Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

'Old Fashioned' Film Making

There are simple straight-forward linear narratives, complex multi-layer narratives, time-shuffle narratives and even very minimalist in terms of overt drama "stories" that have made effective films. Outside what I would call "kinetic interest" movies that primarily engage us on the sort of roller-coaster wham-bam visceral wow level (and of course now 3D is adding to that dimension of "engagement" it seems) -- I think the more pertinent question is whether the "story" engages and has meaning to the level of audience it hopes to present that meaning to. The same is true of all artistic communication, whether totally populist or more rarified. It strikes me the stuff that lasts and effects us the most often has the richness of operating on many levels and pulling us into a world that enriches us. Gimmickry on any level is by it's nature shallow and sometimes the one-trick pony delights for a time or catches the fashion of the moment then evaporates.
 
I still think the idea of non-linear a bit spurious. Everything is linear because thought is linear. One thought follows another, one deconstructs a story and then reconstructs. I love the fact that the word remembering is related to dismembering. One has such violence attached to it and the other is related to the past. So if film making is a way of relating human experiences it is in effect a (re)membering, a putting together of something that is broken. Film is remembering. I like that thought.

Now what is it that I have forgotten that I am trying to remember?
 
Film is remembering. I like that thought.
Click to expand...

I heard a really great interview a few weeks ago and I'm sad I forgot who it was with because I wanted to hear the rest of it but he had a line, which ironically I can't remember, it was to the effect of:

"Humanity's greatest fear is to forget and story telling was the creation to save us from the terror of forgetfulness. A good story doesn't tell the listener something new, it reminds them of what they already know."

I think it's one of the greatest views on storytelling I've ever heard.
 
I've never seen a story that was written linear become non-linear in post successfully when people where desperately trying to make it more interesting.

Non linear works well though when it's part of the construct of the story.

A somewhat bias but very astute detective fiction writing professor I had in college said "All writing is mystery writing." And I think he was absolutely right - even if it took me a few years (okay maybe 8 or so) to realize exactly how deep that statement went.

When you're writing, you're laying out a series of mysteries and discoveries - even if you're writing a comedy.

If you think about it like that and without the temporal factor involved, then it makes perfect sense that as long as you're laying out the mysteries and discoveries appropriately, then the timeline (be it linear or non-linear) really just needs to be whichever is the best for that story.

It's true, we are seeing this more and more, but it doesn't mean it is always best or will take over. It's just one of many on going changes in the presentation of media. It's like cinema verite. When it's right for the moment - it's great. When it's wrong, it's self conscious and overly stylized.
 
J. P. Sendall said:
I love the fact that the word remembering is related to dismembering. One has such violence attached to it and the other is related to the past. So if film making is a way of relating human experiences it is in effect a (re)membering, a putting together of something that is broken. Film is remembering. I like that thought.
Click to expand...

Love this statement!
 
However we can approach this situation in two ways:

The re-membering is done on screen, by the filmmaker. With a linear story.

The re-membering is a task given to the audience and therefore the filmmaker would only hint how they do or leave it entirely open.

I'm more fond of more linear narratives, even though Archplots (films with external conflict, defined protagonists and good closures, as classified by Robert Mckee) are adopting lots of characteristics of less popular types of plot.

One example that comes to my mind is from my favorite movie, OLDBOY, the plot is well defined, forward moving and the linearity is broken to propell the present ocurring main plot.

I'm not very fond of films that break linearity (of happenings, plot development etc) like Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, to name one, however, if there's more motivation to it, or it's intrinsic to the plot's own language, like in the ingenious Adaptation, I tend to like it.
 
Going back to its roots, I think storytelling began as orally passing on the news. Then the Greeks made theater into a classroom, where lessons were learned. The English Bards then jazzed it up and added musical accompaniment hoping to attract pay for making it more entertaining. And of course Shakespeare was in the entertainment business using the Greek classroom model. And now we seem to have reached such a saturation point where there is no unifying principle to what we create... maybe to what we watch in sub-groups, but nothing that I can think of that is stopping the splintering. Sorta going back to Alex's original point, is it possible to find a middle ground? That is, a story and a style that will transcend race, religion, generation?

I personally suspect that much of the world is already at the Humptey Dumptey stage and we should just find our Bliss and follow it. As a storyteller one hates to limit one's audience, but sometimes we just have to recognize our limits.

