It’s the LAST DAY of White Lotus Is Amazing Week. I know that some of you are going to go in a deep depression after this. Just know that there are outlets where you have support. White Lotus Discussion reddit threads. Youtube interviews with the cast and crew. I’ll be publicly recreating scenes from the show at Griffith Park this weekend for anyone who wants to stop by. Don’t worry, the Steve Zahn opeing shot will be censored. That was one of the first things the Los Angeles Public Parks Department demanded when I applied for the permit. But sadly, starting Tuesday, we’re going back to a White Lotus Free Zone. Feel free to pay your respects in the comments section.
Our final topic of discussion is going to be the intersection between plot and character.
One of the common criticisms I’ve been hearing from the WLHA (White Lotus Haterz Association) is that there’s nooooooo plooooootttttttt. Nothing happens! It’s just a bunch of characters walking around a beach doing nothing. What gives? How could anybody find that interesting?
It’s a good question. I agree that White Lotus doesn’t have a ton of plot. But I still think it’s exceptional. Why is that? And how can one write a show or a movie that’s light on plot and still good? I’ll answer that in a second. But first, let’s talk about what plot is because it’s often misunderstood.
Google defines plot as “the main events of a movie devised and presented by the writer as an interrelated sequence.” I’ve heard numerous variations of this definition, probably the most common being, “A series of connected events that happen one after another.”
But I don’t think that captures the full breadth of plot. When you’re talking about plot, there’s a creative component to the variables in the story that needs to be included. When George Lucas comes up with this idea that the Death Star is on its way to destroy the Rebel Base, there’s a lot of creativity that goes into that choice. The idea of a moon-sized base that can blow planets up may be more imagination than plotting. But the base has such an outsized influence on the story, dictating so many plot-threads, that it’s essentially part of the plotting.
I guess what I’m saying is, plot isn’t just the conveyor belt that moves the story along. It’s all the creative elements within the story that affect what’s happening.
I bring this up because, typically, if you’re writing something that’s character-based, it’s a good idea to throw in some creative plot elements to spike the story. Get Out is a good example. It’s a character piece but a lot of crazy things happen during the plot to spike it. Meanwhile, White Lotus doesn’t have many creative plot elements at all, which, I’m guessing, is why the WLHA are so underwhelmed.
They’re probably wondering why I like a show such as White Lotus when I’ve dinged so many screenplays before this for having little to no plot. A recent example is Dust, the script I reviewed last week about a woman stuck in her house during an extended dust storm. I hated that script mainly because NOTHING HAPPENED. So why does White Lotus get a pass and Dust doesn’t? Well, let’s find out.
When you write a character piece, you’re essentially wiping out the “EXTERNAL CONFLICT” portion of the plot (which I talked about yesterday). You’re taking out the killer tsunami. You’re eliminating the bank heist. Nobody’s asking you to jump into multi-verses to capture other versions of yourself. The big external conflict factor is eliminated in favor of internal and interpersonal conflict.
Our plot, then, is the unresolved conflicts *within* the characters as well as *between* the characters. Here’s how the formula works. The writer comes up with a group of characters. For each character, they make them either likable, sympathetic, or interesting. This is what “hooks” the reader. They either like, sympathize, or are intrigued by a character. They’re now invested in that character’s actions and want to see what happens to them.
From there, you figure out the internal conflict. Remember, the internal conflict in a character piece is going to become a plot thread. We don’t have Thanos threatening to kill anyone so the plot needs to come from the character. Mark (the father) learns from his uncle that *his* father, who died a long time ago, didn’t die from cancer like he was originally told, but rather from AIDS. Mark learns that his father was gay and used to sleep with men outside the marriage.
This becomes Mark’s internal struggle. Nothing about his childhood is real anymore. It’s all a lie. Which means Mark’s out of balance. He doesn’t know how to reconcile this new information. So this vacation is him trying to come to terms with this new information and figure out what it means for him as a father and as a husband.
Mark’s journey to find balance within himself is the PLOT of a character piece. As is Rachel’s (the young beautiful wife) journey to figure out if she wants to be a trophy wife for the rest of her life. As is Tanya’s (the older socialite) journey to move on from her mother’s death. As is Quinn’s (the 15 year old social anxiety-ridden son) journey to connect with the world for the first time, which is resolved when he joins the local rowing team.
Now, if you don’t like these characters, you’re not going to care whether they resolve these issues or not. You don’t have the flashy entertainment factor of a James Bond plot to fall back on. It’s just a bunch of unlikable people to you. That’s why you’re bored. But to those of us who like the characters, their journeys to either resolve or fail to resolve these issues is why we watch. We’re fascinated by these people so of course we want to know if they figure themselves out.
