Conflating "story" or "storytelling" with filmmaking

[Peter Bitic]

It really depends on if a film is a narrative film or if it's something else. I've seen films that have no story, they have a loose structure of some form, but no story, or at least not in the tradtional sense.

 

However, most films do tend to have a story and it's telling is central; "story is metaphor for life" is put forward by Robert McKee. The film services the story, not the other way around, the people working on the film are telling this story, otherwise why are they there?

Well, they are there because they are making a film. Surely their activity might have been inspired by a story, but this inspiration has obviously resulted in a vision of film - as opposed to a vision of novel, comic book or play. And every filmmaker will have a different vision - a vision that will try to be fullfilled by various filmmaking means. Story will be tweaked, dialogue will be rewriten, production design will be approved, actors will be cast, etc. All this to serve the intended end result, film. And if there are 100 film based on the same story, there will be 100 different desired end results. And story will be tweaked for each one of them to serve that particular film.

[Peter Bitic]

Also, I am really not sure that story is what inspires most narrative films. As I said, I think many mainstream films start with a desire to do something cinematically (car chases, zombies, space battles etc.) to evoke particular emotional states (horror, adrenaline, laughter), to convey a political message, etc., and the story is often just an afterthought, to offer some established framework for all this stuff.

 

Edit: And there is nothing wrong with that, I think story is overrated anyway (in the sense that not every film needs some strict narrative structure). The problem with these movies is not the bad story, but the particular way that bad story is forced upon them, as well as reliance on cliches on all levels. Most movies are just stupid, tired, routine executions of "what works".

Edited March 18, 2016 by Peter Bitic

[Mark Kenfield]

This is simply a matter of getting held up on semantics.

 

So you should really just forget the whole argument, it does no one any good.

 

For conventional filmmaking, whether it's fictional narrative, documentary or new gathering - the story/film (semantically, they're interchangeable within the scope of production) and the final form it will take, is all that matters.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Mark Kenfield

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Exactly; this whole thing stars out as the interchangeability of words in conversation which convey similar meanings-- and this isn't even beginning to go back to how Story=Script, which is what most people are saying in the end when they refer to the "story" of the film, that it all leads back to the "script", which yes, will change through production-- to make a film-- but that they are all there making a movie in service of a script (story) they have been sent to execute, hence when people say that it all goes back to the story-- it means they are all basing the evolution of the resulting film from the basis on the script they were handed and the series of events it told.

This isn't to say it is the only way of making a film, or the most important aspect of film, or any more than any other area of film, or that it doesn't chance. What it is, however, is the big-bang, for most projects from whence everything else and all it's interactions spray forth in the great dance which becomes the finished film.

[Carl Looper]

This is simply a matter of getting held up on semantics.

 

So you should really just forget the whole argument, it does no one any good.

 

For conventional filmmaking, whether it's fictional narrative, documentary or new gathering - the story/film (semantically, they're interchangeable within the scope of production) and the final form it will take, is all that matters.

 

No it's not. It is the semantics that are getting in the way of understanding the argument.

 

The terms "story" and "film" are not interchangeable. If they were then we would have a semantic issue.

 

It is when these terms become distinguished from each other that:

 

a. the semantic issue is resolved, and

b. the debate proper begins.

 

The argument (or one side of the argument) is that every aspect of a film (including the story) is in service to the film and not the story.

 

If "film" and "story" are otherwise interpreted as the same thing, then this argument would become equivalent to saying "a story is in the service of a story and not the story", or a "film is in the service of a film and not the film".

 

Anyone actually reading the posts will see that such nonsense is not what is being argued.

 

C

Edited March 18, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Brian Drysdale]

Well, they are there because they are making a film. Surely their activity might have been inspired by a story, but this inspiration has obviously resulted in a vision of film - as opposed to a vision of novel, comic book or play. And every filmmaker will have a different vision - a vision that will try to be fullfilled by various filmmaking means. Story will be tweaked, dialogue will be rewriten, production design will be approved, actors will be cast, etc. All this to serve the intended end result, film. And if there are 100 film based on the same story, there will be 100 different desired end results. And story will be tweaked for each one of them to serve that particular film.

