"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:4b5a0d93@news.povray.org...
>
>  Btw, I have always wondered exactly what is it meant by "one dimensional
> character". I assume it's something related to character development,
> but maybe concrete examples of "one-dimensional" characters and
> "non-one-dimensional" characters in some movies (and why they are
> considered such) could help understanding better.

In acting classes that I have attended as well as taught, we talk about "two 
dimensional characters", "cardboard cutouts", and "characters with no 
depth", all referring to the same thing. When I see a performance (and it's 
fifty fifty whether it's the actor's fault or the writer's fault) and the 
character doesn't change or always reacts the same way to differing stimuli, 
I use one of those terms. Real people act in different ways at different 
times, and performances by an actor should show that, unless the character 
is intended to be ignored or lack of depth is a stylistic choice for some 
reason (for example, cartoons targeted at children are usually populated 
with characters with no depth, although they're often brightly colored and 
say, "Zowie!" a lot).

Sometimes what is considered "depth" is a matter of opinion, and sometimes 
the depth of a character is subtle (as in real life). Back to the topic, I 
think the character of Colonel Miles Quaritch in Avatar has a great deal of 
depth, although I know lots of people who disagree. The character has an 
incredibly rich back story, but it's revealed in such an undertone that it 
takes some thought to see it.

A lot of people look at characters who are so focused on a goal or obsessed 
with something and say the character lacks depth. Quaritch is suffering from 
an obsession and a fear of losing control, and he is on the verge of sinking 
in to madness, but his own obstinance won't let him. What we see in this 
film is the tip of an awfully big iceberg, and it's hard to see past it, but 
it's there.

--
Jack

Post a reply to this message