The second area where you create plot in a character piece is through unresolved relationships, which we talked about yesterday (interpersonal conflict). If you attempt to plot your movie solely through internal struggle, it’s not going to be enough. Even the most ardent cinephiles need something going on *outside* of the character to be interested. Which is why interpersonal conflicts become so important in a character piece. They’re your main plot engine.
Mike White knew this which is why he spent so much time on the relationships. Will Shane get the Pineapple Suite from Armond? Will Olivia and Paula get their drugs back from Armond? Will Rachel leave Shane? Will Mark and his son connect? Will Mark and Nicole fix their marriage? Will Belinda get the investment to start a new business from Tanya? What will Olivia do about Paula sneaking around behind her back?
To those of us who like these characters, we can’t wait to see how their conflicts are resolved. That’s what’s confusing to those who dislike the show. To them, they’re wondering, “Why do people like this? Nothing’s happening. There’s no plot.” Well, once we became hooked on these characters, their unresolved conflicts were enough of a plot for us. And that’s true for any story, which is why characters are so important. If you can create captivating characters, readers will follow them through weak plots, messy plots, plot-hole filled plots. Which is why I say characters are the most important element of any screenplay.
To summarize, if you create a character we’re interested in, give that character an internal unresolved struggle, then give them between 1-3 interpersonal unresolved conflicts with other characters, that can be enough to plot a story. You’re still on the hook to come up with twists and turns and interesting developments within the story – such as Shane’s mother showing up on the honeymoon – but if you get those three things right (character we like, compelling internal struggle, compelling interpersonal conflicts), you too can write a show as awesome as White Lotus.
And that concludes White Lotus Week. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. Monday is Labor Day so I’ll catch you back here on Tuesday!
You gotta love it. Even MORE White Lotus talk!
Today, we’re going all in on CHARACTER RELATIONSHIPS. Let’s get into it!
When we think about characters, we tend to think about them as individuals. Which makes sense. Every person is an individual. But when it comes to dramatic writing, you should never think of your character in a vacuum. You should think of them in relation to the characters that that they’ll be interacting with over the course of your story. If a character is the yin, you need another character to fill the yang. And I don’t think many writers take that into consideration. They just sort of come up with each character individually then “see what happens” when they write the story.
Actually, let me back up for a second.
You explore character through three main avenues. Avenue 1 is internal. As human beings, we are in constant conflict with ourselves. We are being held back by doubt, by fear, by the things that have happened in our past. All of that equates to an internal struggle. Dramatic writing is about coming up with scenarios to challenge characters to see if they can overcome that struggle.
Avenue 2 is external. This includes anything that the external world throws at the character. The purest expression of this is an action movie. Characters are routinely beat up, shot at, chased. They must take on tsunamis, aliens, robots, and even giant starfish. External character conflict is considered the least interesting of the three avenues of character conflict because it doesn’t really make you feel anything. It’s more about hitting you on a visceral level.
Finally, we have Avenue 3, which is interpersonal conflict. This is where we get into the yin and the yang. Your character is the yin. But they cannot have an interpersonal conflict until you pair them up with the yang (another character). Interpersonal conflicts work best when you create a SPECIFIC PROBLEM between the characters. The more specific you get, the better the reader understands the conflict and what needs to be resolved. This is the avenue we’re going to talk about today because White Lotus does this as well as any show I’ve ever seen.
Before we get started, it’s important to note that some characters will have MULTIPLE interpersonal conflicts while others will have a single interpersonal conflict. If a character does have two or more interpersonal conflicts, one of those might be a lot bigger than the others. Which is okay. As long as each interpersonal conflict contains entertainment value, you’re good. That is the endgame here. These conflicts are not for your own personal curiosity. They’re for the audience to be entertained by. Never forget that.
Okay, let’s start with, hands down, the best interpersonal conflict in the show, which is Shane (the asshole husband) and Armond (the recovering addict hotel manager). This relationship shows us just how entertaining interpersonal conflicts can be. If you find the right combination, you get fireworks on the page.
The way White sets this is up is that Shane realizes that even though he paid for the best room in the hotel (the Pineapple Suite), he and his wife have been placed in a different suite. So he goes to Armond to complain. Armond tells Shane that they have the “best” room because it faces the ocean. The Pineapple Suite, while bigger, doesn’t have an ocean view. This isn’t what Shane wants to hear. But Armond tells him it wouldn’t matter even if Shane *had* booked the Pineapple Suite (which Armond insists he hasn’t) because a German couple is in the Pineapple Suite all week anyway. After a frustrated Shane leaves, Armond confides to a co-worker that he may have screwed up and double-booked the Pineapple Suite.
