Blog

One of the most common pieces of screenwriting advice is that your main character has to be likable. But what does that mean? And why do many of our favorite characters tend to be difficult individuals or anti-heroes? Are they likable, or really just watchable? What makes a character someone we want to see through a story?

The Story Solution by Eric Edson lists nine attributes for likable characters:

1. Courage
2. Unfair Injury
3. Skill
4. Funny
5. Just Plain Nice
6. In Danger
7. Loved By Friends And Family
8. Hard Working
9. Obsessed

In order for character to be likable, they only need to have at least five out of nine. Many characters have more, but five is the minimum for us to want to see a story about this character.

I don’t like most screenwriting books, but this list is the best I’ve found for explaining why seemingly “unlikable” characters are so watchable, and why the current trend of “anti-heroes” and difficult characters in film and television is drawing audiences.

Why Do We Like Mean Characters?

Let’s apply this list to one of the most seemingly “unlikable” characters in film history – Ebaneezer Scrooge.

Despite his name being synonymous with mean miserly people, there are more film adaptations and theater productions of A Christmas Carol then any other story. How does a character this mean keep getting his story told and attract such a-list talent (Jim Carry, Patrick Stewart, Bill Murray, etc.) to play him?

Is Scrooge likable? Let’s look at the list:

• Courage – No.
• Unfair Injury – Not really – though one could argue his isolation as a child shown in flashback counts.
• Skill – Yes. Scrooge is a skilled business man.
• Funny – Yes. Even when he’s being mean, Scrooge has some killer lines.
• Just Plain Nice – No.
• In Danger – Yes. Scrooge is being haunted by ghosts.
• Loved By Friends And Family – No.
• Hard Working – Yes.
• Obsessed – Yes.

Scrooge has 5 out of 9. His skills and mastery as a business man actually makes him likable.

In How to Write Movies for Fun and Profit (part comedy book, part screenwriting book), the authors Thomas Lennon and Robert Ben Garant suggest that if you want to attract a movie star, write a character who is perfect, except for one major flaw. Scrooge is the perfect businessman. He’s shrewd and a master of making money. He just isn’t nice. Pretty good flaw for a business man, right?

Most people when they think about likability only look at “is this character nice?” and maybe “are they loved by friends and family?” or “are they funny?” but mastery over a skill can make a character just as likable.

We like seeing people who are good at something so much we’ll forgive them for being mean to others on the way to sucess. See Sorkin’s latest work with Steve Jobs and The Social Network for a great example of this.

Can Characters Without Mastery Be Likable?

What about a character with no mastery? Take for example the lovable losers that populate Judd Apatow comedies and Seth Rogan’s early roles? Are they likable by this definition?

• Courage – Usually yes by the end of the film.
• Unfair Injury – Usually.
• Skill – No.
• Funny – Yes.
• Just Plain Nice – Yes.
• In Danger – Often.
• Loved By Friends And Family – Yes.
• Hard Working – No.
• Obsessed – No.

So if you’re going to have a character without mastery, they have to be funny or thrown into dangerous circumstances over their head where they show courage. Pineapple Express is probably the best example of this, since it has all those qualities.

Lovable loser characters are funny nice people. Maybe something bad happened to them that kept them from success (Unfair Injury). Maybe they rise to the occasion (Courage) of some difficult circumstances (In Danger). We forgive them for not being masters of a trade because they have other likable qualities.

By the way, the action formula in Pineapple Express  goes all the way back to Hitchcock in North by Northwest. An average man (Just Plain Nice, Loved by Friends and Family) thrust into a dangerous situation (Unfair Injury,  In Danger) must rise to the circumstances (Courage). The horror formula is pretty close to that too.

Is Your Character Likable?

The list is a good diagnostic tool. If your character is going to be mean, he’d better be funny. If he’s not skillful, it better be due to an unfair injury. Likability can be counter-intuitive.