 

They won't be there if the funders didn't like the story and wanted it to be told in the form of a film. A narrative film is the medium in which the story is being told, a story commonly exists in other forms, including the script, but how it gets told varies depending on if it's a novel, TV serial, a play etc . The vision is how the story is being told by the filmmaker, however, you can't have story telling without the story itself.

 

A narrative film only has a life if it has as a story that has been welt told, apart from the odd exception, it usually doesn't if it's without these. That's not to say you can't have films with an obscure story like "Last Year at Marienbad".

[Freya Black]

 

Hum.... I don't think of Disney as any kind of avant garde, except in a certain technical sense. In fact, I use the term Disneyfication to mean, taking perhaps something that has 'prickly parts', and reducing them to almost no questioning of accepted values.

 

For the longest time Disney didn't make a more 'adult' rated movie than G... in order to compete it did create a couple of 'divisions', like Touchstone, that weren't particularly promoted as 'disney' entities, to put out more 'racy' material...

 

er, I never said anything about Disney being Avant Garde.

 

You didn't read what I wrote properly. I said it was also not true sometimes for some Disney Movies in addition to the so called "avant garde". They are also not centered around the story and have their own rules.

[Freya Black]

I don't think you can make a narrative film without story, no. It needs at least a very basic story. That however doesn't mean that film-making = story-telling. You also can't make a film without a camera, but that doesn't mean film-making = camera work. Film-making is everything that is needed to create a film. Story is just one part.

 

If we mean films in general, then that depends on how you define a story (is filmming a tree for 90 minutes a story?).

 

The definition of a narrative movie is almost a movie with a story although you can have very loosely narrative films like L'age D'or or even something like "Meshes of the Afternoon" where there is a narrative but it's a very loose story.

 

Narrative is an idea closely connected to story.

 

Of course, as you suggest, that doesn't mean the story is central to everything in a movie. That's just a popular way of doing things.

[Carl Looper]

 

They won't be there if the funders didn't like the story and wanted it to be told in the form of a film. A narrative film is the medium in which the story is being told, a story commonly exists in other forms, including the script, but how it gets told varies depending on if it's a novel, TV serial, a play etc . The vision is how the story is being told by the filmmaker, however, you can't have story telling without the story itself.

 

A narrative film only has a life if it has as a story that has been welt told, apart from the odd exception, it usually doesn't if it's without these. That's not to say you can't have films with an obscure story like "Last Year at Marienbad".

 

I believe Star Wars was rejected by a number of studios before it got the green light. Perhaps the story was the reason.

 

That aside, a film can be sold through on a number of things including concept art. But typically it will be a story, or rather a synopsis, in the form of one or two paragraphs, that becomes the initial hook. But what exactly will such words suggest. They won't be suggesting a novel, or a comic book, or some other form of story telling. They'll be suggesting a film. What one will be entertaining, as one reads the words, is a film. The story component of such need not be that interesting. What will make it interesting is in how it would work as a film - as distinct from how it would work as a novel by a wordsmith, or a comic book by a comic book artist.

 

Stories will tend to sell a film idea through because they are easier to understand.

 

But what will be the clincher is not this story, or that story, but the particular film being aimed at. For example, a pitch for a 40's musical isn't going to get too hung up on plot points. Indeed quite often the story is just whatever story might fit a particular kind of film the producers are already entertaining. Such as a musical. Indeed they might already have the essential ingredients: an up and coming singer, or a dancer. A team of musicians. Or some full on choreography scene they envision. Water ballet. God knows. They run through briefs looking for whatever story interlocks with what they already have in mind.

 

I believe every Kubrick film has it's origin in literature. But what Kubrick would have been looking for, in a story, is not that which is a great story (although such wouldn't hurt of course) but that which lends itself to making a great film. And not necessarily just a great film, but whatever might interlock with Kubrick's particular fascinations, whatever they might be. I don't know if this is actually true, but one can understand it as a way of making films: where it is not the film which serves the story, but the story which serves the film.

