give our heroes and main characters opposition to their goals. This week, we’ll explore the characteristics of an antagonist.
Let’s continue!
Help Wanted
Last time, we discussed how a narrative “requires that the Adversary be an actual person” (Edson 57). More importantly, this needs to be a singular entity that directly opposes the main character. That doesn’t mean, however, that the antagonist doesn’t have help. If the hero can have allies, so can the villain.
We see this all the time in action movies and superhero movies. The adversary sends out his legions of henchpersons and minions to eliminate, stop, kill, seduce, or maim the hero. Of course, we know as viewers that these attempts are in vain; the protagonist will eventually come face-to-face with the antagonist, and a final battle will ensue.
When these characters aren’t just nameless, faceless drones, the story and their interactions with the main character are more interesting. These antagonist-related characters are an extension of their boss, so while they have the same enemy - the protagonist - their tactics can vary to give them their own personalities and depth.
And speaking of tactics…
Antagonist Tactics
An antagonist will use every resource, ally, and weapon available to them to stop the hero from achieving their goal. Depending on the genre and situation, the sky’s the limit on how much opposition can be thrown at the protagonist throughout the story.
Just as the protagonist is active in pursuing a goal, the antagonist must also be active in their opposition. Pick any action movie and list all the active verbs that can be used to describe the antagonist’s tactics.
Some basic ones could be: to stop, to kill, to pursue, to seduce, to assault, to eliminate, to destroy, to prevent, to coerce, to convince, to arrest, to capture, to chase, to imprison, to invade, to evade, to hide, to attack, etc.
The more tactics the antagonist employs, the greater the danger for the protagonist as they work to achieve their goal. Don’t make things easy for your hero. Make them work for what they want. Make sure the opposition doesn’t let up and gives them a fight.
Week #1 Wrap-Up
As week one of Antagonist April comes to an end, it should be noted that “[t]he importance of the antagonist is constant across genres, but the nature of the antagonist depends on the level of realism associated with particular genres” (Dancyger & Rush 78). While these characters should be present to create conflict, make sure that the opposition serves the story and genre you’ve chosen.
We’ve covered a lot over the last three days. We learned what an antagonist is and the types of antagonists. We talked about why it’s important to only have one main antagonist in your story, how things aren’t always straightforward regarding antagonists being all bad, and the need to humanize the opposition through empathy and sympathy. Finally, we covered the role antagonist allies can play and the various tactics an antagonist can use in a story.
I’ve had a lot of fun, and I hope you have, too! Next week, we’ll discuss creating an antagonist for your stories and give you some tools to make that happen.
Happy Writing, and I’ll see you next week!
Sources:
Dancyger, Ken & Jeff Rush. Alternative Scriptwriting. Focal Press, 2007.
Edson, Eric. The Story Solution. Michael Wiese Productions, 2011.
Let’s continue!
Help Wanted
Last time, we discussed how a narrative “requires that the Adversary be an actual person” (Edson 57). More importantly, this needs to be a singular entity that directly opposes the main character. That doesn’t mean, however, that the antagonist doesn’t have help. If the hero can have allies, so can the villain.
We see this all the time in action movies and superhero movies. The adversary sends out his legions of henchpersons and minions to eliminate, stop, kill, seduce, or maim the hero. Of course, we know as viewers that these attempts are in vain; the protagonist will eventually come face-to-face with the antagonist, and a final battle will ensue.
When these characters aren’t just nameless, faceless drones, the story and their interactions with the main character are more interesting. These antagonist-related characters are an extension of their boss, so while they have the same enemy - the protagonist - their tactics can vary to give them their own personalities and depth.
And speaking of tactics…
Antagonist Tactics
An antagonist will use every resource, ally, and weapon available to them to stop the hero from achieving their goal. Depending on the genre and situation, the sky’s the limit on how much opposition can be thrown at the protagonist throughout the story.
Just as the protagonist is active in pursuing a goal, the antagonist must also be active in their opposition. Pick any action movie and list all the active verbs that can be used to describe the antagonist’s tactics.
Some basic ones could be: to stop, to kill, to pursue, to seduce, to assault, to eliminate, to destroy, to prevent, to coerce, to convince, to arrest, to capture, to chase, to imprison, to invade, to evade, to hide, to attack, etc.
