Jump to content

Conflating "story" or "storytelling" with filmmaking


Peter Bitic

Recommended Posts

Theme isn;t a precise term, there's a lot of writing on the analysis of films, so the elements can be broken down. It's done during the preproduction, production and post production, so that the flaws can be fixed (or assumed to be fixed depending on the egos, although there can be an element of no body knows anything at times).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..

 

Stories and concepts are related insofar as their native domain is the written word. Language. Concept art finds it proper expression - not in the artwork - but in the essays in orbit around such. It is the darling of theorists in that respect. Or theorists of a particular persuasion. The artwork becomes little more than an echo of what is otherwise taking place in theoretical debates. It fits into a particularly Platonic scheme of things, in which the idea (the form) is more important than any particular example or instantiation of that idea. This works well in areas such as software development where the emphasis is on a concept, such as the concept of a circle, where the rendering of a circle can only ever be an example of a circle - an approximation of the concept. Algorithms will transform an ideal circle (the concept of a circle, of all circles) into an instance of a circle (a particular circle).

 

But sensory images (as distinct from formula derived images) are fundamentally different. There is no pre-existing form of which the sensory image is but it's echo. The circular shape of the moon, as created through optics on a screen, is not a function of any concept of a circle encoded in language. Rather it will be the shape of the moon that gives rise to the concept of a circle, and the formulation of that which would seek to describe all circles: the formula for a circle. Inspired by real circles.

 

Sensory images are not conceptual. They give rise to concepts. They give rise to that which language is capable of expressing in another way. Concept art is an experiment in the reversal of this. As if the sensory has it's origin within a concept (or a story).

 

If we reverse this experiment (of concept art) there is no such thing as a "visual language". Or a "visual story". Images are not the components of a language. Or rather, when images are forced to operate as the components of a language they become heiroglyphs, requiring a Rosetta Stone to decode. If images are used in this way, there is no longer any necessary relationship between the image and what it might be otherwise used to signify. And indeed the fact of being an image can get in the way of what it's otherwise supposed to signify. The alphabet becomes a far more efficient component of language in this regard. Images are terrible at it.

 

In a film, before any story (and impossible to remove), is the sensory aspect of a film: it's images and sounds. These things are pre-linguistic. They don't in and of themselves constitute words of a language. And if used in that way would be highly inefficient as a language, and would distract from what images are, which is a reality in their own right.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used the expression "concept art" in the previous post, but intended was conceptual art. Not concept art.

 

Conceptual art refers us back to the concept, as the most important thing. It is not that interested in art.

 

Concept art, on the other hand, does the opposite. Concept art takes us away from the conceptual, towards that which will eventually replace the concept (and replace the concept art): which is the artwork proper.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Peter Bitic, the original poster (sorry, quote widget is not working)

 

The world is, at this point in history, pre-deconstructed into parts. It's the way it comes. It's assumed. The theme of the moment. Most people, on one level, play along. but almost all people hunger for a sense of the whole value. The Gestalt? The unifying value?

 

If words do in fact belong to those who use them, then we need to honour the usage of the word "story" by the film makers and their allies.that use "story" just so.

 

Is "story" conflated (fused) with "film"? Probably not, but the precise distinction is not that useful. It may be confused, but that is not that useful either. There is a mess of partial definitions and opinions....

 

It is fair to say that the word "story" means more than the pragmatic narrative, a description of what happens. But this is the thing that so often it is used to describe. At the same time, the word indicates something more. The sum of all parts that create a film experience, can in toto be often called the story. The world subverts our sense of wholeness, but the strong, clever, perverse or insightful cling to it.

 

Let's accept that "story" does not difinitively refer to the pragmatic narrative. Yes, it can do, but this has liitle to do with the siren call we hear from the kernel of "story". Is the word "story" an insight into the word "narrative"? Or vice versa? Confusion abounds. If one has a sense of the human condition of perceptivity that is pertinent to the use or examination of these words, then the words themselves are not that critical. If not, then they are.

 

I can't shake the memory from reading Tarkovsky. His distinction between the pragmatic and the poetic narrative. For those even half asleep, but desparate, this simple concept poses an awakening.

 

Great luminaries have become incarnate on planet earth, shared their wisdom and moved on. Most people do not notice, too busy looking in another direction.

 

When we see a thing. The subject of the observation (the observer) may need refinement. The organs of observation or process of observation may need refinement. But the object of observation we can take, roughly, as fact, at least inasmuch as the consensual reality allows.

