Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/23690
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

In my screenplay, I feature a CEO of an advertising agency who is "pot shaped," shy, tongue-tied and a few other characteristics that make you wonder how he ever became an advertising executive, never mind a CEO. Until the retired founder comments that this "careful and earnest" executive "made no enemies and very few mistakes on his way up, and had a way of coming up with the right answer to complex problems."

I felt that these salient points were adequate for a character description. Until a (female) critic told me, "You've got to tell us more about him; what kind of family life does he have, what does he do for fun. (He's the third most important character who "gives the bride away.")

Then there is his first (female) boss, whom I present as vain, narcisstic, luxury-loving, etc. Again my critic asks me to tell more of her "backstory;" that she hailed from Minnesota befor she came to New York City, fell in love with the lights, is a dilettante, because she can hardly describe the plays and paintings that she's seen once.

Is my critic correct in pushing me to give minor details about my characters? Or am I more nearly correct in trying to keep the focus on people's most important characteristics? FWIW, my critic was born around 1940, and things may have been different in "her" time, than today.

Original score: 2