Sorry to Bother You: Greed
The first film I’m going to talk about in regards to character development driving a story is Boots Riley’s Sorry to Bother You, a clever and oddly hilarious dark comedy about worker’s rights and racial ties in the contemporary structure of capitalism. Bear in mind, this is a radical leftist film. The protagonist is Cassius Green, an impoverished call center worker for RegalView who lives with his activist artist girlfriend. After learning to use his “white voice” on the phone, he rises through the ranks quickly. He shortly thereafter helps his friends form a union, and worries about his career when he’s caught at a protest, but instead he and is promoted to a lofty position with little work to do and a lot of standing around in a suit schmoozing. Until this point Cassius has been a sympathetic character; he stands up for his beliefs, helps his friends, supports his girlfriend and works hard. But in the new position, he realizes that RegalView owns a corporation called WorryFree, which is essentially sugarcoated slave labor (marketed as guaranteed for life housing and food for unpaid work), and suspects that something is off about his sudden promotion, but neither of these are dealbreakers for him.
Cassius is making a lot of money, though, and suddenly his beliefs aren’t as important. He refuses to even take a strong stance against WorryFree, although it makes him uncomfortable, and he is willing to give his uncle some money to prevent him from having to join. He spends his new money on cars, penthouse apartments, and suits. His relationship ends when he stops participating in the union or supporting his girlfriend’s artistic and political endeavors. He becomes a viral internet meme when he crosses the picket line and suffers a brutal head injury from a protestor throwing a soda can into his forehead. At this point, it’s hard for us as an audience to continue liking Cash. He’s deserted not only his moral beliefs but his friends and loved ones because he likes the money and the power he now has. He’s willing to appear on television taking a stance against the union his friends created. He’s become a hypocrite.
The story is entirely driven by Cash’s character development and he plays a pivotal role in moving along the plot line. Cash’s weaknesses fall into Group 2- greed and pride. He’s willing to overlook some things now that they don’t affect him… even if they do affect others that he cares about. This results in harm to the character himself- in the obvious form of a head injury, and it also causes to lose the relationships he has, most importantly, his girlfriend. His weaknesses harm the other characters in that as a previous union co-founder, Cash refusing to advocate for them significantly diminishes their chances of succeeding in their demands.
The climax of the movie is when Cash is invited by the CEO to a party with some other RegalView big shots. Although it’s not spoken out loud, the movie lets us- in the words of Andrew Stanton- put two and two together rather than showing us four, in regards to how uncomfortable Cash is by being the only black person there in the enormous mansion packed with hundreds of people. The camera pans around the crowd many times. The other party guests even pressure him into rapping for them, although he does not know how. They dislike his first rap, an attempt at a rhyming, but go crazy for his second rap, which is just repeating the phrase “n***a sh*t” over and over; the very visibly Caucasian crowd then begins chanting this back to him. We as an audience can see that Cash dislikes this atmosphere and feels like an exhibit, but he still stays at the party and goes with the CEO when he’s invited up to a private room. This is the very last scene in which we see Cash’s weakness overcome his likable character traits.
Cassius now has a private audience with the CEO. He is given cocaine and allows himself to be coerced into snorting some. When he leaves to find the bathroom, the entire movie changes. He finds a monster, half-horse, half-human, chained in the bathroom, begging for help. He does what a smart person would do in today’s day and age and takes a video before confronting the CEO, who explains that all WorryFree workers are being transformed in order to up their productivity. He reveals that the plan all along was to offer Cash one hundred million dollars to undergo the transformation and be a figurehead for the movement to keep the employees in line.
This is the breaking point for Cash, and he reveals the video to the press, appearing on TV shows like I Got the Sh*t Kicked Out of Me, utilizing his continued viral fame for his humiliating injury. Though the video is controversial, it’s hailed as a scientific advancement and a great business strategy. Things at the end of the movie reach the point of a violent revolution against this company, and Cash returns to the side of his friends and girlfriend to fight for his beliefs. He, now a transformed “equisapien” (it was not cocaine earlier), leads the rest of the monstrous hybrids in their revenge.
In Sorry to Bother You, all of the plot is driven by Cassius’ choices as to how important his political beliefs are versus his own financial gain. Ultimately, by turning down a one hundred million dollar deal, he overcomes his weakness at the very height of his possible financial gain. All of the secondary characters rely on him to help pull them out of their own poverty, and he chooses to place the good of society over his own benefit. Similar to what Andrew Stanton was saying, we see Cash’s ugly weaknesses only when he’s tempted to abandoned his morality. He’s “conditionally likable” before his development. Of course, this was definitely intentional in order to show us as an audience how some people’s political opinions may only reflect that which benefits themselves, no matter what their financial situation is.
