This post is a bit long, but there is a good reason for that. My guess is that any actor reading this post is familiar with the concept of a character’s objective. My hunch is that the concept is so familiar to most actors that the concept has become a bit stale and it’s application automatic. When this is the case, actor’s can tend to take for granted their work on objectives and rigor required can be lost. Because objectives are so important to the craft, I hope, in this article, to try to reinvigorate how you think about them and the most effective ways you can approach determining them.
Quick Note: During the course of this post I will often talk about actions. Actions are NOT objectives. Actions are what a character does to achieve their objective. I’ll be providing a separate post on actions soon.
Before we begin, let me stress one critical rule!!! There should never be a moment onstage when your character is not pursuing an objective. This includes those scenes when your character just seems to be engaged in small talk. There is NO SUCH THING as small talk onstage. The only reason your character ever speaks is to get something they want.
What does your Character want?
Objectives, as you probably know, are your character’s goals. Knowing your character’s objective answers Uta Hagen’s question, “what does your character want?” All of us want and need things. Our most basic needs are physical or physiological, like finding food, shelter, comfort, and safety. But in many cases our psychological, or emotional needs, are as important as our physiological needs, if not more so. Emotional needs can include things like our drives for intimacy, appreciation, self-worth, recognition or validation.
If you don’t believe that emotional needs can trump physical needs, then think about why someone might sacrifice their own life to save the life of someone else. Psychological and emotional needs which often correspond to our relationship with loved ones can be more important to us than life itself. The need to do the right thing or protect others often triumphs over our biological impulse for survival. And sacrifices for others will tend to boost our feelings of self-worth.
Determining your Character’s Main Objective
Your character’s Main Objective is the big goal that drives all of the character’s actions and behavior during the course of the play. (Stanislavski variously called a character’s main objective as their “spine”, “through-line”, or “super-objective”). Almost all of the time a character’s main objective is synonymous with what they want most in their life. This makes total sense when you think about it. Plays tell stories about a character’s most difficult moments. Why write about a small crisis if there is a bigger one a writer can tell? And these moments of crisis are when characters make the hard choices that about what matters to them most.
Determining a good strong main objective for a character is one of the most important things an actor does in creating a role. But how to start? Well, let’s look at human nature and the kinds of things that motivate us in life. What is it that people strive for? Love, money, fame? What is it that they think or believe will make them happy? That doesn’t mean that actually achieving one’s goals will make someone happy. The world is full of people who after getting rich, famous, or married continue to find themselves dissatisfied, or even miserable. This is the difference between a conscious goal and an underlying need. You can reach your goals and still not meet your needs. The same is true for fictional characters. A main objective is what a character believes will make them happy. Irony in plays is usually the result of a character achieving their objective only to remain bereft, or sometimes even dead (Tragedy), or in other cases not getting what they want, but actually getting what they need (Comedy).
One way to discover what might make your character happy is to consider how the character sees their Ideal Future. Imagine what your character would like their life to be like; what are their biggest hopes and dreams for their future. Using this technique can often help me arrive at what my character thinks will make them happy.
But does every character, at their core, really want to be happy? What about people, and fictional characters, who just want to be miserable? In these cases, ask yourself “why.” Why does the character want to be miserable? What do they get out it? Usually, with some additional thought you will find that there is indeed some emotional need that compels a character to be want to feel miserable. Here’s is one example of what compels people to be miserable, but there are many others. Sometimes chronically miserable characters are score-keepers and see themselves as constantly victimized. They have been hurt and wronged over and over again, and believe the world has singled them out to be dumped on – they have gotten a raw deal in life. Being miserable is a way these people prove how badly they have been treated – they’re miserable because the world has conspired to make them miserable. Misery validates their life experience. If a character like this were to actually let go of the past and moved forward with cheerfulness it would threaten, and invalidate, the entire foundation of their identity. So being miserable, paradoxically, is a balm to their ego, whereas dropping the baggage they hold so tightly – and pursuing goals that might actually make them genuinely satisfied and content – threatens their entire sense of themselves and the world.
What about people, and characters, that want to die – or to commit suicide? Well in these cases the person or character, probably believes they will be happier dead. At least, they may believe they will no longer be in physical or psychological pain.
There are also examples of characters who just seem intent on destroying everything. Can this really be something a character might believe will make them happy? Well, look at Heath Ledger’s performance of the Joker. Why might Ledger’s Joker want to destroy everything? I imagine the Joker sees himself as an avenging angel on a “holy” mission to destroy a corrupt, immoral and hypocritical world. These actions validate his own sense of identity and how he sees the world. Again, often validation of one’s identity is what makes a person like this “happy.” With the Joker his nihilistic destruction clearly raises his self-esteem – it proves to himself that he has much more integrity and honesty than the hypocritical people and institutions he gleefully tears down.
