Wow, this is idea of the villain embodying some rather resented or even rejected aspect of the writer's psyche really resonated with me, played with that idea recently. Sometimes the worst manifestations of the person's egoistic defense mechanisms is dramatized and then assigned to the villain (definitely seen and done that), such as the tendency for some colder villains to reject their emotions and therefore their capacity for vulnerability. Love this guest!!
There should be antagonistic forces in every scene, even if there isn't a single antagonist. However, telling new writers "you don't need an antagonist" is going to get them thinking they don't need any conflict. After a year of struggling they'll discover how awesome it is to have a strong antagonist.
I love that when you go to a Film courage video, the comments are full of comments like this. Why does everyone have to immediately disagree with the points being made? If a new writer watches this and thinks “I don’t need conflict” it’s not this videos fault for leading them to that thought. Conflict is rule number one of storytelling, to rule it out over a video encouraging new perspective would be somewhat ridiculous
@@filmcourage I think he's making a very sophisticated point from the POV of a very experienced writer who knows how to do what he's suggesting. It's too easy for a young/new writer to hear this and think "Oh, good I can get by without doing the work of creating effective antagonistic forces for my main character." Furthermore, if someone critiques a script by saying there's no antagonist, they might have a good point! Not every antagonist needs to be Goldfinger or Darth Vader, but a script without any antagonist (or antagonistic forces) needs work.
@@dope8878 A lot of writers don't include conflict, sometimes unintentionally. Sometimes not. Plenty of naive young writers don't think they need it, think they're going to break new ground, etc. It wouldn't be the fault of this video, it's just something I've noticed a lot of people doing. As I said in my other reply, the critique of "I don't see an antagonist" could be perfectly valid.
The bit about defeating the antagonist through violence is really interesting. Im reminded how the ending of JAWS differs from the book to the film. We all know the ending to the film, the shark explodes in a very boisterous, very exciting, very violent way. The shark in the book just dies from its wounds. Its about to attack brody and is inches away, until it stops and sinks into the water, finally succumbing to the beatings it was taken. Obviously not as explosive and pretty lame on the surface, but apparently it ties into the book’s theme of humanity. Theres an article about it “The Shark Just … Dies” from thedailyjaws that explain it much better. The relevancy to this guys ideas on antagonists is pretty cool
With the struggle against the antagonistic forces, we learn the leitmotiv of the story. Who pushes the protagonist to evolve? Who entices the protagonist to acquire the skills to succeed? Who forces your protagonist to learn the moral of the story? The antagonist is the entity, that challenges the protagonist to become what they need to be.
Every story has some kind of antagonist, but it's often made to seem as if it has to be a person separate from the protagonist. The title of the video seems a bit misleading, but I get it.
This guy is a good teacher. The best example of what he's talking about is the movie "21 grams" (2003), Sean Pean, Naomi Watts and Benicio del Toro, directed by Alejandro González Iñarritu and written by Guillermo Arriaga. That movie is thrilling and compelling because none of them are good or evil, they just are caught in a very sensitive situation in their lives
It might be helpful for some writers to use Truby's definitions like "opponent" and "ally". They can be combined into "ally/opponent" and "opponent/ally". "Opponent" makes more sense if the main character isn't necessarily heroic, or in the case of romance/friendship, where the other party isn't "antagonistic" per se. Truby encourages the idea of a switch between opponent and ally. Mickey and Paulie could certainly be interpreted as flipping between these definitions in ROCKY, and of course '4 corner opposition', where different characters are shifted to the most extreme corners of the theme, where they have similar ideology/methods but different objectives or vice versa, and the impact of setting/social system.
Brilliant. The great writers are the ones willing to go into the dark depths of their own psyche. But I think projecting the issues as external characters (antagonists) is the safety buffer writers use for the preservation of their own mental health, but consequent catharsis should be for both writer and audience.
Yes there is. If it didnt exist -- physically or conceptually - there wouldn't be a word for it. Writing "advice" like this is so detrimental to learner writers because they think they can simply ignore the fundamentals of narrative. For every modernist/non-antagonist example you can think of there are thousands of pieces which have a classic hero vs villian setup. You think youre helping writers avoid cliche, but youre defanging a vital storytelling tool in their kit.
The antagonist is not always the "bad guy." And it's more interesting when they're not the villain. Furiosa in Fury Road is the antagonist to the protagonist, Nux. In the beginning of the film, his outlook is clear: he wants to give his life for Immortan Joe, and go to Valhalla. But Furiosa enters his life, changes his outlook. And he ends up giving his life in DEFIANCE of Immortan Joe. Furiosa's arc happens before the start of the film. In the Godfather, the main relationship is between Kate and Michael.
I've written a movie where the antagonist is the personality traits suffocating the protagonists. And, yes, they're based on my own weaknesses. Sadly, every producer we've seen insists on a generic "bad guy" antagonist.