This conflict sets up about ten great scenes throughout the show. We know that Shane is a pit bull. He wants that Pineapple Suite. But, more than that, he believes that Armond is lying to him and possibly double-booked the suite, and wants to prove it. What White does so brilliantly is he lets the audience in on a secret – that Armond *did* double-book the Pineapple Suite, but he’s not going to admit that. This sets up a scenario by which we’re curious whether Shane is going to be able to prove what we know – which is that Armond screwed him over.
You’ll note that this conflict is testing each character’s INTERNAL CONFLICT. Shane’s flaw is his stubbornness, his determination to prove that he’s right above all else. He could let this go at any time and have a great honeymoon but his stubbornness won’t allow him to. Conversely, Armond’s flaw is his pride. Even when he knows he’s wrong, it’s more important that he not give in to an entitled rich guest than admit his mistake. So their conflict with one another is basically a test as to who is going to overcome their flaw and do the right thing. The fact that neither of them give in is why their storyline ends so tragically.
Remember, though, not every interpersonal conflict should revolve around hatred. In fact, some of the most interesting interpersonal conflicts occur beneath the surface and are more of a psychological chess match. That’s what we get in the relationship between Olivia (the bitchy rich 19 year old daughter) and the friend she’s brought on the trip, Paula (mixed-race, comes from more of a working-class family).
When we first meet these two, they seem like the closest characters on the show. They bond by making disparaging jokes about the other hotel guests. But the more we get to know about these two, the more we realize that their friendship is complicated. For example, when Paula meets a handsome guy who works at the hotel, instead of telling Olivia about him, she waits until Olivia is asleep every night then sneaks out to be with him.
The conflicts at play here are more complicated than the one between Shane and Armond because they’re beneath the surface. Basically, Olivia’s flaw is her need for control. She is not happy in this friendship unless she’s controlling it. That’s why she gets so upset when Paula sneaks out at night to visit someone else. Paula is now enjoying the company of someone besides Olivia, and Olivia doesn’t like that.
Paula’s flaw is her inability to stand up for herself. We learn that Olivia has not been the best friend to Paula. She slept with Paula’s last boyfriend while they were together. Any self-respecting person would’ve ended the friendship with Olivia once that happened. But Paula, probably because of what she gains by having a friend as rich and influential as Olivia, decided not to make a big stink out of it.
At any point in this story, Paula could stand up to Olivia and call her out for the way she’s treated her, as well as the way she treats everyone. But Paula is afraid of Olivia and therefore chooses to hurt her passive-aggressively, by helping her island boyfriend steal a bunch of money from Olivia’s family. Again, because neither character is able to overcome their flaw, the interpersonal conflict results in someone’s life being ruined forever.
There are 15-20 different ongoing interpersonal conflicts in this show and I wish I had time to cover them all but I don’t. So we’ll finish with another understated interpersonal conflict because I don’t think most writers understand that there *is* conflict in this next situation – that of Mark (the father) connecting with Quinn (his 15 year old son).
When you first look at this dynamic, you don’t see conflict because the intent is positive. Mark WANTS to connect with his son by scuba-diving with him – which requires them to take a 3-day course together. A quick note here. It’s always a good idea to create a structure around the conflict if possible. If you’re just trying to explore their conflict through random conversations back at the suite or during dinner, their storyline isn’t going to feel as clear. The scuba-diving angle is what gives this relationship journey FORM.
Getting back to Mark and Quinn. It’s not like Quinn hates his dad or anything. So there isn’t some deep-set unfixable issue between the two. So where does the conflict come from? Because, remember, if you’re not exploring SOME LEVEL OF CONFLICT in a relationship, the scenes are going to be boring.
The conflict on Quinn’s side is that he doesn’t know how to connect with anyone. His social anxiety is so severe (he may even be on the spectrum) that any sort of emotional interaction for him is a challenge. On Mark’s end, he just doesn’t know what buttons to push to connect with his son, which exacerbates the problem.
Even though the conflict is light, we know it’s there because we’re rooting for them to connect. If we didn’t feel that, there wouldn’t be any conflict. Remember, conflict is an IMBALANCE in the relationship. The absence of conflict is when BALANCE is achieved. So if there’s any relationship you’re writing where balance has already been achieved, chances are that relationship is conflict-free and, therefore, boring to watch.
Guys, if you can master the art of creating interpersonal conflict between characters, your writing is going to skyrocket. Character interaction is the heart of storytelling, especially when it comes to TV. So if you can figure out some point of contention in a relationship and then explore that contention in all of their scenes, you’re going to find that your scenes become a lot more compelling. Because the conflict is already baked into the relationship, as opposed to you having to generate it each and every time you write a scene. White Lotus is a masterclass in this. Go watch it for yourselves and focus on how every single relationship has a conflict it’s exploring.