 

So my thoughts are...Expand the definition of "story". Don't constrain that to some limited end. Accept the common usage. Learn something about the minds that use it so. Consider the distinction between the pragmatic and the poetic. The poetic is always the poor cousin, but it never disappears. The pragmatic is inevitable, but it is of a lower order.

 

I checked my spelling a couple of times, otherwise no Google. FTS.

 

EDIT: spelling FTS too.

Edited by Gregg MacPherson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used the expression "concept art" in the previous post, but intended was conceptual art. Not concept art.

 

Conceptual art refers us back to the concept, as the most important thing. It is not that interested in art.

 

Concept art, on the other hand, does the opposite. Concept art takes us away from the conceptual, towards that which will eventually replace the concept (and replace the concept art): which is the artwork proper.

 

C

 

Having worked on a few video art installations, they are rather different to narrative film. They usually leave it up to the viewer to place their own meaning into the images, which can depend on the presentation (size and location of screen etc), there wasn't the same structure as found in most films. Although, in practise, the viewer(s) may place their own story around the non narrative image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Peter Bitic, the original poster (sorry, quote widget is not working)

 

The world is, at this point in history, pre-deconstructed into parts. It's the way it comes. It's assumed. The theme of the moment. Most people, on one level, play along. but almost all people hunger for a sense of the whole value. The Gestalt? The unifying value?

 

If words do in fact belong to those who use them, then we need to honour the usage of the word "story" by the film makers and their allies.that use "story" just so.

 

Is "story" conflated (fused) with "film"? Probably not, but the precise distinction is not that useful. It may be confused, but that is not that useful either. There is a mess of partial definitions and opinions....

 

It is fair to say that the word "story" means more than the pragmatic narrative, a description of what happens. But this is the thing that so often it is used to describe. At the same time, the word indicates something more. The sum of all parts that create a film experience, can in toto be often called the story. The world subverts our sense of wholeness, but the strong, clever, perverse or insightful cling to it.

 

Let's accept that "story" does not difinitively refer to the pragmatic narrative. Yes, it can do, but this has liitle to do with the siren call we hear from the kernel of "story". Is the word "story" an insight into the word "narrative"? Or vice versa? Confusion abounds. If one has a sense of the human condition of perceptivity that is pertinent to the use or examination of these words, then the words themselves are not that critical. If not, then they are.

 

I can't shake the memory from reading Tarkovsky. His distinction between the pragmatic and the poetic narrative. For those even half asleep, but desparate, this simple concept poses an awakening.

 

Great luminaries have become incarnate on planet earth, shared their wisdom and moved on. Most people do not notice, too busy looking in another direction.

 

When we see a thing. The subject of the observation (the observer) may need refinement. The organs of observation or process of observation may need refinement. But the object of observation we can take, roughly, as fact, at least inasmuch as the consensual reality allows.

 

So my thoughts are...Expand the definition of "story". Don't constrain that to some limited end. Accept the common usage. Learn something about the minds that use it so. Consider the distinction between the pragmatic and the poetic. The poetic is always the poor cousin, but it never disappears. The pragmatic is inevitable, but it is of a lower order.

 

I checked my spelling a couple of times, otherwise no Google. FTS.

 

EDIT: spelling FTS too.

 

The term "story" can certainly be used to mean the work as a whole. But typically it isn't. Indeed, often when the truism is trotted out - that "the cinematography should serve the story", the context is more often than not (both literally and meaningfully) in terms of a story understood in conventional terms, and this would be different from whatever should serve that story: such as cinematography.

 

When the going gets tough for this position, instead of suggesting that the cinematography should perhaps have less allegiance to the story, the term "story", will also mean the work as a whole. This is the very meaning of conflation - where the term "story" will be asked to hold two different meanings, at the same time. In doing so it escapes one's ability to otherwise put one's finger on it.

 

The issue is that story (in the conventional sense of a narrative) ends up escaping its role as equally subservient to the work as a whole, and becomes promoted (so to speak) to that of the work as a whole. The idea being created is that there is no difference between the story and the work as a whole.

 

And there's some truth to this.

 

But we could equally suggest that there is no difference between cinematography and the work as a whole. And there would be some truth to this as well.

 

The various terms we use (cinematography, editing, story, etc) can be understood as deconstructing the work as a whole, into different components. Even before a work exists. It's a theoretical activity. It's a way of organising how a work might be made, as much as a work might be understood. Its a way to partition off discussions that are specific to such separated out components, notwithstanding their somewhat artificial separation from the work as a whole. This last point is perhaps the most important one - that each component (including story in the conventional sense) is subservient to the work as a whole. That such has been artificially divided out from the work as a whole.

 

Why the division?