Getting at the Character’s Needs vs. Goals
Although it is important to understand what your character’s goals are: what they believe will make them happy. It is not enough to stop there. A character’s conscious goals are not always the same as their unconscious needs. Many actions a character takes are in pursuit of a conscious goal. But when a character seems compelled to do something – often in ways that undermine their conscious goal, that compulsion is often driven by a subconscious need.
When I work on determining my character’s most important need, I look for a past unresolved trauma or chronic problem that plagues them. I call this persistent problem the character’s underlying dilemma. More often than not, a character’s underlying dilemma has its roots in the character’s personal history, childhood or upbringing. Rarely is a character’s underlying dilemma explicitly spelled out in the script. However, to figure it out, I use clues from the script, to create a fictional backstory for the character. In the backstory I write down a history of their childhood and past that can form the basis of their underlying dilemma. The basis of a character’s underlying dilemma is what I call their central defining experience(s) which is the root, or cause, of their ongoing unresolved underlying dilemma. Characters are not always aware of their underlying dilemma, but these dilemmas are the source of a void that characters try to fill via their main objective. Understanding the character’s underlying dilemma, gives you an understanding of what motivates their objective. It provides the why to what the character wants. Why does the Joker need to validate his role as an avenging angel? What is his underlying dilemma and central defining experience. There are many clues in the film as to his backstory and his central defining experience.
In order to better explain how choosing a good underlying dilemma that is created by a central defining experience, let’s take an example from Hamlet. From a quick reading of the play an actor playing Hamlet might decide that Hamlet’s main objective is to get revenge for the murder of his father. Sounds pretty good, but why? Simple, you say, he loves his father. Sure, but how is loving his father a void in his life? What is his core underlying dilemma? What does Hamlet NEED?
Below is a backstory I’ve created for Hamlet that lays out a central defining experience that informs his underlying dilemma.
The story of Hamlet takes place in the early Middle Ages: a primitive, brutal, war-like time. Hamlet’s father, a warrior King, was a highly respected and revered leader – known to be honorable, courageous, and virtuous. Hamlet’s mother, Gertrude, was also admired as virtuous, modest and above reproach. I imagine that as a child, Hamlet adored his loving mother and put her on a pedestal. I also imagine that he worshiped his father, but found him physically and emotionally distant. Hmmm? Why do I think that? In my interpretation, I imagine Hamlet was a precocious, intelligent, and highly sensitive child who was much more inclined towards arts and letters than manly activities like sports and fighting. I think he was spoiled, sheltered, and fawned over by his mother, but that he felt he was a disappointment to his father. This gives us the void in Hamlet’s life – the respect, validation and approval of his heroic father.
Hamlet grows to adulthood with great insecurity about his ability to fill his father’s shoes. Rather than being trained as a warrior – which would have been common for a prince during this time – he is sent to a university to study philosophy, logic and religion. When Hamlet learns of his father’s death he returns home filled, not only with grief, but with much trepidation about becoming King. Upon returning he may actually be somewhat relieved at first to find that Claudius has assumed the throne, particularly as there is an impending war with Norway. However, he quickly becomes enraged when he learns that his mother has married his uncle while his father’s corpse is still warm. Hamlet sees his mother’s marriage to his uncle as a betrayal of his father. This only fuels the void he needs to fill with regard to gaining his father’s respect and approval. Then the Ghost of his father tells him he was murdered by Claudius. Revenge against Claudius, and Gertrude, then become the clearest path to getting his father’s respect.
This backstory gives us a clear central defining experience – growing up feeling inadequate in the eyes of a father. And this gives us a specific underlying dilemma: – to earn a father’s respect, validation and approval. If Hamlet can achieve this, he can feel worthy and confident of being King.
So now we can phrase Hamlet’s main objective as follows:
To honorably avenge the murder of his father
And we also have Hamlet’s underlying dilemma expressed as the void he needs to fill:
To earn the respect and approval of his father
But you might ask, how can Hamlet earn the respect and approval of a dead man? A glib answer would be that Hamlet’s father still exists as a Ghost. But approaching this more from a psychological point of view, Hamlet’ father is alive in Hamlet’s mind. Think about it? People that we need something from still haunt our thoughts long after they have died. Hamlet needs to believe that his actions warrant what his father would approve of IF he were still alive. Or, put another way, he needs to feel that the father that lives in his mind approves of his actions.
So, what about the ending? Does Hamlet achieve his main objective? And more importantly, does he resolve his underlying dilemma? It seems clear that Hamlet has succeeded in avenging his father, but whether he actually believes he has earned his father’s respect is open to interpretation. Before he dies, he may not actually believe that all his actions in the final scene were honorable in the eyes of the father in his mind.
