How deep does backstory need to be?

Randall_Oelerich

Randall_Oelerich

Veteran
Let's say I am writing a supernatural thriller along the lines of Dark Water, The Grudge, The Ring; cheesy, destined for no budget indie. Suppose the dead ghost wanting to be found and also wanting vengeance against its murderer is able to manipulate nature in some manner related to their death (e.g. in The Ring there was the TV and that tied in to the TV where Samarra was raised; in Dark Water we saw water everywhere, etc). My question-- is it enough to tie in that manipulation of nature with the ghost's death, or must there a much deeper backstory to explain that manipulation of nature by the ghost? Sorry I can not be more specific, just can not give away too much about my story other than that element.
randall
 
"cheesy, destined for no budget indie."

That's aiming high. I don't know. I'm not sure I would bother with a project I felt was "cheesy." That may be fun for a funnyordie skit, something you can pull off in a day. But a feature film?

Unless it's better than all the acres and acres of shlock out there...
 
I think once you're dealing with ghosts you've jumped the shark of credibility, so anything goes. In my opinion, things like magic and the supernatural are more effective the LESS you explain them. Try and explain it too much, it takes away the mystery, as well as raising the possibility that the audience will just yell 'BALONEY!' at the screen, which it actually is when you get down to it.
 
"Backstory is bullshit"

- David Mamet

"There is no backstory"
-Walter Hill

In Nightmare On Elm Street, Freddy Kreuger comes back to get revenge on the children of the ppl that killed him. Thats it. Thats the backstory- he was a child killer, Parents killed him. No need for any more.

A bad writer would've added a long-winded explanation scene about how he used to study voodoo and found a magical book of dreams and learned to dream travel or other such nonsense.

Backstory is bullshit. Noone cares. The same way you don't care that Vader built C3PO.
 
polfilmblog said:
"cheesy, destined for no budget indie."
.
Click to expand...

That is probably hyperbole, or in this case is it hypobole? (is there such a word?) What I mean is cheesy in the sense of no budget, no exploding cars, can't burn down the house, CGI will have to be done doable with AE. Does not mean it will be a bad movie. I want the story to be A+, find promising actors. Produce on the cheap, under $100k.
 
memento515 said:
"Backstory is bullshit"

- David Mamet
Click to expand...

I believe Mamet was making that comment in the context of directing actors. I think he says it to force actors and directors to focus on what's more important, what the character is doing at this very moment instead of internalizing too much. I'm not sure he meant it to be applied to the writing process.
 
Last edited:
If you don't understand where a characters been, you can't have a clue how to get him where he needs to go, since the one drives the other.

Backstory isn't bullshit, but stories written by writers who don't understand their character's backstory will always be.
 
To address your question, I think all you need to do is connect the two (the person who becomes the ghost) and the event that caused them to die. As long as a viewer sees this clearly, they'll understand the connection later on.

If you're going to go through the effort to write an A+ story, why not shop it around and get some real money so you can hire an A-lister or some B-listers and have guaranteed distribution and do something more legitimate with the film than just shoot it for $100K and hope something happens down the road?
 
Snazzy Flapper said:
If you don't understand where a characters been, you can't have a clue how to get him where he needs to go, since the one drives the other.

Backstory isn't bullshit, but stories written by writers who don't understand their character's backstory will always be.
Click to expand...

I think you do have to be careful about having your characters reveal too much backstory through dialogue. In Mamet's book on playwriting he refers to backstory in this context as well. But a writer still has to know some backstory. At the very least, where the character was in the moments preceding the story. You should know enough backstory to inform the characters decisions, but it should come out through action, not speeches.
 
I believe that you should always try to reveal as little backstory as is necessary for the audience to understand the story.

You need to what the backstory is when you're writing it though. I just personally believe that it is better to give the audience a small taste of the world outside of the story than to reveal everything. Too much backstory makes your story seem smaller.
 
Mamet talks about killing the backstory in "On Directing Film".

How deep does backstory need to be? Very very shallow.

ask yourself this:

Why does Han owe Jabba money? What'd he spend all that space loot on?

What was ET and his homies doing on Earth? Collecting plants I guess. Why? Why do they study plants?

What was the derelict in Alien doing on the planetoid? How did they get killed by the Aliens?

I dunno.....
 
memento515 said:
"Backstory is bullshit"

- David Mamet

"There is no backstory"
-Walter Hill

In Nightmare On Elm Street, Freddy Kreuger comes back to get revenge on the children of the ppl that killed him. Thats it. Thats the backstory- he was a child killer, Parents killed him. No need for any more.