Oh no! Tomorrow is our last, “White Lotus is The Greatest Show Ever” post! What are you guys going to do when it’s over?
How is it that one person can like a show this much? That he would dedicate an entire week of articles to it? It is a mystery that Scriptshadow readers will be trying to solve for years. However, for those of you who love White Lotus as much as I do, continue with me on this journey as we enjoy the many fruits that have been birthed from our beloved show’s bosom.
Today, we focus on theme and how it affects character. For those of you who have been with me for a while, you know I’m not a “theme” guy. I’ve heard from just as many writers who say theme emerges organically for them as I have those who say you have to commit to a theme up front. It’s ultimately up to the writer.
But Mike White has me reevaluating my stance. Because one of the reasons these characters are so good is because he constructs them through the lens of theme.
Now I don’t know what the exact theme of White Lotus is. I just know, from White’s interviews, that the primary focus for him was exploring the intersection between the rich and the poor during a week at an expensive island resort.
Some writers believe theme should be conveyed through a sort of “mission statement.” Something like, “Money defines humanity in one of two ways – either you are the hunter or the hunted.” The story, then, sets out to prove or disprove that premise.
I don’t think that’s how Mike White approached this. I think he just wanted to explore wealth (or lack of wealth) and how it defines people and creates the relationships between them. Feel free to offer a different opinion in the comments.
Just to be clear, the premise behind this week’s series of articles is the amazing characters Mike White created. I want to know how he achieved this, especially in such a short amount of time. And as I rewatch the series, I realize that approaching character through theme is a very powerful way to create characters.
Every time we put pencil to paper – when we’re about to write that character name for the first time – we’re making a choice about who we’re bringing into this world. This character is going to have some sort of affect on our story. If it’s a major character, they’ll have a large impact on the story. If they’re a secondary character, they’ll have a smaller imprint. Generally, we create these characters based on instinct. We go with what “feels” right.
So if we’re writing an action movie and we’re trying to figure out who our main character should be, we may think to ourselves, “I want somebody big and burly who’s had a rough life and only uses violence as a last resort.” That becomes the baseline for our character and we build him from there.
What theme does is it provides us a clearer framework from which to construct our character. In Mike White’s case, his theme is the intersection between the wealthy and the poor (or ‘working class’) via an expensive resort. So whenever White is creating a character in White Lotus, all he has to do is decide, ‘how can I create a character that best explores that theme?’
Take Paula, for example. If you remember, Paula is the mixed-ethnicity friend of Olivia, who invited her on the trip. Now let’s really get into this because you have to understand the breadth of options one has before they put a character on the page. White could’ve made Paula ANYBODY. He could’ve made her a drop-dead gorgeous stunner who Olivia is jealous of. He could’ve made her an Olivia clone who also comes from a wealthy family. He could’ve made her the comic relief. Hell, he could’ve made her transgender.
But none of those options would’ve helped explore his theme. Paula comes from a lower-income family, which helps make Olivia look good. Here she is with her little charity case friend who gives her the street cred of not choosing her friends through the lens of privilege, but rather through the content of their character (or so she wants others to believe).
It also leads to the storyline of Paula trying to help out a poor islander who works at the resort. Paula understands his struggle because she, likewise, grew up in a family that struggled. And so she creates this opportunity for him to steal 80 thousand dollars from Olivia’s family. All of this is happening because White is exploring his theme. And he’s able to explore that theme because he constructed the character of Paula through that thematic lens.
Probably the most interesting exploration of the theme occurs with the character of Belinda. Belinda is an African-American masseuse at the resort. Her storyline begins when oddball socialite, Tanya, comes by for a massage and Belinda gives her this spiritual massage that rocks Tanya’s world. She’s never felt more at peace and relaxed as she does after this massage. She’s so taken by the experience that she invites Belinda to dinner and wants to book her every day of the week.
At dinner, she says, dude, you need to leave this place and start your own practice. I would fund it. Belinda later talks to her son who says, “This has always been your dream, mom. You need to do everything in your power to make this happen.” So Belinda starts pursuing Tanya and talking about what the practice could be. But Tanya starts to cool on the idea and we can feel Belinda getting desperate as she realizes that Tanya may have changed her mind.
Once again, Mike White could’ve set Tanya up with anyone as her main relationship on the show. You could’ve had her befriend another rich socialite or one of the families there. She could’ve hung out at the bar every night looking for men. But none of those scenarios would’ve explored the theme. White wanted a relationship that specifically dealt with the theme of money. That’s how Belinda’s character was born. She was constructed to be poor and get this taste – just a little taste – of what wealth and success might look like in her life, only to have it ripped away from her by the end of the week. It’s heartbreaking. And, for the purposes of the show, it perfectly explores the theme.
