Nicolas Winding Refn and the supremacy of style over story

[Nicolas Courdouan]

Hi all,

 

I added Nicolas Winding Refn to the title of this post because he is mostly the reason why I decided to create this thread today, although it deals with a topic that's been on my mind for years and years.

 

In short, I'm really tired of this "story is everything" argument when dealing with any art, but cinema in particular since it is the art I am mostly interested in.

 

Let me be clear here, I don't think narrative cinema is a bad thing. Quite the opposite, I get far more involved into a film if it has a story to tell. I've never been a Stan Brakhage fan for instance, although I can appreciate what he did and still enjoy watching his shorts and documentaries from time to time.

 

So you won't hear me say that "cinema should get rid of the idea of story and be about style only".

 

However, I DO have a problem in the fact that story is the number one reason that brings people to the theater. I do have a problem with the fact that people judge the quality of a film based on the question "Did I like this story or not?" instead of "did I enjoy the cinematography/editing/music/sound/etc. or not?")

 

Am I the only one who gets the feeling that cinema has become a way for people who are too lazy to read books to passively watch a story unravel in front of their tired eyes?

 

Although to me story is certainly the backbone of a movie project, I think that once it's a completed film, it's become about so much more than story. I never judge a film based on the story it tells, but only based on how it tells it (cinematography, sound, editing, acting, directing, set design, etc etc). I don't think it's even fair to judge a movie based on its story, because the story was already there long before it became a movie. I mean how can people judge book adaptations based on their story, when they tell the exact same story that was already told in the book? Did you really enjoy the Lord of the Rings trilogy (if you even did, I know I have mixed feelings about it) because of the story itself, or because of how this story was put on the screen? Isn't what's really important HOW the story from the book was turned into a film?

 

I was watching a film yesterday that a dear friend of mine was involved in, and I absolutely loved the story. The film however, was one of the worst films I have watched in recent memory. Because the cinematography was amateurish, with camera moves and placements that were so obvious you could almost see the guy operating it even better than what he was pointing the camera at, because the highlights were so blown I considered putting sunglasses on... The sound was crap and was muffled as soon as the characters were talking inside a confined space such as a car. The editing was sloppy. And yet, the story, characters and acting were all great. Well, if story really was what mattered the most, then how come I hated this film only because of its technical, stylistic shortcomings?

 

If story really was what made a film good or not, then how come the best script around can be turned into a terrible movie?

 

I'm the greatest fan of David Lynch, a man who conceives his films not as stories, but as images and sounds that end up telling one. But even if you don't understand the story he's telling you, you can still enjoy the experience. The dream-like quality of his films. The filmmaker I'm most excited about nowadays in Nicolas Winding Refn, who revels in style and shoots feature films on 20-page long screenplays (Eraserhead also was a 21-page screenplay by the way). I can't wait to watch Only God Forgives tomorrow, even though it was trashed by critics left and right for being a film that emphasized style over story. That's exactly what I'm in this business for!

 

My favourite movies are all films I enjoy because of their style (Blade Runner for instance) rather than their primary story (I don't care at all about Deckard having to hunt down replicants and I am not involved in his story as a character). Would Blade Runner be as deep a film if it hadn't this predominant human-versus-machine theme? Certainly not! Was this theme derived from the primary story of the film? Certainly! But would the film, its story and themes, be as enjoyable without its killer cinematography and production design? No, it would not. Because those are the elements (amongst others, such as the OST) that made it a good film instead of just a good story.

 

Are you not tired of hearing that "the best cinematography is the one you don't notice"? To me, the best cinematography is the one that floors you by how obvious and magnificent it is.

 

How I would enjoy watching early films at the time they were released, and be awed by the novelty of the technique rather than by their story. Do you think the first movie audiences really enjoyed the fact that this train was entering the La Ciotat train station? Or were they just awed by the sight of this train photographs moving towards them? Did people really about seeing Méliés go to the moon? Or did they just enjoy watching a new form of magic tricks performed in front of them, and scratching their heads over the way they had been accomplished?