The LEGO Batman Movie: Selfishness
Maybe if I didn’t have a mother who works for LEGO I wouldn’t have seen as many LEGO movies as a I have. But I’m here to tell you that LEGO movies aren’t actually the childish, soul-sucking toy advertisement you’d expect. If you hadn’t already heard, they’re really funny and well written. I personally believe that The LEGO Batman Movie is the best Batman movie ever made, but that’s controversial. It is a children’s movie, still, so the character development may be a little more heavy handed than in other films.
In The LEGO Batman Movie Batman is depicted in a way that he only had been previously in satire and parodies. His weaknesses are obvious off the bat. He’s arrogant, a little bit stupid, and melodramatic. He refuses to work with others and intentionally isolates himself, much to his own downfall. To keep him likable, though, it is made obvious to us that he only does this because he fears losing anyone he becomes close to, due to his childhood trauma of becoming an orphan.
I won’t get into the entirety of the plot, because most of it is convoluted and involves lots of in-universe terminology established throughout the film that you see in a lot of superhero movies. Suffice it to say, the general summary is that Batman insults the Joker unintentionally by telling him that he is not as important to him as he thinks he is. He has other enemies, too, and the Joker isn’t even his favorite enemy, he likes to “fight around”. The Joker is incredibly heartbroken by Batman’s lack of willingness to commit to a (for the sake of the joke) “monogamous” hero-villain relationship. He decides he must force Batman to see that he is the greatest threat to Gotham City, so that Batman will finally accept him as his number one enemy.
During the course of the Joker’s plan, in which he recruits other villains (many of whom exist outside of the DC Universe, like Voldemort, Sauron, the Daleks, and Abraham Lincoln), Batman grapples with other problems. He accidentally adopts a son, (Dick Grayson, of course), and the new city commissioner (Barbara Gordon, of course) announces that she wants to institute a police force that does not utilize or rely on Batman.
The big turning point in Batman’s character development is towards the end of the movie. After refusing to allow now-Batgirl and now-Robin to help him, he had abandoned them through means of deceit and decided to solve the city’s problems on his own. He has an epiphany while speaking to an omnipotent gatekeeper figure in a sort of prison for villains. She tells him that he is not a villain, but he’s not a hero. This character shows Batman how much he’s hurt all of his friends by rejecting them and lying to them, and he realizes that by refusing to manage his own fear of losing people, he’s done the same thing by being the one to hurt them instead. He reunites with the team and apologizes. They end up “defeating” the Joker simply by Batman admitting that he does hate him and he is his one arch-nemesis.
While the movie is written for kids and the message is a bit more clear, it still doesn’t come off as preachy. Batman is selfish, but we are meant to understand that it is due to his own fear. In this way, despite his unlikable qualities, he remains sympathetic. The weakness manifests psychologically, in that it causes his own loneliness, but it also hurts the other characters. The audience is taught that having our own problems isn’t an excuse for mistreating others.
Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country: Prejudice
If you’re not a Star Trek fan, I won’t make you listen to me explaining all of the intricacies of alien race relations. I will say that Star Trek, since its conception in the late 1960s against the backdrop of both our real life first experiences exploring space and an explosion of civil rights ideology, has always been intended to provide a metaphor for progressive social politics. As an American in the 1960s it would be hard to miss the intentional placement of a black woman as a commanding officer, working alongside prominent Russian and Japanese crewmates. The show featured the first interracial kiss shown on US television. Star Trek made a lot of people angry and a lot of people proud with its loud anti-war themes and its symbolic discussions of morality and respecting culture. In any ethical debate episode, the trio forms in their usual positions: Captain Kirk, asking his two closest advisors for their opinion, looking to choose the option that causes the least casualties and political backlash. Lieutenant Commander Spock, the only non-human working on the starship, always presents the argument for respecting different cultures, discussing human-centric judgement, and reminding the team that the aliens’ way of life is just as valid as the humans’. Dr. “Bones” McCoy is usually of the opinion that the humans are inherently right (especially if their society is more developed) and their lives and values should be placed above others, and presents this argument with a very hostile tone, resorting often to verbal insults and anger in the face of disagreement. Many of the episodes were set up in this way as a clear allegory for race relations in America to initiate discussion and debate.
