Why tell stories?
- Thread starter Drew Ott
- Start date
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
I always figured it would be a great way to meet girls!...
In all seriousness; the short answer is to reaffirm my humanity. I am definitely a child of movies and came of age in the late 1960's and 1970's; a time that is widely considered to be a golden age of American Cinema. Some of my most formative emotional experiences where had watching the great films of that era. I still am amazed at the power of cinema to crystallize human experience and express it for others. It might be hubris, or at least very pretentious, to think that I might be able to articulate a significant part of the human experience for the enjoyment of an audience with a modicum of success but I will continue to try. Really I am not anything that special and in those dark reflective moments that I think we all share (When we compare our worst short comings with the best attributes of others) I sometimes think I am pretty much a f*ck up. However, I do have a very harm heart and, I believe, a connection to the shared human experience of all of us. Sharing that with narrative cinema is a worthy pursuit.
Besides... It may be a great way to meet girls!
In all seriousness; the short answer is to reaffirm my humanity. I am definitely a child of movies and came of age in the late 1960's and 1970's; a time that is widely considered to be a golden age of American Cinema. Some of my most formative emotional experiences where had watching the great films of that era. I still am amazed at the power of cinema to crystallize human experience and express it for others. It might be hubris, or at least very pretentious, to think that I might be able to articulate a significant part of the human experience for the enjoyment of an audience with a modicum of success but I will continue to try. Really I am not anything that special and in those dark reflective moments that I think we all share (When we compare our worst short comings with the best attributes of others) I sometimes think I am pretty much a f*ck up. However, I do have a very harm heart and, I believe, a connection to the shared human experience of all of us. Sharing that with narrative cinema is a worthy pursuit.
Besides... It may be a great way to meet girls!
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
Drew, telling stories is an artform older than society. It teaches morals, lessons, and entertains. Many people focus on the latter reason, and no offense taken for that. But sometimes I feel filmmakers forget that they have a responsibility to society, if they tell a story, do so to edify the good and castigate the bad. Not the other way around.
It does not matter that it is in a digital form, our ancestors used audio and visual as well.
Yeah this is a sore point for me, I am seeing everyone trying to out do each other in a visual sense, and pretty much foregoing the story and what impact they could have if they focused on the story itself. I see something visually beautiful, but the storyline sucks........the film sucks. Because people forget the mantra: Story is King.
I'd rather see a poorly shot great story, than a well-shot ego piece, as what I see many projects are these days. It's all about the Director or the DP, rather than the story. You can readily see the disconnect in these projects.
It does not matter that it is in a digital form, our ancestors used audio and visual as well.
Yeah this is a sore point for me, I am seeing everyone trying to out do each other in a visual sense, and pretty much foregoing the story and what impact they could have if they focused on the story itself. I see something visually beautiful, but the storyline sucks........the film sucks. Because people forget the mantra: Story is King.
I'd rather see a poorly shot great story, than a well-shot ego piece, as what I see many projects are these days. It's all about the Director or the DP, rather than the story. You can readily see the disconnect in these projects.
Last edited:
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
Today i re-watched two films: "City of God" - that i loved when i watched it in my early 20s and "The Hours" - that i didn't really like the first time around.
The first film i couldn't finish watching because it ONLY told a story; the second film almost made me cry. On the surface both films tell a story. On the surface "City of God" tells a better story but that story doesn't stand up the test of time. The story telling devices of that film are as "fresh" as ever but the audience (here, me) has changed. I don't just want a story (as i did in my early 20s) - i want more from a work of art. Ultimately, the makers of "City of God" didn't want anything else but to entertain with a story well done - nothing more. The makers of "The Hours" wanted more. They wanted to explore of what it means to be a human through the question of death. The story was only relevant to them in the larger context of searching for those answers.
When i set out to be a filmmaker i presumed for a brief moment that it's to tell stories. Now i know that it was never really my aim. Just like the makers of "The Hours" (and many other films or works of art) i want to find answers to certain questions in life. ...And it just happens that for me the search should occurs through the film medium. For some the film medium is about stories, for me it's almost anything but.