 

Cinema has always been about style to me. Style is what matters the most. Story is ultimately important, but secondary. How the story is told, that's what cinema is all about for me.

 

I would really love to read your personal thoughts on this, seeing as most people here are much more experienced than me and have probably pondered over these issues since before I was even born. Is story destroying cinema as an art by imposing those silly structures we hear everyone babbling about all the time ("page XX should have a major plot point happening")? Are movies really meant to be conceived through a screenplay first and images and sounds later? Was cinema always about story?

 

I want to end this very convoluted post by reaffirming that I love stories, and that I want to do this job because it allows me to tell stories. I am in no way saying that story is not important, I'm just saying that style is MORE important than story, and I'd really enjoy discussing this with you, whether you agree or not.

 

Nicolas

[James Steven Beverly]

You know, you act like they're mutually exclusive. What GREAT MOVIE ever succeeded WITHOUT BOTH. EVERY truly great movie had a great story told with great style. I HONESTLY can't think of one film that I considered GREAT that didn't have both. I think you might have a non-issue here and what you're REALLY DOING is simply searching for your own style after being inspired by what you consider to be great style, HOWEVER, one must remember one's own opinion is just that. What you consider "style" someone else might think of as over blown distraction, irrelevant to the story. The key, I think, is to be able to tell your story in your own unique way that inspires and awes your audience. Coppola's work doesn't look like Spielberg's and John Ford's doesn't look like John Huston's any more than Ridley Scott's looks like Martin Scorsese's. I admire a LOT of great directors and learn a GREAT DEAL from them, but I don't want to BE them. I want my OWN vision and my OWN style that is recognizable when people see MY films. Once you can do that, THEN you have great style without sacrificing story to do so. B)

Edited August 1, 2013 by James Steven Beverly

[Nicolas Courdouan]

Thank you for your reply.

 

You certainly may have a point. I'm inspired by my favourite filmmakers' styles. However, like you, I do not aspire to be them. But just like when you learn how to paint, you have to start out by emulating the masters to find your own style. I do have much to learn yet, as we probably all do.

 

But I also think I have a point if you consider the genesis of a film. I've written several screenplays, and for every single one of them, they didn't start out as ideas for a story, but as images, sounds or even music that were evocative for me. It could be something as simple as a character erring down a lifeless city's ruins, or a song by whoever that triggered a stream of images and emotions inside my head. And then, using those images, I try to find the story that could be hidden underneath them.

 

But I always make it a priority to keep those images and sounds in the final script. They are my priority, because I trust the emotions I get from them more than any storyline or plot element I could come up with. So I make sure I get those images in the script and then try to articulate them into a story, instead of scribbling down a story and then try to transform it into images and sounds.

 

I hope you understand what I mean, cause I'm not particularly good with words. I've always really liked that sentence in your signature by the way : "If I could express what I meant in words, why would I make a film?". Spot on.

 

Also, while I don't think great style and great story are mutually exclusive (like I said in my first post, "I get far more involved into a film if it has a story to tell"), I do think it is necessary for a film to have a great style (whatever my idea of "great style" is) for me to like it regardless of its story.

 

For example, I really enjoyed Valhalla Rising (which I know a lot of people on this forum hated because of its video-ish cinematography) because I really enjoyed the style of this film. But its story, I didn't care about it at all. Hell, I even enjoyed Prometheus, even though its script was one of the worst to ever make it onto the silver screen in years!

 

So even if they are not mutually exclusive, I do think the only necessary thing for a movie to have to be enjoyable is style, not story.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Nicolas Courdouan

[James Steven Beverly]

"I've written several screenplays, and for every single one of them, they didn't start out as ideas for a story, but as images, sounds or even music that were evocative for me. It could be something as simple as a character erring down a lifeless city's ruins, or a song by whoever that triggered a stream of images and emotions inside my head."

 

It's film, they always do. IF they DON'T, to quote Kurt Russell as Jack Burton in "Big Trouble in Little China:" (1986) Come on, Dave, you must be doing something seriously wrong!" As for Style vs Story, there is no trick, no secret, no shortcut. Now listen and HEAR THIS: ALL great movies have BOTH, find YOURS!

