Vulnerable
So I watched The Wrestler with Mickey Rourke on Saturday night. I can understand why it got good reviews, though to me it felt more like a character sketch (albeit an excellent one) than a complete story. It lacked depth on some level. However, Rourke's performance was heartbreaking (and I see why he won awards for it). Heartbreaking in more ways than one.
I used to love Mickey Rourke--before the steroids, the boxing, the destroyed face, the drugs. He was explosive and interesting to watch. Now he's fascinating for a whole other reason. And the movie was no vanity piece. It was like watching an up-close view of a train wreck. Here was a character who was falling apart in every way, struggling to self-tan out of a can and hold on to the remnants of a career when he was long past his prime.
I think it takes a brave actor to be THAT vulnerable and THAT much of a mess on film. It was difficult to watch, it was so vulnerable. I felt the same way watching Ryan Gosling in one of my favorite films, Half-Nelson. While Ryan is a LOT easier on the eyes, his performance was no less wrenching and hard to watch. Same holds for all the actors in Requiem for a Dream, a slit-your-wrists film if ever there was one. (Incredible . . . and by the same director as The Wrestler.)
I bring these movies up as a lesson for myself. Sometimes, in creating the most riveting characters, it's good to remember to make them vulnerable, to see them hurt, abused, down on their luck, between a rock and a hard place, destroyed, before lifting them out of that place again. This is different from character flaws. I think it's too easy to fall on easy flaws (drinks too much, smokes too much) and never take a character to the really scary, wrenching, want-to-turn-away vulnerable places that expose them. Maybe it's because we don't want to travel there ourselves. Maybe we're too invested in creating a "hero" or "heroine."
But vulnerability adds depth.
Thoughts?
26 comments:
I think there's a tendency to go too easy on our main characters because a lot of times we identify with them. But it's often our job to make them miserable. I guess we get to play God and Satan all at the same time.
Mark:
I think the problem (at least as I saw it in these movies) is we don't mind putting them through hell, as long as they look pretty while we're doing it.
E
Another mind boggling blog, as well as a great movie tip. I loved Rourke in Pope of Greenwich Village. I'm putting The Wrestler on my Netflix list.
When I wrote my second finished ms, the main character was a chronically down-on-his luck guy who assumed his life wasn't supposed to be any other way. Well, I was the VULNERABLE one, releasing it to the eyes of people whom perhaps weren't cut from the same writing cloth. I thereafter tried making him more "tolerable," but then decided that maybe I needed to stop trying to please the wrong people.
Life and learn, right?
Hi Kath!
There are risks in taking a character so far down. But it also, in movies, makes for riveting performances. And I think the same holds for books.
E
I think the threshold for vulnerability is different for MG--although my character is going through some really rough stuff in the beginning of the novel. But I counter that with abstract, other-worldly stuff, and keep the vulnerability to small doses. I think that kids need some relief. Some escape from identifying with a vulnerable character.
In fact, I need some escape right now from real life vulnerability. Urgh.
I read the post title, and asked, is Erica in my house right now? Can she see me through the computer screen? ;-) Because vulnerable is exactly what I am feeling. And that means that it's time for a change.
Heather:
I am sure it depends on the story. If you look at Harry Potter, the poor guy went through A LOT. LOL! Though he never lost his heroic glow. So yeah. I definitely see what you are saying. But I find the heros who are so much larger than life . . . . I just can't invest in them in the same way as I do a vulnerable character.
Writers are vulnerable too. They expose a lot about themselves, even in their fictional characters. To me, that was one of the hardest things about having a commercially published book.
Re. Harry Potter, JK Rowling has noted that in real life Harry would probably be either psychotic or a basket case just based on the traumas he went through. I found the books post-death of Sirius Black to be interesting because Harry was so damned angry--with everybody--and it was tough sometimes to feel sympathy for him, even though you knew why he was acting the way he was. She pulled it off, but I don't think it was easy.
Joe:
Absolutely. One or two books left me feeling completely naked, and I loathed that feeling. I liked WRITING those books because I knew I was digging deep, but having them published was more difficult emotionally. There is a huge difference between sharing with my writers' group and sharing with the whole world.
