In The Great Train Robbery, there is no singular character--a protagonist--with which to identify. Within a few years, there would be one or more protagonists in most narrative films. In your opinion, do audiences need a main character (or a series of main characters) to identify with? Or is it possible to make a successful film without a clear set of main characters? You may keep your answer brief and use examples if you like.
or, Alternate Question:
In Goodfellas, what is the impact of the final sequence and the inserted shots of Joe Pesci firing his gun toward the camera? What do you think it means?
I think for the masses, it is easier for a film to be successful if it has a clear couple protagonists, but that is not to say that films can be good and successful without them. An example that comes to mind might be Burn After Reading. You could argue that there are 5 "main" characters, but none that you necessarily follow the entire story with. All of their stories intertwine and they seem to have equal weight. It is not your usual story and plot which I think it was leaves room to go astray from the current norm of a clear protagonist. I do think that the people watching The Great Train Robbery from today's era would maybe feel unattached to the story because of the lack of a "main" character.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with James, Burn after reading is a perfect example. Sometimes its really interesting to be involved with 5 different characters, and if the director and writer handle the material properly, the audience can be invested in all the characters. However, the majority of the cases, most directors cant handle the complex balance of multiple characters on screen, ater all, it was the Coen brothers who directed this film.With that said, not every movie needs to have 5 characters. in fact, i think for the majority of film viewers, a movie requires at least 1 main character to identify with. When we study film and are passionate about film, we become more risky with our choices in film. We often enjoy fresh techniques and new film structures. However, the mass audiences need somebody to root for, to identify with, to watch them overcome an obstacle, to cry with, to laugh with, to relate with and sometimes even hate that character. I think the Great Train Robbery was a technological achievement and created a narrative which allowed us to somewhat relate to the film. However, having nobody to relate with, it was difficult to feel sympathy for all the innocent people who came across the robbers. I felt no guilt when the robber through a person off the train, maybe because that person clearly was a plastic dummy, rather because i had no idea who that person was. Did that person have a family, do they have children, are they a hard worker trying to feed his/her wife and kids. All this back info adds to a movie, so i think its important to think about the mass audiences, and sometime remember that we are different from most people. We are cinema lovers who are passionate about art. We think about film, we discuss film and we are part of a unique group. Im sure that many people might argue that a main character is needed, just remember, your cousins, moms and dads, girlfriends and boyfriends, they may be different. they may be the people that need someone to guide them through a story. They may need the initial set up, and finally sit back and relax,take there mind of the world, and just enjoy spending time with a character who will take them on a journey, a journey of love, adventure, action, horror, romance or even comedic. And this is not a bad thing at all, this is a great thing, being able to sit back and watch a movie without analyzing, thinking or critiquing all aspects of that film. We are different, and therefore we know more about this then the masses, and therefore we may not need a central character to guide us through a movie, but this doesn't represent the majority, it represents all of us, the group with a passion of film, history and all aspects of the arts.
ReplyDeleteHello everyone, it's Carlos Martinez: The only one who is probably using their AIM screen name for this blog site.
ReplyDeleteJaymes and Daniel, I took the time to read your responses and I completely agree! Most films now-a-days DO have at least one or two protagonists in a film so the audience can relate to, although it's not necessarily required in order to have a successful film.
I haven't seen Burn After Reading, so I can't give an opinion on that. However, I would also like to add that by adding 1-2 protagonists in a film, you're allowing to create some sort of familiarity for the audiences. And with familiarity comes admiration, whether the main character is bad or good. It can create a frenzy of merchandise to sell as a result of a successful movie with a main character such as Harry Potter. So I feel that having a protagonist in a film can branch out to much more. Also, little kids always have some sort of role model that they want to look up to, whether it's their parents, grandparents, older siblings, etc. Having protagonists allows children to look up to that character that sticks out, like Superman for example. The formula works for comics and television shows as well.
Another point I'd like to bring out is that by having a main character, it automatically adds variety within the cast. You have the antagonists and supporting characters who may be the comedic relief in the film or has some sort of purpose to contribute in the film. It then allows you to have "favorites", and can branch out to a wider audience. For example, a fan of the Toy Story franchise may not have liked Woody or Buzz's character too much, but had admiration for Mr. Potato head's character in the films.
With that being said, a film CAN be successful without the need for a main character, but many more doors open up in the sense of merchandising and the audience's expansion of interest.
