How much attention should the support get..?

[hazuinf]

in a 20-25 minute short film?
I'm wondering how much attention (i.e. scenes following them and their story arc) the supporting character should get.
I'm writing a script for a short of that length with the police officer investigating the protagonist as the main secondary character, and I'm unsure as to how much time to dedicate to scenes following his end of the investigation. Any advice or tips are helpful.

[mussonman]

however much the writer decides. there are no rules in writing, but people tend to think there are. You can't please everyone, so even if they do get a lot of attention and you feel they should, someone reading/watching it will say "Those characters shouldn't have been focused on so much."

[GuerrillaAngel]

A 25-minute short is most likely 15 minutes too long unless you've got a truly amazing script, even then, maybe.

If you are looking to get into festivals or have your film seen by many, you'll need to tighten that script.

Good luck.

[hazuinf]

Originally Posted by mussonman

however much the writer decides. there are no rules in writing, but people tend to think there are. You can't please everyone, so even if they do get a lot of attention and you feel they should, someone reading/watching it will say "Those characters shouldn't have been focused on so much."

I see what you're saying. It's just that I feel I should focus on them a tad more, but I just can't think where it would seem natural to fit more scenes of him. Maybe I just won't. Thanks.

[hazuinf]

Originally Posted by GuerrillaAngel

A 25-minute short is most likely 15 minutes too long unless you've got a truly amazing script, even then, maybe.

If you are looking to get into festivals or have your film seen by many, you'll need to tighten that script.

Good luck.

Yeah, I haven't edited it at all yet, so it will most likely be cut down. I wasn't looking to get into festivals/show to lots of people with this one, but thanks for the advice for in the future

[wheatgrinder]

Just me thinking and regurgitating what Iv read and somewhat noticed on my own..


Characters are defined by their actions. The sum of the decisions made, regardless of the "characterization" define the DEPTH of the character.


From Robert McKee
http://www.writersstore.com/structur...-story-part-1/

"Character Versus Characterization

CHARACTERIZATION is the sum of all observable qualities of a human being, everything knowable through careful scrutiny: age and IQ; sex and sexuality; style of speech and gesture; choices of home, car, and dress; education and occupation; personality and nervosity; values and attitudes - all aspects of humanity we could know by taking notes on someone day in and day out. The totality of these traits makes each person unique because each of us is a one-of-a-kind combination of genetic givens and accumulated experience. This singular assemblage of traits is CHARACTERIZATION... but it is not CHARACTER."

---------------------------------




Working from the bottom up..

Some characters performs actions that fit their characterization.
Example: A guy dressed like a waiter puts plates on a table.



Some characters act CONTRARY to characterization.
Example: A hit man interrupts a "job" to help a little girl with her homework.



The more MEANINGFUL the contrary action (contrary to Characterization) the more DEEP the character and the more LEADING the role.


Bit parts have little no contrary actions
Supporting roles might have some contrary actions.
Lead Role has the most.

If your supporting character is revealing deep inner life by contrary actions, then maybe its not a supporting role. Make that character "less" complex, or make you lead character more so.

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

In a short of that length you BARELY have time to develop a protagonist. The secondary characters are generally fairly two dimensional.

[CharlotteGould]

Thanks for sharing.

[hazuinf]

Originally Posted by wheatgrinder

Just me thinking and regurgitating what Iv read and somewhat noticed on my own..


Characters are defined by their actions. The sum of the decisions made, regardless of the "characterization" define the DEPTH of the character.


From Robert McKee
http://www.writersstore.com/structur...-story-part-1/

"Character Versus Characterization

CHARACTERIZATION is the sum of all observable qualities of a human being, everything knowable through careful scrutiny: age and IQ; sex and sexuality; style of speech and gesture; choices of home, car, and dress; education and occupation; personality and nervosity; values and attitudes - all aspects of humanity we could know by taking notes on someone day in and day out. The totality of these traits makes each person unique because each of us is a one-of-a-kind combination of genetic givens and accumulated experience. This singular assemblage of traits is CHARACTERIZATION... but it is not CHARACTER."

---------------------------------




Working from the bottom up..

Some characters performs actions that fit their characterization.
Example: A guy dressed like a waiter puts plates on a table.



Some characters act CONTRARY to characterization.
Example: A hit man interrupts a "job" to help a little girl with her homework.



The more MEANINGFUL the contrary action (contrary to Characterization) the more DEEP the character and the more LEADING the role.


Bit parts have little no contrary actions
Supporting roles might have some contrary actions.
Lead Role has the most.

If your supporting character is revealing deep inner life by contrary actions, then maybe its not a supporting role. Make that character "less" complex, or make you lead character more so.

Thanks a bunch, that's really helpful. Not only with the question, but also in development of characters for future projects.

[hazuinf]

Originally Posted by Gonzo_Entertainment

In a short of that length you BARELY have time to develop a protagonist. The secondary characters are generally fairly two dimensional.

Haha, yeah. There are only two speaking roles, so it frees up a little bit more time per character, but I see what you're saying.