E
Mark:
I think by then, readers were so invested in Harry, they were more patient with his anger. I remember a lot of reviewers though, starting off with variations of "In this book, Harry is angry. All the time."
E
Heather touched on MG, and I do think there's a difference in how vulnerable you can get with your characters in MG and still keep it marketable. Your audience IS vulnerable, they have limited control of their real lives and decisions, so it becomes important for the author to find ways to build their story and infuse the character with a bit more independence than a kid would normally have. There's no set in stone method here, and there's more depth in mg than a lot of adult readers and writers realize, I think... but that naked vulnerability, I think is kind of a hard sell in that age bracket.
And again with the in my head posts!!! I'm working through this bit by bit now, because gut wrenching is powerful, but you have to balance really carefully. If you go too dark for too long, even with brilliant writing, your audience might not be up for the journey.
Daggonit. You took my blog post for the day! I was just going to write about being honest. Well, if I do write it, I swear I'm not copying. :-)
Harry #5 was the first one I didn't read four times in a row. In fact, it took me five or so years to read it the second time. I didn't even like it the first time. (MUCH better the second time through.)
I put my characters through hell, but I worry about the same thing. I always fear that it is too much. There's a line, where any normal reaction gives the first impression of making them weak. I'm really struggling with keeping or deleting my prologue. But it doesn't work without it, but I'm not sure. Ugh.
I don't like the characters in a book to suffer, real down-and-dirty suffering, because I'm there with them in their suffering. Perhaps I identify to much with the characters to enjoy seeing them suffer.
All the characters in my current wip are vulnerable in some way or another, yet they all deal with it differently. I just realized that not one of them turns to drugs or alcohol. Huh.
I've slipped a couple thoughts of my own into my teenage character -- things I've never said out loud -- and I'm curious what kind of reaction they'll get. I have a feeling my mother will be the only one who will identify it with me personally.
merry:
I definitely hear you. Of the three movies I cited, I cannot ever imagine stomaching Requiem again and had I known how dark it was, despite the amazing imagery in it, I would not have watched it. I just don't want to "got there," though I recognize the art in the film.
Natasha:
I hear you on the honesty thing . . . and it is a fine line I think all writers who do this for a while have to learn to navigate. Though . . . I suppose some can stay on the surface depending on the kinds of books they write.
E
FF:
That is why I struggle with conflict. I can do external conflict inflicted on a couple but conflict BETWEEN them is hard on me as a writer--I just have a terrible time with it.
E
melanie:
As the mother of two teens, I have plenty of fodder. :-)
E
I have such a hard time watching movies like that. The same with Precious and Brothers, which are out now. Very intense movies. I don't know if I can watch them. While watching the Blind Side with Sandra Bullock, I used up all the kleenex in my purse. And it wasn't a sad movie, though there were sad moments.
My characters are damaged, but like Harry Potter, they aren't self-destructive. The damage comes from others. It might be interesting in the future to have a main character who's been self-destructive.
I think a vulnerable protagonist eventually needs to slap himself in the face and get on with it.
Jude:
If you saw the Wrestler, I think you would understand. It's not vulnerable, like wimpy, it's warts and all and being honest with audience.
E
Edie:
The coming attractions for both of those look so raw.
E
I did see the Wrestler. I think the slap comes when he volcanically quits his job at the meat counter. Then he gets back to the ring and goes out on his own terms, like any proper hero should. He was a winner, and gave us at least something bittersweet to cheer for, because in the end he did it his way. That was my take, anyway.
I'm finding that Trinidad is much less vulnerable than my other characters. I have a problem with creating unbreakable characters. I sense he needs a break. His walls are all falling down and he has almost no reaction. In fact, Castile even calls him on it. So obviously that's me, telling myself to make him fall, hard.
Starbucks:
One of my editors worked with me on that--you know, having spots when you see what's udnerneath all the toughness.
E
Thanks for this post. I definitely need to add more vulnerability to some of my characters in my WIP.
Post a Comment