The more tactics the antagonist employs, the greater the danger for the protagonist as they work to achieve their goal. Don’t make things easy for your hero. Make them work for what they want. Make sure the opposition doesn’t let up and gives them a fight.
Week #1 Wrap-Up
As week one of Antagonist April comes to an end, it should be noted that “[t]he importance of the antagonist is constant across genres, but the nature of the antagonist depends on the level of realism associated with particular genres” (Dancyger & Rush 78). While these characters should be present to create conflict, make sure that the opposition serves the story and genre you’ve chosen.
We’ve covered a lot over the last three days. We learned what an antagonist is and the types of antagonists. We talked about why it’s important to only have one main antagonist in your story, how things aren’t always straightforward regarding antagonists being all bad, and the need to humanize the opposition through empathy and sympathy. Finally, we covered the role antagonist allies can play and the various tactics an antagonist can use in a story.
I’ve had a lot of fun, and I hope you have, too! Next week, we’ll discuss creating an antagonist for your stories and give you some tools to make that happen.
Happy Writing, and I’ll see you next week!
Sources:
Dancyger, Ken & Jeff Rush. Alternative Scriptwriting. Focal Press, 2007.
Edson, Eric. The Story Solution. Michael Wiese Productions, 2011.
April 5, 2023
Antagonist April: Week #1 – What is an Antagonist? – Part Two
It’s Antagonist April, and all this month, I’ll be doing a deep dive into those characters that give our heroes and main characters opposition to their goals. This week, we’ll explore the characteristics of an antagonist.
Let’s continue!
There Can Only Be One
A story is filled with many characters and connections, but “the most important is the relationship between the hero and main opponent” (Truby 88). Notice opponent is singular, and that’s essential to remember as you develop this particular character. Even if the antagonist has others assisting them, it’s important to know that one person is the driving force causing all the chaos.
Since “the main opponent is the one person in the world best able to attack the great weakness of the hero,” they may employ a variety of helpers to assist them in their quest for destruction (Truby 89). Even if you have several oppositional figures in the story, you have to know who is in charge and who’s running the show.
Let’s look at two films where who this primary antagonist is can be up for debate.
Batman Returns
While we’re made to think that Catwoman or The Penguin are the film’s primary villains, I would argue that Max Shreck is the main antagonist. He “creates” both of Batman’s adversaries – one on accident, one intentionally – all to further his own corruption and political schemes. He even has interactions with Bruce Wayne where it’s clear they are at odds about Shreck’s involvement with The Penguin and his gang.
Since we can’t have three main villains running around, I vote for Max Shreck. Thoughts?
The World is Not Enough
I encountered another intriguing debate on Calvin Dyson’s James Bond channel. In this Bond film, you have two intertwined villains, but which one is in control? Check out the video to see Calvin’s analysis:
https://youtu.be/KUpnRD-Sd9Q
I believe Elektra King is the main villain of the film. She may have initially been a victim of Renard’s, but she seems to be calling the shots and out for vengeance against her father, M, and others who get in her way. Elektra uses Renard and his connections as a terrorist to get the resources she needs to complete her plans.
Plus, if the antagonist’s goal is exploiting the hero’s weaknesses, King does an excellent job manipulating Bond and making him believe she is a femme fatale while messing with him throughout the story.
Since “both hero and opponent believe that they have chosen the correct path, and both have reasons for believing so,” having a singular character in opposition is vital for a story to work effectively (Truby 90). Obviously, they can have others working for them, but ultimately the buck stops with them.
Things Aren’t Always Black and White
An antagonist isn’t always bad; likewise, a protagonist isn’t always good. In fact, “most [antagonists] do not think of themselves as villains or enemies” (Vogler 74). The antagonist is the hero of their own story; those who attempt to stop them are in the wrong.
We want the antagonist to “challenge the hero and give [them] a worthy opponent in the struggle,” but if the protagonist’s goals are ill-advised or problematic, does that make the antagonist the good person in the situation (Vogler 72)?
It’s important to note that this binary relationship isn’t predicated on the concept of good vs. evil. Characters can have ambiguity and grey areas that can show a darker side of the protagonist and a lighter side of the antagonist. Neither character should be one-dimensional, which allows you to create an antagonist with “some charming or thoughtful qualities” (Edson 58).
Humanizing the Antagonist?
