Recently, I was asked if a character was compelling, and it got me thinking – what makes a compelling character? Why do some characters grab our attention and hold it for 2+ hours, whereas others lose us after 15 minutes?
I’d love to say I think it’s a simple box-ticking exercise, but I fear it’s far more complicated than that and also extends to who is cast in the role. However, I do believe that, within a screenplay, there are ways to create a compelling character by applying some or all of the following characteristics.
Relatability
Relatable characters usually evoke empathy. When audiences see aspects of themselves or recognise familiar emotions, they become more invested in the character’s journey. I think the more primal the human emotion, the easier it is to relate to a character, even if you have nothing else in common with them. This is why horror and romance are two genres which are consistently milked; fear and love are about as primal as you can get, and we have all experienced them both in some way. It’s no accident that the majority of family films play on these two emotions heavily because even young children can relate to them.
Flawed characters are also more relatable, because it makes them “real”. “Perfect” characters feel flat and unrealistic because nobody is “perfect”. Tony Stark (Iron Man) is arrogant and reckless but also demonstrates vulnerability and this generates a desire to watch not just the plot unfold, but to see whether he has the capability to change. Something I believe we are willing him to do.
Interestingly, I think that a complete lack of relatability can help to create a compelling character too. In recent years, there’s been a surge of interest in serial killers both real world and fictional, and throughout cinema history, characters like The Joker (The Dark Knight), Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs), and Patrick Bateman (American Psycho) have an enduring popularity despite (hopefully) being virtually unrelatable. It’s as though a complete lack of familiar emotional responses provokes intrigue and curiosity, thus making them compelling.
Well-motivated
The more we understand a character’s goal, why they want to achieve this, and what will happen if they fail (the stakes), the more we are likely to feel compelled by this character. If they are not motivated by something in pursuit of that; if they have nothing compelling them to achieve this goal, why would we feel compelled by them?
Many characters are motivated by those relatable primal emotions discussed above – most commonly, fear and love. In many superhero films, the hero is motivated to do good with their abilities, and when the supervillain arrives, the hero is motivated because it’s the right thing to do – chances are lives are at risk. However, more often than not, the supervillain ends up finding someone close to the hero and putting them in jeopardy. Our hero is not just motivated to do the right thing now, they’re motivated because they fear for a loved one’s life. This additional motivation helps to keep the audience engaged, increases the stakes, and ultimately helps to maintain the audience’s desire to see the hero succeed.
Even antagonistic characters benefit from being well-motivated. They can’t just be doing something because they feel like it – they need a reason. Hannibal Lecter only helps Clarice because he’s motivated to hear about her past and get inside her head… “quid pro quo”. He gets additional motivation later when Clarice makes promises for him to be moved to Plum Island and get a room with a view if he helps – something he desires. This actually makes him more relatable too… funny how all this stuff is interconnected.
Multi-dimensional
This one should be pretty self-explanatory and something every writer is trying to avoid already. It’s long since been established that flat, one-dimensional characters are boring, lifeless, and uninteresting, whereas multi-layered, complex characters provoke intrigue. Let’s look at Hannibal Lecter again; He’s a cultured, articulate man who appreciates fine arts, yet he’s also a brutal cannibal. Throw into the mix his personal interest in Clarice Starling and their blossoming relationship – is it purely professional or is there more to it? – and you’ve got a character whom the audience will give their liver to see more of.
To be overly poetic about it, every light casts a shadow. For every “positive” trait, it helps to have an equally powerful “negative” trait – ruthless and demanding, yet vulnerable; loves to make people laugh, yet is depressed; arrogant, yet fearful. That’s what helps to make compelling characters – opposing facets of their personality that churn away inside them and encourage the audience to question who they really are and what they will do next. I think this is the fundamental bit. Since a plot is a connected string of actions a character (or characters) has taken, if we always know exactly what a character will do because they’re one-dimensional, doesn’t that mean they’ll never change, and always do exactly what we expect. We know the end already. BORING! Instead, give us a character like Dr Lecter; we never know what he’ll do next or if he’s even capable of change, and that makes us want to watch him and find out. If a few people get eaten along the way… even better!