A bad writer would've added a long-winded explanation scene about how he used to study voodoo and found a magical book of dreams and learned to dream travel or other such nonsense.

Backstory is bullshit. Noone cares. The same way you don't care that Vader built C3PO.
Click to expand...

It depends on how much the backstory helps YOU as a writer to come up with story and if you want to go back to backstory to develop something into the plot.

It's all about your method was a writer.

My opinion is that a writer should know everything about the characters he's creating inside the boundaries of relevance to the story. And IMO this goes beyond what the audience immediately sees.
 
memento515 said:
Mamet talks about killing the backstory in "On Directing Film".

How deep does backstory need to be? Very very shallow.

ask yourself this:

Why does Han owe Jabba money? What'd he spend all that space loot on?

What was ET and his homies doing on Earth? Collecting plants I guess. Why? Why do they study plants?

What was the derelict in Alien doing on the planetoid? How did they get killed by the Aliens?

I dunno.....
Click to expand...

Exactly my point, he was talking about it in the context of directing, not writing. A writer should know the answers to those questions. In how much detail is at the discretion of what the writer feels comfortable with. Mamet is a teacher, and a lot of the dogmatic pronouncements he makes are just a way to shock his students into paying attention to the fundamentals. He'll say backstory doesn't matter to actors because he wants his actors present, in the moment, focused on what they are doing, not thinking about the past. It's sort of like writing teachers that tell students to avoid using adverbs. There's nothing inherently wrong with adverbs. But telling students not to use any forces them to find more precise words. Instead of "he ran swiflty", it should be "he sprinted". This makes the writing more clear and efficient. Backstory has its place. Mamet saying "it's bullshit" is just Mamet trying to get your attention.
 
Han and Chewie blew it all at the Cantina ? hmm.....

Han and Chewie blew it all at the Cantina ? hmm.....

"a writer needs to know the answers to those questions.."

are you sure?

Im not trying to win an argument here, I just wouldn't want some poor hapless young writer reading this thread to think he should know why ET landed on earth, or where Freddy got the red and green sweater or got the idea to make claws (he loves cats)?

as for the rest about Mamet just being shocking, and pilling on a lilttle thick to make a point, I know all that- its what I do. :)

also he meant directing/ screenwriting treated as a single craft.

sorry to split hairs and be nitpicky, some of this might be semantics, I just want to stress that Im thouroughly convinced that you need NOT know, and should not concern yourself, with any of the questions I raised as examples.

I recommend a reading of ON Directing Film to anyone reading this all out writer forum slugfest.

piff piff

ouch
 
Sounds like the revenge of the ghost would be assumed and not need explanation. Also, someone once said "love ambiguity." Watching an otherwise good film without the effective revelation of back story is like biting into a great tasting piece of pie and finding the bottom crust is mush. If God is in the details, maybe God is in the backstory. Being in a small minority, I don't appreciate Mamet's style. Too cynical for even me. But, he's successful and rich and I'm not -
 
"Why does Han owe Jabba money? What'd he spend all that space loot on?"

He dumped the cargo (Han is a smuggler -- did you see the fim?) because the Empire boarded him. Jabba wanted to be compensated.

People can make all kinds of movies with all kinds of stories. Nobody is stopping you. If surface and shallow is your goal, there are countless surface/shallow people out there who will praise your genius. No doubt.

So, whatever you convince yourself is correct.

As for Vader's alleged manufacture of a widely produced droid, I'll defer to serial killer Buffalo Bill to handle that one...

http://www.filmhobbit.com/new/Epic-70-Minute-Review-Of-Star-Wars-The-Phantom-Menace-16207.html

And if you want some Star Wars backstory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc7_KpPRyBs&feature=related
 
polfilmblog said:
He dumped the cargo (Han is a smuggler -- did you see the fim?) because the Empire boarded him. Jabba wanted to be compensated.
Click to expand...


Thanks, my viewing has been enriched. Was that in the original, or one of the pointless re-releases with all the junk tacked on so George Lucas can play with crappy overblown CGI?

Nothing like watching a slick, morphing, CGI Jabba ...erm....walking.

Star wars backstory- no more thank you please.
 
memento515 said:
Thanks, my viewing has been enriched. Was that in the original, or one of the pointless re-releases with all the junk tacked on so George Lucas can play with crappy overblown CGI?

Nothing like watching a slick, morphing, CGI Jabba ...erm....walking.

Star wars backstory- no more thank you please.
Click to expand...

Actually it was in the conversation with Greedo, that was in the original film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top