I think most audiences need main characters to identify with in movies. They require it to stay interested in the story. Most people only care about themselves and the people they know well. So it only makes sense that audiences won’t care about movie characters that haven’t been properly characterized. If you don’t know enough about a character, if you don’t know their quirks, hopes, and flaws, there’s nothing for you to hold on to, and there’s little, if anything, for you to like. So in general, main characters make movies more engaging and memorable. However, I still think a film could be successful without main characters, it would just have to be very experimental. For instance, it could cater more to spectacle or aesthetics, but it certainly wouldn’t be able to have a common or traditional plot.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe it's completely necessary for a film to have one main character. While most narrative films follow this formula, many successful films have been made and in the future will be made with a detraction from a solitary character. In general it seems as though plot flows more naturally and easily with a single character but as films like Crash, Babel, The Breakfast Club, and Pulp Fiction have shown, it's not impossible to make a quality film with an ensemble cast. The plot element that I feel is vital to these films, almost integral to them working is a moral or issue that is either overtly or outwardly present. For example in Crash, the issue was clearly discrimination in the United States. Without seeming too preachy, Crash used pathos to captivate it's audience despite having more than one main character.
ReplyDeleteIt all depends on what you think makes a film successful. For me, a film is successful if I walk away from it and continue to think about the film for several days after watching it. I have never done this with a film without a protagonist. A protagonist is essential to feel a connection to the film and also be able to emphasize or understand why someone chose to act a certain way. without a protagonist it is difficult to form some sort of connection to the film.
ReplyDeleteI think that having at least one protagonist is the most universal to draw in the audience. It is always going to be the best way to make a connection with the majority of the audience. However, I do think that some of the other techniques like those used in "The Great Train Robbery" can also speak to the audience and make them feel included in or involved with the film. For example the man firing into the camera or a close up on someone's expression. I would personally prefer to have a protagonist, but I appreciate the more diverse and maybe experimental methods of audience inclusion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the majority. The construction of most films today provide a protagonist and an antagonist that are identifiable to the audience, however we've seen excellent ensemble cast films time and time again. I'd assume it's a harder feat to have an equal flow of importance throughout a larger group of characters or a group prime celebs. As viewers we're used to having main characters on our plate, but films such as Bobby, Lord of the Rings, the Oceans, Black Hawk down, and other rich ensemble films have been just as successful. I'd actually prefer watching a film cast assembled like Bobby over any other.
ReplyDeleteWithout at least one main character from whose point of view to witness the story, the events in a film play out almost like a newsreel. It may just be the deeply ingrained need for main characters after years and years of watching movies made under that structure, but I feel that a story lacks humanity if we're simply spectators watching events play out onscreen. In order to garner sympathy and a true audience-film connection, I feel there should be someone to guide us along in order for the story to be effective.
ReplyDeleteAudiences need a main character/group of characters in a film. I suppose it could be possible for a film to be successful without a protagonist, however, I can't think of any examples. If there isn't someone to identify with or root for, then people won't be vested in the film. They'll think, "so what?" While I was watching The Great Train Robbery, I felt apathetic about the film because I was not familiar with any one of the characters. What makes a film compelling is the protagonist. Without someone, or even multiple characters, to focus on there is not much of a story.
ReplyDeleteIn the final scene of 'The Great Train Robbery' one of the robbers points his gun towards the camera and fires. The reason is believed to be that the director wants the audience to realize that they are taking part in the violence. The final scene of 'Goodfellas' imitates it with Joe Pesci firing his gun toward the camera. You could argue that Scorsese is trying to make the same point, but I believe it is just an homage to 'The Great Train Robbery'. Scorsese is a known film history buff and makes many references to older films in his movies. He wanted to pay tribute to a classic and influential film.
ReplyDeleteI think a protagonist is helpful to help the audiences' absorption of the meaning and conflict of the film. with someone to be involved with all the pivotal action, someone to pause and verbally reflect on their feelings of the situation is an aid to the viewer, who are not always stupid but are more or less treated as infantile people who can only remember the essence scene before the current one. a protagonist is the emotional Shepard, and helps the viewer to empathize and feel more involved with the story. I'm not saying a protagonist is necessary but it's a tool in which the story i told. Facts and emotion are also passed between an ensemble cast with no real protagonist, but there must be not a lot of confusion in action or dialogue if you want the viewer to not lose attention. many actors are beneficial for a good character writer. character is always important, but if you have one protagonist, how they react to the situation must be interesting...how characters relate to each other is important in movies with lots of lead actors.
