Good Evening. Welcome back to the darkest
corner of the Writers’ Lens as we continue the discussion on looking at Alfred
Hitchcock’s techniques and how we can employ them to our writing. Have you
heard a woman say they went to a movie, a play, or read a book and had a good
cry? You never hear someone say they had a bad cry. They wanted a good cry.
Have you ever noticed that when people go to horror or suspense movies, plays,
or read a book that there will be points where they will jump out of their
seats, maybe scream, and then . . .soon it is followed by a laugh? The
importance of these reactions is on the quality of the cry, the scream, the
surprise and the laugh. It a good reaction comes from hard writing and good
manipulation of the audience by the writer, director, and actors. So how do we
get there?
Hitchcock hated working with method actors.
They always questioned the directions that Hitchcock was giving saying that “I
don’t think my character would do that.”
Hitchcock would reply, maybe not so politely,
“Do what I tell you.”
The reason was
not so much as Hitchcock wanted to be bossy (ok, yes he wanted to be bossy),
but rather Hitchcock was manipulating character sympathy in the viewer.
Character sympathy is the third emotional state of writing. (See Writing Hitchcockian—the Three Emotional States of
Writing posted October 17, 2012) This is done
in every good book you read, play you see, or movie you view. Often the author
of the work had his or her own “method actor” to deal with as they wrote—some
character which didn’t want to express what needed to be expressed. I think,
but cannot prove, that this is why so many times we run across the writers
telling us how the character feels.
The
telling can be as simple as: Jane was mad as she stormed out of the room. Or it
could be done in dialog: “I’m so mad I
could just spit,” Jane said.
Would
either of those scenarios really elicit your sympathy for the character’s
emotional state? It wouldn’t mine. Where is the body language that implies how
mad they are?
A better
question: Isn’t there someway to show how mad the character is instead of just
telling the audience? The answer is yes.
There
are a lot of books written on body language and how to use it to read what a
person is feeling or thinking. There are books on the subject aimed at the
acting world to help actors improve their craft. There is also, now at least, a
great resource for doing this for writers that I recommend. You can find this
electronically. It is The Emotion Thesaurus: a Writer’s Guide to Character
Expression by Angela Ackerman and Becca Puglisi. This book came from posts
on their blog The Bookshelf Muse (http://thebookshelfmuse.blogspot.com/)
which has many great entries exploring emotions, settings, physical
attributes, character traits and more.
Using
the tool above, let’s relook at our mad character.
Without
dialog:
Jane,
turned on her heals, hiding her eyes that were moist from unreleased tears. Her
face was flush as her fists called, digging her lacquered nails into the soft
flesh of her palms. She walked toward the door, her back rigid, her chin high
and her arms sweeping back and forth as if making her walk a military march.
With
dialog:
“I
could just spit,” Jane said. Her legs were planted to the ground, as she flexed
her fingers and turned her flinty gaze at the door.
These
are simple examples, but at no point do I say that she is angry. But, you can
see it. The description should show the reader the level of emotion as well as
the emotion and tell something about the character. We know she is not
confrontational—or the situation will not let her be. We know in the first
example that she refuses to let anyone see that she is on the verge of tears.
We also can picture something about her hands, which tells the reader more about her.
In
the dialog example we can see her emotion from her eyes and that she is flexing
her fingers. We can also see that her anger is making her defiant because she
is standing planted to the ground.
By
using emotional description rather than just giving the emotion, the author can
give the audience more depth to the character and create character sympathy for
the character—even if that character is the antagonist.
Thank you for reading and please visit www.davidalanlucas.com andwww.thewriterslens.com. You can also follow me on twitter
@Owlkenpowriter and the Writer’s Lens @TheWritersLens. Fiction is the world
where the philosopher is the most free in our society to explore the human
condition as he chooses.
No comments:
Post a Comment