I don’t put a lot of stock in Rotten Tomatoes
scores, but I do think it’s impressive that last year Paddington 2, a movie about a lovable
bear living in London trying to buy his mother a birthday present, broke a pretty substantial
record. The film has a 100% Fresh rating after nearly
200 reviews, more than any other film to hit that milestone. It’s predecessor, underperformed with a
merely 98% rating. Have you no heart Goeffrey Macnab! Suffice it to say, both movies are as close
as you can get to universal acclaim, and they manage this despite the fact that they break
the first rule most writers will learn, that being that: the main character must have a
character arc. From the moment he is introduced, to the final
shot of the sequel, Paddington is kind, compassionate, and earnest. He always looks for the best in people and
he does not change at all. Is that a problem? Is the movie somehow lesser because the main
character lacks an arc? Of course not. But it *did* make me want to know: “Why does *not* having a character
arc work for this movie, and what kinds of stories are actually better
because the main character never changes?” [Music by Epidemic Sound--link in description] In her book “Creating Character Arcs,” K.M. Weiland looks at three kinds of character journeys: The positive change, the negative change, aaaand aaaand the flat arc. Today, I want to look at three
features of the flat arc— —how it handles theme, setting, and supporting characters— —to figure out why these stories are still compelling. [More music by Epidemic Sound] [More music by Epidemic Sound]
[almost like it's a new section of the video] But to understand the flat arc, I need to
talk briefly about the more common character arc: the positive change—and an element
of these kinds of stories Weiland calls The Lie The Character Believes. The most common format for a story is that
you start with a character who believes a lie about themselves or about the world. In Inside Out, for instance, Joy believes
that the only emotion that is valuable is ... ...well... ...joy. This causes her to act in a patronizing way
towards the other characters, especially Sadness. And it’s her belief in this lie that nearly
causes the destruction of her entire world. The /story/ acts as a crucible to change the
main character’s belief in their lie, and their /arc/ is about
embracing a new truth. The theme of the story is visible in the difference
between the two. Joy learns the value of sadness in Inside
Out, and that’s the theme of the movie. I recommend checking out Michael Tucker’s
video about Logan and Children over on Lessons From the Screenplay for a more in-depth analysis
of The Lie The Character Believes. The difference with a flat arc is that the
character begins the story believing in a specific truth. Paddington believes you can always find the
good in people. Katniss Everdeen in the Hunger Games is willing
to risk her life for her family and believes the government is evil. In Back to the Future, Marty McFly believes
that you should stand up for yourself against bullies. In Gladiator, Maximus believes that Rome should
be a republic and that it is a light in a dark world. My favourite example of this is the grossly
under appreciated 2009 comedy staring Jay Baruchel, The Trotsky, which is about a high
school student who thinks he is the reincarnation of Marxist revolutionary Leon Trotsky and
who leads a movement to create a student union at his high school. "My own wife who brings a picnic for Stalin over here who wants to destroy my business!"
"I have nothing but contempt for Stalin as you well know!" None of those characters have character arcs. They begin and end the story in different
places, but when it comes to their fundamental beliefs, they remain unchanged. For instance, a key line in Gladiator is when
Commodus sums up Maximus’ tumultuous life: “A general who became a slave. The slave who became a gladiator. The gladiator who defied an emperor. Striking story!” Despite his position in society constantly
changing, Maximus is still the same person at heart. The themes of these stories are often more
overt than in positive change stories, because the protagonist believes in the theme from
the start. This is in contrast to the story world surrounding
the main character. The protagonists of Flat Arc stories will
find themselves stuck in a society that they are fundamentally at odds with. That’s because, while they don’t believe
the Lie, almost everyone around them does. Paddington finds himself in opposition with
people who are unfriendly and distrustful of strangers. Katniss is disgusted by the excess and injustice
of the capital. Marty’s father is a coward, and it’s ruining
the McFly family’s life. Maximus is enslaved in an unjust world ruled
by an immoral dictator. And every student Jay Baruchel meets is apathetic
about politics. In each of these cases, the world is essentially
trying to trick, tempt, or gaslight the protagonist into believing in the lie. And while they can sometimes doubt themselves
or what the truth is… What possible difference can I make? …in the end, they never give up on trying
to reform the world around them. And this leads us to the most part element of