Should we have sympathy for the opposition? Empathy? Should we be able to relate to their frustrations with the world and why they want to stop the hero? Often these characters are given pretty out-of-touch plans that make it hard for audiences to relate to them. Often, we may be amused by their plots, but ultimately, we know that good will triumph over bad and the world will be righted again.
But what if the antagonist is a father who experienced the loss of one child in his past and is opposed to his daughter going down a similar path? Or is the antagonist a best friend who warns the main character about dating someone they are suspicious of? Both situations can lead to audiences finding sympathy or empathy with the antagonist and wanting them to succeed or be right in their concerns.
Once again, we covered a lot, but there’s more to come! Antagonist April continues on Friday. See you then!
Sources:
Edson, Eric. The Story Solution. Michael Wiese Productions, 2011.
Truby, John. The Anatomy of Story. Faber and Faber, 2007.
Vogler, Christopher. The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers. Michael Wiese Productions, 1998.
Let’s continue!
There Can Only Be One
A story is filled with many characters and connections, but “the most important is the relationship between the hero and main opponent” (Truby 88). Notice opponent is singular, and that’s essential to remember as you develop this particular character. Even if the antagonist has others assisting them, it’s important to know that one person is the driving force causing all the chaos.
Since “the main opponent is the one person in the world best able to attack the great weakness of the hero,” they may employ a variety of helpers to assist them in their quest for destruction (Truby 89). Even if you have several oppositional figures in the story, you have to know who is in charge and who’s running the show.
Let’s look at two films where who this primary antagonist is can be up for debate.
Batman Returns
While we’re made to think that Catwoman or The Penguin are the film’s primary villains, I would argue that Max Shreck is the main antagonist. He “creates” both of Batman’s adversaries – one on accident, one intentionally – all to further his own corruption and political schemes. He even has interactions with Bruce Wayne where it’s clear they are at odds about Shreck’s involvement with The Penguin and his gang.
Since we can’t have three main villains running around, I vote for Max Shreck. Thoughts?
The World is Not Enough
I encountered another intriguing debate on Calvin Dyson’s James Bond channel. In this Bond film, you have two intertwined villains, but which one is in control? Check out the video to see Calvin’s analysis:
https://youtu.be/KUpnRD-Sd9Q
I believe Elektra King is the main villain of the film. She may have initially been a victim of Renard’s, but she seems to be calling the shots and out for vengeance against her father, M, and others who get in her way. Elektra uses Renard and his connections as a terrorist to get the resources she needs to complete her plans.
Plus, if the antagonist’s goal is exploiting the hero’s weaknesses, King does an excellent job manipulating Bond and making him believe she is a femme fatale while messing with him throughout the story.
Since “both hero and opponent believe that they have chosen the correct path, and both have reasons for believing so,” having a singular character in opposition is vital for a story to work effectively (Truby 90). Obviously, they can have others working for them, but ultimately the buck stops with them.
Things Aren’t Always Black and White
An antagonist isn’t always bad; likewise, a protagonist isn’t always good. In fact, “most [antagonists] do not think of themselves as villains or enemies” (Vogler 74). The antagonist is the hero of their own story; those who attempt to stop them are in the wrong.
We want the antagonist to “challenge the hero and give [them] a worthy opponent in the struggle,” but if the protagonist’s goals are ill-advised or problematic, does that make the antagonist the good person in the situation (Vogler 72)?
It’s important to note that this binary relationship isn’t predicated on the concept of good vs. evil. Characters can have ambiguity and grey areas that can show a darker side of the protagonist and a lighter side of the antagonist. Neither character should be one-dimensional, which allows you to create an antagonist with “some charming or thoughtful qualities” (Edson 58).
Humanizing the Antagonist?
Should we have sympathy for the opposition? Empathy? Should we be able to relate to their frustrations with the world and why they want to stop the hero? Often these characters are given pretty out-of-touch plans that make it hard for audiences to relate to them. Often, we may be amused by their plots, but ultimately, we know that good will triumph over bad and the world will be righted again.
But what if the antagonist is a father who experienced the loss of one child in his past and is opposed to his daughter going down a similar path? Or is the antagonist a best friend who warns the main character about dating someone they are suspicious of? Both situations can lead to audiences finding sympathy or empathy with the antagonist and wanting them to succeed or be right in their concerns.
Once again, we covered a lot, but there’s more to come! Antagonist April continues on Friday. See you then!