Phrasing Your Character’s Main Objective
When I work on articulating my objectives, I have found that using a clear format helps. That format includes an infinitive verb like to get, to achieve, to earn, etc. and the outcome the verb is linked to (i.e. respect, validation, love). I often find it helpful to combine the character’s main objective with their underlying dilemma as shown below:
To earn his father’s respect and approval by taking honorable revenge
In this phrasing of Hamlet’s I start with his underlying dilemma followed by his1main objective. It doesn’t have to be expressed this way, but I like giving the need first as it motivates the goal. Note that I’ve also included here, and above, the word “honorable.” Hamlet wants his revenge to be honorable because his father wouldn’t approve otherwise. If Claudius is actually innocent, then killing Claudius would not be honorable and Hamlet would not earn his father’s approval. This is a real concern of Hamlet’s as he is not sure initially if the Ghost is actually his father’s spirit or a trick of the devil.
Developing Strong Objectives
Here is some advice on developing strong objectives. Not always an easy task for the actor.
Your character’s objective should be difficult, but not impossible, to achieve. If your objective is too easy to achieve, there would be no drama, no suspense, and the scenes would end almost immediately (except for you still have all those lines). Now what is possible in one type of drama may be impossible in another. Take the example of a James Bond film. Bond, and the world of the Bond films, permits many objectives that would not be considered possible in an Ibsen play or an episode of Seinfeld. What would be an impossible objective in Ibsen or Seinfeld, is very difficult, but not impossible for Bond.
Another example is a scene where a character is anxiously waiting for a bus. There is nothing a character can do to make the bus arrive any quicker, so to make the bus come soon is not an objective that is possible to achieve. To wait is also not a strong action. An actor in a scene that requires waiting needs to consider what their actual actions might be and tie them to an objective other than making the bus come. Perhaps a young man is waiting for a bus to meet his girlfriend to apologize for something he’s done and get her forgiveness. In this case his objective while waiting might be to figure out what he will say or do to win her back.
Good, difficult objectives require a number of actions to overcome numerous obstacles to be achieved. Objectives that are not difficult are ones that can be achieve with ONLY ONE action. Examples include objectives that seek to surprise, shock, startle, give a message, or a gift. All of these are actions, NOT objectives. They are not strong objectives by themselves, but could be perfectly good actions done to achieve an objective. For example, a young man might surprise a woman with the gift elicit her love and affection. The same is true for a messenger whose job it is to deliver bad news to the King. If the objective is just to deliver the message, all the character has to do is hand over the letter. But we all know the saying, “Don’t kill the messenger.” So, what might be a better objective? If the messenger knows the message is bad, the character’s objective could be to survive the encounter. They could then take actions such as to figure out the King’s mood, to approach him with respect, to impress the King with his loyalty, or to apologize for the bad news. The response the messenger wants from the King might be, at best, grudging acceptance of the news and a quick dismissal. If the messenger thinks the news is good, they may want the King to give them thanks or approval. In any case, the objective should not be confused with an action done to achieve an objective.
Your character’s objective must be aligned with a valid interpretation of the script. Some argue that this means following the intentions of the playwright, but this raises a couple of sticky problems. 1) how can anyone know for sure what the playwright intended, 2) sometimes playwrights themselves don’t fully realize the possibilities and implications of the story they have written. Finding a valid interpretation of the script can be tricky to say the least. A good script can often support a number of different interpretations. Nonetheless, while there can be many valid choices, there are also choices that simply do not align with any valid interpretation. Charles Waxberg (Waxberg, Charles S, The Actor’s Script, Heinemann/Reed Elsevier, 1998) gives a wonderful example from a Broadway production of A Streetcar Named Desire in which the actress playing Blanche was directed to have the objective of wanting Stanley sexually. The actress playing Blanche and the actor playing Stanley were both physical attractive, and the director apparently wanted to play up the sexual tension and heat. While this choice might attract audiences it is not really supported by the script. As Waxberg notes, “even a casual study of the play makes it clear that ‘animal desire’ is ‘abhorrent’ to Blanche. She is ashamed of how she has used sex in the past to survive. Blanche certainly wants to be admired by men, but she wants beauty and grace in her life. She wants to be admired as a cultured and sophisticated woman. She wants to be courted by a gentleman. She does not want raw animal sex with a thug. The choice to make her want Stanley sexually also undermines the climactic scene where Stanley rapes Blanche. If this is not a rape, but a consummation of mutual desire, the fact that Blanche then suffers a nervous breakdown does not make much sense.
