How different is a well-drawn character from a successful caricature? My impulse is to say, very different; that they are two totally separate things with almost nothing in common. But I'd like to put forth the conjecture that there is actually very little separating the two, that there is a good deal of cross-over between them and only a fine line separating them. (It should go without saying that there is virtually no difference between a poorly-drawn character and an unsuccessful caricature; indeed "caricature" is often used as a pejorative way of describing poorly-drawn characters.) I was watching "Hannah and Her Sisters" on the T.V. tonight when I started thinking about this. My a priori take on this is that a "character" is something you identify with and feel sympathy for, where a "caricature" is something you mock and feel superior to. Watching Michael Caine's character thinking about having betrayed his wife, and how to get out of it, I felt both sympathy and scorn, superiority and identity. And again, when I was watching Woody Allen's character thinking about his remoteness from the world, and again, when I was watching Hannah help her sister shop for a dress. So: characters, caricatures -- thinking a little more clearly now I realize that I have had this epiphany many times already, I may even have written about it when I was reading The Corrections. But there it is. I also am wondering whether "Hannah and Her Sisters" might be my favorite Woody Allen film. I think the chances are very good that it is but I do not have any of the other candidates clearly enough in mind to say for sure.
posted evening of Saturday, April 10th, 2004
| 