Another example is Rachel. Rachel, if you remember, is the gorgeous wife of Shane, the guy who becomes obsessed with getting them the best suite in the hotel. When Mike White was constructing Rachel, he was obviously doing so with the idea of wealth in mind. Giving Shane a hot Instagram-obsessed ditz of a wife may have provided some funny situations. But where is the exploration of theme in that? Instead, Rachel comes from a very poor family. And so this world that she’s been invited into is totally alien to her.
It also becomes a huge point of contention in Shane’s pursuit of getting the best room in the hotel. To Rachel, this room is beautiful. There is zero reason to complicate their honeymoon just because it’s a little less nice than another room. But to someone like Shane who has grown up surrounded by wealth, getting the “best” room in a hotel is a source of pride, a scalp he can brag about to his rich friends. To him, only second tier citizens settle for lesser rooms. It’s probably the most aggressive look into how wealth shapes people than anything else in the story.
A couple of final thoughts here. I believe theme, as it relates to character, is more important for TV than movies. Because, as we can see in TV shows, scenes are much more character-based. It’s usually about two characters engaging in some sort of conflict-related issue, either on the surface or beneath it. So a strong theme can really help shape these scenes.
Finally, a theme that explores the difference between the rich and the poor is one of the easier themes to explore because of how easy it is to show. It’s easy to convey characters who are either rich or poor. I guess what I’m saying is, using theme as a way to construct character sounds easy in practice. But if you were exploring the theme of, say, “living a life of balance,” it’s not going to be as easy to pull off. So make sure if you’re adapting this approach to do so with a theme that you can actually show.
‘White Lotus is Brilliant Week’ continues tomorrow!
Yesterday was all about how Mike White set up his unlikable characters. Today we’re going to discuss how you can create a show (or movie) based around unlikable characters and still get readers invested. It’s a delicate process. But White Lotus gives us some insight into how it can be done.
There are four gradations of characters you can choose from when writing something. The first is the most obvious – a “likable” character. This would be someone like Peter Parker. Right below “likable” we have the “sympathetic” character. Andy Samberg’s character in Palm Springs comes to mind. Kind of a dick but you would be too if you were stuck in a loop for hundreds of years. We sympathize with his situation. Just under that is the “interesting” character. Louis Bloom from Nightcrawler is a great example of this. When it comes to “interesting” characters, the idea is that the character is, in many ways, unlikable, but they make up for it by being interesting. Finally we have the “unlikable” character. This is usually reserved for villains. They’re people who are virtually impossible to root for.
I listed the four options in that order because it correlates with how difficult it is to make each character work within a story. If you write a likable character, it’s a lot easier for audiences to root for that character than if you write a sympathetic character, or an interesting character.
I bring this up because a lot of screenwriters think the character debate is binary. A character is either likable or unlikable. In actuality, you have these two options in between. And when you start to dig into White Lotus, you realize that a lot of these characters exist in that middle ground.
It should also be noted that there are gradations within the gradations. You can have a character who’s mildly sympathetic just as you can have a character who’s extremely sympathetic. Every time you create a character, you should put some thought into where, on that scale, you need your character to be in order for your story to work.
Let’s start with, arguably, the two easiest characters to root for. There’s Quinn, the teenage son. And there’s Rachel, the wife. In both cases, you would place these characters in the “sympathetic” category. With Quinn, you have this 15 year old runt of a kid who has no friends, who’s constantly made fun of by his sister and her friends. His whole life he has retreated into his electronic devices because nobody else pays him any attention. Quinn is one of the only people in this show who we want to see something good happen to.
Then you have Rachel, who’s sympathetic because she’s starting to realize that she married the world’s biggest asshole. For the rest of her life, she’ll only be known as Shane’s wife and nothing more. On top of that, Rachel grew up poor. So there’s nothing entitled about her, like a lot of these characters. She’s a low-level journalist, so she’s trying to do something with her life. You might be able to argue that Rachel is at the bottom level of “likable.” Because, on top of everything else, she’s genuine and nice.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have Shane, the husband, Olivia, the sister, and Armond, the manager. I would argue that Shane is a straight up asshole with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I would put him squarely in the “unlikable” category without even considering him for “interesting.” But I was still captivated by him and I’ll explain why in a second.
Next we have Olivia, who’s a stone’s throw away from Shane. She’s outright cruel to people, like her brother and Rachel. She’s manipulative, as we see when she tries to steal her friend’s boyfriend. She has zero appreciation for her incredibly privileged life. Honestly, sometimes you can just break characters down based on how they treat other people. And Olivia treats everyone but her best friend badly.
