GITS Script Reading & Analysis: “Buried” — Characters
This week we are analyzing the screenplay for the 2010 movie Buried, written by Chris Sparling.
You may access the script here.
Today we discuss the script’s characters. Here is a list of the most prominent ones:
Paul
Alan Davenport [C.R.T. personnel director]
Jabir [hostage taker]
Linda [wife]
Dan Brenner [commander of Hostage Working Group in Iraq]
Pamela [Paul’s co-worker]
Paul’s mother
I reached out to Chris Sparling, the screenwriter of Buried to see if he would answer some questions about the movie for us, and he kindly agreed. Here are his responses to questions about the story’s characters:
Scott: One really impressive dynamic is how Paul’s actions all feel authentic. Some times he acts logically, other times emotionally, many times in between, but unlike some movies where a character does something that feels forced or manufactured by the writer, everything Paul does feels real. How important was that for you in writing his character? How did you ensure Paul acted in an authentic way?
Chris: As I mentioned previously, realism was of the utmost importance to me with this. To drive that home, Paul had to make mistakes. I make mistakes, I’m guessing you do, too. It’s rare in films that we see characters do something wrong. For example, why does he use his Zippo when the flame east up oxygen? Well, besides looking for specific markings in the coffin, he lights it because he’s afraid and doesn’t want to be alone in the dark. Plus, there’s the assumption that Paul even knows that a lighter will a lighter will eat up oxygen. Again, we’re used to characters who know everything; Paul is not a movie character, he’s a regular person. Same goes for some of the phone calls he makes — maybe they seem slightly illogical, but that’s actually the point. Movie characters are as cool as a cucumber in times of crisis; real people are frantic and illogical.
SM: Paul’s experience of having to overcome a series of bureaucratic obstacles was frustrating in its own way because of his unique circumstance, but I found myself relating to him due to all the times I’ve had to deal with officials on the phone. Were you aware of that point of connection for potential audience members? I couldn’t help but think so especially when on P. 15, Paul is forced to endure the CRT on-hold recorded message. Did you consciously try to mine that dynamic both for creating audience identification with Paul as well as adding a bit of humor to the proceedings?
CS: Yes, it was a little bit of both. And, one of the themes I was going for was disconnection, both literally and figuratively. Voice mails, being put on hold or transferred from office to office — it all becomes the norm. The extremely frustrating norm.
SM: Let’s talk about Jabir. He provides the Nemesis function as evidently he and his cohorts are the ones responsible for putting Paul in the coffin. Like all good antagonists, he has his own world view which he believes to be true. For example, if you are an American in Iraq, to Jabir you are a soldier. There is one exchange in particular between he and Paul on P. 36:
Paul: I’m here because it’s a job, to make money. That’s it.
Jabir: I have job until you come. Now, my family have nothing.
What you do there is humanize this guy and in doing that, you complicate things for the audience. It’s easy to despise a stick figure. But a character with a justifiable perspective, it’s more of a challenge. How important was it for you to humanize Jabir? Was that a tricky process for you given the horrific thing he had done to Paul? Or was the process of finding Jabir’s humanity an easy one?
CS: First and foremost, I wasn’t trying to write Saw, so my antagonist had to have an actual reason for doing what he was doing. I didn’t want some psychopath or whatever else behind this; I wanted the distorted mirror image of Paul, which mean he had to have justification for his actions. Does that mean his actions were, in fact, justified? Absolutely not. His actions were deplorable. But were they necessary? That’s up for debate, but if Jabir were part of that debate, I’m sure he would say they were. One thing worth pointing out is that Jbir was a common criminal; not a terrorist, and most likely not involved with the insurgency, either. He had no big point of view on politics or the war itself, other than how it affected him and his family directly. He wasn’t evil simply for the sake of being evil; in his mind the ends justified the means. But this was as far as I wanted to go in terms of ‘humanizing’ Jabir. In my personal opinion, he was a piece of garbage. Then again, so was Allan Davenport, the personnel director for C.R.T.
SM: Perhaps the most interesting relationship in the movie is the one Paul has with Dan, the head of the Hostage Working Group in Iraq. Could you go into some of the process whereby you developed Dan’s character and in particular the fine line Dan worked between encouragement to Paul and outright deceit.
CS: In my mind, Dad did truly have the best of intentions (making him one of the few people who actually did). When he said he was vigorously pursuing leads, he was. His only moment of deception comes when he lies to Paul by saying a former hostage, Mike White, was safely recovered, thereby giving Paul hope. But that was the idea behind Dan’s lie: To give Paul hope in a hopeless situation. Insofar as Dan’s character goes, I felt he needed to be the one (relatively) calm person in this chaotic world. Because of that, I knew — from a storytelling perspective — that he would be the perfect person to organically provide information to the audience, because it was his job to provide it to Paul.
One massive takeaway item from Chris’ comments: The importance of drilling down into each of your primary characters and understanding what is at the core of who they are as people — not conceptual entities, but living, breathing, and real figures. It’s the difference between a Protagonist who does everything right… and makes mistakes. It’s the difference between a Nemesis who is a Bad Guy because he’s a Bad Guy… and a person who has a world view that justifies his actions. It’s the difference between a one-note governmental official… and one who is trying his best to help Paul, even if he has to concoct a lie to give the hostage hope.
Know. Your. Characters.
See you in comments!
For Day 1 of our analysis of Buried, go here.
For Day 2 focusing on structure, go here.
This is our last script to read and analyze in 2011, so jump in before it’s too late.
NOTE: THIS SERIES AND THE USE OF SCRIPTS IS STRICTLY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES!
Comment Archive