A story with universal appeal is getting harder and harder to create.
 
Ok, there are a few things that i've just got to disagree with this thread...

Why does everyone automatically assume that the latest generation is "stupid"? You'd think that if the latest generation is able to keep up with all of these non-linear stories, that you're having trouble with, than that obviously doesn't mean they are all that "stupid".

Regardless, literacy rates are at some of the highest they have ever been, test scores are fantastic, and film literacy is higher than ever.

Never before have people been as film literate, on a mass scale, as they are now. Thanks to Netflix, and movies on YouTube, and being able to call up IMDB on your cellphone, I can sit down and have conversations about films that would have been functionally impossible just ten years ago.

People are not only watching more movies, but they are understanding more about how films are actually made (thanks to behind-the-scenes features, and director commentary), it's as if the entire population has gone through an entry-level class to film school.

I think because we understand the conventions of film, people definitely want something more stimulating and diverse, and it DOESN'T have to do with games (at least not alone), the increase in plot complexity and number of storylines happened in TV long before it happened in games. Games by contrast are still largely linear, and rather than being all about constant stimulation, it's about going on a journey, and rather than INSTANT GRATIFICATION (the BIG buzzword that everyone talks about in regards to videogames) it's about POSTPONED Gratification.

On the average Final Fantasy game, you spend HOURS level grinding before you move the storyahead just a little, the game at it's core is all about planning for things that are going to happen a dozen hours into the game. It's not about constant stimulation and instant gratification at all, and FF is one of the most popular series in the world.

Video games are highly stimulating, and regardless of the few "Michael Bay-ish" video games that are all about constant action, MOST games are highly mentally stimulating, and full of fantastic art, interesting stories, and are just fun. The most popular games in the world are mental puzzle games on cellphones, not hyper-violent shooters. (Which in of themselves have nothing wrong with them).

Regardless, why are more simplistic and straight-forward storylines necessarily better? People want more intellectually stimulating entertainment, so how far do you REALLY plan on going back?

I mean are we going to go back all the way to the Black Maria? That's about as linear as you can get, man comes in, makes dog jump through hoop, leaves. About the most simplistic beginning, middle, and end you can get.

Older is not necessarily better, and newer is far less worse than people make it out to be, in fact i'd argue it's usually better, It's why we move forward to begin with. Films have got more complex, because it's what people have wanted, and NOT just the ADD-addled Ritalin junkies that you think all people under 22 are. Your under 18 year old's aren't the ones watching all the Police Procedurals.

In short, films aren't getting worse, linear isn't always better, people under 22 haven't had a collective IQ drop, video games aren't a bad thing, and if anything the world and storytelling in general are getting better, it's just not always in the places you expect, or at least not always obvious.
 
Also, there are plenty of stories with universal appeal, it all goes back to the Heroes Journey, you see it appear in stories transcending culture, race, age, sex, everything.

Also, while everyone might not LIKE Star Wars, they had mass appeal. I can't think of many people that haven't at least sat down and watched the original trilogy.

Look at LotR, largely linear storytelling, very popular all over the world. Etc.

I don't see the importance in trying to make something that "transcends" regardless, the studios already try to get that, and instead of making a film that changes 10 million peoples lives, you get a watered down films that 70 million people "kind of" liked.

Transcending isn't always the point in art, and it shouldn't be, it should be to take a story that is important to the team behind it, and execute it in the way that they think it deserves to be executed.

Everyone didn't watch "The Fantastic Mr. Fox", but it was a great film, with a unified goal, and a "linear" storyline, that didn't water down or muddle the artistic goal it was reaching for. It's not for everyone, but Shakespeare and Faulkner aren't either.

Great art doesn't HAVE to have mass appeal. That's not necessary, and can sometimes be a detriment when you're trying to make something that can appeal and reach everyone, EVERYTIME.
 
Wesley Scoggins said:
..Great art doesn't HAVE to have mass appeal. That's not necessary..
Click to expand...

No..but if you're trying to work in a commercial art..motion
pictures..it's necessary to have some kind of appeal to
sustain a career.

