thoughts on the multiple layers of story

[steve hyde]

Tarkovsky's MIRROR is a master work of cinema, there is no doubt. It is also the kind of cinema that is almost impossible to get funding for. The script for this picture (if one was ever written) would have to be incoherent and unstructured. The kind of script that a script analyst would write "pass" on at the top in big red letters. Tarkovsky's vision for the film was so entirely cinematic that the idea probably couldn't be conveyed in a manuscript. While the film does stand as a master work of cinema, many people have never even heard of it or seen it and many who have seen it have shrugged it off as another boring art film because of its somber mood-sustaining pace and its resistance to resolution. MIRROR is the story of a time and place I can never know myself. I can only explore the reaches of the time and place through cinema and literature and other artifacts that were left behind.

Then there is the here and now. For me that means life in the American West. I saw two features this year that I think are true artifacts of my time and place - both are "low-budget" features and both use tried and true story-telling methodologies to get the job done...and, both films won awards at the IFP this year, one of those awards went to a generation-x first time director that will surely see funding for his next project.

I want to discuss the multiple layers of story in the film SIDEWAYS. There are many aspects to this story that make it into a good film. And personally I think the strongest element of the film is the script. SIDEWAYS is made from a great screenplay and I think the thing that makes the screenplay great is the writer's commitment to the story idea.

What I mean by idea is, for lack of a better term - the action-idea. All good stories are propelled by action-ideas: the action (s) that work to change the protagonist. In SIDEWAYS the writers commited to the action of *lying*. It is lying that moves the story into its arch. SIDEWAYS, plain and simply, is a tale about lying and the ways in which lying shapes and fucks up peoples lives.

If we consider the layers of SIDEWAYS, *lying* is at the very core of the story. The skeletal structure of the story is lying and therefore the story could take place anywhere. That makes it an archtypal story: a story that connects with any audience anywhere, but SIDEWAYS is also a tale about life in the American West, specifically California.

The other action-idea that drives the characters into the fuckery of dispair is *drinking*. The landscape of Northern California wineries is the perfect location for a tale about *lying* and *drinking*. This makes the story authentic and convincing, but the landscape is just a bit of flesh on the bones of the core story.

On the surface of the story we have what reviewers will call a "buddy-movie", but calling it a buddy movie really says nothing about what the film is really about, but it is a buddy movie nonetheless. Each scene in the movie maintains a strong focus on the core action-ideas, which are lying and drinking, while simultaneously coloring each scene with cultural authenticity through set decor (the road, a motel, a few bars, Sonoma county etc.) and also the characters ( language: local vernacular and mannerisms all present something authentic about America culture.)

In the end, it is all of these elements that make SIDEWAYS an authentic artifact of life in the American West at the dawn of the twentyfirst century.
It is all of these elements that make it great cinema. And of all of the layers that I have discussed here the most important is obviously the core action-idea because the film isn't really about a couple of guys that go off to Northen California to get shit-faced before one of them gets married. It is about how the behaviors of the characters (in this case lying and drinking) has shaped the lives of the characters and transformed the protagonist. That is what makes SIDEWAYS a great movie.

I won't go into the other movie now - maybe later.

Steve

[jean]

This is intersting, especially since for me it is an aspect that I may have missed. Could you illustrate it with e.g. an exemplary scene?

I would have stated that the movie is about relationships, both between the buddies and men and women. The male characters seemed to represent two archetypes, thetimid insecure (giammati, obviously) who clings himself to morale, outer symbols of security, is quite afraid to get in contact with women, and is deeply hurt because his wife left him, and the macho, who gets easily in contact with women and uses marriage as a tactic to get the ladies laid (anyone read don juan?). The voyage and drinking for me were symbolic for an attempt to escape fate, for giammati the fact that he's failed as a writer and rejected as man, and while the other one has success in his profession and is getting married, he seems quite unhappy pursuing this way of life. He's looking for more. In the end, the escape fails, there is no escape for both to the everydays routine. No escape as a writer, nor as succesful don juan chasing women.