As good as the 1960s series was, though, it was not always especially well written. The main character was one of the worst written characters conceivable. Kirk is a standard example of a “Mary Sue”. He’s intended to be brave, heroic, clever, selfless and handsome, with absolutely no flaws ever presented to the audience. Sure, he has many flaws, but I believe they’re the result of the show being written poorly, making the audience question his behavior, rather than being an intentional weakness, and every single non-villainous character regards him with extreme respect and adoration. That’s exactly why The Undiscovered Country is so good! We finally get some intentional character weaknesses.
I mentioned Star Trek‘s political allegories before because The Undiscovered Country brings that back into the spotlight. In this last movie featuring the original Star Trek cast, Admiral Kirk is now an old man, but he’s still called into a meeting where he is informed that their longtime enemies, the Klingons, have suffered major destruction to their primary energy source, and are seeking peace with the Federation to save the lives of their civilians. Throughout Kirk’s entire career he battled the hostile Klingon forces and cruel, unfeeling military leaders, and suffered many casualties to his crew as well losing his son. He takes the stance that they refuse to help and allow them to either die or go begging for help elsewhere, as a humiliating punishment. Unfortunately for him, he’s outvoted and elected to speak to the Klingon ambassadors.
The meeting goes poorly, despite Kirk and the ambassadors sharing many common interests, and the Klingon officers notably make a comment about how Starfleet is a very “humans only” club. Everyone gets drunk to cope with the disastrous dinner. Later that night, though, after they’ve gone to bed, the Enterprise fires two torpedoes at the Klingon ship, and two assassins in Starfleet uniforms injure the Klingon ambassador aboard his own ship. Kirk and McCoy attempt to save his life but are unable, and upon being found with his body, are arrested for the attack.
Kirk believes that this is a setup by the Klingons. In court, it’s noted that he has said that he “never has trusted Klingons and will never forgive them”, and this is used as an argument that he killed the ambassador because he did not trust peace negotiation and wanted to enact revenge. Kirk does not deny that these are still his views towards Klingons. They are sentenced to life imprisonment.
The plot unfolds in a way that, similar to LEGO Batman, is unrelated to this paper. We will skip to the revelation that the actual assassin was the protégé of Spock (both Federation-allied Vulcans) and that she and a group that included both Federation and Klingon representatives intended to end the peace talks and sow distrust. The Enterprise is able to prevent the group from assassinating the Federation President, but they do all lose their jobs, as far as we know.
What I love about The Undiscovered Country is that we as an audience had been following Kirk’s adventures for decades, and had “been there” when he witnessed the war crimes of the Klingons, so we kind of understand where he’s coming from. But at the same time as this movie came out, Star Trek: The Next Generation was airing, so any diehard fan (and if you’re watching this movie, you are one) would know that in the future the Klingons do join the Federation and become popular and beloved characters. So when we see the “okay, you’re a racist old man who was in a war that happened a long time ago” attitude that Kirk’s rants are met with, we understand that too.
Because we’ve been led to believe for so long that Kirk can do no wrong, his prejudice against the Klingon race feels more realistic. He’s not necessarily a bad person, he’s just very stubborn and old and has had different experiences than the younger generation. He does learn that he’s wrong by the end of the movie, of course, but once again Star Trek puts us in both perspectives and allows us to understand and sympathize with a person who has a viewpoint that we still know is morally incorrect.
Comparing and Contrasting
Sorry to Bother You is a dark radical leftist comedy, LEGO Batman is a children’s comedy, and Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country is a sci-fi adventure movie. In each of these movies, a sympathetic protagonist must work through their own internal issues to end external backlash. I think these three movies can be put on a scale in regards to how the protagonist addresses his weakness. In Sorry to Bother You, the protagonist knows he’s wrong, can see that he’s hurting others, and does not immediately choose to stop. In LEGO Batman, the protagonist does not know that he’s wrong, can’t see that he’s hurting others, and has to be told to stop, but does choose to as soon as he makes that realization. In The Undiscovered Country, the protagonist thinks that he’s actually helping others, believes that he is right, and, when told to stop, develops an “us vs them” mentality. One could argue that Admiral Kirk is the most morally wrong here, because he is least receptive to even the suggestion of change, but one could also argue that Cassius Green is the most morally wrong, because he actually knows what he’s doing is harmful and still continues for selfish reasons. One could also look at it from the standpoint that both Batman and Kirk are influenced by past trauma whereas Cassius simply makes his poor choices for personal gain. But then again, Cassius’ peer pressure situation is a lot more intense. I think the conclusion we can make here is that as long as your protagonist has a flaw, you’re on the right page. What’s essential is that they are still sympathetic. If you popped in halfway throughout the movie you could say Cassius is a corporate sellout, Batman is a jerk, and Kirk is just a racist. But the redemption is important. We should be proud of the character’s progress without feeling preached to.