Known people who have written and directed
an actor in an Academy Award winning performance and who have
had an Academy best picture nomination and neither of those
directors have worked in over 5+ years...mostly because their
films didn't have "mass appeal" and hence didn't make box office $$$
 
Wesley Scoggins said:
I don't see the importance in trying to make something that "transcends" regardless, the studios already try to get that, and instead of making a film that changes 10 million peoples lives, you get a watered down films that 70 million people "kind of" liked.

Transcending isn't always the point in art, and it shouldn't be, it should be to take a story that is important to the team behind it, and execute it in the way that they think it deserves to be executed.
Click to expand...
Sorry to cherry-pick your two long rambling posts, but trying to change 10 million people's lives (for better... or worse?) is what I would call a "local" perspective. But if you can get that 70 million people thinking the same way, then you've very likely made a grand difference.

And if you are only interested in satisfying what is important to the team behind a communication, like a film, without regard to the effect it might have on the audience that would see it, then you aren't fulfilling your (unwritten) contract with your audience.
 
People hatin' on non-linear storytelling?

When it's done well it's magic. There's always overreach and making too broad judgments on just about everything these days. They pull out an example or two of a film they didn't like. So what? That means the entire style is wrong?

If you don't like that sort of story (or don't get it) then don't create them. It's petty trying to trash a whole style of cinema (and one that includes some of the most loved and cherished films of all time).

Geez -- one flashback and you're "non-linear."
 
All stories must have the same components in order to work. We live our lives in a linear paradigm, but we can engage a story told in a non-linear fashion. I believe this has much to do with our cognitive capacity. As far as we know, humans are the only species whose capacity for cognition exceeds their need for survival. Hence we have developed higher cultural latticeworks of social order like religious expression, politics, art and literature.

Non-linear filmmaking more often than not is masking a weak story. Sometimes, it serves a story that is complete. Even if you want to tell a story in a non-linear fashion, you should design the story in a linear model first. I believe its possible to craft a non-linear presentation in the editing suite, but I would not recommend it. The plan should be worked out in the writing to ensure you have enough story information in your shots so it can survive a non-linear presentation.
 
To Elsie: So making a watered down forgettable film that 70 million people see, is more important to you than making a film that 10 million people absolutely love?

I disagree. I feel to me, that making a film that can change just a few peoples lives, and completely bowls them over, is something i'd much rather have than a movie than ten times as many people go so, and leaves them all tepid. The movies that 10 million people love are the ones that persevere even though they "underperform" when they come out. They are the ones that go on to build long term audiences. While the "popular" film that is mediocre gets forgotten usually doesn't end well.

Good writers, and good filmmakers, are usually trying to accomplish one thing, making a good story that THEY love, it's the story that they want to tell. When you try to appeal to everyone, and you're constantly trying to think of what "the audience" wants, you end up making a film that tries to appeal to so many tastes, that it doesn't do a good job at any of it.

Look at "Taxi Driver", it's not a film that appeals to everyone, show it to a few Grandmothers and Church Groups, and watch people start walking out and the ones that stay shift around uncomfortably.

Yet it's a FANTASTIC movie. It's a fantastic movie that has far less mass-appeal than Star Wars or Spiderman, but it's a fantastic film none the less.

Trying to appeal to everyone should NOT be the first goal of art to me, it should be to take a story you love, and do it well. If you do the story well, the audience will come to it, but starting with "What do THE PEOPLE want?" usually doesn't produce the best stories. The best stories usually come from "What do I want?"

Spielberg makes the movies that he wants to see first and foremost, the fact that his films have mass-appeal is just a side-effect of him being an effective storyteller, and those stories reverberating with a mass-market.
 
Jeff Coatney said:
All stories must have the same components in order to work. We live our lives in a linear paradigm, but we can engage a story told in a non-linear fashion. I believe this has much to do with our cognitive capacity. As far as we know, humans are the only species whose capacity for cognition exceeds their need for survival. Hence we have developed higher cultural latticeworks of social order like religious expression, politics, art and literature.

Non-linear filmmaking more often than not is masking a weak story. Sometimes, it serves a story that is complete. Even if you want to tell a story in a non-linear fashion, you should design the story in a linear model first. I believe its possible to craft a non-linear presentation in the editing suite, but I would not recommend it. The plan should be worked out in the writing to ensure you have enough story information in your shots so it can survive a non-linear presentation.
Click to expand...
Agree
 
Wesley Scoggins said:
To Elsie: So making a watered down forgettable film that 70 million people see, is more important to you than making a film that 10 million people absolutely love?