Next you have Armond. Armond straddles the line between “interesting” and “unlikable.” The guy is a hardcore recovering addict. He’ll lie, cheat, and steal on the job, as long as it means getting through the day. So you know that whenever Armond appears, something interesting is going to happen. And that’s your baseline for writing an interesting character. When his scenes come around, is something interesting always happening? If not, he’s probably not very interesting.
The rest of the characters are harder to peg. You have the dad, Mark, the mom, Nicole, the socialite, Tanya, and the best friend, Paula. I actually might classify the dad as likable. He seems genuinely involved in his family’s happiness. He wants to use this trip to improve his relationship with his son. So we kinda like this guy.
But here’s where the whole character creation thing gets complicated. I would argue that Mark is one of the least memorable characters on the show. I remember Armond, Shane, Rachel, Olivia, Paula, and Quinn all before I remember him. Which is the danger of creating likable characters. Likable characters usually aren’t that interesting. That’s not a blanket rule, by any means. But generally speaking it seems to be the case.
Nicole is probably a better example of this. She cares deeply about her family. She’s constantly trying to help her son, like Mark is. She takes all of her daughter’s snipes in stride, never getting upset with her, respectfully trying to help her see outside her laser-focused belief-system. But because the only thing she has going for her is her likability, she’s not very memorable. At least compared to the other characters.
Tanya’s a weird one. I would definitely place her in the “interesting” category because I don’t think there’s anything sympathetic about her, even though her mother just died. I say that because Mike White writes her mother’s death as a means to inconvenience everyone around Tanya rather than as a way to draw sympathy. And I think Tanya’s insistence that the hotel people cater to her whims whenever she needs them to, occasionally places her in the “unlikable” category. But the wildcard factor with Tanya is the casting. White chose such an interesting actress for this part that we probably put up with Tanya a lot more than we would had she been played by, say, Michelle Pfiffer.
Paula is another unique case. She’s fairly unlikable due to the fact that, for the first few episodes, she operates as Olivia’s henchman. But because she’s from a poorer background, she gets sympathy points. And then, as her storyline emerges where she connects with one of the island workers and wants to help him, she becomes more sympathetic. Helping others will always give your character sympathy points.
Now, getting back to Shane. Why is it I care so much about the most unlikable character in the show? Again, he’s not likable. He’s not interesting. He’s not sympathetic. What’s going on here? Why does this character still intrigue me? The answer is, I’m not sure. But if I had to guess, it’s probably because Shane is the most active character in the show.
This is why creating active characters is so important. Activity leads to activity. If someone is out there constantly pushing on the world, the world has to keep pushing back. And that’s where you get all the drama, in the pushback. Shane’s singular goal in this show is to get him and his wife the better room (the room they actually paid for). And when he becomes convinced (rightly) that the hotel manager screwed up and is deliberately trying to keep him from the room, he ramps up his pursuit. He’s going to get that room through hell or high water.
So, if there’s a lesson with unlikable characters, it might be to make them extremely active. It won’t solve everything. But it will guarantee that they get into a lot of interesting situations. One caveat about that is, this is an ensemble. And I think it works in large part because we only get Shane in bits and pieces. This wouldn’t work if Shane was the lead character in a feature.
I hope today’s post helps you consider how your characters are coming off to readers. A minor miscalculation in how sympathetic or interesting a character is can be the difference between a reader investing in your script or not. Sometimes a character needs a few extra sympathy points. Of if they’re unlikable, they need a few more “interesting” points. One of the most common reasons readers check out of scripts is because they’re not into the characters. Use the tools we’ve talked about today to make sure that doesn’t happen to your creations.
White Lotus is Awesome Week continues tomorrow!
I originally had no desire to watch this show. It was actually one of you guys who made me check it out. I don’t remember who said it but the comment was essentially: “This is the first show that I’ve loved where I disliked every single character.”
I thought to myself, “Hmmm, that’s interesting.” For those who don’t follow screenwriting, here’s a little inside baseball for you. There’s an unofficial ongoing competition between all screenwriters to create the most popular piece of media but only using unlikable characters. Anybody can create something popular with likable characters. But it’s only the *truly talented* writers who can create something popular with unlikable characters. It seems like creator Mike White may have just won that competition.
To give you a little background, this is not a show that White spent years trying to make. Quite the opposite, actually. With the arrival of Covid, HBO found themselves in a pinch. They needed contained show ideas that had little risk of spreading Covid. So they ran around to a bunch of creators and asked them if they had something that could be shot on a single set.
With that being the only edict, White came up with this idea: group of rich people spending a week at a luxurious Hawaiian resort. He wanted to explore the constant interaction, on these islands, between rich and poor people. But HBO threw White a curveball. They needed to start shooting in three months. So Mike White proceeded to write six episodes, which were 60 pages each mind you, in just three months, while simultaneously preparing to direct the series.