[Nicolas Courdouan]

OK, sorry Steve but I think somewhere down the line I didn't make myself as clear as I wanted to be.

 

This thread has never been about anyone's style, mine included, or about finding "tricks and shortcuts" to make good films that didn't include a proper story.

 

This thread is about (or at least I want it to be about) debunking the claim that the main, most critical element that makes or breaks a film is its story.

 

So what I'm interested in is more: "Yes, it's true" or "no, it isn't" and why. Not really "go out there and find your own style" which, pretty much is something everybody who's ever been a teenager - and that's a lot of people - knows.

 

You say "all great films have both". Well, let's talk about that.

 

It's always hard to pick a film that everybody considers great, but I think I'm on the right track if I mention 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 

Now, what's so interesting about this film that is considered a classic, a masterpiece, by many? Is it its story? Or its style (as in all the technical elements that make it a film: cinematography, sound, music, editing, etc...)? Is it both? And which if any is the most important of the two? The fact that the prehistoric ape grabs the bone? Or the match cut that follows? What do YOU like the most about this film? What is the main reason, according to you, it went down in film history?

 

Would it be the great film it is today had it been directed, from the exact same script, telling the exact same story, by Ed Wood or Uwe Boll?

 

When you watch it, do you find yourself gripping the edge of your seat because of your involvement with the characters, their development, the dialogues, the stakes? Or rather, do you find yourself humbled by the beauty of the pictures, the mood of the film, its hypnotic pace, its grandioso use of classical music?

 

Do you see my point more clearly now?

 

I'm not here to discuss any filmmaker's particular "style", find inspiration, be taught that I have to find my own style... I know these things.

 

I just want to know if all these people from inside and outside the industry who keep going on about how story is the greatest thing, how it's the central, pivotal element that a film relies on to be good or not, are seriously mistaken. Because I personally think they are. I think style is much more important than story, and there's no need to make excuses for it, because the Mona Lisa, had it been painted by a wannabe painter fancying himself as a master of arts, would have looked like crap.

 

I think, in art, the story/subject always takes a back seat in favour of the style/techniques used.

[James Steven Beverly]

No, YOU'RE missing the point, there IS NO "More important" and no way to "debunk" the importance of story. Style will not save a bad story and a great story told in a lackluster fashion won't speak to and audience. If Uwe Boll had directed 2001, it would have been a completely different movie both in style and in content that will bare little resemblance to Kubrick's interpretation and why would it? If Ed Wood had directed it, the script would have had the word "stupid" repeated 17 times in a row during a single monolog. The reason that people go on and on about story is because with ANY director worth his salt, style is a given and a good story is a rare phenomenon indeed, so IF you have a good story, someone with great style WILL direct it and hopefully the director's style will enhance the writer's story and vise-verse, but ALL that is irrelevant to YOU because only YOU can find a style for the stories YOU choose to make and for you, that is the only thing that is relevant. You can sit here and debate Kubrick vs Scott vs Howard til you're blue in the face and ultimately it will come to nothing as far as YOU are concerned. Watching, debating and emulating other directors and writers will only take you so far and at some point you're left to your own and will have to figure out what to do with that. You don't think story is important? Find a sh!tty script and make it with an enormous amount of style and let me know how that works out for you. The only guy who I can think of that can do that is John Waters but let's face it, you don't have his style, only he does.

[Nicolas Courdouan]

I don't know why you keep making this whole thing about me and other directors' specific styles, which are completely irrelevant to the subject. It seems whenever I say "style" you hear "a director's specific style", while I only mean the general, technical side of things.

 

But it also seems that you actually agree with me, right here:

 

Find a sh!tty script and make it with an enormous amount of style (...) The only guy who I can think of that can do that is John Waters.

 

that it's possible to make a good film even if its story is "shitty". And that's all I wanted to know.

 

If a shitty story can be made into a good film (whoever can or can't do it is irrelevant to the issue), then a good story is not the be-all end-all of a good film.

 

And again, I don't want to "debunk the importance" of story, I want to debunk its supremacy, see title of the thread.

