The Power of Story

[Rodney]

Source: Heavily adapted and reordered from SIGGRAPH educational notes:

 

The five key elements of a good story: audience, content, motivation, semiotics and timing.

 

Audience:

The goal of a story is to share knowledge (and experience) with the audience. If we are sensitive to an audience we can even use stories to move people from one understanding to another understanding (more often than not without their conscious awareness). Telling a story with no one in the audience is not storytelling. Consider the old adage, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it..." If the event doesn't resonate with an audience it will be of little significance.

 

Content:

Content is crucial. All stories must be about something. If the content is a scientific concept, the scientist must build the context, segue into the intended topic, develop support (via the best approach and a sequence that explains or explores the topic), bring everything important together, make the concept interesting or exciting, and relate it to a larger context of (scientific) ideas.

 

Motivation:

Motivation is achieved when the storyteller allows (or moves) the audience to relate to the story; where they sense, "this story applies to me/us." Identifying with individual components of a story is the greatest motivation for attending to the story. The great advantage of interactive stories (and games) is that, as the actor, you become a part (participant) of the story and begin to help shape the events and to assist in telling the story. Interactive stories engage unmotivated learners.

 

Semiotics:

Regardless of content, consider cultural and cognitive differences in determining the semiotics (signs, symbols and signifiers) that encode the story. Immersive worlds have a unique opportunity to offer multi-vocalities, not only in the text of the story but in the symbols of class and culture – which are the signifiers of the audience. Care should be taken to control the use of indescriminate stereotypes as they often prove offensive, untimely or just plain inaccurate.

 

Timing:

The right timing is essential to storytelling and attends to progression (moving from/through/to a beginning, a middle, and an ending) and proper pacing is key to holding (or failing to hold) the audiences' attention. Creative people tend to favor one of these progressive areas. Some are adept at beginning things and can easily establish context or set the stage of an idea, others excel at developing the content and enhancing formulated ideas, while others can bring everything to a satisfactory conclusion; summarizing and finishing the telling of the story. Few people are good at all three parts (and none do all three completely and simultaneously) so small groups/teams are usually formed to further the story. The best storytellers (individually or collectively) understand the importance in the timing/delivery of all three.

 

 

Discussion?

Specific areas of interest?

[Gerry]

Interesting stuff, Rodney! I recently attended Robert McKee's Story seminar and been thinking about these same topics but from a more story-structure point of view. What you've got here seems a little more on the theoretical side, mainly in regard to the semiotics section and the "writing exercise" (breaking off into writing teams) slant of the timing section.

 

Without getting into too much detail, McKee approaches a story's structure as an escalating series of reversals where the protagonist is constantly pitted against the "forces of antagonism" in an escalating series of scenes and acts. Scenes are made of "beats" of dialog, and acts are comprised of scenes. Every beat, scene and act is a reversal (good to bad, or bad to good) for the protagonist. By the ultimate climax, the protagonist has not changed so much as he has become his own true self.

 

It's a simple structure but there are endless variations, and more are being created as we speak! But the basis, the way he teaches it, I believe is solid. It's helped me hugely with "Nightcallers".

[Rodney]

I'd love to attend one of Robert McKee's seminars.

I consider myself fairly well versed in his approach and it'd be good to see what gaps exist between what he teaches and what I think he teaches. I know I'd learn a lot there.

 

One of the reason I'm so drawn to the theory behind all of this is that it allows me to explore the language and how different people approach the same or similar idea.

