A Quote by Daniel Dae Kim

What's great in theater is that you can sustain the arc of a character for a full three hours, whereas in film or TV, you have to create that arc in little pieces, and usually out of sequence.
Every film you're commissioned to write is all about an arc; usually, the arc is that the world creates a change in the character, usually for the better. To not have an arc, the messages and ideas in the film became more prominent.
As a writer, you know what the purpose of the scene is. It really has nothing to do with the actor so you have to really get out of that space because for actors it's a micro-focus and then you figure out your arc through what the writers have given you to say. But that arc is just one little piece of the huge arc of the whole film. It took a while to get out of that.
Having been a theater person first, you have the whole character, and you see the arc of the character in a play. And then when you do a movie, you have the whole character - or, if it's a small role, there's not much arc, but you see what the whole part is.
It's really interesting working in television as opposed to the theater, where you know the arc of the character and you are able to create this whole backstory.
Its really interesting working in television as opposed to the theater, where you know the arc of the character and you are able to create this whole backstory.
There's an arc to an action sequence, and you need to come out the other end knowing your character better, and maybe the story has moved forward in a compelling way.
A funny thing about film is that it's the only medium where people say there are really rules that you have to stick to. Nobody says to the writer - in a film you've got to have three acts - there's a character arc you have to do - there's no reason that's true.
It takes stamina to get up like an athlete every single night, seven to eight performances a week, 20 weeks in a row. And there are many young performers who only learn their craft in the two minute bits it takes to film a scene. You never learn the arc of storytelling, the arc of a character that way.
With a film, you know the beginning, middle and end of your character's arc. But on a TV show, you have no idea where they're going to end up.
I feel like if a film is well-written, then the character's arc is complete. There really is very little room to expand on that afterwards.
The other main difference between film and television is that you have the opportunity to flush out a character, over a longer period of time. Whereas with a film, you're confined to two or three hours, or whatever it may be.
When I read a script or I see a character, I don't necessarily see the arc of her, that by the end she is this person, she's different from she was in the beginning. I guess it's more a subconscious understanding of that arc.
I think writers should create characters who are human and have a character arc of their own.
The great thing about being an actor in a film is that you're able to start knowing exactly where you're going to finish and really paint something in between. You can work to know the arc you need to build. Whereas in television, it is open-ended, and you're constantly guessing. There are pros and cons to both.
To me, great writing - and when you can really make something wonderful out of it as an actor - is when your character has a sense of self-awareness. It doesn't necessarily have to arc. It doesn't have to grow.
With a series, you build the character as you go. When you've got a shorter project or a film, you know the overall arc from the beginning.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!