[npcoombs]

To make a comparison between MIRROR and SIDEWAYS is pretty grotesque. The former is a prophetic works of personal visual and spiritual sensitivity, the latter is a well constructed and nicely paced, but otherwise unexceptional Hollywood comedy.

I don't understand the parallel.

[steve hyde]

This is intersting, especially since for me it is an aspect that I may have missed. Could you illustrate it with e.g. an exemplary scene?


I would have stated that the movie is about relationships, both between the buddies and men and women. The male characters seemed to represent two archetypes, thetimid insecure (giammati, obviously) who clings himself to morale, outer symbols of security, is quite afraid to get in contact with women, and is deeply hurt because his wife left him, and the macho, who gets easily in contact with women and uses marriage as a tactic to get the ladies laid (anyone read don juan?). The voyage and drinking for me were symbolic for an attempt to escape fate, for giammati the fact that he's failed as a writer and rejected as man, and while the other one has success in his profession and is getting married, he seems quite unhappy pursuing this way of life. He's looking for more. In the end, the escape fails, there is no escape for both to the everydays routine. No escape as a writer, nor as succesful don juan chasing women.

I agree with your interpretation of the archetypes here. Now that I have read what I wrote I can see that I was thinking through what I'm calling action-ideas: an idea that turns every scene. In SIDEWAYS I think the action-idea is lying. Lying turned almost every scene. The protagonist lied and stole money from his mother. The antagonist lied to his wife and his weekend lover and he even lied for the protagonist by making it sound like his book was slated for sure success. All I am arguing is that lying is the action-idea that gives SIDEWAYS character shaping momentum. In the end the protagonist finds himself in a really fucked up situation ***that is the product of lying***and he does not know what to do. He decides to err on the side of truth. (perhaps I'm tuching on the meaning of the film title here, I don't know ??)

To make a comparison between MIRROR and SIDEWAYS is pretty grotesque. The former is a prophetic works of personal visual and spiritual sensitivity, the latter is a well constructed and nicely paced, but otherwise unexceptional Hollywood comedy.

I don't understand the parallel.

If you can't see the spiritual sensitivity in SIDEWAYS, I'm not sure what to say. It was not meant to be a comparrison. It was meant to be contrasting. I referenced MIRROR because it is a film we have been discussing in this forum and also because it is such a different kind of film. MIRROR is not a work of archetypal story structure. SIDEWAYS is. I think both films are great works of cinema for different reasons. I was trying to think through those reasons.

Steve

[steve hyde]

I would have stated that the movie is about relationships, both between the buddies and men and women.

It is about relationships, but that is one of the story layers that exist on the surface. I think it is more explicitly about the ways that lying fucks up relationships. The reason I think this is important to highlight is because I really think this is one of the keys that unlocks the logic of the script. I imagine the writers had to continually remind themselves that lying was the action idea that glued the story together. You have to admit - SIDEWAYS is a very cohesive story.

Steve

[npcoombs]

I imagine the writers had to continually remind themselves that lying was the action idea that glued the story together. You have to admit - SIDEWAYS is a very cohesive story.

For me this is my problem with most contemporary cinema and particularly American films is this over-rigid construction. I can almost feel gears being grinded and visualise wobbly character arcs as I watch films like Sideways. I will admit, parts of the film were enjoyable, but in the end the film left me cold by a certain lack of ambition.

The problem is that after experiencing the work of such directors as Tarkovsky, Tarr, Fellini, Sokurov and even Ceylan, normal cinema seems a little flat to me, a little emotionally numb, a little poor on aesthetics and having a too narrow gap in that all important interpretative distance between filmmaker and viewer.

If we are talking about script writing, I think rooting out some fundamental principle such as the 'action idea' is probably wise if you are interested in professional script writing. For auteur cinema, however, I think script writing unconsciously follows a unifying idea (usually a very simple one) but is at the same time locked in a dialectic with the urge to break free of all structure and expectations and spill in every direction. Mirror of course tends much more toward the latter, whereas films such as the Werkmeister Harmonies experiment much more within the former.