Sources:
Edson, Eric. The Story Solution. Michael Wiese Productions, 2011.
Truby, John. The Anatomy of Story. Faber and Faber, 2007.
Vogler, Christopher. The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers. Michael Wiese Productions, 1998.
April 3, 2023
Antagonist April: Week #1 – What is an Antagonist? – Part One
It’s Antagonist April, and all this month, I’ll be doing a deep dive into those characters that give our heroes and main characters opposition to their goals. This week, we’ll explore the characteristics of an antagonist.
Let’s get started!
What is an Antagonist?
Whether they’re called an antagonist, a villain, the opposition, the enemy, or an adversary, this character in your story is against whatever goal your protagonist or main character wishes to achieve. The antagonist “holds back the ruthlessly onrushing protagonist,” making their lives and plans more difficult throughout the story (Egri 116).
This particular character is an essential narrative component, helping to drive the conflict and the story forward. In fact, “[s]tructurally the opponent always holds the key, because your hero learns through his opponent. It is only because the opponent is attacking the hero’s greatest weakness that the hero is forced to deal with it and grow” (Truby 88).
If things go smoothly and without any problems, then you don’t have a story that will grab a reader’s attention. There has to be something present that pushes back on the main character, and that opposing force helps them reassess, reevaluate, and develop as a character throughout the story. Essentially, this happens because “the values of the opponent come into conflict with the values of the hero” (Truby 90). This clash in values creates the conflict that results in drama, and that dramatic engine helps drive the story forward.
Think about your favorite movie. Who is the main character? What is their goal? Who in the story opposes that goal and wants to prevent them from reaching it? That is your antagonist. They can be overtly oppositional or covertly oppose the hero. Still, their presence is needed to keep the story moving and the main character in a constant uphill battle to reach their intended goal.
A story’s antagonist is a force to be dealt with, and “by ‘forces of antagonism’ we mean the sum total of all forces that oppose the character’s will and desire” (McKee 317-318). It cannot be avoided; it must be faced by the hero and defeated by the end of the story. This is why an antagonist has to be presented as a formidable foe since “a strong enemy forces a hero to rise to the challenge” (Vogler 72). If the antagonist has no power or control over the main character’s world, situation, or goals, then they are not a viable opposing force.
This is why “[t]he Adversary must appear to be the most powerful character in the story” (Edson 57). They have to have a clear edge and advantage over the hero for there to be stakes for the hero to traverse and overcome. Classic Disney villains possess this quality and have all the power, control, and abilities that the hero of the story lacks.
Now that we know who they are, let’s discuss the various types of antagonists that exist.
Types of Antagonists
“The Principle of Antagonism: A protagonist and his story can only be as intellectually fascinating and emotionally compelling as the forces of antagonism make them” (McKee 317). Not all stories require a Marvel-style villain or a James Bond-level threat. Some stories have a human opposition that’s real and not out to take over the world.
Versus
These are the antagonists in comic book movies, action movies, or Bond films. They are oppositional forces that are clear-cut and easy to see for the adversaries that they are. In these cases, “[i]f the antagonist is evil, or capable of cruel and criminal actions, he or she is called the villain” (Abrams 225).
Sports films like The Rocky movies and other sports stories also utilize this type of antagonist structure. The opposing team or person may not be a villain, but their actions could be seen as unethical or tainted by negative qualities in the eyes of the hero.
Environmental, Social, Governmental
The antagonist is an oppositional force that is part of a larger system. However, it should be noted that “like every other type of story, man-against-nature movies work best when there’s also a human Adversary present” (Edson 60). So, even if the main driver of the story is a volcano, the hero has to have a human antagonist present to oppose them.
In the 1997 film Volcano, while the L.A.-based disaster is at the forefront, our main character – OEM Director Mike Roark – still has to deal with the oppositional opinions and ideas of seismologist Dr. Amy Barnes as the disaster unfolds.
When it’s a story dealing with a natural disaster, I feel that the opposing forces can disagree on how to deal with the situation, which could result in the antagonist’s demise in some disaster-related way. This is evident in the 1996 film Twister, where the storm-chasing opposition, led by Dr. Jonas Miller, is “in it for the money, not the science,” a sentiment that ultimately gets him killed thanks to his arrogance.