 

But more importantly - that this is exactly what it should be.

 

C

Edited March 18, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Brian Drysdale]

Many musicals have a story, so that the music, songs and dance are partly how you tell that story. . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_theatre People may go for the songs, but they are not stamd alone items as such within these musical films. .

 

Kubrick's films have stories, which he usually tells with his cold detached eye, he's the story teller, even 2001 has one, even if it takes a bit of wortking out.

[Satsuki Murashige]

 

The terms "story" and "film" are not interchangeable.

Ok. So can we have your definition of each term then? Without using analogies, illustrations, or the terms 'story' or 'film' in the definition if possible. What are the distinguishing characteristics of each?

[Freya Black]

Ok. So can we have your definition of each term then? Without using analogies, illustrations, or the terms 'story' or 'film' in the definition if possible. What are the distinguishing characteristics of each?

 

 

Dunno about story but I've always thought of film as being a very thin layer of plasticy material.

[Carl Looper]

On it's own the word "film" will have multiple meanings.

 

Its only in context the particular meaning being aimed at becomes clearer. For example, in context, it's not that difficult to see that the word "movie" could be a reasonable substitute. As in: "I saw a movie last night". As distinct from: "I saw some polyestor last night". And as distinct from "I saw a story last night".

 

Unless of course, those alternatives are how we're wanting the word "film" understood.

 

When it is said that some aspect of a film should serve the story is the term "film" (or "movie") a substitute for the word "story"? Or does "story" more specifically refer to the narrative component of a movie?

 

I'm assuming the latter, but perhaps I've got it wrong. The problem with the former is the way in which it allows the story (as more conventionally understood) escape any subservience to the work as a whole. For the truism would otherwise require us to say or think nonsense such as "the story should serve the story".

 

C

Edited March 18, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

Many musicals have a story, so that the music, songs and dance are partly how you tell that story. . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_theatre People may go for the songs, but they are not stamd alone items as such within these musical films. .

 

Kubrick's films have stories, which he usually tells with his cold detached eye, he's the story teller, even 2001 has one, even if it takes a bit of wortking out.

 

Its not a question of whether movies or musicals have, or do not have a story. It's whether various aspects of a film (such as the music) should be in service to that story (as distinct from the work as a whole).

 

Obviously many are having a problem making any distinction between story and work as a whole. Which makes the discussion somewhat difficult.

 

In a musical the songs are not standalone items. That's right. But nor is the story. The story is just one component along with all the others. How can we otherwise speak of a film without a story? Or with a minimal story? Or with a compelling story? Or with a sad story? Or a thrilling story?

 

The argument is that the story is not the most important thing. The most important thing is the work as a whole. Each of the components (including story) serve this master. Or should do.

 

Unless of course, by "story", one means the work as a whole. But in that case "story", as otherwise understood, risks becoming lost in translation.

 

C

Edited March 18, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

The origin of the term "movie" is probably of interest here. It has it's origin in the idea of moving pictures as distinct from those that didn't, such as a photographic image. The initial novelty was pictures that moved. To go to the movies was to go and watch these pictures that moved. Movement was the thing being sold.

 

Of course, this novelty didn't last for very long. But the term "movies" hung around. Or "motion picture". Movement will cease to be of interest in itself. But it doesn't cease to be of interest. It is simply that there is more that can be done with movies than just movement. Movement itself doesn't go away. We still like a car chase. A second component of film is the way in which time becomes understood as part of it's canvas. It shares this with theatre and music.

 

And a good way to occupy time is to entertain a story. Its not necessary. It's just something that time allows.

 

It becomes understood that films could tell a story. One might even say story-telling becomes a fundamental aspect of film making. But only if we understand that not every story can become a movie even if every movie can become a story. It is on this basis we can say a movie is not dependant on any story, for it can even deny us a story. Even if, against it's will, we can derive a story from it.

 

It is this ability of movies to exist without a story (or do a reasonable job of trying) that makes a movie quite distinct from a story. It does not need a story. If it tells stories it is because it is able to do so. It is not because it is compelled to do so. It is a choice it makes. Because it can.