I disagree. I feel to me, that making a film that can change just a few peoples lives, and completely bowls them over, is something i'd much rather have than a movie than ten times as many people go so, and leaves them all tepid. The movies that 10 million people love are the ones that persevere even though they "underperform" when they come out. They are the ones that go on to build long term audiences. While the "popular" film that is mediocre gets forgotten usually doesn't end well.

Good writers, and good filmmakers, are usually trying to accomplish one thing, making a good story that THEY love, it's the story that they want to tell. When you try to appeal to everyone, and you're constantly trying to think of what "the audience" wants, you end up making a film that tries to appeal to so many tastes, that it doesn't do a good job at any of it.

Look at "Taxi Driver", it's not a film that appeals to everyone, show it to a few Grandmothers and Church Groups, and watching people start walking out and the ones that stay shift around uncomfortably.

Yet it's a FANTASTIC movie. It's a fantastic movie that has far less mass-appeal than Star Wars or Spiderman, but it's a fantastic film none the less.

Trying to appeal to everyone should NOT be the first goal of art to me, it should be to take a story you love, and do it well. If you do the story well, the audience will come to it, but starting with "What do THE PEOPLE want?" usually doesn't produce the best stories. The best stories usually come from "What do I want?"

Spielberg makes the movies that he wants to see first and foremost, the fact that his films have mass-appeal is just a side-effect of him being an effective storyteller, and those stories reverberating with a mass-market.
Click to expand...
Wesley, where is it written that a popular film must be watered down and the small-appeal film is elevated to high art?

What I'm arguing for here is a movie (I try not to call them films anymore) that when shown to a diverse audience will move them the same way so they laugh in the same places and get angry in the same places and cry in the same places. This is what I mean by Universality.

And I'm not arguing against the niche movies. They have... well, their niche. I also think they will be the new model for making movies. What I'm concerned about is that they make it harder to create a movie that binds all audiences. They splinter us as a world into tribes, while giving everyone what they (think) they want.
 
I don't think anyone here is hating on non-linear film. The question was - is linear passe? Are other ways of telling a story becoming the rule over the exception, and is there any inherent danger in sticking with the 'old fashioned' methods?

I deeply appreciate non-linear when it really works (Pulp Fiction, The Red Violin, Amores perros), but I also love a solid linear film as well. Both work and both are valid.

My question came up because as a writer, more and more often I am asked to explore different ideas and approaches to any given story. When writing for short film, the number one concern seems to be the 'twist ending'. More recently, though, I have noticed filmmakers wanting something non-linear for feature films, or told in chapters, or some other non-conventional manner (and by convention, I mean 3 act / linear, as it's been the workhorse of Hollywood for so long, and that '3 act / linear, crank 'em out' approach has had wide influence in both established and emerging film industries around the globe. It is the easiest first step, with the most history of success and failure to learn from).

I'm more than glad other approaches are making it into the mainstream. My concern is, do filmmakers readily embrace them only because they are fresh without really understanding them, or because it inspires them to make better films, or because it is the missing piece of an otherwise dull concept? Or, are film makers embracing new methods because it is what audiences are demanding?

Concerning the film literacy of moviegoers, not sure what position to take. If I look at box office numbers, I see fairly simple stories piled high with FX. Complex character-driven stories with a multitude of emotions and flaws and a rocky arc do indeed require a very different engagement of the mind over pop corn entertainment -linear or not. A film such as 'A Beautiful Mind' will never see the kind of numbers Avatar has. Never.

I'm also not so sure the vast majority of 'movie-goers' ever bother to look at IMDB (or know it exists). Many (most?) are not interested in film beyond its entertainment value. Since I run with film types, it seems everyone on the planet is film-literate. Once I venture outside my circle of film friends, however, it's not so apparent.


More on the 18-22 crowd later.

a
 
I would disagree that we even exist in a purely linear world. Most of our memory is a shared memory. We discover aspects and little histories about the world around us in a very non-linear fashion.

You learn things about the people you are close to often completely out of chronological order. So in that regard non-linear storytelling can accurately represent the ala carte style of learning we engage in on a daily basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top