Which may be the most shocking detail about White Lotus of all. Because this is some of the best character work I’ve enter encountered. I’m talking EVER. And, usually, it’s the character creation that takes the longest to get right. It’s hard enough to come up with one memorable character. White Lotus somehow comes up with ten. Even if you don’t like this show, it’s impossible to forget these characters. You will be thinking of them years from now.
Which is why I wanted to do an entire week of analysis on the show’s character development, starting with the pilot episode. To be clear, in 95% of the amateur scripts I read, I don’t remember a single character in the scripts 72 hours later. With this show, it’s the opposite. These people are ingrained in my mind for the rest of my life. That’s how strong the character creation was. And I’m curious to delve into the material to find all the little tricks of the trade Mike White used to achieve this.
For those who haven’t seen the show, the premise is simple. A group of very rich people come to a Hawaiian island resort to spend a week of high-end relaxation. They include Shane Patton, an exorbitantly rich 30-something mama’s boy who lives off his parents’ money. He’s come here with his new wife, Rachel, a drop dead gorgeous writer who was dirt poor when she married Shane.
You then have the Mossbachers. You have Nicole, a genuine woman who has become one of the most successful female CEOs in the US. You have her husband, Mark, who came from a rich family but lives in the shadow of his richer more famous wife.
You have their 19 year old daughter, Olivia, who uses her family’s wealth when it’s convenient, such as to be a “queen bee” at school. But then tells everyone around her that she identifies as a socialist in order to play the victim role. Olivia’s ultimate socialist act is befriending a poor Latina girl named Paula, who she’s brought with her on the trip. But don’t feel bad for Paula. Paula uses her friendship with Olivia as a way to climb the social ladder and wield the same power Olivia uses to control those around her.
The runt of the family is 16 year old Quinn, an anxious kid who’s so socially awkward that he buries himself in his phone and tablet. He’s got classic “weird kid” syndrome, where, although the parents would never say so out loud, they’re terrified he won’t be able to make it in the real world.
From there, you’ve got two wild-card characters. There’s 60 year old Tayna McQuoid, a socialite who’s draped in money although where she got it is anyone’s guess. This eccentric oddball has come here on a spiritual journey to spread her mother’s ashes in the ocean.
And then you have one of my favorite characters ever. Yes, I just said *EV-ER*. As in, this character deserves to be placed in the pantheon of greatest TV characters of all time – Armond, the hotel manager. Armond starts off as the only person in this story who seems to have their shit together. But as we’ll eventually find out, there’s nothing further from the truth.
Before we start, it’s important to note that this is a TV show but White treats it like a long movie. The characters *will* arc. That wouldn’t happen if this was a multiple season TV show. In multiple-season shows, you keep your characters struggling with their fatal flaws throughout the series. It would be weird if you wrapped their internal struggles up after one season. I bring this up because the approach to character development in this show should be seen through a “feature film” lens as opposed a “TV show” lens, if that makes sense.
In today’s article, I’m going to show you how Mike White lays the foundation for the character development that occurs throughout the rest of the show. Remember that any effective character development depends heavily on the introduction of those characters. If you don’t effectively set up who these characters are, we won’t care where they go. Which is why character introductions are so important. Okay, let’s take a look.
The writers who go on to become professionals in this business understand that character introductions are one of the most crucial components of a screenplay and, therefore, require a disproportionate level of focus. Character introductions achieve two things. One, they tell us who the character is. And two, they explain to us what the character is going to be fighting, and hopefully overcoming, over the course of the story.
Now, what’s important to note in any ensemble story is that you may not be able to perfectly set up your characters the first time we meet them. Due to the fact that some environments allow for better introductions for some characters and weaker intros for others, it’s okay to DELAY some of the scenes where you truly tell us who a character is.
For example, the first official “this is who these characters are” introduction in White Lotus occurs on the boat heading to the island. All of our main characters are on this boat. But we focus specifically on friends Olivia and Paula. They’re perched in the upper deck, bitchily making assumptions about everyone on the boat. There is no doubt, after this scene, that these two are bitches.
Again, we could’ve then cut to the other characters on the boat and tried to establish them within this environment as well. But Mike White felt it wasn’t the ideal setting to do so. So he delayed their “this is who these characters are” moments. It isn’t until newly married couple Shane and Rachel are in their suite that we appropriately establish them.