We appreciate your comment. Matthew is from South Africa and wrote for the South African TV industry. Here and there we do get different perspectives from around the world.
I try to think less of "who" the antagonist is and more about what the antagonistic force is. That opens it up way beyond the black and white he talks about. I think more about what the source of the conflict is. In The Godfather there are many antagonistic characters but they all represent the world which Michael intitially resists - the antagonistic force in The Godfather, for me, is more about the seductive nature of the violent world they inhabit, code of honour and their own sense of what family is. Michael is doomed from the moment he says to Sonny, "It's not personal. It's strictly business." In Jaws, sure there's a bloody great shark chewing up the bathers, but other major antagonistic forces are the greed and denial of Amity's mayor and businesses, as well as Brody's own sense of not being part of the place he is meant to protect, and his own psychological fear of the water. Not just the shark.
The Bikeriders is a good example of a tardy antagonist. He’s also a personification of an idea that is itself the true antagonist of the film and so doesn’t himself play a major role so much as the idea itself does.
In EEAAO, Evelyn triumphs by embracing Waymond's belief system of kindness, no? But it works for that story because the opponent is a version of her daughter and her nihilism and sadness, and what Joy craves is acceptance from her mother, just as her mother craves it from her own father. It's authenticity vs acceptance. The outcome we want is a deeper connection for them, and a deeper connection for Waymond and Evelyn. Yes, westerns use violence and revenge most of the time, but isn't that just a metaphor for taking action and responsibility, not "might makes right"? Isn't that rooted in Greek myth not westerns or Marvel?
This man is conflating Antagonist with the Villain. Not all stories need a villain, but it is nearly impossible to create a story without any antagonists. Antagonists either create or embody external conflict, which most stories have. (I do not believe that THE protagonist and THE antagonist can be same person. That is a character arc, not an antagonist. Not unless you're writing a story with multiple POVs) His point seems to be that it is limiting to have a villain who is defeated with violence rather than through other means. Violence is great in stories, though of course not necessary. Let's not forget the understated reasons for it like metaphor, imagery, and catharsis. If the protagonist is to prove the thesis of the story or to Win in any way, it is usually through Defeating the villain. While you can have defeat without violence, it looks better and feels better for the character to demonstrate their defeat by proving it physically. Two people just talking isn't as interesting as them clenching fists and being right on the verge of fighting. And finishing off a villain will always mean more if it is shown physically or metaphorically by having them stumble, fall, get injured, die, or in some other way SHOW that they have crumbled. And through metaphor and imagery, that is best shown by the protagonist performing an action that represents their final blow. It could be pressing a button, a satisfied smile, drinking from a glass, but it is easiest and more impactful to use a violent act as the final blow to defeat the antagonist. That being said, the final blow in Endgame is Tony snapping, which is a non-violent act but of course the perfect comeuppance for that villain. That's the power of imagery. Proper imagery feels more cathartic.
Apollo is absolutely is the antagonist. He opposes rocky in every way . Rocky is a bum who could have been something , Apollo is the champ potential realized . Rocky wants to prove himself by winning the fight , he has to go through Apollo . I did agree 💯
I think a lot of western films suffer from following stereotypes. I have noticed that international films and tv shows have complex antagonists, in the sense that even if you want to dislike the antagonist you feel guilty for doing so because you know their motivations are mixed and complex. I would say the concept of good and evil has never been a clear concept it’s just that mainstream media has created a formula to create popular stories, which ultimately limits creativity
Have you stopped writing a story because you couldn't figure out who the protagonist was?
no, as he states -the antaganist are the distributers~
@@filmcourage I have frequently come to realize I don't have an antagonist in my initial outlines. Adding one really clarifies the story.
No
The "antagonist" is just the main character's hurdle that they have to overcome.
The antagonist is the agent of change for the protagonist. Sometimes that is a hurdle to overcome. Often they are not.
@@apocalypsetedium
Yes, but sometimes the main character doesn’t change their perspective, like in The Fugitive
Wow, this is idea of the villain embodying some rather resented or even rejected aspect of the writer's psyche really resonated with me, played with that idea recently. Sometimes the worst manifestations of the person's egoistic defense mechanisms is dramatized and then assigned to the villain (definitely seen and done that), such as the tendency for some colder villains to reject their emotions and therefore their capacity for vulnerability. Love this guest!!
He means sometimes the most compelling “antagonist” is internal. A limiting belief, lie a character believes, or core wound. This is great advice.
I totally agree with this writer it’s refreshing to hear a new perspective on this story method.
Cheers Aaron! We're glad this one reached you!
There should be antagonistic forces in every scene, even if there isn't a single antagonist. However, telling new writers "you don't need an antagonist" is going to get them thinking they don't need any conflict. After a year of struggling they'll discover how awesome it is to have a strong antagonist.