the flat arc: the supporting characters. You see, while the main character’s don’t
change, the supporting characters do. This is what actually made me notice this
in the Paddington movies in the first place, because a ridiculous number of character surrounding
Paddington have character arcs and all of them are explicitly the result of Paddington’s
angelic influence. In the first film, Mr. Brown becomes more
accepting of strangers, and by the second film, Paddington has made his neighborhood
a much happier place. Even when he is sent to prison, he transforms
his surroundings into a paradise, making every single person there a better, kinder version
of themselves, especially the abrasive prison chef, Knuckles. In the other movies we’re looking at, the
protagonists efforts are evident in how they change the story world. Katniss inspires people to rise up against
the government. Maximus inspires people to rise up against
the government. And in the Trotsky, Jay Baruchel inspires
students to take politics seriously. God, I love that movie. But their influence is also evident in how
they change key supporting characters who are typically allies. For instance, Maximus’s moral integrity
changes the amoral profiteer, Proximo, into a man willing to die for a cause. Are you in danger of becoming a good
man? Katniss’ actions cause Effie, among others,
to realize the mistakes of the government. And Marty teaches his father how to stand
up for himself in 1955, which radically transforms Marty’s 1985 reality for the better. And it's the fact that these supporting characters have character arcs that satisfies our need as an audience to witness some kind of change during the story. Now if you’re thinking of writing this kind
of story, it really isn’t all that different from the positive change arc that we’re
used to. The only thing that has changed is the perspective. Most stories have a character who does not
change their opinion when it comes to the central truth vs lie of the story. These are often the mentor figures, but it
can be any kind of character. What matters is that they are the catalyst
that changes the protagonist's mind. They’re the reason a protagonist has a character
arc. Weiland calls this the “Impact Character.” The difference is that in movies like Paddington,
the Hunger Games, Back to the Future, Gladiator and the Trotsky, the films are actually ABOUT
the Impact Character. You could easily rewrite them to be about
the characters who have arcs instead. So the general advice of “Your character
needs a character arc” is sound for a certain kind of story, but there is a whole other
tradition of storytelling out there where the characters do not change that can be just
as compelling. It seems to work particularly well for characters
who are politically-minded, characters who are rebels. And these kinds of stories are important. One of the reasons we enjoy stories is that
they reassure us that we can change. But movies with flat arcs assure us of something
else: that we can change the world around us without sacrificing our beliefs. These are stories about good people, inspirational
heroes, who spend their lives spreading a positive message in the hopes of radically
transforming the people around them and the world at large for the better. So yeah, in conclusion, that’s how you should
write a Superman movie! Now while these characters don’t have arcs,
they ARE still constantly trying to learn new skills. And if you’re trying to up your skill level
at writing or in other creative fields, then I recommend doing so with Skillshare. Skillshare is an online learning community
with over 20,000 classes to choose from in design, photography, video editing, creative
writing and more. Try the course by Simon Van Booy on building
a writing habit if you’re having trouble committing to a story, and sign up for the
premiere membership to get access to all of Skillshare’s classes. I want to thank Skillshare for sponsoring
this episode, and if you want to join the millions of students already on the platform,
you can get 2 months free by going to this link: https://skl.sh/justwrite4, in the description. Thanks for watching this video, and a big
thank you to my patrons for supporting this channel. Go to patreon.com/justwrite if you want to
pitch in a buck a video to help keep me going. Keep writing everyone!
I teach history, but I give my students a lot of room with the kind of work they do, and many of them want to write stories. I’ve been trying to guide them in that and I’ve literally been telling them that they should have a character arc. I really appreciated this video because it actually corrected me in a great way. Thanks.
That ending caught me off guard, I nearly spilt my drink. He’s 100% correct though.
Really cool video.
I also enjoyed the flash of James Gunn at 8:04
This was a great video, and not too long either.
Harvey is an interesting case not mentioned: It is a movie in which the main character changed prior to the frame of the story; in the story itself, he remains static while everyone around him changes in response to his lack of change.
I’m surprised they didn’t mention either of the Ant-Man movies.
Scott Lang is pretty static in both movies, while the only characters that actually grow and change are Hank and Hope.