If you really enjoyed MIRROR I thoroughly recommend you THE COLOUR OF POMEGRANATES by Sergei Paradjanov if you haven't already seen it. Now there is a film I would love to discuss.

[steve hyde]

For me this is my problem with most contemporary cinema and particularly American films is this over-rigid construction. I can almost feel gears being grinded and visualise wobbly character arcs as I watch films like Sideways. I will admit, parts of the film were enjoyable, but in the end the film left me cold by a certain lack of ambition.

I'll tell you what irritated me about SIDEWAYS. It was too fucking long!
More than two hours. It is not the kind of movie that warrants being more than 90mins.

What do you mean "lack of ambition"? I agree that it is the product of a rigid construction, I have said elsewhere that Aristotle's poetics are still the backbone of story, which I think is fine. I just like to see films that are authentic and that have something to say about truth (not to be confused with Truth)....What I'm saying is that Alexander Payne is making cinema that is salient with a particular time and place and for me that is one of the important aspects of cinema: for a film to leave behind an honest record.

The problem is that after experiencing the work of such directors as Tarkovsky, Tarr, Fellini, Sokurov and even Ceylan, normal cinema seems a little flat to me, a little emotionally numb, a little poor on aesthetics and having a too narrow gap in that all important interpretative distance between filmmaker and viewer.

I'm familiar with some of these directors, not all. I'll check out Tarr, Sokurov and Ceylan. You might need to unpack some of these ideas for us. What do you mean "interpretive distance"?

If we are talking about script writing, I think rooting out some fundamental principle such as the 'action idea' is probably wise if you are interested in professional script writing. For auteur cinema, however, I think script writing unconsciously follows a unifying idea (usually a very simple one) but is at the same time locked in a dialectic with the urge to break free of all structure and expectations and spill in every direction. Mirror of course tends much more toward the latter, whereas films such as the Werkmeister Harmonies experiment much more within the former.

I am interested in script writing and I think all good scripts follow a "unifying idea". I think what you are calling the "unifying idea" and what I'm calling the "action idea" are really the same thing. In SIDEWAYS it was a simple idea. It's a film about lying. What could be more simple?
There is always an urge to spill in every direction because staying focused on idea is difficult. (as stated in that Tarkovsky quote in my other post) As a writing practice, I'm not sure it is good practice to try to break free from dialectical constraints. I think the writer should just deal with it....The film SIDEWAYS used a dialectic to give the story tension. The protagonist was walking a tight-rope between living a lie and living the truth.

If you really enjoyed MIRROR I thoroughly recommend you THE COLOUR OF POMEGRANATES by Sergei Paradjanov if you haven't already seen it. Now there is a film I would love to discuss.

Thanks, I haven't seen this. Now I have added a few more Russians to my watch-list.

Steve

[jean]

I'll tell you what irritated me about SIDEWAYS. It was too fucking long!More than two hours. It is not the kind of movie that warrants being more than 90mins.

Yes, that's a bad habit both of books and films, they are stretched beyond their real content. Even photographs and paintings seem to be ridiculously oversized.

In SIDEWAYS it was a simple idea. It's a film about lying. What could be more simple?....The film SIDEWAYS used a dialectic to give the story tension. The protagonist was walking a tight-rope between living a lie and living the truth.

In the end the protagonist finds himself in a really fucked up situation ***that is the product of lying***and he does not know what to do. He decides to err on the side of truth. (perhaps I'm tuching on the meaning of the film title here, I don't know ??)

There is plenty of room for ambiguity, as shows the discussion here! Lying is a very important factor, however we differ in it's interpretation. If I understand you correctly, the lying is resented as a negative, showing how people get in trouble, wouldn't they lie they would happily live decent lifes. I oversimplify, but I believe that was your point? In that case, the lying is what propels the action forward. Agreed. Lying would be the cause of it all.

Ok, here's how I see it: the lying is the symptom. The lies are alternative realities created by the two friends. The can, within limits, make them real in this exceptional situation of a journey, where essentially there is no past and no future.

