| Author | Message | ||
     Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 79.187.206.46 |
I had a look at everybody's comments on The Mist, including yours. I want to ask you what you think about Richard Linklater. I ask because of your comments with regards to logical plot development with regards to the mechanics of structure in a film. I would suspect Linklater may be a director, especially with reference to his earlier film(s), such as 'Slacker' (but not the sublime 'Tape'),who irks the shit out of you! | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 79.187.206.46 |
Regards...regards...just thought I'd pop a few more in... | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.250.221 |
I love Linkater's films! Al the one's I've seen, at least. His "structurelessness" bothers me not at all (and besides, he certainly is a master of film structure: witness SCHOOL OF ROCK); because here again is my theory on structure in film; which is to say, my explanation of my reaction to film structures; which is to say, my explanation of how everyone reacts when they see a (scripted) film: Movies tip off the audience to the basics of what is to follow: here, the structure. All audiences do not want to be "surprised" in a story, they want (i.e., instinctually, not consciously) the expected - this is why our minds catalog "structures" within structures: hero types, story-settings (the fairy castle, haunted house, etc.), tone, genre conventions, story structure, arcs, etc. If you don't deliver on expectations, you get: audience anxiety. Flip a series of switches initially, you have now signaled to the audience a series of structures to follow in a film, that is in essence, a contract: you, the film, have made an agreement with the audience to deliver it a specific kind of film (which is mostly to say, story, but other things too). If a film starts off old-west western, tells one-half of a story with characters and plot and set-ups, etc.; then were to suddenly become a present-day romantic comedy, with already-developed characters and already-developed plot descending to an already-concluding climax, we wouldn't know what to make of it: it would be considered a failure, because it violated every manner of known acceptable structural form/contract hitherto entered. It has no value, because it exists wholly outside what constitues value. Anyone who argues against this, is clearly imbecilic, and needs laughing out of the chamber. Whatever contract you propose (as a film), you must then follow through; the contract is semi-fluid, though its ability to modify clauses diminishes with every minute of film. Great filmmakers - like Linklater - propose and conclude the contract entered into, clearly, and early (even a confusing movie like WAKING LIFE signals clearly to the audience: confusing! non-traditional structure/s! etc.). Others, like THE MIST, make us the audience look like idiots for entering into the contract at all. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 83.98.9.4 |
So by your logic - if a film starts by setting up a Rom-com but half way through turns into an extremely horrific torture film including uses of cheesewire that don't bear thinking of, that would be a complete failure. Comments? | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.254.118 |
This is vague example you're throwing out. It sounds like AUDITION. It's hard to extrapolate from your miniscule example (don't worry, I'm not punning) - but if you did mean or could mean AUDITION, there's a caveat which is not a caveat that needs bringing up: different cultures, societies, have their own structural story-forms, derived from centuries of development. What passes for a contract in Japan, say, might not here. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 83.98.9.4 |
But according to your theory western audiences would reject it. They haven't. So you're wrong ner ner ner ner See I'm good at debating | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 83.98.9.4 |
ner ner ner ner ner The ultimate arguement closer! | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.254.118 |
No, Weber... okay, let me scoop this one out of the baby food jar for you... see, the audience is telegraphed what the contract will be... astute audiences know to expect different structures from non-Western cultures... it's all about telling the audience what they are getting, and delivering on what you tell them... or, about astute audiences knowing what they're getting into.... Now if you bang your creamed carrots all over the place again, Weber, mommy's going to spank the living shit out of you. (ha! I love it! all those people who think I'm arrogant must be just livid by now....) | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.75.24 |
Ah - the Friday afternoon creche. I wouldn't be without it. I've opened a bottle of wine early to celebrate :>) | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.16.84.213 |
Don't lie, Ally - you just opened the bottle of wine early. No, scratch that even: you just opened the bottle of wine. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.70.75.24 |
Hey - it's Friday. I'm on a panel tomorrow about sex sells but should we buy and I haven't a clue what to chat about :>) | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.16.84.213 |
That's the topic?!... That's a two bottler. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 79.187.206.46 |
Craig - I understand everything you say, I even follow the pragmatic sensibilities of your logic, but if all directors adopted this 'template' for film-making, for story, then many a great movie would never have been made. I'll offer up myself as one victim on the altar of sacrifical naivety and ask you about Fellin. For example, 81/2. And what about Lynch? Surely, if I've understood you clearly, then Lynch has entered into the 'contract' with the audience. As in, we know what we're getting with Lynch. Glad to see you like Linklater, though. The man's a bleeding genius. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 79.187.206.46 |
And doesn't DD fall into this contract? We know what we're getting from the outset. OR perhaps you simply just don't like DD or The Mist on a gut level, rather than from the critical bent of a screenplay writer. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 79.187.206.46 |
Craig - mate, just being nosey, but what excatly do you do? I have a fair idea but I wanted to hear it from the horse's mouth so to speak. Not that I'm calling you a horse...more donkey than anything else.  | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 83.98.9.4 |
Going by Craig's theories, no new director could ever make a new concept of a movie because they'd have to follow these rigid structures of filmmaking that Craig seems to think must apply to make a good fim. The best films are the ones that break through those boundaries and confound your expectations. So there nerks. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.0.58 |
