Love Live Long
I guess I'm in a period of thinking about film and filmmaking. I made a feature last year, it's called LOVE LIVE LONG but everything about the film was far removed from the what cinema has become. I did it because somebody asked me to do something filmic around the theme of a car rally. I had no interest in the car rally but they persisted and so I said I would make a film in Istanbul, that being one of the places the rally would pass through. So I set off for Istanbul with 2 actors and 2 crew and a couple of peli cases filled with digi things. The script was a one page treatment. We were all quite excited. Things went horribly wrong on the rally and we adjusted our small story accordingly. At the time I was not sure whether the finished thing would be a docu or a fiction. In fact it is a bit of both.
I think it worked reasonably well and I guess all those years of practicing on bigger films paid off to the extent that I more or less know how to make a film now and how the edit works and how the music can help etc.
Aside from that I have read lots of scripts and written a couple for other people. The ones I read were not interesting and the ones I wrote all ended up in studio type confrontations. Executives who had big ideas about character and plot and particularly the 3rd act.
I've been revisiting a lot of films I saw when I was in my 20's and found to my relief that most of them held up pretty well. So I've started a review journal and each time I watch a film now I write something about it. I find it has been really helpful to me in my attempt to understand what is going wrong with cinema, particularly mainstream cinema. I will get it this deeper later but the main thing that strikes me is this -
Plot has killed script. Back in the day plot was a slightly sketchy framework for character development. The scripts I read now, the characters are there to supply the plot. It's all to do with a misguided idea that the function of cinema is somehow to be realistic. I think the function of cinema is to be poetic and magic and original.
I think it worked reasonably well and I guess all those years of practicing on bigger films paid off to the extent that I more or less know how to make a film now and how the edit works and how the music can help etc.
Aside from that I have read lots of scripts and written a couple for other people. The ones I read were not interesting and the ones I wrote all ended up in studio type confrontations. Executives who had big ideas about character and plot and particularly the 3rd act.
I've been revisiting a lot of films I saw when I was in my 20's and found to my relief that most of them held up pretty well. So I've started a review journal and each time I watch a film now I write something about it. I find it has been really helpful to me in my attempt to understand what is going wrong with cinema, particularly mainstream cinema. I will get it this deeper later but the main thing that strikes me is this -
Plot has killed script. Back in the day plot was a slightly sketchy framework for character development. The scripts I read now, the characters are there to supply the plot. It's all to do with a misguided idea that the function of cinema is somehow to be realistic. I think the function of cinema is to be poetic and magic and original.
> Comments (23)
Plot is not the glue that pulls a movie together... Story is what connects people. The fact that most people don't know the difference is why so many movies are garbage these days.
Two words: overseas revenue. Plot is emphasized, and the dialogue must be simple enough to translate well.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Plot is the glue that pulls a movie together. Granted, the plot needs to be connected to well developed characters. I just find that nine times out of ten, if a movie fails, it's a problem in the plot construction. That doesn't mean that plots should be formulaic, or "high concept." My favorite movies are "Before Sunrise" and "Before Sunset" two movies where on the surface it doesn't look like much is going on. But the plot is in the subtext. Plots need to be crafted, original, and meaningful. They can be simple, they can be complex. It doesn't really matter, They just need to be good. If a movie is poetic, magical, and original, it's usually because it had a poetic,magical, and original story at it's heart.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Plot is the glue that pulls a movie together. Granted, the plot needs to be connected to well developed characters. I just find that nine times out of ten, if a movie fails, it's a problem in the plot construction. That doesn't mean that plots should be formulaic, or "high concept." My favorite movies are "Before Sunrise" and "Before Sunset" two movies where on the surface it doesn't look like much is going on. But the plot is in the subtext. Plots need to be crafted, original, and meaningful. They can be simple, they can be complex. It doesn't really matter, They just need to be good. If a movie is poetic, magical, and original, it's usually because it had a poetic,magical, and original story at it's heart.
That's an interesting point about plot killing script. However, I must admit that I thought Christopher and Jonathan Nolan's script for The Dark Knight was superb. The plot was dense and complex, but the characters were also rich and believable. And audiences responded to it because of that.
You said:
>
I couldn't agree more.
I thought that Leibstraum and Leaving Las Vegas were amazing works. Thank you.
afwaddell.com
Nicely said, Jethro. Not everything has to have a resolution because that is life. That is truth.
Lets not forget about the cinema of Tarkovsky, Antonioni or Bergman who's films were about an experience and emotional thought. Some of the films of these directors were so complex that i don't think you are meant to "get it". Let the mystery remain a mystery, not everthing has to have a resolution. Let your thoughts linger on forever more.