Active
A character must, must, MUST have a goal and be active in pursuit of it to be compelling. If you have nothing else, you MUST have this. To me, this one is really simple – if the character is not compelled to achieve a goal, the audience won’t find them compelling.
The dictionary definition of compelled is “having to do something, because you are forced to or feel it is necessary”. Not a single part of that suggests inactivity – quite the opposite in fact. I would personally favour the latter part of the definition when it comes to characters in a screenplay as it suggests an internal compulsion rather than an external one, which then leads to a character being PROactive rather than REactive, but… y’know – one step at a time.
If a character is not active, it suggests they don’t care enough about their goal to pursue it, so even if they achieve it, will the audience care? Conversely, an internal compulsion to take action suggests that a character cares, and if a character cares, then you’ve got a shot of the audience caring too.
Evolving
Watching a character grow and change in front of your eyes can make their journey satisfying to watch. The further they go and the more overt their evolution is, the more satisfying it is to watch. I think this is why so many unlikeable characters are so engaging to watch – it’s clear just how far they have to go to “fix” their flaws, and how they do that, when they’re such assholes at the start, makes for compelling viewing.
Take Phil Connors (Groundhog Day) as an example. It’s pretty obvious in his opening scene that he’s a jerk, and that’s firmly cemented before they’ve even reached Punxsutawney. We, the audience, know what his arc is going to be – he’s going to turn good – but he’s got such a long way to go, and the audience has no idea how that’s going to happen. This prompts a huge character question that sustains us all the way through to the end. See also Ebenezer Scrooge (A Christmas Carol).
A lot of characters don’t have such obvious arcs, but you’d be surprised how many times we, the audience, are told exactly what the protagonist’s flaw is within the first 10 minutes of a film. In dialogue! Smart writers will also consistently put characters in situations where you can see their evolution clearly. Samwise Gamgee (Lord of the Rings), Frodo’s Shire-loving gardener won’t even talk to Rosie Cotton in Fellowship, he cowers under Gandalf’s interrogation and hesitates when he’s the furthest he’s ever travelled from home. As the story progresses, he stands up to Strider in Bree, takes on orcs with a frying pan, fights Gollum, discusses the finer points of potatoes, repeatedly saves Frodo, including from the terrifying giant spider, Shelob, wanders into Mordor ALONE, and quite literally carries Frodo’s ass up Mount Doom. We witness him grow in confidence and stature, to be more assertive, and to trust his instinct until finally, we watch him go and talk to Rosie at the end of Return of the King. All hail Sam, the true hero of The Lord of the Rings!
Some characters don’t evolve – it is not a mandatory requirement – however, use caution. Often, if the protagonist doesn’t change, either another character takes up the evolution (see Back to the Future – George McFly has the evolution), or the protagonist is highlighting the world needs to change around them (see Katniss Everdeen in The Hunger Games). If nothing changes, everything and everyone are exactly the same at the end of the story as they were at the start, perhaps reconsider.
Distinctive
Distinctiveness makes characters more compelling, memorable, and thematically rich. While not every character needs to be flashy or eccentric, even subtle distinctiveness – like an unusual perspective or hidden talent – adds depth and uniqueness that elevate storytelling. Quite simply, we notice them more because they stand out, and if they stand out, we pay more attention to them. When this is combined with some or all the traits above, it can help to create a compelling character.
Forrest Gump, Jack Sparrow, and Doc Brown are all distinctive characters, and I bet we can all recall words they’ve said and things they’ve done. Their uniqueness also makes them feel more real within the world, similar to how being multi-dimensional does. It makes them interesting and they’ll be compelling to watch because they’re different, and that breeds curiosity.
Conclusion
As I mentioned at the start, casting can play a big part – would Indiana Jones be so compelling if he was played by someone other than Harrison Ford? Perhaps, but we’ll never know (hopefully). It’s difficult to say for sure, and all of the examples I’ve given are, I’m sure, at least in some way down to the performance. However, when we’re dealing with a screenplay, we’ve got to keep the reader turning pages and in order to do that, we need to use every trick in the book. There are many other things that might help make a compelling character and I could do a post ten times as long as this with more examples and in-depth character studies, but at the end of the day, I firmly believe that if the audience is emotionally invested in a character’s story, they will feel compelled to read to the very end.