Frank - I'm an as(persp)piring screenwriter trying to wedge his way into the industry; I've gotten close, but close in one hand, and you know what in the other.... I read scripts for the industry, and work a day job, to support myself. Weber & Frank - Both of you are making a central mistake as it pertains to my theory: that a director (screenwriter too, and others) consciously decide upon these genres/conventions/structures. You keep injecting an individual, when I'm talking about the work itself. It's simple, and it starts with a simple a priori: that there is indeed good films/stories, and bad films/stories. If you don't want to accept this central premise, that's fine, but you're now playing by rules for a different theory, and you can go take your ball into the adjoining room. But if you do accept there are good stories, and bad stories, one must be able to define an example of a bad story: I did, above. Then, one works towards the other side, and ascertains the rules and tools, that go into a working story.... | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 83.98.9.4 |
But the rules you keep quoting don't work. Look at Audition, From dusk till dawn, The Birds and a million others, they all build one template then throw it away in the middle of the film and give something completely different. I'm not talking about individuals here,I'm talking about the stories. If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that once a story template has been set up in the early part of a film you must never deviate from what the audience expect to see after that. To coin a technical phrase, that's bullshit. To make a great film, set up a contract with the audience, break it and use the audience anxiety to your advantage and hammer them with what you want to say, not what you think they want to hear. Maybe, if you try that, you might find your voice properly and produce that great screenplay you're trying for and (by your own admission) not quite getting. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.2.34 |
You're evading the issue Weber. First, I'd like to know if you think there are bad, poor, lousy, defective, etc., films out there. If so, what are the reasons that make a bad film a bad film? There have to be certain rules, that are violated. If an actor delivers his lines without inauthenticity, then we'd say that constitutes a failure in a film - but what if the film were a satire upon film itself? This is where it goes back to structures and expectations and templates and everything else; and, telegraphing the audience to those templates and structures, etc. I've said, AUDITION is a different beast, it's from a wholly different culture. I've mentioned this film before, and I will mention it again, because it has the most wild structural swings I've ever seen in a film - YAJI & KITA: THE MIDNIGHT PILGRIMS ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468975/ ) - am I the only one here that's seen this? John, you especially, I think you'd appreciate this crazed extravaganza... but anyway, this one is all over the place: but it works. FROM DUSK TILL DAWN is horror, I'm not remembering it very well maybe, but I don't see the huge violations of rules or structures there; the same with THE BIRDS. A better example of treading the edge of violating structures/expectations, is THE DESCENT, where one could easily think this a chick-empowerment flick, and wherein the monsters don't really make a solid appearance until almost halfway through the film. But even here, the flavor is horror throughout... and besides, this isn't really exactly what I'm talking about.... Here's an easy example: You can't have a rom-com without a closing "chase" scene. The 3rd Act chase - the hero physically chasing the love-interest - is now a convention of that genre; not to include it might seem "maverick," but it's actually just stupid. Because it's become the genre/structure itself. So you don't include one, at your peril.... Now extrapolate from this, and you have exactly what I'm saying. Which is really just definitional, rather than radical. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 83.98.9.4 |
Dusk till Dawn - set up is a straightforward jailbreak and hostage situation. then they go to the bar on the New Mexico border and it turns into an all out vampire flick. The Birds - starts off as a Rom Com where Tippi Hedron meets the male lead in amusingly set up situation in a big city pet store. She follows hom to Bodega Bay and it's a full 45 minutes into the film before that first seagull swoops down and takes a bite of young Miss Hedron. The mood of FDTD is crime thriller till the Vamps appear at the half way point. Both of these break the rules you say should never be broken. They give one set up and then throw a completely different film at the audience. Any film that stick rigidly to a template tends to be forgettable fluff. the films you remember best are the ones where the rules are broken. Of course I think there are good stories and bad stories but that's down to my personal taste, not down to some strictly applied template that must be applied to everything I watch or read. Bad films tend to be bad because they're badly directed/written/acted or a combination of all three. The bravest writers and directors have been subverting the forms they work in for ever. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.9.251 |
Well here we again part ways, slightly, Weber, because - you could go back and check, I'm not just saying this here for the first time to support my argument - I believe that: extra-story elements are as applicable to the story itself, as the actual story elements. Film takes it one step further, through advertising schemes, posters, etc., which are all evidence that can be used for/against the templates. Everyone knew what they were getting with THE BIRDS, the moment they went in the theatre; the same with FROM DUSK TILL DAWN. That's why my counter-example of THE DESCENT doesn't quite match either, the argument I'm making. However, I just so happened to read, recently, Shakespeare's LOVE'S LABOR'S LOST... and it must be synchronicity, because here, Shakespeare takes a thoroughly established template - the rom-com of his day - and totally trounces it, turns it completely upside down, in its final moments. But it works, and works wonderfully well. So why does it work? Perhaps a theory I can float here to explain my own theory, is: presence vs. lack. All the elements of a "template" - a rom-com, say - must be present, and none lacking, for the whole to work. Beyond that, the author is free to improvise and add, and tweak. It's when an author or filmmaker sets up expectations that are not cashed in - look at my major complaints with THE MIST, that's why I was mad with that movie - that a work fails or not. (As an addendum, however, the author must still foreshadow the twist that is to come, the shocking changes, etc. - Shakespeare does here, very very subtly, so that when the alteration arrives, we do see there was some logical reason for/playing out of it.) |