 

Because it's both more economic and more powerful to manage a work in this way. To break up a big problem (the making of a work as a whole) into smaller problems, where particular expertise, specific to the nature of those smaller problems, are more easily and eloquently resolved.

 

The risk is where a particular component becomes disengaged from it's position within the work as a whole.

 

For example a story can become disengaged from the work as a whole. If only because it might have originated in that way. It is the task of any such a story, as much as cinematography to become a part of the work as a whole.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A story ...

 

 

new-hope-crawl-starwars.png

 

 

But more than that: a film ...

 

sw5.jpg

 

Since these images are being used, here's the script for this scene.

               A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away...               A vast sea of stars serves as the backdrop for the main title.                War drums echo through the heavens as a rollup slowly crawls                into infinity.                    It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships,                     striking from a hidden base, have won their first                     victory against the evil Galactic Empire.                    During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal                     secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the                     Death Star, an armored space station with enough                     power to destroy an entire planet.                    Pursued by the Empire's sinister agents, Princess                     Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of                     the stolen plans that can save her people and                     restore freedom to the galaxy...               The awesome yellow planet of Tatooine emerges from a total                eclipse, her two moons glowing against the darkness. A tiny                silver spacecraft, a Rebel Blockade Runner firing lasers                from the back of the ship, races through space. It is pursed                by a giant Imperial Stardestroyer. Hundreds of deadly                laserbolts streak from the Imperial Stardestroyer, causing                the main solar fin of the Rebel craft to disintegrate.

The same stroy in a different medium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Since these images are being used, here's the script for this scene.

               A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away...               A vast sea of stars serves as the backdrop for the main title.                War drums echo through the heavens as a rollup slowly crawls                into infinity.                    It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships,                     striking from a hidden base, have won their first                     victory against the evil Galactic Empire.                    During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal                     secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the                     Death Star, an armored space station with enough                     power to destroy an entire planet.                    Pursued by the Empire's sinister agents, Princess                     Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of                     the stolen plans that can save her people and                     restore freedom to the galaxy...               The awesome yellow planet of Tatooine emerges from a total                eclipse, her two moons glowing against the darkness. A tiny                silver spacecraft, a Rebel Blockade Runner firing lasers                from the back of the ship, races through space. It is pursed                by a giant Imperial Stardestroyer. Hundreds of deadly                laserbolts streak from the Imperial Stardestroyer, causing                the main solar fin of the Rebel craft to disintegrate.

The same stroy in a different medium.

 

Yes, the story is the same, more or less. As it would be. The film will tell the same story as the script.

 

There is nowhere suggested that this should, in anyway, be otherwise - notwithstanding changes made during the making of a film. And yes - apart from the rollup, the "medium" or implementation is different. One is implemented in terms of text, and the other is in terms of images and sounds.

 

But what is important is this difference. The way in which a text tells a story is fundamentally different to the way in which a film tells a story. It is to the extent that each agrees with the other that we can speak of the same story. More interesting is where they differ. For example, where in the text is the story of how the Imperial Star Destroyer enters frame from above. This is part of what makes the film, a work in it's own right. As are a thousand other details like this. It is no longer just the same story in this respect. The film as a whole gives us something more, and different from just it's agreement with the story written by the text.

 

In short, it is allegiance to more than just the story, that makes or breaks a film.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difficulty we will have, of course, is simply that we're writing about something that words are not able to completely clarify. And trying to use words to do that!

 

What if we entirely agree that the cinematography (etc) should be in allegiance to this "film as a whole", surely we can use the word 'story' to mean the same thing. While the script might not tell us the story of how the Imperial Star Destroyer enters frame from above, we've nevertheless just referred to this particular detail as a story.

 

In what way then, might the truism not also mean this understanding of story?

 

What will determine the answer here is not the truism, or any particular take on such, but the context in which the truism is trotted out. It is the context that will determine what is being meant by 'story' in this regard.

 

One way of determining such is to ask under what conditions the truism is trotted out? Against what supposed misconception is the truism being deployed? What are the specifics of the discussion in which this supposed donald card might be played? It will be in these details where the meaning of 'story' will be clarified to the extent it is. And I'd suggest that by 'story' is meant that which a script otherwise tells - that this story is typically the one intended. For example, the story the script for Star Wars tells.

 

If a giant spacecraft hurtles into frame, above the audience, this will be just one of any other way of expressing the same story as told by the script. The particular solution adopted can be regarded as arbitrary in this way. What will be deemed important is the extent to which the shots serve (or express) the story of a tiny spacecraft, pursued by a giant Imperial Star Destroyer.

 

But this is to suggest there could have been another way of making this particular film, be it for better or worse. And we might suggest this is the particular hole into which Lucas descended.