 

And if you re-read my first post, you'll see that the issue I wanted to address was, verbatim: "I'm really tired of this "story is everything" argument"

 

All I wanted you to answer is : "Is story really everything to you?" I never meant to get entangled in this argument about emulating famous directors etc. that came out of nowhere.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Nicolas Courdouan

[Nicolas Courdouan]

Because we're probably gonna go round in circles for another year or so, and that has probably far more to do with my inability to correctly express myself (plus I'm not even a native English speaker) than with your ability to understand what I'm saying, I've narrowed down my issue with the supremacy of story to this simple line :

 

A film does not have to tell a story for me to like it.

 

That's precisely the assertion that I want to debate in this thread and that I created this topic for. If I can like a film that tells no story, then how can story be so important?

Edited August 2, 2013 by Nicolas Courdouan

[Freya Black]

Let me be clear here, I don't think narrative cinema is a bad thing. Quite the opposite, I get far more involved into a film if it has a story to tell. I've never been a Stan Brakhage fan for instance, although I can appreciate what he did and still enjoy watching his shorts and documentaries from time to time.

 

Obviously I'm a huge Stan Brakhage fan.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by his documentaries tho? Do you mean films like Window Water Baby Moving?

 

Freya

[Nicolas Courdouan]

I especially had in mind the "Act of Seeing With One's Own Eyes" actually. Of course you wouldn't call that a documentary in the strictest sense of the term, but it was made from material recorded with a documentarist's approach towards the subject as far as the actual techniques were concerned.

 

I'd be interested to know what you think about the necessity for a film to have a good story to be called a "good film" nowadays, since I've often read your posts and I'm pretty sure I remember you mentioning that you came from experimental cinema (please correct me if I'm wrong). What's your take on this subject?

[Freya Black]

You know, you act like they're mutually exclusive. What GREAT MOVIE ever succeeded WITHOUT BOTH. EVERY truly great movie had a great story told with great style. I HONESTLY can't think of one film that I considered GREAT that didn't have both.

 

Well Stan Brakhage was already mentioned. Some of the films of Phil Solomon, Tony Conrad, Marcel Duchamp, Len Lye, Walter Ruttmann, Viking Eggeling, Hans Richter, Rudolf Pfenninger, Norman McClaren, Harry Smith, Jordan Belson, James Whitney, Hy Hirch, Mary Ellen Bute, Oskar Fischinger... etc etc etc

 

Freya

Edited August 2, 2013 by Freya Black

[Freya Black]

I especially had in mind the "Act of Seeing With One's Own Eyes" actually. Of course you wouldn't call that a documentary in the strictest sense of the term, but it was made from material recorded with a documentarist's approach towards the subject as far as the actual techniques were concerned.

 

Ah! I have to say I've never seen that film. Must try and catch it one day, it sounds VERY interesting!

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

I'd be interested to know what you think about the necessity for a film to have a good story to be called a "good film" nowadays, since I've often read your posts and I'm pretty sure I remember you mentioning that you came from experimental cinema (please correct me if I'm wrong). What's your take on this subject?

 

I've tried to explain to people till I'm blue in the face that there are other cinemas outside of mainstream Hollywood cinema.

 

One fellow had even come up with a highly structured definition of moving image work, that defined everything as being effectively narrative or documentary based, and that there was cinematography and just the making of actualities which were two distinct strands. Everything had to fit into those two strands, and when I would tell him that there were films that didn't fit in those boxes, he told me I was wrong.

 

I've also had this exact same argument as you are having here a number of times. I've found it impossible to discuss on the whole. The ideas are basically too alien. Speaking of ideas, some of these people seem to go as far as to suggest that even all ideas are stories.

 

A couple of times I've had people point to cinematographers or directors talking about the importance of story to their work and stating that this proved that story was the most important thing and that all films were about storys and how could you argue with what the great so and so was saying (even tho that wasn't what they were saying, they were talking about their own work).

 

and yes, I have a background in experimental film, in fact I was mostly known for non narrative stuff too, I've been taking a looong break from it tho while I resolve all the issues around it in my head.