Societal antagonism can rear its ugly head in the form of racism, sexism, homophobia, and other society-based ills. While these can be overarching backdrops for a story, these need to have a singular adversary for the hero to confront. In the 2007 film, Hairspray, Tracy Turnblad fights against a whitewashed system that refuses to allow integration on a local TV show. Her opposition is Velma Von Tussle, who represents the bigoted and racist views of 1962 society in human form in the story.
It’s the same with government systems. The main character may be fighting the system, but the system needs a representative antagonist for the hero to confront and fight against. In the 1994 film, The Shawshank Redemption, Andy Dufresne’s antagonist is Warden Norton, the human face of the prison system that Andy must fight against - and ultimately escape - in the story.
In the societal and governmental areas, you want “one single, powerful character who’s every bit as committed to preventing the Hero from reaching her goal as the Hero is to accomplishing it” (Edson 56).
Realistic
While antagonists can often be bigger than life, imposing forces of evil and destruction, some antagonists are more realistic in their scope. Sometimes “[a]ntagonists may not be quite so hostile – they may be Allies who are after the same goal but who disagree with the hero’s tactics” (Vogler 71). A father who wants his son to forget about rockets and focus on his future in the coal mines, like in the 1999 film October Sky. The father wants what’s best for his son and wants him to have a realistic outlook on his future. This is in opposition to what the son wants, which in turn creates a realistic conflict.
This is why it’s good to remember that “[a]n Adversary is the main opposing force, but [they are] not necessarily a bad or evil person” (Edson 61). They might strongly disagree with the main character’s goals. They may want the main character to pursue something else, not do something they feel is problematic or even have had a tragedy in their past that influences their opposition.
Whew, that was a lot to cover! But we’re only getting started. I’ll be back on Wednesday as we continue to explore antagonists all month! See you then!
Sources:
Abrams, M.H. A Glossary of Literary Terms. Harcourt Brace, 1999.
Edson, Eric. The Story Solution. Michael Wiese Productions, 2011.
Egri, Lajos. The Art of Dramatic Writing. Simon & Schuster, 2004.
McKee, Robert. Story. Harper Collins, 1997.
Truby, John. The Anatomy of Story. Faber and Faber, 2007.
Vogler, Christopher. The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers. Michael Wiese Productions, 1998.
Let’s get started!
What is an Antagonist?
Whether they’re called an antagonist, a villain, the opposition, the enemy, or an adversary, this character in your story is against whatever goal your protagonist or main character wishes to achieve. The antagonist “holds back the ruthlessly onrushing protagonist,” making their lives and plans more difficult throughout the story (Egri 116).
This particular character is an essential narrative component, helping to drive the conflict and the story forward. In fact, “[s]tructurally the opponent always holds the key, because your hero learns through his opponent. It is only because the opponent is attacking the hero’s greatest weakness that the hero is forced to deal with it and grow” (Truby 88).
If things go smoothly and without any problems, then you don’t have a story that will grab a reader’s attention. There has to be something present that pushes back on the main character, and that opposing force helps them reassess, reevaluate, and develop as a character throughout the story. Essentially, this happens because “the values of the opponent come into conflict with the values of the hero” (Truby 90). This clash in values creates the conflict that results in drama, and that dramatic engine helps drive the story forward.
Think about your favorite movie. Who is the main character? What is their goal? Who in the story opposes that goal and wants to prevent them from reaching it? That is your antagonist. They can be overtly oppositional or covertly oppose the hero. Still, their presence is needed to keep the story moving and the main character in a constant uphill battle to reach their intended goal.
A story’s antagonist is a force to be dealt with, and “by ‘forces of antagonism’ we mean the sum total of all forces that oppose the character’s will and desire” (McKee 317-318). It cannot be avoided; it must be faced by the hero and defeated by the end of the story. This is why an antagonist has to be presented as a formidable foe since “a strong enemy forces a hero to rise to the challenge” (Vogler 72). If the antagonist has no power or control over the main character’s world, situation, or goals, then they are not a viable opposing force.
This is why “[t]he Adversary must appear to be the most powerful character in the story” (Edson 57). They have to have a clear edge and advantage over the hero for there to be stakes for the hero to traverse and overcome. Classic Disney villains possess this quality and have all the power, control, and abilities that the hero of the story lacks.
Now that we know who they are, let’s discuss the various types of antagonists that exist.
