One-Note, One-Minute Characters
It's happened so many times before, we've all seen it; a character who has a small role in a storyline steals it. They have such quick wit, they have such wonderful screen presence, they have such devilish fun, that we want them to stay. These characters bring something out in a story that characters we've watched over decades simply can't. Long-term characters add their own ramifications, history, and levels of depth to each and every conversation they have (if the writers are doing their jobs). But short term, one storyline characters have much more freedom. They are not saddled with any history or even a set in stone personality. Technically, writers have free reign and can use this character in any way he or she feels fit. In other words, short-term characters are the only ones writers are really allowed to use to manipulate a story. Often, this brings a refreshing take to a story, a couple, or a family. Isn't it fun to see a couple that has grown stagnate see someone else shake things up, or tell the louse of a thrice failed husband off? Soaps can be stagnate, even with the best talent making it happen, there must be change once and awhile.
But even the freshest things left out and unattended to end up going stale. Is that too much of a metaphor? Yeah, I thought so. So let me put it this way, if the point of a character is to be different, fresh, unique, and initially short term, if a writer stretches out that character's time on the show, try to create other reasons to keep that character around, won't that character just be assimilated? Oh sure, a few characters, usually villains, can manage to still do what they do best without getting boring and about as static as every other character, but it takes skill and careful thought before just taking every single short term character viewers enjoy and making them permanent. Of course, there is also the problem that not every single short term character should stay in the first place.
So how do writers and producers know when they have a good thing they shouldn't let go of or a character that is sure to burn out? How do they tell the difference of a character that can be fleshed out of their original function and one who will lose their allure when you try to bring different things to the character? Honestly, I don't believe there is a simple formula for that. Sure, a really skilled writer might know the difference between a character that has no where else to go and a character that can easily adjust to new surroundings, storylines, and layers. But besides the fact that I don't think daytime has a really skilled writer (with final say at least), even that can be hit and miss. Not because the writer was wrong necessarily, but because it simply doesn't translate the way it should on screen. While soaps success is often hinged on the quality of the writing, viewers still have to connect to it and quality and viewers are not a slam dunk (see Generations). So even the most tantalizing character on a short term basis, with incredible promise may end up running into an audience with a short attention span for the actor, the look, the clothes, whatever.
Latest Articles