ReplyDeleteObviously having a core main character would be ideal but sometimes not neccessary. As someone above mentioned, 'Crash' did just fine and won an Oscar for Best Picture with an ensemble. I do believe though, in order for a film to do well without someone to root for, there needs to be perfect writing. Writing can change the fact whether we root for this group of people against that group of people. I'd prefer a main character because only so many films, historically speaking, have been good or done well without one major hero.
ReplyDeleteI must agree with most comments here. It is true that having one main character that we follow throughout the movie and with who we identify makes it easier for the movie to flow since we are only seeing situations with one person mainly involved and mostly from their point of view. However this can be sometimes too easy, and having an ensemble cast where we have to deal with several different characters and their feelings can make the movie more thought-provoking. It causes us to reflect on the different characters and how they fo through the different situations. I definitely feel that movies can be greatly successful without one specific protagonist though they are more difficult to pull off.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though although it is preferred to have one main protagonist for the audience to connect with in a film, having more than one protagonist can work, and has worked, in narrative films. One main character allows the audience to connect to that person and the movie on a deeper level, yet having more than one central character can broaden the story and actually work in a film. I think having more than one main character in a film works really well when the story is told, then in the end all of the characters end up relating to each other in the end, and the story comes full circle. In my opinion I don’t think it really matters how many characters a film has, just as long as the character development is done well and the audience can connect to the character(s).
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, not all movies need a specific protagonist in order to successfully enthrall an audience. The recent "ensemble" movies have simply not gotten it right, because they treat the lack of a main character as a problem and try to cover it with too many characters, rather than embracing the possibility of a more experimental and interesting film. If the movie is missing a traditional protagonist, this opens the avenue for the film to be the story of an idea, or situation that stand in for the main character. If done right, it could be a really interesting take on film, and I think that it would be a more surrealist type of movie.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the symbolism in one of the last scenes of the Good Fellas is just reflecting back remembering the Great Train Robbery and is being used in the same matter. Much like in the Great Train Robbery were the reasoning behind that particular shot was to direct to the audience that they have experienced and witnessed these unmoral acts. I think it was a nice touch the ending of the film.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with James, Burn after reading is a perfect example. Sometimes its really interesting to be involved with 5 different characters, and if the director and writer handle the material properly, the audience can be invested in all the characters. However, the majority of the cases, most directors cant handle the complex balance of multiple characters on screen, ater all, it was the Coen brothers who directed this film.With that said, not every movie needs to have 5 characters. in fact, i think for the majority of film viewers, a movie requires at least 1 main character to identify with. When we study film and are passionate about film, we become more risky with our choices in film. We often enjoy fresh techniques and new film structures. However, the mass audiences need somebody to root for, to identify with, to watch them overcome an obstacle, to cry with, to laugh with, to relate with and sometimes even hate that character. I think the Great Train Robbery was a technological achievement and created a narrative which allowed us to somewhat relate to the film. However, having nobody to relate with, it was difficult to feel sympathy for all the innocent people who came across the robbers. I felt no guilt when the robber through a person off the train, maybe because that person clearly was a plastic dummy, rather because i had no idea who that person was. Did that person have a family, do they have children, are they a hard worker trying to feed his/her wife and kids. All this back info adds to a movie, so i think its important to think about the mass audiences, and sometime remember that we are different from most people. We are cinema lovers who are passionate about art. We think about film, we discuss film and we are part of a unique group. Im sure that many people might argue that a main character is needed, just remember, your cousins, moms and dads, girlfriends and boyfriends, they may be different. they may be the people that need someone to guide them through a story. They may need the initial set up, and finally sit back and relax,take there mind of the world, and just enjoy spending time with a character who will take them on a journey, a journey of love, adventure, action, horror, romance or even comedic. And this is not a bad thing at all, this is a great thing, being able to sit back and watch a movie without analyzing, thinking or critiquing all aspects of that film. We are different, and therefore we know more about this then the masses, and therefore we may not need a central character to guide us through a movie, but this doesn't represent the majority, it represents all of us, the group with a passion of film, history and all aspects of the arts.
ReplyDelete