 

Freya

Edited August 2, 2013 by Freya Black

[Freya Black]

I want to end this very convoluted post by reaffirming that I love stories, and that I want to do this job because it allows me to tell stories. I am in no way saying that story is not important, I'm just saying that style is MORE important than story, and I'd really enjoy discussing this with you, whether you agree or not.

 

I agree with almost everything you wrote in your first posting, except for this bit.

 

I think whether style or story gets the weighting should be up to the filmmaker. These are choices that people get to make. There are too many rules being laid down by people is the core of the problem.

 

It's the same issue in the so called avant-garde scene these days too. At about the same time I was doing experimental film work, there was a guy called Ben Rivers also working and I loved what he was doing because he was really breaking the rules, making stuff that was about as narrative as you could get which is a no-no in that world even tho there is a long tradition of semi narrative work. I felt he was making great films too. In that world, what he was doing was really radical in a way.

 

I guess this is just the way of humans to try and impose strict rules on everything. I tend to lean the other way which makes me a bit of a troublemaker I guess.

 

I'm into freedom and creativity and imagination.

 

Freya

[Nicolas Courdouan]

 

I agree with almost everything you wrote in your first posting, except for this bit.

 

I think whether style or story gets the weighting should be up to the filmmaker. These are choices that people get to make. There are too many rules being laid down by people is the core of the problem.

 

 

I do agree with you on that part. When you're conceptualizing a film, it's up to you to decide every single thing about this film, and by all means if you are in love with a storyline and want to let itself guide you all the way through, no one has the right to tell you not to.

 

I do tend to get carried away easily when I write about something that annoys me (or that i love) and so I'm not sure what exactly prompted me to write this particular sentence or what exactly I had in mind at that moment, but I'm fairly certain that I was talking from a viewer's perspective, not a filmmaker's (or I was talking about my particular perspective when conceptualizing a project).

 

When I watch a film, I give far more importance to the visual, sound and editorial elements than I do to the story. And that is because I am watching a film. Stories and storylines are in every work of art (or even not art) around us : books, paintings, newspapers, even music. When judging a film, it seems to me it's far more important to judge it based on the things that make it a film instead of a book, magazine, painting (...), the things that differentiate this film from say, a book it was adapted from and that tells the exact same story.

 

That's why it's unfair to me to judge a film based on its story rather than how it was made. The story is not what makes a particular film engaging as a film (although the story can make it engaging as a form of entertainment, escapism, social commentary, documentary, etc.), only the stylistic choices of its director (+ cast and crew) are important when appraising its quality. And those things are what I've constantly referred to as the "style" in my posts.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Nicolas Courdouan

[Freya Black]

And again, I don't want to "debunk the importance" of story, I want to debunk its supremacy, see title of the thread.

 

 

I think this is the key thing and you put it really well here.

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

As to Nicolas Winding Refn, I recently saw Valhalla Rising too which I had to force myself to watch because firstly the narrative was barely there and probably mostly because of the nasty video look. I did get into it and enjoy watching it tho because I liked the visuals (but not the overall grade). I was especially taken by the scene in the pond or puddle or whatever it was where they were having a bath. It kind of reminded me of bits of 2001 a lot. It actually was one of those movies where I felt inspired by it because I felt I would have done it very differently but I liked bits of it.

 

I understand where you are coming from with it tho.

 

If you liked that and Eraserhead I can recommend the following:

 

The Holy Mountain, El Topo, Sayat Nova / The Colour of Pomegranates by Segei Parajanov (in fact anything by Segei but that's his greatest work) Probably a lot of stuff by Fellini too.

 

There was a time we used to make films a bit like this in the UK too such as a lot of work by Derek Jarman (Jubilee, Caravaggio, The last of England and the angelic conversation), Peter Greenaway (A Zed and two noughts, Drowining by numbers and Prosperos Books) Sally Potter (Orlando), all of whom were experimental filmmakers who left the UK's cinema of exclusion to make more narrative work. Peter Greenaway and Derek Jarman are now noted as almost canon in the experimental film world, Derek Jarman being only recently accepted on account of him being a bit er, one of those, you know... Sally Potter is still on the outside cause she's a girl. The "Avant-Garde" you see, totally ahead of their time.