Common Problems with Developing Objectives
Often an actor will find it easier to understand what their character doesn’t want rather than what their character wants. In these cases, the actor may choose objectives such as to NOT get hurt, to NOT get fired, to NOT lose the girl. While these can all be ways to describe desires, people (and characters) can’t NOT do something. If we are not doing one thing, we are always doing something else. The key is to be clear on what your character is actually trying to accomplish rather than what they are trying to avoid. So, when you find yourself articulating your objective in terms of what you don’t want, rephrase the objective into something your character does want. Instead of choosing NOT to get hurt, the actor can choose to protect oneself. Instead of choosing NOT to get fired, the actor can choose to impress the boss. Instead of to not lose the girl, choose to win her love. Remove the word “not” from all objectives and substitute something that can actually be done. Always phrase your objective positively.
A related problem is choosing to play a relationship objective like I do not want to talk to you. You may be annoyed with the other character, you may not have time to talk because you are late for an appointment, but again, playing a negative is not effective. Think about the nature of the relationship to help find what you DO WANT from this person. When you do this, you may find that what your character needs is for them to understand that you are late and to be okay with talking later. If you are having an argument, you may want to hurt their feelings. If this is the case, you might slam things about, walk out, tell them to shut up, or even say “I don’t want to talk to you.” But remember these are actions, not objectives. They can be used to achieve the positively phrased objective “I want to hurt this person’s feelings”, but actions are not objectives (I’ll talk more about actions in a later post).
Another common problem with objectives is when an actor chooses a manipulative objective. A manipulative objective is one that is designed to prevent, by any means available, the other character from achieving their objective. Objectives like this are often phrased something like “I want to prevent you from getting what you want no matter what you do or say.” This is a way of stepping out of the scene and not playing fair. A good analogy here is that acting with a scene partner is like a game of tennis: you both want to win, but you have to play fair. Playing a manipulate objective is like being a concrete wall placed right at the net. No matter how good the other player’s shot is, the wall will always knock the ball back. They can never win no matter how hard they try, and all you do is deny, deny, deny. Not only is this undramatic, and lacking in any suspense, but it is annoying to your scene partner and the audience. Remember that the most exciting games are the ones that are evenly matched with each player trying their hardest to win without cheating. Another example of a manipulative objective is an obstinate child. Children often feel helpless and not in control of their lives. When a child learns the word “no” they find they have a tool to control their world. Have you ever had the experience with a child that just says “no” over and over. “Do you want an ice cream?” “NO!” Do you want to play a game?” “NO!” “Do you want to go see Grandma?” “NO!” It doesn’t matter what question you ask them, their answer will be no. Their objective is simply to frustrate the hell out of you.
Manipulative objectives, however, should not be confused with manipulative characters. In these cases, manipulation is an action not an objective. If a character chooses the action to manipulate, it doesn’t mean they are playing the acting game unfairly. To manipulate can be a very valid means of achieving a legitimate objective. Let’s take an example from Othello. In several scenes, Iago tries to manipulates Othello into believing his wife is cheating on him with Cassio. Iago’s objective is to undermine Othello’s trust of Cassio and thus be promoted to Cassio’s position. Othello’s objective in the scene is to find out if his wife is faithful. Clearly, Iago is not denying Othello’s objective as the scene ends with both achieving their objectives: Othello succeeds in believing he has found out that his wife is unfaithful, and Iago succeeds in undermining Othello’s trust in Cassio.
Finally, an ubiquitous practice that can wreak havoc on choosing a good strong objective is when an actor, or director, labels a scene. We’ve all likely been involved in a play where we might refer to a scene as the love scene, or the fight scene. I recommend to actors and directors to be cautious with labeling scenes. Why? Because, when this is done actors will almost invariably make their objectives to love or to fight, and both of these are NOT strong objectives. They imply an emotional state or a specific action: to love, to hate. Playing an emotional state is not acting – it’s emoting (I’ll be posting more on emotion later). And the actions to love or to fight, are just that – actions. In a so-called love scene, an actor’s objective might be to win the other’s affections, or to get a commitment to the relationship, or to get the other person to trust you. In any case, a scene like this might include an argument where one or both character’s fight to be understood or validated. In so called, fight scenes, remember that the vast majority of the time, people don’t want to have a fight. The action of fighting is just one way of achieving your objective – and usually is the last resort. In addition, in scenes like this other actions could be to explain, to convince, to get the other person to be reasonable, to deescalate tension, to apologize, to forgive, etc. Another common problem with fight scenes is the belief by actors that the scene should build in an incremental straight line to more and more anger that ends with a clean climax. This belief leads actors to be very self-conscious of their emotional state, and to try to shape the scene according to a misunderstanding of how arguments progress. In real life, tense interactions do not play out linearly in a straight line of increasing rage and anger. Rather these interactions play out more like a series of jagged ups and downs as tempers flare and die down, and as actions other than to fight are used.
That’s all for now on objectives, but I will be posting soon a article on Scene Objectives as well as an article Actions. In the meantime, let me know via comments if you have questions or comments.
Cheers! David
Very worth the read! Dive in.
Thanks!