 

An alternative to this, and one I'd advocate is where one already knows, in a vague or quite clear way, what is going to occupy the screen in terms of images and sounds. One might speak of some giant spacecraft hurtling through space in perspective, like the way the spaceship Discovery in 2001 did, but in a fast paced, more adrenalin pumping way - chasing a tiny spacecraft - but with the same authentic space lighting that 2001 employed ... etc.

 

_62968.jpg

 

 

And towards such an end we will need a story to structure this.

 

Now this completely oversimplifies it (and merely reverses the problem into the opposite problem) but it's to provide an indication of how story and means are not necessarily cause and effect, and that there is a bigger context in which all of these elements, including story, can be regarded as composed. For the purposes of creation one decomposes each of these elements. They remain interconnected (or intertwined), but each with a different emphasis. Each component is effectively a different way of understanding the entire work, be it from the point of view of cinematography, or the point of view of sound, or that of costume design, and so on. They are all like fragments of a hologram, each of which sees the entire picture, but from another point of view. And the story is just one of those fragments. The task of film making is akin to reassembling the hologram - to bring together all of these fragments. To reconstruct the whole.

 

Of course, in the beginning the whole is not in any way physically given (other than by reference to fragments of such, in historical precedents). It is imagined. Hallucinated. It is a precognition. It is that which a text might indicate, as will concept art, and storyboards, and so on. The work proper will be triangulated by each of these components. Brought into focus. Created in this way.

 

It is a myth, we might say, that one only tells the same story that the script tells.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect the story is the same, just the telling and sub text changes because it's now in an audio visual meduim. There can even be different versions in the scripting process depending on who the project is aimed at any particular stage (script readers or shooting) , although, it tends to be parred down leaving many details to be filled in by the director and their collaborators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect the story is the same, just the telling and sub text changes because it's now in an audio visual meduim. There can even be different versions in the scripting process depending on who the project is aimed at any particular stage (script readers or shooting) , although, it tends to be parred down leaving many details to be filled in by the director and their collaborators.

 

Yes, the story told by the script agrees (more or less) to the story told by the film. But the story told by the film is a much bigger story than that told by the script. It is not just a question of the filmmakers simply clarifying ambiguities in the script as if it were simply a multiple choice questionnaire, requiring little more than a tick in a box. Or just adding details - as if doing no more than putting burn marks on spaceship models. Or simply illustration. The filmmakers are not just creating an example of what the script might be indicating. They are creating the very thing that the script can only indicate. They are creating that which the script has otherwise left to the imagination. Indeed the art of script writing is often to leave as much as possible to the imagination - to give the film makers room to be creative rather than simply visualisers. It is avoid reducing them to merely ticking boxes on a limited number of choices. The film makers create this bigger story. Indeed the story the script tells can very well be an abbreviation of an already understood bigger story. It becomes shorthand for what has been otherwise understood as this bigger story. If the script is left somewhat ambiguous it is so it doesn't contradict the evolving clarification of this bigger story.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good example of this is in Bridge of Spies.

 

Tom Hanks will suggest, for a scene in which his character is looking out the window of a train, at the end of the film, that what his character sees there, are young kids, leaping over backyard fences, expressing the joys and freedom of youth and creating a poignant counterpoint to his experiences in Berlin.

 

This is not in the script but it's one of those things that film makers do when making a film. They make something much more than just what the script suggests they make. They love this sort of thing. They live for it. To make a film (movie, work of cinema) - not just an "audio-visualisation" of a script.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The filmmakers are not just creating an example of what the script might be indicating. They are creating the very thing that the script can only indicate. They are creating that which the script has otherwise left to the imagination. Indeed the art of script writing is often to leave as much as possible to the imagination - to give the film makers room to be creative rather than simply visualisers. It is avoid reducing them to merely ticking boxes on a limited number of choices

 

Indeed, good direcctors will make the script their own, although circumstances may not allow much room to go much beyond the template. This commonly happens in tV series, which tend to be more writer or producer driven and the director is just the hired in help.

 

There is a process of rewriting the script as a film is being shot, filming is in effect a new draft of the script:, what works on the page may not work in reality, locations are different, the dialogie need to change to match the actors. The script can be underdeveloped and gone into prodiction. with flaws that need to be ironed out. Another "rewrite" will occur when the film goes into editing. However, unless there's a real problem, the central story itself usually remains the same, how it's been told may have changed; less dialogue more visuals. perhaps.

 

The script is the plan, but like an architect's drawings, changes can occur during the construction, although is is mostly the internal layout and details, rather than the fundamentals of the building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...