quote:
NOW, IT’S NOT THAT HIS FILMS ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO FOLLOW OR EVEN THAT THEY ARE ILLOGICAL (THOUGHT SOMETIMES THEY'VE TIPPED IN THOSE DIRECTIONS). IT’S JUST THAT VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE FILM HE HAS MADE HAS BEEN... HOW TO SAY... OVERTLY PLOTTY. AND THAT LAST WORD IS CHOSEN MORE CAREFULLY THAN YOU MIGHT THINK, AS HARMONY KORINE RECENTLY MADE A FEW INTRIGUING STATEMENTS ABOUT THE WORD ITSELF, PLOT. WHEN THE WORD IS VIEWED BY ITS LONESOME IT SUDDENLY TAKES ON A MORE DEVIOUS MEANING, I.E. “IT’S A PLOT!” BY “PEOPLE WHO PLOT THINGS!” AND IF YOU ACCEPT THAT MEANING THAN IT SEEMS NO ACCIDENT THAT SO MANY MODERN BLOCKBUSTER PLOTS SEEM TO BE "PLOTS!" MEANING THEY ARE ALL BUILT FROM PREMEDITATED, COLD ACTIONS, WHICH THEN UNFOLD IN A SERIES OF INTERLOCKING FATALISTIC EVENTS. MEANING A PLOT IS SO OBVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED THAT IT’S RENDERED INTO SOMETHING MECHANICAL.

AND WHEN ONE THINKS ABOUT “STORY,” WELL, ONE THINKS OF SOMETHING INNATELY MORE HUMAN. WE THINK OF EVENTS THAT MERELY UNFOLD AS NATURAL REACTIONS TO THE PROTAGONISTS EMOTIONS AND WANTS AND THE WAY THOSE PLAY OFF THE EMOTIONS OF OTHER CHARACTERS. AND THE GRADUAL BUILDING OF THESE EMOTIONS LEAD US TO AN EVOLUTION OF STAKES AND PERSONAL IMPORT. THE BEST STORIES DON’T EVEN MAKE US THINK ABOUT PLOT, THEY JUST SEEM TO EXIST. AND IT IS THIS INVISIBLE MODE OF STORYTELLING WITHOUT ALL THE CLAWING-AT-YOU TWISTS AND TURNS THAT ALLOWS US TO ORGANICALLY FALL RIGHT INTO THE STORY ITSELF. WE DON’T JUST WATCH THE FILM, WE MANAGE TO LIVE IN THE WORLD OF THOSE CHARACTERS. WE EMPATHIZE WITH THEM. WE BELIEVE THE GRAND AND BEST POSSIBLE LIE OF MOVIES: WE BELIEVE WE'RE IN IT.

Thoughts?

I picked up this article mostly because of this piece:

quote:
AND SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE STORIES IN ABRAMS’ WORK WE DON’T FIND MUCH IN THE WAY OF STORY AT ALL. WE FIND PLOTS. IT’S ALL MASTER SECRETIVE PLANS BUILT ON REVEALS UPON REVEALS UPON REVEALS. WE WATCH AS BRILLIANT CHARACTERS PLAY A HIGH-STAKES GAME OF TRYING TO OUTSMART EACH OTHER. WE WATCH THOSE PLANS GET TEASED OUT IN INCOMPREHENSIBLE WAYS. WE WATCH THEM UNRAVEL A STORY WITHOUT A HINT OF ORGANIC DISCOVERY. WE WATCH FILMS WHERE THE MECHANICAL PLOT DICTATES CHARACTER REACTIONS, RATHER THAN CHARACTER’S ACTIONS DICTATING THE STORY. AND WHILE THE MOST OBVIOUS TEMPTATION IS TO JUDGE THE MERITS OF THESE FILMS ON WHETHER OR NOT THESE CONVOLUTED PLOTS HAVE LOGICAL RESOLUTIONS (AND THE INTERNET DID INDEED GO NUTS DISMANTLING THE LOGIC OF STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS), HULK ARGUES THAT THE FUZZY LOGIC ITSELF DOESN’T REALLY MATTER. THE TRUTH IS THAT THE REAL VICTIM OF THIS CONVOLUTED PLOTTING IS TRADITIONAL DRAMA. BY OBFUSCATING CLARITY IN THE NAME OF A GRANDIOSE PUZZLE, WE CAN’T HELP BUT GET IN THE WAY OF THE OPTIMAL EMOTIONAL RESONANCE IN OUR STORIES. WE MAKE THEM FEEL LIKE CONSTRUCTIONS. WE SHOW ALL THE STRINGS. AND IT'S GOTTEN TO SUCH AN OBLIVIOUS STATE THAT THIS IS BAD THAT WE NOT ONLY SHOW THESE STRINGS, BUT THEN TURN TO THE AUDIENCE AND SAY "Hey! Look at all those strings I tied! Don't they look complicated!?!?! I did that!"

SIGH.

This is exactly why I thought Lost was weak emotionally. I almost made this thread, but wanted people to come in at least to talk about convolution first. We see this all over modern film (Nolan - sometimes, Abrams, etc.).

To me:

quote:
SERIOUSLY. IT'S NOT AN ACTUAL STORYTELLING CONSTRUCT. IT'S ABOUT MAKING PEOPLE WONDER WHAT'S GOING ON OR WHAT SOMETHING IS AND THEN JUST REVEALING IT AT THE MOMENT ONE HAS TO. IT'S NOT INHERENTLY BUILT AROUND CHARACTER, DRAMA, ARCS, AND ALL THE GOOD STUFF, BUT PURPOSEFUL TEASING.

That's Lost. Pretty much. An exercise in convolution.

quote:
WHEN ONE LOOKS ACROSS THE SPECTRUM OF ALL THEIR COMBINED WORK: ALIAS. THE ISLAND. LOST. MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III. FRINGE. STAR TREK. COWBOYS AND ALIENS. PROMETHEUS AND NOW WITH STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS IT IS EASY TO SEE THE CURIOUS OVERLAP. ALL THOSE FILMS TRY TO WORK OF ATTENTION-GRABBING MYSTERIOUSNESS. THERE UNKNOWN OR CONFUSED CHARACTER MOTIVATIONS. CHARACTERS WHO LITERALLY DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE. PEOPLE GUARDING SECRETS. PEOPLE GUARDING MOTIVATIONS. CENTRAL DRIVING QUESTIONS THAT ARE INHERENTLY UNANSWERABLE. LATE ACT REVEALS. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE ONLY WAY THESE STORIES SEEM TO MANIFEST IS WITH A SERIES OF BACK AND FORTH MOMENTARY CONFLICTS THAT ALWAYS SEEM TO BE SERVING NOTHING MORE THAN COLD MECHANISMS OF FATALISM... WOW, SORRY THAT WAS WORDED IN A CONFUSING MANNER. BASICALLY, HULK MEANS THAT THEY'RE ALL FILLED WITH CHARACTERS DOING THINGS NOT OUT OF AN ORGANIC NEED DEFINED BY THEIR WANTS AND NEEDS, BUT MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO DO THEM (BECAUSE THE STORY DEMANDS IT).

Which was my ENTIRE problem with Ben Linus. This is the only reason he was alive, to make things happen in the plot.

Anyways.. the bigger question is why this often takes precedent over simple stories?

Great article.

This post was edited on 1/27/14 at 12:19 pm