If you've spent any time studying screenwriting, you've probably heard some variation of this advice: "Your protagonist must be likable." "The audience should want to be them."

That advice made a lot of sense in the era of Ferris Bueller. I still remember being at a movie theater and overhearing two kids arguing about who got to be Ferris. The argument got surprisingly heated as neither kid wanted to be Cameron. They both wanted to be Ferris.

Understandable. Ferris is funny, charming, confident. He takes risks, everyone loves him, and he gets the girl. He's the definition of "likable."

I recently watched Marty Supreme and noticed many reviewers criticized Marty Mauser for being "unlikable," stating that he's selfish, manipulative, and reckless. That he lies and repeatedly puts his own ambitions ahead of others. Some critics argued the film never gives him a strong enough redemption arc to earn forgiveness.

Yet the film was a commercial success and audiences generally responded well to it. That got me thinking. Maybe we've become a little too focussed on "likability."

People can debate whether Marty is likable or not, but I think most will agree he's "interesting." He keeps our attention because we want to see what he'll do next, how far he'll push things, what consequences he'll face.

Some will say that a well-written, likable character is interesting by default. I agree. I just don't believe "likability" should be the focus. The term is too subjective. I "liked" Marty as a character. The qualities that made him "unlikable" to some viewers were the same ones that made him "interesting" to me.

I've come to realize that the term "likability" is a trap.

By approaching scenes with the mind set of "How do I make this character more likable?" writers can run the risk of unintentionally softening flaws, smoothing rough edges, making safer decisions. Characters can become so likable—so watered down—they're boring.

Switching the focus to "How do I make this character interesting in this moment?" opens up far more possibilities. It reminds the writer not to forget contradictions, moral ambiguity, character blindspots. To be clear, interesting doesn't automatically mean meaner, darker, or more outrageous. The actions and intent still have to be honest.

Of course, there's still the redemption argument, which is separate from this post. "Likable" and "interesting" characters can still let an audience down if the audience doesn't feel like the character learned anything.

I'm just sharing the character approach that works for me.

posted by Sandra L. Rostirolla on May, 31