The first film i couldn't finish watching because it ONLY told a story; the second film almost made me cry. On the surface both films tell a story. On the surface "City of God" tells a better story but that story doesn't stand up the test of time. The story telling devices of that film are as "fresh" as ever but the audience (here, me) has changed. I don't just want a story (as i did in my early 20s) - i want more from a work of art. Ultimately, the makers of "City of God" didn't want anything else but to entertain with a story well done - nothing more. The makers of "The Hours" wanted more. They wanted to explore of what it means to be a human through the question of death. The story was only relevant to them in the larger context of searching for those answers.
When i set out to be a filmmaker i presumed for a brief moment that it's to tell stories. Now i know that it was never really my aim. Just like the makers of "The Hours" (and many other films or works of art) i want to find answers to certain questions in life. ...And it just happens that for me the search should occurs through the film medium. For some the film medium is about stories, for me it's almost anything but.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
I am a big fan of Robert Altman and I concur with his assertion that, "I am not interested in stories...". Altman expresses that he is more interested in characters and their behavior. No offense Doc, but I agree with Altman that story is not king. In that I think that he is asserting that PLOT is not the driving force of a good movie. I think that he was saying that the important thing was the effect of the situations set up in the movie on the characters and that the real narrative comes out of the characters response to that. One of my favorite Altman films is "Three Woman". I really could not articulate the story, or more clearly, the plot, but the interaction and arch of the characters is amazing and makes for a wonderful film. I think that the human mind is hardwired to make associations and build a narrative from consecutive images and sounds presented on a screen. I agree with Patryk that the more successful works of cinema do this by having interesting, intriguing characters dealing with profound questions of life.
I think what most film makers like is to move an audience emotionally. It's very gratifying. What emotion you create isn't important. It could be fear, amusement, wonder, disgust, excitement, it all works and if the audience feels something you feel you've done your job as a film maker.
The issue of story versus plot and whether story is king is more of a personal preference, like what your favorite beverage is, orange juice, coke, ice tea, etc. One is not superior to the other, but you tend to like one more and each person has their preference.
I like a good plot. If it's a character piece with a shallow or very little plot I'm generally not satisfied or as entertained as if there had been a good plot. Of course I want layered 3 dimensional characters too, but they need to exist in a good plot for me to enjoy the story.
The link posted somewhere around here to the trends in story telling describe plot and story this way. Plot is the physical action that takes place from point a to point c. You can mix up the order if you like, for example cab instead of a,b,c or even make it disjointed like a,x,r but there will be physical actions that take place. Story is the emotions of the characters. As these physical actions take place, how do the characters react? Are they happy, sad, mad, frustrated? How much, and why?
Three Women does have a plot, although it's described as minimal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_Women
It's mostly story, that is the emotions of the characters.
I don't gravitate towards this sort of narrative and generally when I see something like this I express my reaction to it by saying I feel "ripped off" or cheated. This is because according to the lesson on story telling from that link, and I agree with it, you want to do three things.
1. Hook
2.Hold
3. Payoff
you grab the audiences attention, you hold it by making them wonder, what's going to happen?, and then you give them some sort of resolution, happy or sad depending on if it's a comedy or a drama. If there's no solid plot I feel like I don't get my payoff. It feels like the story goes, there's this thief and he cases the house of some rich people, and then he waits for the couple to leave to break in, but he doesn't know that a friend spent the night and left with the husband on an errand so it looks like they left, but actually the wife is still there, so he goes to break in....then he decides to have a Coke instead and he doesn't break in. The end. I feel like, really? I waited to see what would happen, and that's it? That's all I get?
Well, you still got a story. Maybe we found out all about how the thief felt, his emotions about breaking in, why in the end he doesn't, and has a Coke instead. That's enough right? Well, for some people it is and they love that sort of narrative. I don't care for it.
The issue of story versus plot and whether story is king is more of a personal preference, like what your favorite beverage is, orange juice, coke, ice tea, etc. One is not superior to the other, but you tend to like one more and each person has their preference.
I like a good plot. If it's a character piece with a shallow or very little plot I'm generally not satisfied or as entertained as if there had been a good plot. Of course I want layered 3 dimensional characters too, but they need to exist in a good plot for me to enjoy the story.