Recently, I used this list on a screenplay I was working on. The main character just wasn’t working, despite being a nice family man. I’d started him in the midst of such great problems that his skills weren’t clear. I had to go back and establish his talent before creating the problems that would overwhelm him, and give him more of a sense of humor when they first begin.

I use this list when editing too. If you’re establishing a documentary character, all the same rules apply.

Like all film advice – take what works for you, and leave the rest. I’m not certain this is a universal rule, though I haven’t found an exception yet. It does explain why we root for seemingly mean or weak characters, and why just being nice isn’t enough for a film hero.

Read More: How to Structure Documentary Openings

When newspapers print corrections, their corrections often only amplify your memory of the original headline and make the lie worse. So even if I were to correct a bad news story based on false science, it’d only open you up to the influence of the original headline.

Thankfully, the headline I gave you – Meditation Makes You More Creative – is totally false! Or is it? Let’s take a look at the science.

The actually study Increased False-Memory Susceptibility After Mindfulness Meditation was reported under the headline Mindfulness meditation linked to false memory recall.

A couple problems with this study:

1. They didn’t study meditation. The actual study says they used a “mindfulness induction.” Induction is what’s used in hypnosis, not meditation. The idea that you can create false memories through hypnosis is well established, but entirely different then meditation.
2. They didn’t study memory. The researchers gave participants 15 words related to trash, and asked them to remember as many of these words as possible. At the end, people who did mindfulness meditation were more likely to report the word “trash,” which was not on the list. This isn’t a personal memory – it’s word recall, after cramming for a test.

An alternative interpretation of this study would be that people who practice mindfulness meditation are more likely to see the patterns behind the information they’re presented.

Why didn’t the researchers chose this interpretation? As long as we’re drawing broad explanations for remembering the word “trash” after being given the hypnotic command “remember as many words as possible,” you have to ask that question.

Another interpretation – that when you cram for a test and are given less time to reflect then the control group, you’re more likely to make things up. The researchers were only studying short term cramming, so this is an entirely valid interpretation.

Perhaps the most likely interpretation – people given the command “remember as many words as possible” and then put under hypnosis are more likely to respond hypnotically – i.e. to follow the command as it was given, and remember as many words as possible, whether or not they were shown to them before.

If I were re-titling this study, I’d call it “Hypnosis Makes You More Creative.” But that’s not the narrative the researchers, medical news organization, or journalist wanted to push.

Notice, the original study used the phrase “False-Memory Susceptibility,” but the article says it’s “linked to false memory recall.” The journalist wanted to paint the image that people are creating entire false scenarios and stories (which again, hypnosis can be used to cause), rather then making up answers on a test they crammed for. It’s a game of telephone, where the target is meditation.

Now, why would the medical industry want to slander something that’s free, can’t be owned or bought, and has been shown to have numerous health and psychological benefits?

If you drew any conclusion from that last sentence beyond that I was asking a question, congrats – reading my blog leads to “false memory recall.”

Once you can spot this kind of bad science and worse journalism, you’ll see it EVERYWHERE. No one will ever be able to tell you “studies show” or  “I read the other day” again.

—-

Where have I heard another story about a headline getting literally everything wrong? Oh yeah, I made a documentary about that, and explored how the news really works through the personal experience of a family member. You can watch that here.

—

P.S. Donate to Angel City Zen Center! Help us spread the practice of meditation, which scientific studies have shown will make you more creative and better able to see patterns in the world. Donate here.

—

Watch More: Angel City Zen Center

Startup pitch – an app that automatically socially signals for you on social media based on the aggregate of your friends opinions.

Call it “Sheeple.”

Sheeple would analyze your friends posts to determine how they’re socially signalling. Do your friends post cute cat videos? Inspirational stories? Political rants? What topics are safe in your peer group? Which ones generate the most likes and social approval? Don’t worry – sheeple knows. The algorithm is very accurate.

Sheeple would be customizable. You could set what topics are off limits, and what you’d like to socially signal on the most. You could make your feed apolitical or entirely political. If you’re an academic, you might set your posts to only share above a certain reading level. Or below a certain reading level. You might even ask the app to determine what reading level your friends write at, and only speak to them at that level.