 

C

[Satsuki Murashige]

Ok, the pleasure of watching movement, I can agree with that. And exactly what is 'story' then?

[Carl Looper]

What is ultimately being challenged is the truism trotted out on so many occasions, that cinematography should serve the story.

 

No, it should not.

 

Cinematography should serve the movie being made, of which the story (if it has one) is only a part thereof. And and as such it is only a part of cinematography that should serve the story. Otherwise, in the absence of any story the cinematography would not be possible. Yet in the absence of a story, cinematography remains perfectly capable of playing a role in the movie being made. Indeed it becomes arguable that it would be required to play an even greater role. Not a lesser one.

 

Indeed what one comes to learn is that one of the things a story provides is a way for cinematography to "slack off". To not participate in any compelling way. To become formulaic. And the truism can be regarded as encouraging this unfortunate state of affairs.

 

This is not an argument against stories. For even if we treat stories as a fundamental part of film making, the argument is that this does not in any way require that cinematography be any less so. Or any other component of film making.

 

The difficult thing is grasping this idea we've otherwise called "movies" or "work as a whole". For in practice this doesn't exist until the work as a whole has been completed. The script or story becomes the simplest way of indicating this work. Or in the absence of a story (such as a music video) it might be concept art used to indicate the work to be made. Or before that step: just a concept. An idea. Discussed amongst the powers that be. And then elaborated through storyboards perhaps, or in some other way. The concept itself will not be the important thing. It will be it's implementation (for want of a better term) in images and sound, that constitutes the work proper. But if the resulting work is just an illustration of the concept, as distinct from being that which the concept was otherwise indicating, the work (the implementation) becomes arguably weak. The work will become little more than a representation or copy of the concept.

 

It is the task of the concept (or story, etc) to represent the work to be made. An act of precognition of sorts. It is not the task of the work being made to represent the concept or story. It is the task of the work being made to become that which the concept or story is otherwise trying to suggest.

 

Or at least that's what I'd argue.

 

C

Edited March 18, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Satsuki Murashige]

Ok, so you've separated cinematography as distinct from story now. I don't necessarily disagree, especially in commercials, music videos, and experimental film where we see beautifully-crafted images that are almost entirely about mood, shape, and color. But what are some narrative feature-length films where this applies?

 

Because one of the curious aspects of montage is that our brains are hard-wired to make up stories when shown a series of unrelated images over time. Stretch that out to 90 minutes and I don't see how you can avoid any semblance of a story in the audience's minds, even if one was never intended.

[Max Field]

This sort of goes into why people who rarely get behind a camera disregard the majority of efforts by studios for any given film. All the average person sees is plot and acting, which is a big part of film making, but still only a part. A director explaining his process with the word "story" might just be for the people beginning their learning process of film.

[Carl Looper]

Ok, so you've separated cinematography as distinct from story now. I don't necessarily disagree, especially in commercials, music videos, and experimental film where we see beautifully-crafted images that are almost entirely about mood, shape, and color. But what are some narrative feature-length films where this applies?

 

Because one of the curious aspects of montage is that our brains are hard-wired to make up stories when shown a series of unrelated images over time. Stretch that out to 90 minutes and I don't see how you can avoid any semblance of a story in the audience's minds, even if one was never intended.

 

Yes, I agree. A film might do it's best to disrupt any story we might otherwise extract from it, but we'll inevitably end up extracting a story anyway - even if the story we extract is simply that of a "film without a story".

 

I would even go as far as to say that stories are inevitable. That given time (which films occupy) it is the nature of time that it can not help but tell a story - no matter what a film's intentions are. And indeed the films I make don't even try to deny this inevitable story. Even in my experimental work I treat it as a kind of fact of nature that the work will become a story - if an unusual one. But what I recognise in this work is that the emergent story demonstrates that a film need not have it's origin within any other form of story telling (such as a script, or book, or essay etc). That the power of cinema is to create it's own kind of stories, quite distinct from any other form of story telling.

