The Answer to Life, the Universe, Everything, and The Reason For This Blog

So... I figured that five screenplays into this project is when I should explain more as to why I'm doing it and what I'm discovering that I get out of it.

That, and I just had an epiphany.



I have always been fascinated by good stories. My definition of "good" may change over the years but nevertheless, I'm always on the lookout for a story that will knock my socks off. The first stories that I really remember sticking with me as a child were films - Mary Poppins, The Wizard of Oz, and Anastasia, to name a few.

[SLIGHT DIVERSION FROM THE POINT, BUT] good story, in my opinion, is more difficult to come across via written word than in film. It takes a lot of talent because not only do you have to ignite the reader's imagination, but you have to keep that flame going with only 26 letters and a variety of dots and lines organized in such a way that it creates Good Story. It's a big risk to have such a limited influence on your audience - you're really only requiring one of their five senses to be used, and even then, it's not enough for a writer just to write words on a page that the audience can read and translate to ideas in their minds. A writer has to create empathy (or preferably sympathy) from nothing. I think this is why bibliophiles (is that the fancy word for book-lovers?) tend to talk about the feel of a book, the smell of its pages... we're trying to connect with books as closely as possible.

In some ways, then, one could hypothetically view films and television as cheating. The modern cinema places its audience in comfortable chairs (an enjoyable tactile experience), blasts them with state-of-the-art surround sound (an enjoyable aural experience), projects the action on a massive, HD screen (an enjoyable visual experience), and one could argue that the snack bar provides positively tasty experiences with which the audience might subconsciously associate film-viewing. You've gotta admit, it's easy for the backbone of the movie (the story) to get lost in all that.




Where is all this coming from, you might ask? What inspired Angela to go on such a rant?

Rewatching the first 50 minutes of National Treasure for the first time in eight years.

And not even on a big screen with good sound quality (although we were eating Toblerone in the dark, which is close enough to a real movie theater, right?).

http://redcarpetrefs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ZZ20.jpg

Nicholas Cage, on the never-ending search for Good Story

The movie is crap, let's just be honest. I enjoyed the experience of rewatching it solely because of the people I was with (and also the Toblerone, I mean, come on). Nicholas Cage's acting leaves something to be desired, for sure. I know, I know, it's a Disney movie, the story shouldn't be too complex, it's for the children, yeah, well, "the children" are smarter than you think and it's good to stretch their - and our - understanding beyond what National Treasure can provide. I could barely watch the movie. I couldn't finish it, that's for sure. Come to think of it, I don't even think I liked it when I saw it for the first time. 

But I'm not happy with just disliking it, I want to know why I dislike it. I want a good story, right? And does National Treasure provide a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end? Do the characters have reason for what they do? Do they develop? Do they achieve (or deny) their goals? Unfortunately, the story (for the most part) meets these bare-bones expectations. (Barely. And in some places it doesn't even do that.) But in thinking about this, I have come to realize what I am looking for in a good story (I've come full circle, look!) - and it's not the simple quality of "meeting expectations". Because that's the equivalent of a C-grade. Another name for it is Average. I want to be able to tell myself that my standards are a little higher than that.

The truth is, a good story needs to exceed the audience's expectations. I don't want to walk in there expecting _____ and getting _____. A good story makes me think about the world in a way I hadn't before, or it makes me question certain things that I hadn't previously questioned, or it phrases my ideas and beliefs in a way that I've never thought of... it has to bring something new to the table. Think about it - if Baskin-Robbins came out with a brand-new vanilla ice cream with little hard bits of chocolate in it, and called it Chips of Chocolate, wouldn't you feel a little cheated?

http://grouchoreviews.com/content/films/2084/1.jpg

This is meant to be a dramatic moment, but to me, he just looks like a suspicious, creepy little man, staring out at me from behind the Declaration of Independence

National Treasure is a C-movie at best when you consider its Plot + Story + Acting + Dialogue + Special Effects, and I can't pin all the bad stuff on Story alone. So why else do I dislike it? And why do some people like it, despite its gaping plot holes, bad acting, and general unbelievability? (Also, don't attack me for attacking a movie because it's unbelievable, or I'll go on another rant.)

Middle-of-the-thought-process-conclusion: it's okay to like (or dislike) a movie for the whole package. Because that's what they're trying to get you to do. Conspiracy-theory-esque phrasing aside, "they" is referring to the Hollywood bigwigs behind movies like National Treasure. They hide the weak bits behind the bits they're good at which in today's films would be the Special Effects.

Because d'ya know what you need for good special effects? Money. You need talent, too, people who know how to work the software and know the science behind it, but all of that essentially boils down to money as well - can I pay for the best CGI, can I pay for the best graphics artists, etc.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifvbMyxdc2nyY6ZrtLez2jPSrrtKgSvctkTWBOwSEyEZoa_gp-Wjj9IoGVu-mkaGcOf0OmWT3FfKZ8urBNOmSR7jZ4lT_B8BC1e-R_cAMIv977v8Higk1Gx0frOoHEQ2VeO5SRcqesTZQ/s320/47.jpg

Plot twist: all the money allotted to this movie went to getting the real Declaration of Independence and shooting real bullets at it

It must be easier to pay for good results in the Special Effects department than in the Plot/Story (and sometimes Acting) departments because in my opinion, that's what the majority of today's movies are like - heavy on effects, with a cookie-cutter, predictable, plays-to-the-audience's-comfort-zone team of hack writers. DEFINITELY NOT saying that all movies are like this today, because some of my favorite films (even taking into account the "have-they-created-a-good-story" requirement) have been made in the past five years.

(By the way, this same logic can be applied to TV shows and video games. Which is why the video games I love have a Good Story and good graphics, earning me the general categorization of "graphics whore" - which just means that I tend to like good-looking games.)

So (conclusion time!), Hollywood movies tend to hide behind special effects. Maybe that can be considered a different form of art - I could handle that better than just ignoring crappy or lazy story. (FYI, a lazy story is just as bad as a crappy one - I don't want to hear a story that I've heard before, but in a different setting. Try harder than that.) Film hasn't (and doesn't) always tell a linear plot with beginning, middle, and end (re: avant-garde/experimental film). Maybe the movies of the future will be more visual experiences than narrative ones.

But when people blatantly ignore the weakness of a story because other aspects of the product are nice... that's what I don't like. When I watch a movie, I'm hoping to be told a Good Story. I'm not looking for purely visual stimulation. I want all those things (Plot + Story + Acting + Dialogue + Special Effects) to contribute to a Good Story. If it does that, if it exceeds my expectations, if I've been surprised, if I've been forced outside my own way of thinking for a few hours... hey, that's not too bad.