 

I reckon the work of Ken Russell is worth checking out too but might be hard to find.

 

At the more extreme end of things, anything by Kenneth Anger and Maya Deren but then you are into the experimental film world proper but you know, "it's a bit narrative isn't it"...

 

Freya

[Nicolas Courdouan]

Freya,

Thank you very much for your list.

I've already seen The Holy Mountain and Sayat Nova, but I not El Topo, so I'll check it out. We also have an upcoming showing of Santa Sangre this month in Dublin and I've been meaning to see it for years so it's going to be a treat to discover it on the big screen.

I will definitely check out the other filmmakers from your list, which I know very little of to be honest, with the exception of Peter Greenaway.

Thanks again.

[David Mullen ASC]

There are all kinds of cinema out there, some are not as tied to traditional Hollywood narrative norms as others - for example, a movie like "Samsara" or "Baraka". No "plot", just themes supporting the flow of images.

 

But if we're talking about traditional movies that are more style than substance, there's nothing wrong with that if you enjoy style for style's sake. The fact that we enjoy beauty for its own sake shouldn't be ignored. Yes, it's nice when style choices are motivated by the story and support it, but there is a lot of wiggle room in there to be expressive.

 

The book "Hollywood Lighting" by Patrick Keating talks about some of this contradiction in the classic studio system, the professed importance of story over style by cinematographers, some of whom then imposed a heavy personal style over material.

[Nicolas Courdouan]

Thank you, David. I will order this book.

 

So I just came back from Only God Forgives, and it was one of these films where the director was more interested in style than plot. However, I think he went a bit overboard with this one, using the same repetitive choices throughout the film. I appreciated the look of the film, but would have enjoyed more diversity. I did expect a lot worse from this film after all the negative reviews, which I think painted it in a bad light. It was... average I guess. Enjoyable, but no replay value.

[David Mullen ASC]

Tony Scott's "Domino" and the heavier-handed "Enter the Void" by Gaspar Noe are both films with more style than story but if you're in the mood for that kind of visual excess, I don't see why anyone should look down on you. Sometimes it's what you crave.

[Nicolas Courdouan]

I've seen both.

 

It's funny you should mention Enter the Void because I'll be watching it on a big screen for the first time in a couple of weeks, although I didn't like the film upon my first viewing (on DVD). I thought it suffered from the exact same problem as Only God Forgives : the last hour was very boring because the visual extravaganza failed to renew itself and keep things fresh throughout the film. And yet I'm ready to sit through it again because I am convinced the experience is worth living on the big screen... So your guess is spot on : that's exactly the kind of experience that I usually crave.

 

May I ask what you thought of the film, both as a film and as a visual experience? Any similar title that would have gone under the radar and that you would recommend?

Edited August 3, 2013 by Nicolas Courdouan

[Nicolas Courdouan]

Unrelated, but I don't know why I forgot to mention Koyaanisqatsi earlier on in this thread... It's also one of these films I keep going back to. The first time I watched it, it really hypnotized me.

[Gregg MacPherson]

Hi all,

 

I added Nicolas Winding Refn to the title of this post .....I'm really tired of this "story is everything" argument when dealing with any art....."Did I like this story or not?" instead of "did I enjoy the cinematography/editing/music/sound/etc. or not....

 

...I'm the greatest fan of David Lynch, a man who conceives his films not as stories, but as images and sounds that end up telling one. But even if you don't understand the story he's telling you, you can still enjoy the experience.

...................

Is story destroying cinema as an art by imposing those silly structures we hear everyone babbling about all the time ("page XX should have a major plot point happening")? Are movies really meant to be conceived through a screenplay first and images and sounds later? Was cinema always about story?

 

 

........................