Types of Antagonists
“The Principle of Antagonism: A protagonist and his story can only be as intellectually fascinating and emotionally compelling as the forces of antagonism make them” (McKee 317). Not all stories require a Marvel-style villain or a James Bond-level threat. Some stories have a human opposition that’s real and not out to take over the world.
Versus
These are the antagonists in comic book movies, action movies, or Bond films. They are oppositional forces that are clear-cut and easy to see for the adversaries that they are. In these cases, “[i]f the antagonist is evil, or capable of cruel and criminal actions, he or she is called the villain” (Abrams 225).
Sports films like The Rocky movies and other sports stories also utilize this type of antagonist structure. The opposing team or person may not be a villain, but their actions could be seen as unethical or tainted by negative qualities in the eyes of the hero.
Environmental, Social, Governmental
The antagonist is an oppositional force that is part of a larger system. However, it should be noted that “like every other type of story, man-against-nature movies work best when there’s also a human Adversary present” (Edson 60). So, even if the main driver of the story is a volcano, the hero has to have a human antagonist present to oppose them.
In the 1997 film Volcano, while the L.A.-based disaster is at the forefront, our main character – OEM Director Mike Roark – still has to deal with the oppositional opinions and ideas of seismologist Dr. Amy Barnes as the disaster unfolds.
When it’s a story dealing with a natural disaster, I feel that the opposing forces can disagree on how to deal with the situation, which could result in the antagonist’s demise in some disaster-related way. This is evident in the 1996 film Twister, where the storm-chasing opposition, led by Dr. Jonas Miller, is “in it for the money, not the science,” a sentiment that ultimately gets him killed thanks to his arrogance.
Societal antagonism can rear its ugly head in the form of racism, sexism, homophobia, and other society-based ills. While these can be overarching backdrops for a story, these need to have a singular adversary for the hero to confront. In the 2007 film, Hairspray, Tracy Turnblad fights against a whitewashed system that refuses to allow integration on a local TV show. Her opposition is Velma Von Tussle, who represents the bigoted and racist views of 1962 society in human form in the story.
It’s the same with government systems. The main character may be fighting the system, but the system needs a representative antagonist for the hero to confront and fight against. In the 1994 film, The Shawshank Redemption, Andy Dufresne’s antagonist is Warden Norton, the human face of the prison system that Andy must fight against - and ultimately escape - in the story.
In the societal and governmental areas, you want “one single, powerful character who’s every bit as committed to preventing the Hero from reaching her goal as the Hero is to accomplishing it” (Edson 56).
Realistic
While antagonists can often be bigger than life, imposing forces of evil and destruction, some antagonists are more realistic in their scope. Sometimes “[a]ntagonists may not be quite so hostile – they may be Allies who are after the same goal but who disagree with the hero’s tactics” (Vogler 71). A father who wants his son to forget about rockets and focus on his future in the coal mines, like in the 1999 film October Sky. The father wants what’s best for his son and wants him to have a realistic outlook on his future. This is in opposition to what the son wants, which in turn creates a realistic conflict.
This is why it’s good to remember that “[a]n Adversary is the main opposing force, but [they are] not necessarily a bad or evil person” (Edson 61). They might strongly disagree with the main character’s goals. They may want the main character to pursue something else, not do something they feel is problematic or even have had a tragedy in their past that influences their opposition.
Whew, that was a lot to cover! But we’re only getting started. I’ll be back on Wednesday as we continue to explore antagonists all month! See you then!
Sources:
Abrams, M.H. A Glossary of Literary Terms. Harcourt Brace, 1999.
Edson, Eric. The Story Solution. Michael Wiese Productions, 2011.
Egri, Lajos. The Art of Dramatic Writing. Simon & Schuster, 2004.
McKee, Robert. Story. Harper Collins, 1997.
Truby, John. The Anatomy of Story. Faber and Faber, 2007.
Vogler, Christopher. The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers. Michael Wiese Productions, 1998.
March 31, 2023
Writing Exercise of the Week: Let’s Talk About Sports!
Hello, sports fans and non-sports fans! This week, I thought we’d dive into more description exercises using sports as our topic. Baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer, badminton, horse racing, the list goes on and on. No matter who you are, you can find some sport or game that piques your interest, and that is what this week’s exercise is all about.
Let’s get started!
Exercise #1
Pick a sport. Go on YouTube and find a short clip of that sport being played with the sound off. It can be a greatest moment highlight or a blooper, doesn’t matter.