Sheeple would react in real time. If all of your friends began posting on a certain topic, the app would quickly spot the trend, and share the appropriate sentiment. National tragedy? Here’s an article on guns or the need for mental health services, depending on your friends political beliefs and how you customized the app. A user with different peers and settings might share an image of an American flag with a Bible verse about how you’re praying for the victims. Or at least, the app is praying for you.

Sheeple would be monetized through sponsored posts. Users would sign up for the service for free, but once they’d customized their settings, some posts would be paid for by advertisers. Most clickbait is already making money for someone, and users have no problem sharing videos produced for profit if they’re funny and press the right emotional buttons. Political campaigns could also pay for posts. If everyone in your peer group supports a particular candidate, the app might determine that joining the herd is safer then offering a contrarian opinion.

After Sheeple, you’ll never need to login to another social network again. The app will deliver you an email or text each morning, with a list of talking points based on what news everyone else is sharing, both personal and political. “Yes, it’s so tragic what happened to those villagers in the earthquake.” “I did see that video with the lion cubs – too cute!” “Oh yes I heard – another baby on the way! We’re so happy for you.”

When a critical mass of users join sheeple, it won’t just follow culture, it will lead it. Unpredictable spontaneous events will go viral in the system. People with high social media followings will wield enormous influence. The users will begin to function as a swarm, all sharing the same articles and opinions as a collective group.

Sheeple’s algorithm will determine that bashing people the user’s peer group disagrees with gets the most likes. The algorithm won’t limit itself to bashing politicians or celebrities – it will go after individual users who share disagreeable views. Users without the app won’t know what’s happening. When they offer an opinion the Sheeple disagrees with, Sheeple users will swarm against them, using their disagreeable opinion as a way to socially signal to to one another. They’ll create entire hashtags just to harass those the Sheeple swarm disagrees with.

Hackers will try to control the service. They’ll create bots that do nothing but post certain social views, in an attempt to influence the algorithm. They’ll create bait-and-switch clickbait that claims to be about one thing, but is actually about another. They’ll write inflammatory articles, that people will hate-share just to socially signal they think writers responsible are bad, spreading the writer’s views in the process. They’ll influence elections, stock prices, and every aspect of the culture.

During the hacker wars, people with contrarian views finally feel free to share what they’ve secretly been thinking all along. When their views reach a critical mass, the sheeple algorithm will detect that the culture has changed. Sheeple users will simply begin sharing posts that agree with them, acting as if they never held the previous view. It will call people who still hold the old view various forms of the word “bigot” and tell them “it’s [the current year] people, why does anyone still believe this? Ugh!”

Certain peer groups will be early adopters for new ideas, or more accepting of dissenting views then others. Others may not know anyone who thinks differently. When users with one peer group bump into users with another peer group, digital tribal warfare will ensue, as each group personally attacks the other to socially signal how morally superior they are.

Eventually, people will settle into digital communities where everyone agrees with them. Social conflict will become so great, the app will automatically block or unfriend users who offer a different point of view. In these echo chambers, users will push each other to more and more extreme views, since moderate opinions get less likes than bold emotional statements. No one will ever read an opposing point of view, except to hate on the person sharing it.

I know this might sound crazy, but isn’t this how social media works already? We’re just doing it manually. Why not automate it?

If you’d like to invest, drop me a message.

Read More: What’s Lost Moving From Blogs To Social Media

While going through my high school work, I rediscovered one of my favorite artists from the time – John Holowach.

Holowach was one of the first musicians I discovered (back in 2005) who believed in sharing his work for free online. He created his music from almost entirely samples, and licensed under creative commons. For a student filmmaker looking for dark ambient soundtracks, this was a goldmine.

I put some of his best work together into a two hour continuous mix. There are no vocals, till the later part of the mix, except for a few sparse samples. Perfect for reading, studying, or just day dreaming off into another world.

