Image or the pull of the narrative?
-
Evan Kubota
- Senior member
- Posts: 2565
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:04 am
- Location: FL
- Contact:
Image or the pull of the narrative?
It seems like there are two different approaches you can take as a director - either to emphasize the image, or to sculpt and manipulate the 'pull' of the narrative, or what happens outside or behind the frame. Which do you try to achieve? Why? I personally find it much more difficult to maintain control over the intangible elements of story and character interaction - the certain sensation that grips the audience between shots and frames to immerse them in the immediacy of a character's situation. I find myself resorting to images instead of using them to 'project' the gravity of the story off the screen. I need to work on that.
Production Notes
http://plaza.ufl.edu/ekubota/film.html
http://plaza.ufl.edu/ekubota/film.html
-
Evan Kubota
- Senior member
- Posts: 2565
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 9:04 am
- Location: FL
- Contact:
I'm not saying the story would be completely rejected in the first method. You're correct in that the story is the heart of any narrative.
However, some directors clearly focus their efforts on controlling the more elusive elements of the story, where others lay out a simple framework and invest time in building meaning around images. I find the challenge of manipulating something that's impossible to quantify the most difficult and exciting part of filmmaking - how the space between two shots can excite or depress the audience, and how a fictional, created world formed in the editing room can move people to tears. By comparison, achieving striking images and symbols is less difficult.
However, some directors clearly focus their efforts on controlling the more elusive elements of the story, where others lay out a simple framework and invest time in building meaning around images. I find the challenge of manipulating something that's impossible to quantify the most difficult and exciting part of filmmaking - how the space between two shots can excite or depress the audience, and how a fictional, created world formed in the editing room can move people to tears. By comparison, achieving striking images and symbols is less difficult.
Production Notes
http://plaza.ufl.edu/ekubota/film.html
http://plaza.ufl.edu/ekubota/film.html
We might confuse the terms here, but story to me is the most unimportant part of it. You can make a wonderful film without any story at all, and the same tame produce a horrible piece of junk with an incredible story.
Story = what happens, like:
A young man falls in love with the daughter of his family's enemy. The couple attempts to live together fail, and both commit suicide.
An old man has becomes confused after reading to many novels, and can't distinguish the reality from his imagination that is fueled by his readings. He starts a quest, in company of a naive man who from time to time realizes that the old man is nuts, but stays with him anyway.
OK, so much for the story. Beginning from there, you can go anywhere, from the crappiest pulp fiction or set standards in cultural history.
What matters is not what you say, but how you do it. The "what" is rather trivial, helps the audience to keep following you, but in the end is not the important part of it.
If you want to see films without story, without dialogue, and almost without characters, ha a look at Jacques Tati. Trafic is my personal favourite of his films. Rohmer is also a master of non-story telling, but with very vivid characters who talk and talk and talk and talk,,
Story = what happens, like:
A young man falls in love with the daughter of his family's enemy. The couple attempts to live together fail, and both commit suicide.
An old man has becomes confused after reading to many novels, and can't distinguish the reality from his imagination that is fueled by his readings. He starts a quest, in company of a naive man who from time to time realizes that the old man is nuts, but stays with him anyway.
OK, so much for the story. Beginning from there, you can go anywhere, from the crappiest pulp fiction or set standards in cultural history.
What matters is not what you say, but how you do it. The "what" is rather trivial, helps the audience to keep following you, but in the end is not the important part of it.
If you want to see films without story, without dialogue, and almost without characters, ha a look at Jacques Tati. Trafic is my personal favourite of his films. Rohmer is also a master of non-story telling, but with very vivid characters who talk and talk and talk and talk,,
have fun!
The trend in recent art cinema is toward eschewing narrative and relying on aesthetics to communicate meaning. See the work of Bela Tarr, Gus Van Sant, Kiarostami etc.
50s and 60s art cinema relied much more heavily on dialogue and narrative. Personally I prefer the modern conception, but I can see the merits of a more dialogue heavy film to communicate profound ideas or character insight.
50s and 60s art cinema relied much more heavily on dialogue and narrative. Personally I prefer the modern conception, but I can see the merits of a more dialogue heavy film to communicate profound ideas or character insight.