The most important question to ask about any character is “What do they want?”

Ideally, each one has a desire that’s important to them, but something in the way of it.

And a story’s main character especially takes action to pursue that in each scene, but meets obstacles.

Which are all part of their focus on a larger goal for the story that defines its premise:

“So-and-so wants x, but y is in the way, and they do z to try to fix that.”

But… what about stories that don’t have such a goal-oriented main character?

Can it ever work for them to not be driven to reach a big outcome, but more reacting to what’s going on?

I want to say “no” to this. Because I’ve read (and maybe written!) so many scripts where the main character is passive, or unsympathetic, or not trying to achieve something concrete that would be compelling and entertaining for an audience to watch. And it makes for a limp, uninvolving narrative.

Maybe they have strong internal needs and an arc but it doesn’t translate into external conflicts, actions, and pursuit of a goal.

HOWEVER…

There are some movies that succeed (arguably) without main characters focused on one particular overarching objective. Or so I’ve reluctantly come to realize. These aren’t even necessarily “one act films” with unconventional structure.

I’m going to use five examples. I apologize in advance (or maybe I don’t!) that they’re all from the 1988-2004 era. Perhaps I’m biased toward that period because of what age I was during it, and how formative some of these were for me. It also helps that they’ve stood somewhat the test of time and tend to be well-known 20+ years later. But certainly I could find more contemporary examples of this if I tried…

The first is Sideways. Sad sack wine-loving Paul Giamatti goes on a wine-tasting trip with his buddy Thomas Hayden Church, who is about to marry but nevertheless tries to get with women they meet on the trip. Paul Giamatti is a bit disgusted by this and reluctant to engage with his own potential love interest despite being unhappily single. (He’s reeling from a dead relationship and bad professional news about his latest book.)

Paul’s character doesn’t seem to have a goal. He’s mostly reacting to what his friend is doing and the various challenges they encounter. So why does this work? (Or does it?)

The answer could lie in a concept I first learned about from the Dramatica software and theory of how story works, which has been influential for me going back many years. It talks about the idea of “mental sex.” The premise is that “male mental sex” movies tended to be goal-driven, cause-and-effect; whereas “female mental sex” were more holistical, relational and focused on connectedness.

Dramatica’s co-founder Chris Huntley once told me not to bother trying to write female mental sex stories because I probably couldn’t do it well as I didn’t possess it or relate to it. I didn’t take this as an insult. I agreed with him! And my stories (even with female main characters) tend to be more goal-oriented, cause-and-effect, and, well, male, I suppose.

Dramatica sensei Jim Hull has his own app called Subtxt that I’ve been experimenting with where he’s updated some of these concepts and terms, and instead of gendered explanations, speaks of “narrative alignment” that tends toward “dopamine” (reward-based, linear, external achievement-focused) or “serotonin” (relational-based, inequity-balancing, more about emotional stability and social bonding).

Intriguing stuff! (And thanks to Subtxt for clueing me on some of these example titles.)

Now I’m not saying Paul Giamatti’s character is necessarily like that – “serotonin” influenced or “female mental sex,” to use the older terminology.

But as a movie, Sideways might be. And it asks the audience to connect with and prioritize those aspects throughout its narrative. To see the main dramas and conflicts in light of those.

It also should be noted that while Paul is the main character, his friend is a strong secondary character with his own driven external goal, complications and stakes that builds to a climax as a kind of B Story or even dual narrative. Which I think can really make this kind of approach work – by giving the audience something arguably a bit “dopamine” in a second character who the first character bounces off of and is impacted by.

Also let’s note that Giamatti is not just dealing with internal states, with thoughts and feelings – which is usually hard to make work for a movie. He’s got conflicts with his friend, and his ex-, and his work, and how this trip is going. All external and thus easier to make compelling in a movie. It’s just that he’s not driven by “one big goal” for the movie.

Now let’s consider a perhaps more universally loved title…

What does Forrest Gump want and pursue?

My standard answer is “Jenny,” as the thread that continues throughout – the thing he always comes back to and can never quite have in the way he wants to. And reacting to that creates much of this story.

But not all of it. And Forrest is definitely not a linear, goal-seeking, cause-and-effect thinker doing all he can do to try to “fix this problem” or “reach this goal.” (The way a “Dopamine” main character might.)

No, Forrest is “serotonin.” And he also even arguably lacks external difficulties at times, as the “feather” who finds himself in extraordinarily positive situations.