The link posted somewhere around here to the trends in story telling describe plot and story this way. Plot is the physical action that takes place from point a to point c. You can mix up the order if you like, for example cab instead of a,b,c or even make it disjointed like a,x,r but there will be physical actions that take place. Story is the emotions of the characters. As these physical actions take place, how do the characters react? Are they happy, sad, mad, frustrated? How much, and why?
Three Women does have a plot, although it's described as minimal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_Women
It's mostly story, that is the emotions of the characters.
I don't gravitate towards this sort of narrative and generally when I see something like this I express my reaction to it by saying I feel "ripped off" or cheated. This is because according to the lesson on story telling from that link, and I agree with it, you want to do three things.
1. Hook
2.Hold
3. Payoff
you grab the audiences attention, you hold it by making them wonder, what's going to happen?, and then you give them some sort of resolution, happy or sad depending on if it's a comedy or a drama. If there's no solid plot I feel like I don't get my payoff. It feels like the story goes, there's this thief and he cases the house of some rich people, and then he waits for the couple to leave to break in, but he doesn't know that a friend spent the night and left with the husband on an errand so it looks like they left, but actually the wife is still there, so he goes to break in....then he decides to have a Coke instead and he doesn't break in. The end. I feel like, really? I waited to see what would happen, and that's it? That's all I get?
Well, you still got a story. Maybe we found out all about how the thief felt, his emotions about breaking in, why in the end he doesn't, and has a Coke instead. That's enough right? Well, for some people it is and they love that sort of narrative. I don't care for it.
Last edited:
Drew Ott
Wish I were banned.
Great answers. I've been formulating the idea that all movies are educational. What Doc said about storytelling being older than society is true, and those stories were traditional folklore--intended to pass on certain wisdom to the next generation. What people -like- and what people -need- is not the same thing. In this sense, to entertain a person is not always a good thing. (Porn is highly entertaining.) I'm beginning to see the history of cinema in a new light these days. Like Patryk, a lot of the films I once adored have grown cold. Because cinema began within a system of capitalism (unlike other arts which began in a "folk" context), movies have always needed to satisfy what people like more than what they need. All movies are educational--it doesn't matter if they're called pure entertainment. They educate. With this in mind, I'm starting to see bad movies (or even well-made entertaining movies) as immoral, wrong, and damaging to humanity. I cannot fully articulate this idea here... and for some reason I cannot indent. But these are these ideas I'm starting to form.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
I'm amazed that the very same people who care about their food diet and what quality ingredients they use in their salad or if the food is processed or not don't see similarity with what they ingest as their entertainment. What you nourish yourself with matters! Whether it's food or films or books, or what shows you go to or... All those things leave a residue inside of you. If you eat crap or consume crap culture there is no other way but for you to be a sub-human being.
That said, it's vital that the films one makes go hand in hand with what one wants AND needs. The films we want to make are often NOT the films we want to see. That's why there is such a sea of bad films. If people spent less time trying to second-guess the audiences and started following what is in their heart (making films that their heart desires) we would see more, not necessary better, films that are hones. If you can make a film for at least ONE audience member that you know well, yourself, you will be successful in one way or another. And ultimately, here is where the problem resides, majority of people don't even know themselves well enough to make the film for that one audience member.
ZazaCast
Major Contributor
Not just wisdom, but history itself... being a fan of oldtime banjo, I see that the traditional songs are not just for entertainment, but capture little pieces of history as well.
Storytelling is not limited to any format.
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
I'd love to see you explain this concept to someone like Tarantino. I'm pretty sure he "nourished" himself with all manner of films, good and (to some) bad. And what about someone like Roger Corman? If he hadn't been a filmmaker, would we have all the greats who went to his "film school?" Scorsese, Coppola, Bogdanovich, Sayles, and James Cameron might not have become the filmmakers they are without their experiences with Corman.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
The times have changed. Scorsese can brag that he's seen EVERY film ever made before XYZ but if he grew up now - he would not be able to make that claim. Too much content is made AVAILABLE to us.
The scarcity of content created a different thinking pattern. On your walk to the library to borrow the books or VHS tapes or whatever - you were engaging YOUR thoughts. Now, that you can switch from one content to another in an instant the thought engagement is much more rare. And thus what the film or an experience does to you as a person is much more crucial as without the time to engage YOUR thoughts (that proverbial trip to the library) you are much less what you are but more what you consume.
ugafan
Looking for a woman
:shocked:
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
This is a much different hypothesis than you posited in your previous post.