Like I could make up in this forum anything I liked, and there would be few reasons for you to doubt it and fewer ressources to verify.

But what's the point? The lies are rooted in the desires of the two. They reflect what they really feel about themselves, how they want their lifes to be. It is a conflict between reality and desires. The journey is a twilight zone, where they have a chance to pursue their desires without being punished instantly.

Both fail horrendously. The end is truly sad - one getting married to a woman he does not care much about, as we learn throughout the film. He is too scared to pursue his desire. I pity him for his relationship, and his weakness behind the macho facade. The other is forced back to a job he detests.

Now the irony: Both carreers, the teacher's as well as the married husband's, are in sync with the current value system. Both are a safe ticket to recognition and happiness in the perception of the public. But we learn that for the two, these are traps, they dream of other lifes, but cannot live up to them.Their lies reveal the truth about the two (and many of us, I believe). The reality is revealed as a very unpleasant facade.

The journey will therefore remain a week of adventure, of bright light, in otherwise dim and dull lifes of the two. I felt it would be the ast time they would at least temporarily escape of their prisons.

[steve hyde]

I'll tell you what irritated me about SIDEWAYS. It was too fucking long!More than two hours. It is not the kind of movie that warrants being more than 90mins.

Yes, that's a bad habit both of books and films, they are stretched beyond their real content. Even photographs and paintings seem to be ridiculously oversized.

In SIDEWAYS it was a simple idea. It's a film about lying. What could be more simple?....The film SIDEWAYS used a dialectic to give the story tension. The protagonist was walking a tight-rope between living a lie and living the truth.

In the end the protagonist finds himself in a really fucked up situation ***that is the product of lying***and he does not know what to do. He decides to err on the side of truth. (perhaps I'm tuching on the meaning of the film title here, I don't know ??)

There is plenty of room for ambiguity, as shows the discussion here! Lying is a very important factor, however we differ in it's interpretation. If I understand you correctly, the lying is resented as a negative, showing how people get in trouble, wouldn't they lie they would happily live decent lifes. I oversimplify, but I believe that was your point? In that case, the lying is what propels the action forward. Agreed. Lying would be the cause of it all.

Ok, here's how I see it: the lying is the symptom. The lies are alternative realities created by the two friends. The can, within limits, make them real in this exceptional situation of a journey, where essentially there is no past and no future.

Like I could make up in this forum anything I liked, and there would be few reasons for you to doubt it and fewer ressources to verify.

But what's the point? The lies are rooted in the desires of the two. They reflect what they really feel about themselves, how they want their lifes to be. It is a conflict between reality and desires. The journey is a twilight zone, where they have a chance to pursue their desires without being punished instantly.

Both fail horrendously. The end is truly sad - one getting married to a woman he does not care much about, as we learn throughout the film. He is too scared to pursue his desire. I pity him for his relationship, and his weakness behind the macho facade. The other is forced back to a job he detests.

Now the irony: Both carreers, the teacher's as well as the married husband's, are in sync with the current value system. Both are a safe ticket to recognition and happiness in the perception of the public. But we learn that for the two, these are traps, they dream of other lifes, but cannot live up to them.Their lies reveal the truth about the two (and many of us, I believe). The reality is revealed as a very unpleasant facade.

The journey will therefore remain a week of adventure, of bright light, in otherwise dim and dull lifes of the two. I felt it would be the ast time they would at least temporarily escape of their prisons.

I don't disagree with anything you have said here. My point was to try to illuminate the multiple layers of the story by focussing on the central action at the core of the story. In this case, I said that I though that the action is lying. From a screenwriting perspective I think this is important to highlight because I think this is also the story idea. It is true that the story is also about all of the things that you have noted above, but I would say that most of these story elements are different layers. On the surface the story is about the journey of two lost souls....but why are they lost? What is the action that enhances their *lostness* It's a classic case actually: what they want and what they need are at odds. They lie to get what they want and they do get what they want, but the fact remains that getting what they want is still not getting what they need. It's brilliant: a guaranteed conflict.

I off-line a lot these days on the road in California, Good wine down here..

Cheers,

Steve