I can understand where your confusion is coming from. I said one time many pages ago that that mountain scene turned an active character into a passive. I meant that in that scene, Clark become passive, not that it overall turned him into a passive character. And since I said that, I have several times said that I didn't consider Clark/Superman to overall be a passive character, so I don't know why you would still be confused. And you have yourself said that a character can both be active and passive. I quote:
I am confused because you used the fact that an active character did a passive thing as if that was, by itself, a worthy criticism of the character. You cited Clark's passivity as evidence that his character development was not "convincing and believable." You asked: "Why couldn't Clark make some active choices that naturally develops his character, instead of just getting a vision of his dead father?"
In other words, for you, it was specifically the act of being passive that interfered with successful character development, which makes no sense to me. It implies that character development cannot happen whenever a character is passive. When, in fact, you can learn a lot of about a character during his or her passive moments, and characters can change even when they are not themselves active agents of change.
Clark's thoughts on the top of that snowy mountain show us how his thoughts are changing and why they are changing.
Is that really different from when I say that an active character was passive in one scene?
Yes, it is, because that isn't what you said. You said: "it turned an active character into a passive." What you're describing the scene as one that changes a character type rather than a shift from one form of behavior into another. Or, to put it another way, you were using "active" and "passive" as adjectives to describe nouns whereas I was using "active" and "passive" as adjectives to describe verbs. For me, Clark did something passive. For you, Clark became something passive.
It's rushed because it's big character development that doesn't develop, it just happens. One scene where the character is passive and the character isn't at risk. Everything in that scene comes so easy for Clark, and character development shouldn't come easy. I would have Clark be more active, yes, and make him change through the power of antagonistic force, where the pressure is stronger. For me, that scene lacked the pressure a big character moment needs. Because true character is revealed in the choices a character does when he's under pressure, and the greater the pressure, the deeper the revelation.
I'm sorry, in what way was Clark not under an extreme amount of pressure in the context of the scene in the film? He had just voluntarily walked into the U.S. Capitol to answer for himself and the charges of murder and recklessness when a bomb killed everyone in attendance. In the aftermath, he tried to help, but he began to see that every time he tries to do something right, something wrong takes his place. Later, when Clark spoke to Lois, and right before he left for his wintery walkabout, it is clear Clark is experiencing an identity crisis. Now, besides the world asking, "Must there be a Superman?," Clark is asking this question of himself, too.
The antagonistic forces are reaching a climax for Superman. The U.S. government, the public, Lex Luthor, Batman, and Wallace Keefe are all either overtly or covertly creating obstacles for Superman. So, when his response to this character crisis is quiet contemplation, that says something big about Clark Kent. The fact that Clark is able to quickly overcome grief, doubt, and hopelessness by thinking of his father and his girlfriend says something big about Clark Kent. The very fact that Superman -- a hero whose purpose was directly described as someone to give people hope -- is able to find hope within himself, is a big deal and is character revealing.
That scene doesn't reveal anything new about his character for me. I you thought so, good for you.
See, this is the kind of response that bugs me. You say that the scene didn't tell you anything new about Clark, so I provide you with what the scene shared with me that I thought was new. Rather than explain to me how the new things I listed were not new, you decided to just declare that they are not. Are you telling me that ALL of the things I discussed were things you would have been able to say about Clark before the mountain scene in
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice?
You knew, for a fact, that Clark would think of how his human father coped with guilt and hopelessness when he was himself feeling guilty and hopeless? Of all the people Clark could have imagined on that mountaintop and all the memories that could have guided his thoughts, you knew it would have been Jonathan Kent? It would have surprised you, for example, if it had been Jor-El because everything these two films had revealed about Clark's character up until this point made it obvious that he was always going to deal with the fallout of the Capitol bombing by thinking about Jonathan, his story of the flood, and how Martha stopped the nightmares.