Nicolas

 

 

(Part 1)

 

Hey Nicolas,

 

You are a brave guy. To challenge or enquire into the notion of story is brave. Working writers and cinematographers find the consensual notion of story very useful. Taken for granted as fact normally. With good reason. But I am fully in support of exploration into what "story" really is, which impacts directly on your concern over the relative value of story within film and the working process of film makers..

 

I think the word story is ubiquitous, means many things. My pet thought is that the whole experience of a film has been loaded into the story word. Which, in your terms, means that all the critical aesthetic and technical contributions, have become, to some degree, embedded or included into the "story" notion. So when someone enjoyed or took something nourishing from a film, commenting that they really enjoyed the story, they are sometimes really commenting on all the aesthetic and technical aspects that enabled that story.

 

One could continue on in this fashion refining or opining on what "story" is or has become. But there are some other directions that are more interesting. One could go directly to concepts that may yield a more useful and universal idea.

 

Internal conditions govern the external conditions.

I propose that the internal conditions of the mind govern or organize those more external or formal. Some energized, often momentary or flickering thing exists in the mind, evolves and at some point commonly becomes what may be called a story. And then on to become a film (containing a developed form of that story). For some reason, some film makers or writers have their objective awareness locked into this "story" layer. If you read James Steven Beverly (a contrary example) on this thread, he is very observant of the value of story in his process, but he makes pointed reference to the internal, notional values in his experience that prefigure it (story). So I think the world is progressing. Some working story tellers might previously have dismissed this line of enquiry out of hand.

 

So I think some enquiry is due on what is "story". It is possible that some linguist or neuro-linguist, someone, has already had the critical thoughts on this and film makers have just not caught up. But I don't think we should be afraid of examining this ourselves.

 

My entry into giving order to this potentially confusing zone of ideas is to observe that when we watch a film the only absolute is that when it ends we feel in some sense satisfied. Desire drives the phenomenal universe and a film must transport us from one condition to the next. But what do human beings really want? A young man takes his girlfriend to the cinema, superficially to be entertained, eat popcorn, flirt or snog (English version of French kissing), but underneath, hungry for something deeper. Insights into life. Hunger for art. Hunger for extreme values of sensual experience. Commonly experienced things are relatively easy to describe, discuss or give a relative value to. But the less obvious things that one may seek in the cinema are more difficult. Small wonder that they are more difficult for artists, writers, story tellers, film makers to consider or discuss.

 

Leaping ahead. Story has sometimes been proposed as something close to an absolute. But if experience itself is the reference point then it's easier to come up with a more general or universal idea of what a film is or can usefully be.

 

I butted heads with a cadre of obdurate folk here in New Zealand . One proclaimed "Story is King" as advice to new film makers. I tried offering the "red pill" as in the Matrix and was banned not long after. For some entertainment relevant to your idea see...

http://www.48hours.co.nz/forum/general-discussion/story-is-king-how-to-win-v48hours/?i=0#forum-replies

 

Keep brave,

Gregg.

 

PS: I thought I had only seen Drive by NWR, an interesting, really sensualized film with, OK the story displaced a little or minimized. But I not long ago stumbled on Vallhala Rising on the Web and was deeply impressed.

[Nicolas Courdouan]

Hello Gregg,

 

If this is only Part I, then I can't wait for Part II.

 

You know, somehow I always knew, or at least expected, that when referring to "story", filmmakers were actually referring to a more general, or even "ubiquitous" as you put it, concept. Of course in my previous posts I always used the term story as a synonym for "storyline", "plot points" or even "screenplay". But this enquiry into the real nature of story that you are proposing could be a very exciting project.

 

I felt like I would share a couple of examples of the things that really triggered these questions in my mind (I'm referring to my initial concerns about whether or not story was actually destroying or at least undermining the experience of film).

 

First of all, no need to look very far, I talk about movies all the time with my friends. I am talking about friends who are not involved in filmmaking in any way, and only enjoy films from a cultural and social perspective. Oftentimes I found myself walking out of a theater with one of them and asking them: "So, what did you think?" in an attempt to start some kind of interesting conversation that would delve into the many layers of the film we had just watched and try to put words on all the emotions and feelings that it had triggered inside us. However, never ever did they refer to anything else than "the story" when trying to explain how they felt about it. It's always "Story was great/average/crap" and then we'd spend an enormous amount of time debating the characters' portrayals, their actions, how Charlize Theron was still the hottest woman on Earth, and the general storyline of that film.