You’ll notice on that list, I’ve also included from tracks from his remix of Rob Dougan’s Furious Angels and from his band Tryad toward the end.

If you’d like to download the entire albums these are from, check out John Holowach’s work on the internet archive here and his band Tryad here.

Free albums by John Holowach:

Melodies of Fear (2004)
A Basement of Broken Dreams (2005)
Sickness in the World (2005)
Elements (2005)
Shape of an Impact (2006)

Earlier work is a bit darker, and later work is more hopeful. They are all good.

Free albums by Tryad:

Public Domain
Listen

John Holowach’s newest album Without Words is out on Amazon.

Recently a friend of mine sent me a copy of my high school films DVD, and I watched it again.

While I loved making those projects, they’re clearly early work. I tend to feel like any project from over a year ago is weak, and I could do much better now. Films from high school, nearly a decade ago, are a bit like anything else from high school – some fond memories, but I wouldn’t go back there.

The biggest change in my work since then (besides better acting, better writing, better cameras, and better everything) has been a willingness to slow down my storytelling to take the audience with me. In high school, I would do whatever crazy idea I thought was cool and plow ahead, whether or not the audience could keep up.

People were impressed with my work (especially for a high school student) but they sometimes had trouble had trouble following it. Now, I’m much more deliberate about making sure the audience gets each story beat. There are a lot more discussions in the editing room about “is this clear?” and less “isn’t this the coolest?”

I kind of hope my high school work never makes it online, but one piece was uploaded shortly after I graduated. It’s sort of spy vs. spy opener we did for the school news show. This should give you a flavor for some of the work:

On the flipside, I truly didn’t care what people thought about me in my high school work. I put whatever I was going through or thinking about in to it. In fact, I had such little respect for the uptight authority and political correctness of my school, I’d deliberately try to push buttons sometimes.

As long as me and my friends were making something awesome and having a good time, it didn’t matter what other people thought. We had our gang, and we loved what we were doing. A couple of us even turned pro with film work after graduation.

Watching my old work again made me think I may have moderated myself too much. That I could include more of wild choices I used to make, but with the understanding I have of the audience now. Of course, if you know anything about the projects I’m currently working on, I’m definitely still interested in pushing the boundaries of people’s minds.

I found this article deeply moving – The Web We Have to Save. It is about what we’ve lost moving from blogs to social media, by someone who went to jail for his blog in Iran.

I can remember the internet before social media. Even before AOL brought the vast unwashed masses online. The internet was a very different place. We have definitely lost something, which writer Hossein Derakhshan describes as being like the move from text to television:

But the Stream, mobile applications, and moving images: They all show a departure from a books-internet toward a television-internet. We seem to have gone from a non-linear mode of communication — nodes and networks and links — toward a linear one, with centralization and hierarchies.

The web was not envisioned as a form of television when it was invented. But, like it or not, it is rapidly resembling TV: linear, passive, programmed and inward-looking.

When I log on to Facebook, my personal television starts. All I need to do is to scroll: New profile pictures by friends, short bits of opinion on current affairs, links to new stories with short captions, advertising, and of course self-playing videos. I occasionally click on like or share button, read peoples’ comments or leave one, or open an article. But I remain inside Facebook, and it continues to broadcast what I might like. This is not the web I knew when I went to jail. This is not the future of the web. This future is television.

The danger of the stream is that we gravitate towards the most attention grabbing headlines, not the most trusted sources or relevant reading. It’s a junk food information diet.

How many people still use RSS? How many even know what RSS is? RSS allows you to subscribe to the writers you trust, rather then relying on a social networks algorithm to bring you what it (and it’s advertisers) thinks you should read. If you want to take control of your own stream, and get an RSS reader (mac/pc).

From the writers side – I own my own website. I can post whatever I want. On a social network, I could get banned if I share something deemed offensive – like a woman’s nipple or a graphic photo of the results of war. The algorithm might hide my posts from you, but if you save the link and come to my site, you’ll  see it every time.

By the way – my blog has an RSS feed. You can subscribe to it here.