Instead of jumping into exciting honeymoon sex, Shane looks around and realizes, wait a minute, this is the wrong room. His mother bought them the best room in the hotel. But they’re in some… lesser room. In Shane’s high-end world, this is unacceptable. He begins looking around and confirming his suspicions despite the fact that the room is still huge and gorgeous. This moment gives us a crystal clear understanding of who Shane is, especially after Rachel reminds him that it wasn’t *him* who paid for the room. It was his mother.
We’re about to get nerdy so pay attention, because the way White sets up Rachel is sneaky and something not a lot of writers consciously know how to do. You see, it’s easier to set characters up who are ACTIVE – who are creating the circumstances that are affecting the situation. That’s what Shane is doing. He’s charging round, creating this ‘problem’ of not being in the right room.
Meanwhile, Rachel isn’t active, yet we still get a good feel for her. This is how we do it: You can establish who someone is through their REACTIONS to what’s happening around them. In this case, Shane is bitching about the room. Yet here Rachel is, standing in the nicest hotel room she’s ever been in in her life. So that’s the argument she’s making. “Who cares? We’re on our honeymoon. This place is amazing. Let’s just enjoy ourselves.” In her reaction to Shane’s freak-out, we get just as good of a feel for her as we do Shane’s character, even though Rachel is reactive instead of active. We understand that she comes from a poor family. We also understand that she doesn’t need everything to be perfect to be happy. She’s much more down-to-earth.
We do the same thing for the rest of the hotel guests. Socialite Tanya has an awkward exchange with one of the helpers in her room as she can’t find her bags even though they’re right behind her. This woman is so out of touch with reality that she doesn’t even know where her 14 bags are despite the fact that they were literally placed behind her 30 seconds ago.
We then switch to Mark and Nicole’s room with a close-up shot of Nicole inspecting Mark’s penis. I’m not sure I love the idea of introducing someone via their penis. But the flip side of that is that so many character introductions are forgettable. And this one definitely isn’t. Also, to Mike White’s credit, it’s organic to the situation. Mark just had tests for testicular cancer and he’s waiting on the results. So we clearly understand where this guy’s head is at after this scene.
Of all the characters in White Lotus, Nicole probably has the weakest introduction. White tries to do the same thing he did with Shane and Rachel where we introduce Nicole via her reaction to her husband’s cancer situation. But it’s not as clear who she is after this moment as it was with Rachel. There is a good line in the exchange, though, that provides some insight into their marriage. He asks her if his testicles look different. Her response is, “I don’t know. I haven’t seen them for a while.” That tells us that these two don’t get intimate often, which indicates their marriage isn’t perfect. It’s little touches like this that you need to add if you want to get to that next level of character development.
Finally, we get Armond’s big introductory scene, and this one is a little more complex, so you have to pay attention to understand its genius. Basically, Shane comes to the front desk to complain about being in the wrong room. Armond is overtly polite with him. He says he’s sorry but that’s the room they booked. Then, as soon as Shane and Rachel leave, Armond turns to the new helper, Leilani, dropping the friendly act to inform her how these people are all evil and you have to tell them whatever they want to hear to keep them happy.
In other words, the beauty of this character is the distance between how he must outwardly act and what he actually feels, which is contempt and hatred for everyone. If Armond was a genuinely happy person and enjoyed helping people, he wouldn’t be interesting at all. It’s the contrast between how he must act and what he feels that creates this powder keg of a character who we’ll see deteriorate over the course of the show.
There’s another little character trick going on here with Armond that you can use yourself. Whenever you have a mentor-student relationship, it’s easier to get inside the mentor’s head because he’s constantly explaining what’s in his head and what he’s feeling to the student. Normally, it’s hard to convey thoughts to the reader/viewer. But you can tell us EXACTLY what someone’s thinking if you’ve written in this dynamic.
“See, in that instance, you just have to stay calm and tell them that they’re right. These people are leeches. They’ll take whatever they can. You put on a smile, tell them they’re right, but then stand firm as you explain that you’ve done everything you can do.”
Another great character-writing tip you can take from White Lotus is that Mike White is so focused on creating great characters that he even gives his secondary characters storylines. Leilani is an overweight helper here on her first day of work who has a secret. She’s nine months pregnant. But she’s terrified to tell anyone because she’s afraid she’ll lose her job. Over the course of the day, her water breaks, and she tries to hide it from everyone.
You’ll note that when Armand stops her, later, to ask her a series of questions, it’s a much more intense interaction than you would normally get between two people because WE KNOW Leilani’s secret, that she’s about to burst. We can see the pain in her eyes, along with her desperate attempts to appear normal. This is the kind of detail that professional writers bring to the table that I rarely see in amateur work. So it’s a good habit to develop, especially in television writing where there are a lot of characters.
So there you have it. Lots of great character work to learn from. Tomorrow we’ll get into, once you’ve established your characters, what to do with them. Seeya then!