As you watch, jot down notes on the following:
• What’s the sport? Is the clip professional or amateur?
• What happens in the clip? Jot down the beginning, middle, and end of the clip. Does it have a narrative arc?
• What’s the general tone of the clip? Are fans and players excited? Disappointed? Angry?
• What sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations are related to the game and clip?
• How would you describe the location where the game is being played?
• How would you describe the uniforms?
• Are there any fans that stand out in the crowd? Why?
Write a detailed descriptive narrative (500 words) about the clip. You can have it on hand for reference. Paint a picture with words and describe the scene as it unfolds. Make readers feel like they are at the game, taking in all the sights, sounds, and smells around them.
Exercise #2
In the same clip, choose a player. Any player.
• Describe their uniform, the colors, the team they play for, and if they have a name and jersey number.
• What are they doing?
• What’s their body language telling you?
• What do you think they are thinking during this moment?
• Where do they start the clip, and where do they end it?
Write a first-person narrative and have this player tell us what’s going on from their perspective. Give us their emotions, actions, and reactions to the events unfolding during the game.
Exercise #3
Find a clip of a sport or game you know little about. Don’t look up anything about the sport or game; just watch a few times without sound and answer these questions:
• Write down your first impressions.
• What do you think the basic rules are?
• How do you think the game is played?
• What are the players wearing?
• What are the fans doing during the game?
• What is the general mood at the game during the clip?
You’re a reporter who has to fake their way through writing about this game, but you have to do all you can to make yourself seem like you know what you’re talking about. Can you write about this sport or game, then hand what you wrote to someone else and be confident they’ll know what you’re talking about?
Why Am I Doing This?
Often when we write, we like to write about things familiar to us. But sometimes, we have to step outside the box and write about something new and different that we may not understand but need to describe in a way that makes us seem knowledgeable.
This is especially true regarding locations we write about but have never traveled to or objects we’ve seen in pictures but never encountered. It’s our job as writers to paint a picture with words that place the reader in that location, even if we’ve never been there ourselves.
Happy Writing, and I’ll see you next time!
Let’s get started!
Exercise #1
Pick a sport. Go on YouTube and find a short clip of that sport being played with the sound off. It can be a greatest moment highlight or a blooper, doesn’t matter.
As you watch, jot down notes on the following:
• What’s the sport? Is the clip professional or amateur?
• What happens in the clip? Jot down the beginning, middle, and end of the clip. Does it have a narrative arc?
• What’s the general tone of the clip? Are fans and players excited? Disappointed? Angry?
• What sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations are related to the game and clip?
• How would you describe the location where the game is being played?
• How would you describe the uniforms?
• Are there any fans that stand out in the crowd? Why?
Write a detailed descriptive narrative (500 words) about the clip. You can have it on hand for reference. Paint a picture with words and describe the scene as it unfolds. Make readers feel like they are at the game, taking in all the sights, sounds, and smells around them.
Exercise #2
In the same clip, choose a player. Any player.
• Describe their uniform, the colors, the team they play for, and if they have a name and jersey number.
• What are they doing?
• What’s their body language telling you?
• What do you think they are thinking during this moment?
• Where do they start the clip, and where do they end it?
Write a first-person narrative and have this player tell us what’s going on from their perspective. Give us their emotions, actions, and reactions to the events unfolding during the game.
Exercise #3
Find a clip of a sport or game you know little about. Don’t look up anything about the sport or game; just watch a few times without sound and answer these questions:
• Write down your first impressions.
• What do you think the basic rules are?
• How do you think the game is played?
• What are the players wearing?
• What are the fans doing during the game?
• What is the general mood at the game during the clip?
You’re a reporter who has to fake their way through writing about this game, but you have to do all you can to make yourself seem like you know what you’re talking about. Can you write about this sport or game, then hand what you wrote to someone else and be confident they’ll know what you’re talking about?
Why Am I Doing This?
Often when we write, we like to write about things familiar to us. But sometimes, we have to step outside the box and write about something new and different that we may not understand but need to describe in a way that makes us seem knowledgeable.
This is especially true regarding locations we write about but have never traveled to or objects we’ve seen in pictures but never encountered. It’s our job as writers to paint a picture with words that place the reader in that location, even if we’ve never been there ourselves.
Happy Writing, and I’ll see you next time!