 

In other words one can have a film, which tells a story, but this story does not need to be based on any story that precedes the film. The film itself becomes the origin of the story we otherwise extract from it, or that it otherwise tells.

 

And it is against this backdrop, that we can otherwise integrate stories (or concepts) external to the cinema. If we so desire. To transform a story external to the cinema into one that has it's origin within the cinema. Or as if it did. As if it did not exist in any other way. As if the novel "2001" (or Clarke's earlier story) were based on Kubrick's film. That films be made in this way. As if they are the origin of the story we extract, or they otherwise tell.

 

C

Edited March 19, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Brian Drysdale]

Film is a medium, it's related to television by a common language, although the two are becoming more blured as the means of distribution merge.

 

Experimental film can be different to narrative film, I suspect there isn't a story in Norman McLaren's "Pas de Deux", although viewers may search for one.

[Satsuki Murashige]

I agree with you. But to me, none of this de-bunks the central role of story in cinema. If anything, it shows how completely, helplessly intertwined they are. Just look at how many times you used the word 'story' to describe a cinema independent of a pre-existing context!

 

If this comes across like a cheap shot, I am sorry. It's not intended to be. I just think they way 'story' has been defined in this thread is reductive to the point of absurdity. I don't know, maybe I'm just too dumb to get it? Wouldn't be the first time :)

[Carl Looper]

 

Film is a medium, it's related to television by a common language, although the two are becoming more blured as the means of distribution merge.

 

Experimental film can be different to narrative film, I suspect there isn't a story in Norman McLaren's "Pas de Deux", although viewers may search for one.

 

 

Oh sure. Many experimental films are aimed at denying a story - as if stories were some sort of sin. But every experimental film produces stories around such. And in particular they produce essays. Books on experimental film for example. As a writer or essayist one extracts or creates a story in relation to such films. One might speak of how the film was made or what theory the filmmaker was using, or working against. There is a "making sense" of the films going on. Even if the film ultimately thwarts such attempts.

 

Myself I'm more interested in works which are not in some mad argument with stories (or concepts), but in partnership with such. And partnership is a good word for it. The film tells a story, or tells a concept (so to speak) but in a way that is not subservient to the story/concept. Instead the film becomes that which the story or concept is otherwise suggesting. The story/concept represents the film, but the film does not represent the story/concept. There is kind of assymetrical partnership being elaborated or argued here.

 

C

[Carl Looper]

I agree with you. But to me, none of this de-bunks the central role of story in cinema. If anything, it shows how completely, helplessly intertwined they are. Just look at how many times you used the word 'story' to describe a cinema independent of a pre-existing context!

 

If this comes across like a cheap shot, I am sorry. It's not intended to be. I just think they way 'story' has been defined in this thread is reductive to the point of absurdity. I don't know, maybe I'm just too dumb to get it? Wouldn't be the first time :)

 

Well, there is no attempt on my part to debunk the role of story in cinema. Indeed I'm quite convinced one can't escape it. The exceptions (to the extent they might be regarded as succeeding) do little more than prove this rule.

 

The argument is not about the relevance or otherwise of stories. It is about the relevance of otherwise of everything else that goes into a film. That everything else be treated as not only completely and utterly relevant, but that such not be treated as simply subservient to a story. That all of the elements be in partnership with each other.

 

They are intertwined - or become so - indeed so much so that the best work makes it almost impossible to separate out these various components - and that story, like everything else, doesn't escape this. That it doesn't sit above it all in some ivory tower to which everything else must kneel before it.

 

For example, the other day I was thinking of a "costume drama". That this would be the central concept for a short film. People walking around in costumes so to speak. And to that end I'd write a story in support of such. And this would be no more important than the costumes I'd need to find. The work would be an integration of these components in a way that satisfied the vague concept of a costume drama that I was entertaining.

 

C

Edited March 19, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Brian Drysdale]

I guess this comes to the stage of defining concept as against story.

 

" In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_art

 

Although, with film, there is a material object, which usually has to stand alone, without the viewer being too aware of the idea before they watch it..