But your point that consuming lesser works of art makes you a lesser artist is not only illogical, but is proven wrong by history itself. And who judges what is "crap" and what is not?
The simple fact is that there are times you learn by watching a masterfully directed piece of cinema, and there are times you learn from watching Birdemic. The value in the art is not solely whether culture determines it to be of artistic merit, but what other artists can learn from it.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
It seems you missed my point entirely.
The history is of little value in our ability to determine the future because, as i already said so, the times have changed drastically. In the past the lesser works could be used as training exercises because the content was not so abundant. Lack of content allowed one to spend time away from the film (good or bad) and thus infuse certain meaning into the film (good or bad) or create potentially new ideas inspired but the film (again good or bad). Those times are over. Today you can spend day after day consuming content (as many people do binge watching TV series or watching multitude of films or documentaries in a field they are interested in). That turns us into passive consumers (even when watch the good films!) where we don't generate thoughts but are fed thoughts of others. (In the past you were FORCED to be active viewer even if the film was bad). When you are a passive consumer you have to be VERY careful what you watch.
And ultimately who determines what is carp and what is not? In the past we had critics, today when you can't rust anyone, who is the guiding force other then ourselves?
Last edited:
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
Your point has no validity because you are grossly over-simplifying how content is presented and consumed. For example, your assertion that today's consumer is more passive is completely inaccurate.
The amount of content we consume has no correlation to our need to be active or passive. As always, we still choose to consume it or not. The volume of available content does not by necessity change HOW we engage that content, only the where and when.
But where the active vs. passive nature of consumption matters is in the outlets we have access to consume it through. Which, in fact is the reverse of your position, in general. There are so many outlets for content, the audience is largely required to be ACTIVE in seeking out the content they want. From traditional cinema and broadcast, to digital delivery in any number of channels, today's consumer is actively choosing what content to consume. Yes, there are still many who are more passive consumers, choosing to have content served to them. But for those in the digital generation, media consumption is far more of an active pursuit than it has ever been.
I'm curious as to why you think the abundance of content has changed how we engage or connect with content. Yes, the changing times may have altered our expectations of the content we consume, but not necessarily the emotional experience of consuming the content itself.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
WHAT?????
We are so far away from each other in our thought that i don't think i can even start to explain where my thinking is coming from? Can i really talk to you - and hope for any kind of understanding - when you presumes that there is really no difference between a grandma making a lemonade to quench summer thirst and a conglomerate building a factory to churn out millions of lemonade bottles a day??? You really think that the factory and its abundance of lemonade (as well as its thirst for energy, labor and lemons) will not dramatically change the environment the factory is build it (or serving)? And yes i'm using such a silly example to show how much i disagree with your assertion that the abundance of content has only "altered" our experience.
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
Your inability to logically and rationally discuss your hypothesis means it is backed by neither logic nor reason. It is simply an idea in your mind, but has no standing as fact, no matter how passionately you believe it to be true.
Terry_Lasater
All about the Caption
Sheesh... Take a breath, fellas.
This thread is nothing more than cotton candy for the brain. No need to beat each other up over a difference of opinions.
This thread is nothing more than cotton candy for the brain. No need to beat each other up over a difference of opinions.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
Abundance of anything changes nothing what so ever, you are right Stephen.
16th century. The Dutch find a new way to the spice islands, old routs loose profit. Abundance of cheap spices changes nothing, you are right Stephen.
18th century. Influx of black slaves into Americas (to replace dying indigenous population) to work on sugar plantations giving all of Europe cheap sugar. Cheap sugar changes nothing, you are right Stephen.
19th century. Telegraph spans all of US. In matter of hours you can hear news from other side of the continent. Abundance of information changes nothing, you are right Stephen.
20th century. Walmart moves into a neighborhood actively killing all local small stores and their potential for hiring. Abundance of cheap goods changes nothing in local economy, you are right Stephen.
20th century. As prices of airline tickets drop airfares become more affordable to many. More people travel. Abundance of tourist changes nothing, you are right Stephen.
Come do need to keep on being an asshol*?
(the above IS an asshole* comment, so take it easy)