yeah, it's a mouthful, huh?
Basically, it's the Sandman concept (Neil Gaiman's link is off to the side. He's a cool writer)with a strong sideways slant into Michael Hague.
Otherwise known as personification of an abstract idea.
In his book, Writing Screenplays that Sell, Hague says that to have immediacy, you should always have a person stand in for the "evil forces opposing your hero", ('das my words) yeah--well, he's right. It works.
Take Die Hard. Love the movie. BUT, terrorists--even bank-robbing kick ass terrorists in general--are no match for Hans and his crew. Terrorists--the anonymous blob--are not an immediate threat. Hans shooting that security guard in his first on screen appearance? Now that's immediate. He's there, he's amoral, and he's out to kill Bruce Willis. I mean, talk about a way to tighten the story.
Die Hard was written on so many levels. It's got to be one of the best book-to-movie adaptions of all time. I think...while it's good to have a specific villain, it's also good to have a lot of "meeting" points. The villain needs to reflect the "identity" (like Hague would say) of the hero. In other words, to be everything that the hero comes across as...but really isn't on the inside.
Hans will do anything to get what he wants. Bruce likes to think he's just a cop with a job to do. It's how he introduces himself to the limo driver. BUT, when the chips are down? There he is, going all noble because his inner essence is winning out over his outer Hans.
I think...I've been thinking too much about book three when I haven't finished number two yet. But I need a villain for Corlis and Fallon. I wish I could just do a Kim Possible and call HenchCO.
No comments:
Post a Comment