I love that when you go to a Film courage video, the comments are full of comments like this. Why does everyone have to immediately disagree with the points being made?
If a new writer watches this and thinks “I don’t need conflict” it’s not this videos fault for leading them to that thought. Conflict is rule number one of storytelling, to rule it out over a video encouraging new perspective would be somewhat ridiculous
What do you think is the main point that Matthew is trying to make?
@@filmcourage I think he's making a very sophisticated point from the POV of a very experienced writer who knows how to do what he's suggesting. It's too easy for a young/new writer to hear this and think "Oh, good I can get by without doing the work of creating effective antagonistic forces for my main character." Furthermore, if someone critiques a script by saying there's no antagonist, they might have a good point! Not every antagonist needs to be Goldfinger or Darth Vader, but a script without any antagonist (or antagonistic forces) needs work.
@@dope8878 A lot of writers don't include conflict, sometimes unintentionally. Sometimes not. Plenty of naive young writers don't think they need it, think they're going to break new ground, etc. It wouldn't be the fault of this video, it's just something I've noticed a lot of people doing.
As I said in my other reply, the critique of "I don't see an antagonist" could be perfectly valid.
This reminds me of John Truby’s teachings, which encourage a web of opponents rather than limiting the story to one single antagonist
John truby😅😅😅
The bit about defeating the antagonist through violence is really interesting. Im reminded how the ending of JAWS differs from the book to the film.
We all know the ending to the film, the shark explodes in a very boisterous, very exciting, very violent way.
The shark in the book just dies from its wounds. Its about to attack brody and is inches away, until it stops and sinks into the water, finally succumbing to the beatings it was taken.
Obviously not as explosive and pretty lame on the surface, but apparently it ties into the book’s theme of humanity. Theres an article about it “The Shark Just … Dies” from thedailyjaws that explain it much better. The relevancy to this guys ideas on antagonists is pretty cool
With the struggle against the antagonistic forces, we learn the leitmotiv of the story. Who pushes the protagonist to evolve? Who entices the protagonist to acquire the skills to succeed? Who forces your protagonist to learn the moral of the story? The antagonist is the entity, that challenges the protagonist to become what they need to be.
Every story has some kind of antagonist, but it's often made to seem as if it has to be a person separate from the protagonist. The title of the video seems a bit misleading, but I get it.
The story itself is the antagonist. If it's good, it will tickle the right emotions out of you as you read/watch it.
The antagonist is an obstacle to the protagonist's journey of improvement.
This is gold. Thankyou.
Hi Anthony, thank you for checking this one out! Glad you found value here!
This guy is a good teacher.
The best example of what he's talking about is the movie "21 grams" (2003), Sean Pean, Naomi Watts and Benicio del Toro, directed by Alejandro González Iñarritu and written by Guillermo Arriaga.
That movie is thrilling and compelling because none of them are good or evil, they just are caught in a very sensitive situation in their lives
Nothing goes smooth anywhere and for anybody
So name the debilitating force as,anything, but it needs to be overcome in every stage
It might be helpful for some writers to use Truby's definitions like "opponent" and "ally". They can be combined into "ally/opponent" and "opponent/ally". "Opponent" makes more sense if the main character isn't necessarily heroic, or in the case of romance/friendship, where the other party isn't "antagonistic" per se. Truby encourages the idea of a switch between opponent and ally. Mickey and Paulie could certainly be interpreted as flipping between these definitions in ROCKY, and of course '4 corner opposition', where different characters are shifted to the most extreme corners of the theme, where they have similar ideology/methods but different objectives or vice versa, and the impact of setting/social system.
Brilliant! 👏 👏 👏
Brilliant. The great writers are the ones willing to go into the dark depths of their own psyche. But I think projecting the issues as external characters (antagonists) is the safety buffer writers use for the preservation of their own mental health, but consequent catharsis should be for both writer and audience.
Yes there is. If it didnt exist -- physically or conceptually - there wouldn't be a word for it. Writing "advice" like this is so detrimental to learner writers because they think they can simply ignore the fundamentals of narrative. For every modernist/non-antagonist example you can think of there are thousands of pieces which have a classic hero vs villian setup. You think youre helping writers avoid cliche, but youre defanging a vital storytelling tool in their kit.
The antagonist is not always the "bad guy." And it's more interesting when they're not the villain. Furiosa in Fury Road is the antagonist to the protagonist, Nux. In the beginning of the film, his outlook is clear: he wants to give his life for Immortan Joe, and go to Valhalla. But Furiosa enters his life, changes his outlook. And he ends up giving his life in DEFIANCE of Immortan Joe. Furiosa's arc happens before the start of the film. In the Godfather, the main relationship is between Kate and Michael.