 

One could say "Well, that's just because the other elements from the film were used well, and did not overshadow the story". But in this line of thought lies all the problem, I think. I notice these things, because I know you ought to pay attention to them, I know they are meaningful. And I often get angry when I realize that most people do not know they are meaningful. A film has been reduced to its story. Every time I ask them "But what did you think of the visuals?" for example, I get a "You know, I don't really pay attention to that."

 

A lot of people think that to make a film, you just write a script, pick some actors and stick them all inside a room, point a camera at them (wherever you can fit it on the set) and there you go, you have a film. Some people don't realize the amount of thought that's put into lighting a scene. Into editing a scene.

 

Another thing that really got to me is film school. I started film school quite late, in my mid to late twenties, and 99% of the other students were in their late teens, or very early twenties. We had 9 hours of film study per week, which consisted in three classes of three hours where we would watch a film that was considered meaningful from a film history perspective, and then try to dissect it, and understand why it could have been meaningful at the time.

 

Each of these classes was a bloody massacre. Out of 30 students, at least 20 would invariably fall asleep during the film. And even though I know 95% of these guys and girls are now "flipping burgers" and not working in film, they all had a genuine interest in films. They would go on and on about why films were the greatest thing all day long, and they were not in film school for the sake of doing something after their A-levels. But the problem was, they had no interest in what filmmaking is actually about, meaning pictures and sounds, arranged in a meaningful way, and then projected on a screen. Their only interest was in whether or not they could be involved or stimulated by the story (script), and that was that. They did not know that a film could be engaging through its use of pictures, sounds, editing, because all they know are films that only offer entertainment through story. I remember on the first day of the course, when we had to introduce ourselves to each other, and one of the students said his favourite film was Transformers (!!!!!!).

 

I mean, fair enough. So what if Transformers is this guy's favourite film? Maybe he thinks this is the greatest story ever told? Maybe he thinks the film's amazing production and special effects are the cream of the crop in the film business? And so what? Yet somehow, I get the feeling this guy didn't realize that, although making Transformers must be an arduous task that you have to put your heart and soul into, Transformers is a film that relies heavily on its storyline to entertain you. In Transformers, story is everything. There is no desire on the filmmakers' part to pass on something meaningful to their audience through cinematography or sound. Transformers could be an animated film and be the exact same thing. It could be a comic-book and be the exact same thing. It could even be a series of paintings, and yet still be the exact same thing. Transformers has no valid reason to be a film.

 

Anyway, back in film school, every time the lights came back on after a film and my head was crammed with ideas and elements I wanted to discuss, I would see all these people who had fallen asleep on their benches, and I would just get angry inside and shut up for the rest of the class. At the time, I was angry at the concept of story, which I thought was responsible for hiding or overshadowing all the beautiful things that make a film A FILM: moving images and sounds. Editing. Production design, etc. How could we be so dependent on a script, when a script is not even necessary for a film to exist? It is not one of those things that make a film a film. You could get out in the wild with a camera and record images, then go home and associate them in a way that is meaningful or engaging to you, paste some sound or music to them and you would have a film. A film that would not be missing anything.

 

Now I've gotten over my initial anger towards story because, hey, I want to tell stories. I love stories. That's why I've always wanted to be in this line of work. But I want to tell them through film, and that choice has to be meaningful, and motivated. And that means that my most valued tools are cinematography, sound and editing. If my most valued tool was story, well, I would write books. That's a lot less complicated, because as soon as you're done writing, you have your finished story. With a film however, once you're done writing your script, well, you still don't have a film. Not even the first brick in the wall.

 

Anyway, Gregg, thank you very much for this first part, and I'm looking forward to reading what comes next. I'm off to this 48hours boards to read the topic that got you banned from there. Somehow, from the title of that thread, I get the feeling I'm about to facepalm myself to death. Several times.