I'm not sure if those are the proper film theory terms or not, as that I'm an armchair critic/student at best, but they're the terms that made sense to me, so this will make sense by the end. Also, I'm not really a writer (or not a good one anyway) but it seems like this might be a good way of thinking about creating a story. Also: longwinded post. Be warned!
I was having a discussion the other day about the film Legend (one of my all time favorites) with a friend who wasn't all that crazy about it. We are both reasonably intelligent people, and as a mental exercise, discussed what it was that we liked/disliked about it. There were lots of little things, but the big thing in both cases was this: what is not told.
In the film, there are lots of lines of dialogue that hint at deeper stories. There are characters that seem interesting, but we don't really know anything about. Even the main character of Lily has a degree of ambiguity, and a history to which we are not privy (less so in the director's cut and original European cut in which we are told that Princess Lily is a Princess in a conversation that heavy-handedly uses the term "princess" almost every third word). The world is a complex world that we're only seeing a glimpse into; a story that exists inside a larger whole.
For my friend, this is a weakness of the film. They were left with the impression that the filmmakers just didn't bother. They felt that the movie was half-assed, and not as fleshed out as it could have been, and much less enjoyable because of that.
For me, this is the highlight of the film. The film exists not as just an isolated story, but also as inspiration for my imagination. By NOT telling me, for example, where Gump comes from (but is referred to as "foreigner"), I am inspired to create a multitude of possible origins for him in my head. To me, the film provides countless moments that get my imagination going. As much as I enjoy the story of the film, I love it more as a springboard for an infinite number of stories in my head.
By choosing to leave out details, the film becomes an active experience. I don't just watch the film, but I make the world full and rich in my head. Watching a film where every nook and cranny is explored and explained, it requires less of me. The world is fully described without my intervention. Contrast with a film where everything is laid out on the table. It requires nothing on the part of the viewer, so you watch it passively.
Now, this is by no means an absolute thing. One could just as easily be spurred to imagination by films I would deem more "passive". Likewise, one is not required to think about details not given to enjoy a film I'd call "active". Either way, these are not value judgements, to say one is "better" than the other, though my tastes certainly lean towards a more active experience.
There are two elements I think are key to developing a story in this way. First, nothing about the main plot can be left to mystery. It's okay to say that Bill committed a felony in the past (obligatory TV Tropes reference: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoodleIncident) but if that felony is important to the plot, the audience should know what it is. Second, it should be clear that there could be more to tell. Going back to Legend, when Screwball calls Gump "foreigner", he does it as an aside, but the camera is focused on him. It's not important to the plot, but it gives depth to the characters and the relationship/dynamic between them.
Another good example (yes, I've watched this film way too many times), at one point Blunder says "adios amigos" as being sent to the dungeons by Darkness. It seems like a jarring anachronism. Later, he is reunited with the heroes, who call him "brother" and make note of how he has been gone. He says "we all are barbecue," a word which Screwball does not recognize. Since attention is drawn to this second anachronism, the first seems more intentional. One is left to wonder, where has Blunder gone? Through time? Dimensions? Texas? It's not important to the story of the film, but it provides a jumping off point for the viewer's imagination. You can compare/contrast to the horror technique of not showing/explaining the monster, knowing that the viewer's imagination can create something far more effective than your budget will allow.
Discuss: good, bad, ugly? Has anyone else used similar world-building techniques? Anyone like them, or dislike them, and why? Are there proper film/writing/theory terms that should be used for this? No real questions on my part, just trying to stir up thoughts and discussion.
As an aside, I could probably write a book deconstructing Legend!
I was having a discussion the other day about the film Legend (one of my all time favorites) with a friend who wasn't all that crazy about it. We are both reasonably intelligent people, and as a mental exercise, discussed what it was that we liked/disliked about it. There were lots of little things, but the big thing in both cases was this: what is not told.
In the film, there are lots of lines of dialogue that hint at deeper stories. There are characters that seem interesting, but we don't really know anything about. Even the main character of Lily has a degree of ambiguity, and a history to which we are not privy (less so in the director's cut and original European cut in which we are told that Princess Lily is a Princess in a conversation that heavy-handedly uses the term "princess" almost every third word). The world is a complex world that we're only seeing a glimpse into; a story that exists inside a larger whole.
For my friend, this is a weakness of the film. They were left with the impression that the filmmakers just didn't bother. They felt that the movie was half-assed, and not as fleshed out as it could have been, and much less enjoyable because of that.
For me, this is the highlight of the film. The film exists not as just an isolated story, but also as inspiration for my imagination. By NOT telling me, for example, where Gump comes from (but is referred to as "foreigner"), I am inspired to create a multitude of possible origins for him in my head. To me, the film provides countless moments that get my imagination going. As much as I enjoy the story of the film, I love it more as a springboard for an infinite number of stories in my head.
By choosing to leave out details, the film becomes an active experience. I don't just watch the film, but I make the world full and rich in my head. Watching a film where every nook and cranny is explored and explained, it requires less of me. The world is fully described without my intervention. Contrast with a film where everything is laid out on the table. It requires nothing on the part of the viewer, so you watch it passively.
Now, this is by no means an absolute thing. One could just as easily be spurred to imagination by films I would deem more "passive". Likewise, one is not required to think about details not given to enjoy a film I'd call "active". Either way, these are not value judgements, to say one is "better" than the other, though my tastes certainly lean towards a more active experience.
There are two elements I think are key to developing a story in this way. First, nothing about the main plot can be left to mystery. It's okay to say that Bill committed a felony in the past (obligatory TV Tropes reference: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoodleIncident) but if that felony is important to the plot, the audience should know what it is. Second, it should be clear that there could be more to tell. Going back to Legend, when Screwball calls Gump "foreigner", he does it as an aside, but the camera is focused on him. It's not important to the plot, but it gives depth to the characters and the relationship/dynamic between them.
Another good example (yes, I've watched this film way too many times), at one point Blunder says "adios amigos" as being sent to the dungeons by Darkness. It seems like a jarring anachronism. Later, he is reunited with the heroes, who call him "brother" and make note of how he has been gone. He says "we all are barbecue," a word which Screwball does not recognize. Since attention is drawn to this second anachronism, the first seems more intentional. One is left to wonder, where has Blunder gone? Through time? Dimensions? Texas? It's not important to the story of the film, but it provides a jumping off point for the viewer's imagination. You can compare/contrast to the horror technique of not showing/explaining the monster, knowing that the viewer's imagination can create something far more effective than your budget will allow.
Discuss: good, bad, ugly? Has anyone else used similar world-building techniques? Anyone like them, or dislike them, and why? Are there proper film/writing/theory terms that should be used for this? No real questions on my part, just trying to stir up thoughts and discussion.
As an aside, I could probably write a book deconstructing Legend!