I've written a movie where the antagonist is the personality traits suffocating the protagonists. And, yes, they're based on my own weaknesses. Sadly, every producer we've seen insists on a generic "bad guy" antagonist.
Interesting. Still, I wonder if these interviewees have seen more than USA films...
We appreciate your comment. Matthew is from South Africa and wrote for the South African TV industry. Here and there we do get different perspectives from around the world.
Yeah, or generally other than colonial viewpoint.
I try to think less of "who" the antagonist is and more about what the antagonistic force is. That opens it up way beyond the black and white he talks about. I think more about what the source of the conflict is. In The Godfather there are many antagonistic characters but they all represent the world which Michael intitially resists - the antagonistic force in The Godfather, for me, is more about the seductive nature of the violent world they inhabit, code of honour and their own sense of what family is. Michael is doomed from the moment he says to Sonny, "It's not personal. It's strictly business." In Jaws, sure there's a bloody great shark chewing up the bathers, but other major antagonistic forces are the greed and denial of Amity's mayor and businesses, as well as Brody's own sense of not being part of the place he is meant to protect, and his own psychological fear of the water. Not just the shark.
The Bikeriders is a good example of a tardy antagonist. He’s also a personification of an idea that is itself the true antagonist of the film and so doesn’t himself play a major role so much as the idea itself does.
I could not agree more.
There are beautiful stories to be told without “something to get over”
If there’s no conflict, there’s no story.
@@StoryMissionThat’s what they tell us but I don’t agree.
@@lauraz.1610 There can be conflict without it being violent or destructive.
Ek wou sê Matthew is Afrikaans toe hy begin praat. Goeie onderhoud!
Well put -agreed
Steve Molton: internal antagonists and the 7 forms of conflicts
In EEAAO, Evelyn triumphs by embracing Waymond's belief system of kindness, no? But it works for that story because the opponent is a version of her daughter and her nihilism and sadness, and what Joy craves is acceptance from her mother, just as her mother craves it from her own father. It's authenticity vs acceptance. The outcome we want is a deeper connection for them, and a deeper connection for Waymond and Evelyn. Yes, westerns use violence and revenge most of the time, but isn't that just a metaphor for taking action and responsibility, not "might makes right"? Isn't that rooted in Greek myth not westerns or Marvel?
Interesting.
Damn interesting!
This man is conflating Antagonist with the Villain.
Not all stories need a villain, but it is nearly impossible to create a story without any antagonists. Antagonists either create or embody external conflict, which most stories have.
(I do not believe that THE protagonist and THE antagonist can be same person. That is a character arc, not an antagonist. Not unless you're writing a story with multiple POVs)
His point seems to be that it is limiting to have a villain who is defeated with violence rather than through other means.
Violence is great in stories, though of course not necessary. Let's not forget the understated reasons for it like metaphor, imagery, and catharsis.
If the protagonist is to prove the thesis of the story or to Win in any way, it is usually through Defeating the villain. While you can have defeat without violence, it looks better and feels better for the character to demonstrate their defeat by proving it physically.
Two people just talking isn't as interesting as them clenching fists and being right on the verge of fighting. And finishing off a villain will always mean more if it is shown physically or metaphorically by having them stumble, fall, get injured, die, or in some other way SHOW that they have crumbled. And through metaphor and imagery, that is best shown by the protagonist performing an action that represents their final blow. It could be pressing a button, a satisfied smile, drinking from a glass, but it is easiest and more impactful to use a violent act as the final blow to defeat the antagonist.
That being said, the final blow in Endgame is Tony snapping, which is a non-violent act but of course the perfect comeuppance for that villain. That's the power of imagery. Proper imagery feels more cathartic.
Good vid
Apollo is absolutely is the antagonist. He opposes rocky in every way . Rocky is a bum who could have been something , Apollo is the champ potential realized . Rocky wants to prove himself by winning the fight , he has to go through Apollo . I did agree 💯
Rocky's antagonist is life?
Lol right?
Himself. And poverty (possibly)… but then also Paulie and Mickey become “antagonistic forces”. But not Apollo Creed the guy he literally fights. 🤷
Can you be both an antagonist and a protagonist especially if the protagonist used the antagonist innocently or unknowingly?
Ideally, the antagonist enters the protagonist's life and in some way creates a change in them.
I think a lot of western films suffer from following stereotypes. I have noticed that international films and tv shows have complex antagonists, in the sense that even if you want to dislike the antagonist you feel guilty for doing so because you know their motivations are mixed and complex.
I would say the concept of good and evil has never been a clear concept it’s just that mainstream media has created a formula to create popular stories, which ultimately limits creativity
You must not be reading/watching a lot of quilt western literature lol some famous antagonists are exactly as you described from international media
Good anVIDtagonist.. lol
This is simply not true and not helpful.