The main character of a story has a problem they want to solve.
The main character of a story has a goal they want to achieve.
Which is it?
It’s either, and it’s both.
The main character has a problem and/or a goal. Sometimes people refer to it as the “problem/goal.”
It’s at the very center of any story, and should be the focus of the logline, synopsis, query and/or pitch. It’s something difficult to resolve, and has primal external life stakes — for the main character, and sometimes for other people the audience comes to care about.
In other cases, there’s clearly a goal, but not much of a problem. Could that be an issue?
Let’s start with the first scenario. We’re focused on a problem. But it doesn’t quite feel like there’s a goal, other than to solve the problem. Is that enough?
If the problem is big and difficult enough, and it matters enough — and they are continuously actively trying to solve it (which leads to complications and narrative build), then I would say “yes.”
If not, I would say “no.”
So what about the second scenario? Can the main character have a goal, but not a problem?
Not really. In a goal-focused story that really grabs an audience, what the main character is chasing (which has those big stakes and high difficulty) is generally meant to solve a big problem. And/or if they don’t reach the goal, they will have a big problem. Plus, the process of chasing the goal creates problems that weren’t there before. The conflicts and difficulties build and complicate.
The “goal-only” type story doesn’t work if those things aren’t present. We don’t want a main character who only has “positive stakes” — meaning, their life will be better if they reach the goal. We want them to also have strong negative stakes — life now is unacceptable, and/or it will be, if the goal isn’t reached. Negative stakes tend to be more powerful than positive ones. They matter more to the audience.
So either approach can work, as long as the main character is punished and struggling in some way, for virtually the entire story. This helps give the audience a strong enough reason to care, to want to take the journey of the story, and to put themselves in the character’s perspective.
What doesn’t work is when the character has too easy of a time, or has the upper hand throughout. Sometimes I see scripts where the main character is a kind of clever winner, who is superior to all the antagonists he encounters, and always comes out on top. I get why writers do this. Many movie heroes are cool and capable, and we fantasize that we could be them.
However, for a story to work, the hero has to be overmatched by their situation, and their oppositional forces. And I don’t mean just some of the time. They have to be losing — meaning the problem is strong and the goal distant — until pretty much the final moments of the climax.
Sometimes the hero(ine) is James Bond-cool in the process. But James Bond always has a super villain who looks like they’re going to succeed, until the very end. There’s a massive problem that needs solved, and, cool as he is, James Bond is losing. He might make some progress toward his goal, but those brief moments are usually followed by even bigger complications, revelations, rising stakes, growing urgency, and/or a sense that there is now that much more to solve than there was before. That’s how plots “thicken.”
There’s a famous George M. Cohan quote: “In the first act, you get your main character up a tree. In the second act, you throw rocks at them. In the third act you get them down.” One of my coaching clients recently told me about another version of this, which might be even more apropros to screenwriting: “In Act 1, you get your main character up a tree. In Act 2A, you throw rocks at them. In Act 2B, you set the tree on fire. In Act 3, you get them down.”
I think that sums it up pretty nicely.
So whether it mostly feels like a problem the main character has to solve, or a goal they’re chasing which remains out of reach, the key is that they’re having trouble, and that it builds. In most cases, scripts can benefit from starting the difficulties earlier, making them bigger in general, and growing them more along the way. If you can do this believably and entertainingly, the audience almost can’t help but stay engaged.
Thanks for another great post Erik. When you gave James Bond as an example, I wondered, well, when we watch one of those movies, we know the protagonist is going to defeat the antagonist/solve the problem/achieve the goal by the end of the movie, so why do we watch the movie? Then I realized that with effective story-telling, we suspend disbelief and we buy that the hero might actually lose this time. We buy that James Bond or Superman (or any hero, not just franchise heroes) might actually die this time, or the Nazis might win this time, or the aliens might really wipe out the entire human race this time, or the 40 year old virgin might stay a virgin. Do you have any suggestions for getting the audience to set aside their expectations and suspend disbelief?
Thanks Ken! I actually think it’s not so hard. The audience wants to go along for the ride, and they will suspend disbelief willingly, in such stories. If the storytelling is effective enough, they won’t mind that they can guess the ending. If that wasn’t the case, how would all these superhero movies ever work? So I think you answered your own question. It’s about building the story through problems, conflicts, complications and interesting, entertaining writing choices that help hypnotize the viewer and make them worry for the fate of the hero. So much of it is about making the opposing forces powerful and the mission difficult (regardless of genre). That’s probably where I would start.
I think these are all valid and useful observations. If the audience ever stops wondering “What’s going to be happen next?” they’re likely to disengage from the story.
But I think that while the problems / setbacks / reversals are necessary, they’re not sufficient. A screenplay with struggle, conflict, loss will be more engaging than one with no friction, but conflict etc. alone won’t guarantee success with the reader / viewer. The forwards / backwards steps have to be meaningful in some way–which I think is more ad hoc than universal.
I agree Steven. They’re not sufficient on their own. But they are the thing that I come across as needing bolstering, most often, in scripts. I see the problems/stakes/complications issue as a requirement, but by no means do they guarantee success.