I frustrate you? I'm sorry, but we can say that in the middle of character development. I think that character development happens when a character is put under great pressure from antagonistic forces and the character's way of reaching his goal isn't working, he fails and have to change to achive his goal. And I think that when we're dealing with an Archplot and not a Miniplot, and the character is an active one, and not a passive one, then I think that the character development should mostly come from a place of action. Otherwise, the character stops being an active character and starts being a passive, does he not?
No, and here you are returning to your defining passive actions as an act of being rather than doing. An active character doing a passive thing does not make an active character into a passive one. The context of the scene we're discussing is when Superman is feeling the direct result of "great pressure from antagonist forces" that are preventing him from "reaching his goal." Superman's goal was to find a way to still be Superman, and prove that he and humanity could not only coexist, but that he could be a great help to the world. At the point at which Clark sets out for that mountaintop, his character is in crisis because everything is working against him. He no longer is certain his goal can be achieved. He's losing hope. How does one actively pursue one's own hopefulness if not from within or from the support of those one loves?
I guess I am still puzzled about your views on character development because it sounds like your definition of character development is directly contradictory to your stated interest in complex and dynamic characters. A complex and dynamic character cannot be active all the time. If a character is always active, then the character becomes both predictable and inhuman. Do you know of anyone, even proactive and active people, who are consistently and predictably people who always respond from a place of action?
If a character does typically come from a place of action, then it follows that it can be very revealing and interesting to see what sort of elusive event could cause an active character to engage in a passive act. So if you did not like the scene with Clark thinking of Jonathan on the snowy mountain because you didn't learn anything new about the character, then does it make any sense for you to suggest that it would be out of character for an active character to act passive? If it is surprising that Clark would engage in a passive activity like traveling to do a bit of soul searching, then isn't that something new you learned about the character?
I don't find it enriching and revealing that the scene reminds Clark, and reminds me, how much it helps to lean on the woman you love. Because, as you said, it's a reminder, nothing new.
Of course it's new. If it wasn't new, then Clark would have listened to Lois when she tried to get through to him in the first place! Clark, in fact, wasn't leaning on the woman he loved. His guilt and hopeless had made him blind to the sources of light in his life. Isn't this something we all do at one point in our lives? In times of crisis, when we are at our lowest or think the lowest of ourselves, don't we find it difficult to hear and believe anything good, including the faith those we love have for us? The scene on the mountain shows us that the only way that Clark is able to allow himself to let light and hope back into his life is to think about something his father must have said about his mother. In short, what was new was how Clark was able to connect his relationship with Lois to his father's relationship with Martha.
I feel like it's unnatural because it feels rushed. If you rush character development, than it will feel unnatural. It's that simple. Character development should be earned, so I defintely think that we should have spent more time on it. But with that, I don't mean a longer conversation with himself.
Then what do you propose as an alternative? How would you write a scene that takes up about the same amount of time that deals with the problem of how to take someone like Clark Kent from a point of hopelessness to a point of hopefulness?
My problem was the fact that an active character went through big character development when he was passive and didn't face a strong antagonistic force, and the character development was rushed.
The big character development was the fact that an active character chose to be passive in the face of "strong antagonistic force
." That is the neon sign character development. Throughout the film, Superman had been actively trying to do something about the growing antagonism for Superman. He tried taking on Batman for giving heroes like him a bad name, he tried continuing to be a hero who saved people from fires, floods, and explosions, and he tried complying with the government by attending its Superman hearings. He never stopped acting. The fact that Superman responded to a crescendo of antagonistic forces converging at the Capitol bombing by stepping away and taking time to engage in a passive activity like traveling is significant. And, therefore, what ultimately helps him internalize what Lois said to him earlier, is significant, too. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a film that uses the perception of Superman as corruptible god as the reason why his existence must be questioned. By showing his response to escalating conflict and destruction in his name is to relinquish power and find hope in love and family, the film makes a clear statement about the true nature of Superman.