This is great stuff to hear coming from a filmmaker! It's refreshing to know that these kinds of questions and statements still matter from a storyteller's perspective and it is at the very least an exciting, varied topic of conversation;very important to how and why we tell stories.
I think a factor in the whole "plot" business is that many audiences today get plot confused with story. These words seem almost interchangeable, and I'm not quite sure what to think of that.
From how I take it (and I've been out of film school for 3 years and even then rebelled) plot is the structuring of a story, the beats, the pacing, the "plotting" of events to help get from point A to B.
As another poster stated, story, plot, character all go hand in hand. I think that is true, but never, ever should mean just one thing or rather one narrow view of how something should work. When working seamlessly together in a symbiotic relationship where one cannot exist without the other this is when we tell a successful story, overly plotted or nuanced, or in between or neither. Most probably the best stories are ones where we don't even think about them in these very clear definitions and just go, "Wow."
I look at my two favorite films this year thus far, "WALL-E" and "The Visitor" and think that.
Having conversations with people from all walks (or over hearing them ) the basic thing that comes up is "well what was the plot of the movie?".
Much of the time this seems to be asked in a negative light.
It seems to be the consensus that plot equals story and a movie that might not have a clearly visible plot (the third act!) is deemed slow, boring, or just plain bad, because of the way many mainstreams moviegoers of the past two decades have been conditioned.
And it is not to say that an overly clear plotted movie cannot be a successful story, it all depends on the world, the characters, and probably most important the approach and passion of the filmmakers.
For instance "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is one of my favorite movies, and then again so is "Persona."
If a movie comes from a place of "I love this story, this world, I have to share it! Live it!" rather than "this story could make us a lot money" then I feel that is a huge factor on how successful a film is based on all factors.
Is there real passion and desire and fascination behind it? Truth in some form?
So I feel that a very narrow public perception of what a movie can be is what is wrong and scary and helps to get in the way of telling many a good story, because the studios dish it out and we don't complain and so they assume we truly must want more of the same and no one learns.
In that regard it kind of reminds me of Ra Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. The government did not stop people from reading books, people became disinterested on their own accord and the government obliged.
If Hollywood is so focused on plots, why are so many plots so predictable? Now that I'm in my 40s, I can often guess the end of a movie or the next scene.
In my opinion the worst aspect of most movies today is the dialogue. Sometimes a character could be interesting, but the character isn't developed. "No Country for Old Men" is an example. Who was the killer? He had no real personality. Neither did most of the other characters. It was the most overrated film I've seen in a long time.
Often the lines an actor has to say are so stupid, it's frustrating. I feel sorry for actors today. Even the best acting can't make up for absurd dialogue or a lack of dialogue. Historical pieces with modern slang are my biggesst peeve. Does Hollywood think we're so stupid and ignorant we don't notice?
In many ways I agree with the ideas that plot is killing cinema...everything has become so formulaic that we already know what to expect before it happens. A clear example for me is a film I recenlty watched entitled "The Recruit" (2003) with Al Pacino and Colin Farrell. I missed it the first time around and decided to check it out. This is a film that started from a good idea (showing how the CIA recruits its agents) and, some how through the magic of studio rewrites etc. turned into a trite and easily predictable flim with a climax you don't much care about. After watching it I sat back and wondered if when I was a lot younger (say 14) would I have found this so predictable. I picked 14 because that is around the age I first watched Psycho and was amazed and shocked at the events on screen...my first total suprise in film...and the first film that help me understand one aspect of what a director actual job is.
I think another problem with film today is the "shakey cam" aspect that many cinematographers and directors are choosing to take...while it is effective in the hands of some filmmakers...it is allowing others without the natural ability or chops...to just point the camera anywhere and shoot. Just my opinion.
On the DVD commentary of Lindsay Anderson's O Lucky Man!, the film's star, Malcolm McDowell, said that Anderson thought films should be true but not realistic. In other words, they should be about how life actually is, even if that is presented in a non-realistic way. I think the problem with the studio model is that it's almost never true -- it's never about how life really is -- yet they try to make everything look absolutely real, as if that grittiness somehow constitutes honesty. Whereas OLM is absurd and surreal and yet on some level very truthful. Pity there aren't more like Anderson these days...
My well-respected screenwriting teacher will insist that plot comes first. When I was discussing with my peers about how I treasure the numerous rich character moments in such films as "Michael Clayton", "Princess Mononoke" and "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" [what I wished all summer blockbusters could be like], they asked if I then disagreed with my screenwriting teacher. But the truth is, I couldn't have agreed more- all of those films had strong storylines behind the wealth of character development.
Lately I've grown to defend films when they're slammed for being implausible or unrealistic, but in turn, it could be because whenever I write a story it's filled with plot holes.
