Characterization and Kabali

Characterization is nothing but how a character is characterized. There are many ways of classifying characterization. One such way is called Showing and Telling. In Showing, characterization of a character is characterized by the author showing who the character is. This is done by narrating how the character behaves, how he/she reacts, what the character speaks (direct speech), etc. In showing, the character is shown by the author so that the reader will construct the character by the information provided. But in telling the narrator takes full control of the characterization. He does not leave much room for the reader to construct the character. But the narrator tells who the character is by descriptive words. Though telling is a straight forward means of chracterizing a character it is not a preferred means of chartcerization. A good characterization should involve both. While the author may take precedence in telling who the character is he must also show and revalidate this characteristic feature by showing that characteristic feature by the showing technique. Telling technique will raise more suspicion while making the reader construct the character by showing technique will make the characterization more authentic and with less suspicion. Therefore, showing technique should be preferred more than telling. Even though telling technique is used it must be used equally with showing. Biblical narratives balance this very well. To authenticate the characterization either showing characterization must be used equal to telling or more. Failing this will rise questions of the authenticity of the narration as the reader is not allowed to verify for himself of the characterization presented by the narrator.

In John 1, in the beginning, until v.18, the narrator tells how Jesus was God by using telling technique. But from v.19 onwards he shows how John the Baptist identified Jesus as the Lamb of God by using showing technique. This shows the both ways John uses characterization. Though John mentioned that Jesus is God in Jn 1.1-18, he shows how Jesus is God throughout the book of John. Therefore, this technique validates the characterization as authentic.

When the Kabali movie was released many reviews in paper and media gave bad reviews. I asked my director friend, Surya, about the movie and the reviews. I asked him why the reviewers gave bad ranking for Kabali. Surya mentioned that in the movie, the director tells many things but he doesn't show how it all happened which discredits the story and characterization. I think Surya is right. The director does not show how Kabali became a Don,  he just tells that he became a Don with few clips. He does not show the whole story, which discredits the story and characterization of Kabali. Because of this, the character called kabali does not come as authentic.  As he is not seen as authentic the story does not make much effect on the heart of the audience. Kabali then just becomes a superficial character and makes the movie as a fantasy movie as the character is not reliable because his characterization is not reliable. Therefore, characterization should involve both showing and telling which is beautifully used in Biblical narratives.

Movement in Characterization

Characterization also involves movement. In the characterization, the author first would describe a character in a particular way and then as the narrative moves forward the character would take shape and move from one to another. At one of the narrative, the character would be in a different way but later the same character would take shape to be something else. 

More than anywhere in the Gospels, we find this beautifully shown in the book of John. 

In John 3, Nathaniel sees Jesus as the Rabbi from God but by the end of the narrative Jesus is characterized as the Son of God of whom people should believe to have eternal life. There is a movement from Rabbi to the Son of God in the characterization of Jesus in John 3. The narrative moves the characterization of Jesus from Rabbi to the Son of God. For this movement, the perspective of Nathaniel that Jesus is a rabbi is needed. From this characterization the narrator moves the characterization to showing that Jesus is the Son of God. In this movement, Nathaniel's portrayal is not purely negated but Nathaniel's identification that Jesus is the Rabbi is taken as the launching pad in the narrative for John to show Jesus as the Son of God. 

Likewise, in John 4, the Samaritan Woman sees in the beginning as a Jew but later the narrator shows Jesus as the Messiah by the end of the narrative. Therefore, there is movement in characterization.

Contrastive Dialogue, Persuasive Dialogue, and Polyphonic Dialogue

There are many classification of Dialogues. In this blog let me mention three of them as following:

A. Contrastive Dialogue:

There are at times dialogues are contrastive in nature. Two characters talking in a contrastive manner is called contrastive dialogue. For example, when Jesus predicts that Peter will deny Jesus Christ he says he will never deny Him but he will even die with him (Matt 26:35; Mark 14:31). Here Peter’s views are kept in contrast to Jesus. Jesus is not convincing Peter about it. He was just narrating what will happen. But Peter negates that and says he will never deny Jesus. This shows contrastive ideas kept side by side.

B. Persuasive Dialogue:

The term persuasive dialogue is coined by the present writer to mean one or more persuasive ideas present in the dialogue. In many instances, like Socratic dialogues, one character’s speech would persuade the other character(s). For example, in the dialogue of Nicodemus in John 3, Jesus’ speech persuades Nicodemus to accept his understanding about being ‘born again.’ The whole persuasion in this dialogue is that Nicodemus should understand that to be born again he must know that Jesus is sent from God as the Son of God and that he must believe in Him and that through this believing he will have eternal life. Therefore, Jesus’ participation in the dialogue in 3:1-21 is to persuade Nicodemus to believe in Him. This is a common feature in dialogues.

C. Polyphonic Dialogue:

Polyphonic dialogue is also a term used by present writer nevertheless it is a rendering of Bakhtin’s idea of polyphony. For Bakhtin, polyphony means many voices (see below). Then, polyphonic dialogue is nothing but a dialogue which contains many voices where no voice is preferred over the other voices. In polyphonic dialogue each character’s ideologies are presented while none is subordinated, even the author’s or the hero’s.