But the movie also includes characters with big problems who create additional narrative threads as they grapple with them. People Forrest influences and ultimately helps. Such as Lt. Dan and Jenny herself. 

Again this helps balance the fact that Forrest can seem to lack direction, focused objective, difficulty and relatability. (Although notably he has some high-impact high-conflict external scenes that are among the most memorable, like in Vietnam, or at certain high and low points in the Jenny relationship.)

Buddy the Elf is a lot like Forrest.

While his main hope is to create a great relationship with his father, he has no idea how to do that and isn’t strategic or goal-oriented in trying to reach that goal.

He’s much more relational, much more “serotonin.”

What helps is that the movie has a super high concept as he tries to fit into life in New York City having been raised as an elf at the North Pole. And it has a heroic mission for him in the third act that feels more “dopamine.” And again he’s balanced out by other characters like his dad who are opposites to his energy and provide much of the conflict.

Our oldest example, from 1988, features an athlete main character played by Kevin Costner who you might think of as a classic “dopamine” guy. Bull Durham.

But… what does he want?

Well he wants Susan Sarandon but can’t have her. (Despite what the key art implies.)

He wants to succeed in baseball but that ship has sailed.

His job is to help Tim Robbins rise up as a young pitcher but does he care if he achieves that, really?

Well on some level he does but it’s not treated as a classic goal-oriented quest for him.

Note that it’s Sarandon who gets the voice-over narration here establishing a philosophy – and to some extent it’s her actions and perspective that drive the story. And create a kind of dual narrative from her perspective. (You might argue it also has a third narrative from Tim Robbins’ point-of-view.)

In any case, what she’s doing in dating Robbins – and what the movie seems most concerned about – is a serotonin-esque exploration of relationships, connectedness, balance and inequities. (Thanks again to Jim Hull for this lingo.)

But note this: at its heart it’s a classic love triangle and the audience very much cares who Sarandon ends up with. Even if it’s not something Costner can outwardly pursue very much, as our seeming main character who gets the most focus. It also has high stakes in terms of these athletes’ dreams potentially coming true. And is set in a very entertaining world filled with conflicts. (Like all these examples.)

It just doesn’t have its main character after that “one big goal” in the “traditional” way.

Our last example: Mean Girls.

What does Lindsay Lohan’s character want?

Well, you could say “to not be abused by the mean girls,” or to fit in with them. Or to date the guy she likes.

What it’s mainly driven by in the middle, though, is a revenge plot against Rachel McAdams’ character.

But note whose idea this is: if memory serves, it comes from Lizzy Caplan, not Lindsay.

And as Lindsay pursues it, it kind of goes off the rails anyway. It’s not like you could say the entire movie is about “will she or won’t she defeat the queen mean girl?”

Although of all these examples, I think this one feels the most goal-oriented, the most “dopamine.” And it has the most conventional “villain” or antagonist character, who we want to see stopped.

But at the end of the day it’s about inequities, balance and interconnectedness in this ecosystem it explores, not on whether the main character can reach some pinnacle achievement. Because even when she reaches peak popularity, is that a victory, really?

No, because ultimately focusing so much on the mean girls at all was the “wrong way” for her to deal with the pain of her adolescent situation, in classic “Rite of Passage” fashion. (In reference to the ten story types or genres in the Save the Cat books.)

Which, by the way, each of these examples, to my mind, has a clear fit with (as I recommend your stories do):

Elf – Fool Triumphant

Forrest Gump –  Fool Triumphant

Bull Durhan –  Golden Fleece

Sideways – Rite of Passage

Okay, so I mention Dramatica/Subtxt but also Save the Cat. And throw my own book about what makes a viable idea in there for good measure.

Are these competing or contradictory theories of story, where you have to pick one?

Not to my mind. Each have something unique to add, and can beneficial. There’s no one method that works for everyone, all by itself, and no necessary method that has to be followed. They’re all just tools, and I’ve used many in my ongoing self-education as a writer. And still do.

On that note, I want to add one other name to the mix: Tom Vaughan. Tom’s a professional screenwriter with a lot of credits who I first met when we were both affiliated with National University’s MFA program in Screenwriting. He has a great site called “Story and Plot” and a really useful free weekly email. He also offers online courses and offers consulting. When I consult on a script and it’s time for a second opinion, he’s who I usually recommend. Check him out!