Plot has killed script...the function of cinema is to be poetic and magic and original. Well said. It is the rare movie like Brokeback Mountain or The Pianist where characters are truly developed and human beings are fleshed out. It is in that realization of the human condition when cinema becomes magic.
I agree that there is a tendency in Hollywood to overplot movies, especially thrillers and suspense films. They need so much twists and turns that you stop believing anything that's going on on the screen. So, in that sense, I agree that plot has killed script. Just take a look at stupid fodder like Butterfly on a Wheel, Vantage Point and even the overplotted Pirates of the Carribean 3: At World's End.
In the seventies, thrillers were often about character first. Even Jaws is more about those three guys on the boat than it is about the shark. True, a Korean movie like The Host does the exact same thing, just as Del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth. But isn't it telling that now we praise a film like that for qualities that were the norm three decades ago?
As for Nick Castronuova's opinion that contemporary cinema emphasizes more on character, he may be right. But Hollywood emphasizes on character in a simple way: every hero must have a trauma, a terrible burden or what not. It's a simple trick. A cliché.
Plot has not killed script or character. The two must go hand in hand. Without needs and desires expressed in the plotting, the character cannot escalate from more than a 2-Dimensional shell. And without a strong, believable character, the plot means nothing.
Contemporary cinema I believe emphasizes MORE on the character, rather than the actual story/plotting. That is not to say that it has none, but it's more like what you said it was many years ago: a slightly sketchy framework for character development. Wes Anderson, Paul Thomas Anderson, M. Night Shamaylan, Noah Baumbach, Bryan Singer, and 90 percent of those outside the mainstream network adhere to this.
And every movie serves a different purpose. Only a cynical person would say that all movies have to achieve the same thing.
There is a difference between "realistic" and "truthful", and modern cinema is neither. I'm sorry, but I do believe cinema has a responsibility to be realistic as much as it has a responsibility to be truthful. Escapism is dangerous and right now is being used as a tool against intelligence, against insight and against understanding. The films of Mike Leigh and Todd Solondz are far superior, I believe, to the films of Guillermo Del Toro, and they still know how and when to take poetic license.
Plus, I don't necessarily see why realism has to be synonomous with over-plotting. If anything, Hollywood films are the antithesis of realistic. They present glamorous characters in ridiculous situations and willfully ignore the aspects of life 99.9999% of us go through. Even a film like Gummo is more realistic than anything Hollywood has churned out in the last twenty years.
Fiction is increasingly packaged as fact and fact as fiction...
So films and novels get scrutinised for their authenticity. Writers and directors use docu style shots in order to bring this about.
In the meantime watch a documentary on TV and they'll use actors to re-enact, music from films that cover similar ground, even the titles allude to novels and films etc...
IMO films should cover the whole spectrum from gritty realism to magical fairytale; plot driven thrillers to intense charcater portraits. The moment you try and say what cinema shouldn't be (or any art form for that matter) you immediately place a ceiling where none is required.
I absolutely agree with Mike. I've always defended the view that a film - a fictional one for that matter - is not a depiction of reality, but instead a poetical and magical interpretation of a certain reality. I believe that a message is better absorbed by the public when it is told in a more magical and off kilt manner, rather than with an "in your face, this is the real thing" approach. There's too much "reality" in today's films and not enough lyricism. If you want reality, make a documentary, even then..."reality" can still be arguable.
I absolutely agree. People have this misguided notion that everything has to be real. I think as you said it should be poetic and magical. Not enough of that these days I’m afraid. That’s why I find myself attracted to the work of Guillermo Del Toro. Here is a guy that is using cinema for its fullest possibilities. Keep up the good work.
"It's all to do with a misguided idea that the function of cinema is somehow to be realistic. I think the function of cinema is to be poetic and magic and original."
I couldn't agree more. The movies to me has always been about escapism...albeit with some points that you can relate to. Only yesterday I read this quote by George Lucas where he said that, when making Star Wars, he has wanted to show people how the wolrld could be, as opposed to how it really is. Perhaps this is why I am confused as to why people praise The Dark Knight for example, for its realism insetad of for its magical tale of a superhero... I keep a review journal of sorts also..I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on film!
One of my favourite filmmaker is the late Sergio Leone. Plot was never a big deal with Sergio, he was all about celebrating the nuances of his characters, moving your emotions and entertaining you as an audience member - not about making the plot stick or inserting enough twists and turns.
No Country For Old Men is a good example of what cinema should be. The movie's plot doesn't really make sense but the movie is great and very entertaining. It's not trying to be a smart movie like the films M.Knight Shamalan is trying to make.
Man, you are so right. But I think the prolem is that most
of the scripts get produced too early, so the story is still
stuck in the middle of plotting.
Cheers
> Post a Comment