 

Not to get off track but the word 'semiotics' brings back a flood of memories to me. When I was in high school I use to draw a lot of mini comics (more covers than actual comics but... bear with me here...) and one day I drew a series of covers with cartoon characters and titled it "Semiotics" and subtitled it " Words and Pictures" (the character on the first cover said, "Woids and Pictures!". What was strange about this is that I really had no earthly clue what the word semiotics meant and yet instinctively I did know what it meant. A good friend of mine who was much smarter than me suggested that I probably meant to use the word 'Symbiotics'. I knew better but surely didn't know anything beyond that, especially how to convince him. I knew I wanted to explore the world of symbology and the words and pictures that communicated ideas and the word and despite not knowing anything about the word or where I had previously encountered it I instinctively knew the word 'Semiotics' fit perfectly whereas other words did not. I later explored some simliar titles that attempted to makes sense of iconic (if not strange) imagery. I believe underneath it all I was exploring a very strange world through a filter (I even called it my "PG-13 filter").

 

So what does that have to do with story?

 

It can be enlightening, informative and even fun to deconstruct stories.

Often the storyteller won't comprehend the depth of a story they are telling.

They are too busy just telling it.

 

This is where these five points may come into play.

 

Who is your audience? What character is the audience in the story? In what ways can they connect with it?

What is your focus? What do you want to say? Are you actually saying it?

What is your motivation? Why do these character exist? What is your/their motivation?

What characteristics are essential? What language, symbols and signals will best (and quickly) convey the story? Does the audience connect with th story or does it quickly fade away? At the end of the story do they still connect/care?

What are your objectives? How does each character play out their specific role in the story and at what pace do they pursue their own objectives? How do these objectives hinder or progress the story and impact the other characters?

 

Note: I assume the author is in control of the story and not the characters. Because characters are likely to assert their own personalities and effect the story in significant ways these core elements are important to get locked down early. If something important changes we'll be more likely to recognize 'our' story has changed.

[Guest Guest_Simon Edmondson_*]

It can be enlightening, informative and even fun to deconstruct stories.

Often the storyteller won't comprehend the depth of a story they are telling.

They are too busy just telling it.

 

This is where these five points may come into play.

 

Who is your audience? What character is the audience in the story? In what ways can they connect with it?

What is your focus? What do you want to say? Are you actually saying it?

What is your motivation? Why do these character exist? What is your/their motivation?

What characteristics are essential? What language, symbols and signals will best (and quickly) convey the story? Does the audience connect with th story or does it quickly fade away? At the end of the story do they still connect/care?

What are your objectives? How does each character play out their specific role in the story and at what pace do they pursue their own objectives? How do these objectives hinder or progress the story and impact the other characters? <<

 

 

Rodney

 

I'm certainly no expert in these matters, but have written a few things were the visual language used is part and parcel of how the meaning is constructed and conveyed ( more usually in live action rather than animation though ).

 

It would be interesting to apply the criteria you list to work such as Shrek or The Simpsons, because they both address multiple audiences in the same pieces. Youngsters will pick up on the general stories and the slapstick/ comedy elements, older members of the audience will spot all the culture, film and media references, as well as the comedy and slapstick. Because of the sophistication of the writing the meanings are much more nuanced and varied than first appear, they also play around with the expectations and conventions of the audience in terms of who and what the characters are and how they should or should not behave and act.

 

Shrek is first encountered using a story book in an unconventional way, which shows his attitude to attitude to convention, and him acting in a way outside the conventions and mores of film in general and animation in particular. Its able to do that because its addressing several audiences at the same time. The Simpsons often does similar things, as does Family Guy and other animated series. The episodic form can explore those changes perhaps more effectively than the single piece because it has longer to work with and can establish the reference framework over a more extensive range.

 

I went to see Brave last week and was stunned by the visual quality of the film. The lighting and colour was almost literally breathtaking in places but, the story itself left me a bit short. It seemed a bit too formulaic and only addressed to one level. If you compare that to The Incredibles, which was almost as stunning visually, the story was much more engaging even though it was a lot longer and more involved, it too worked on several levels.. Personally my fave animated film remains The Iron Giant and a part of that is because it is put together and edited like a live action film rather than an animated feature. It uses the visual means of one medium, animation, with the structural techniques of another, live action.

 

I should add here that, in case I sound too pompous, my work usually goes out under the name PFG. Which stands for Pretentious Fat Git.

regards

simon

[Rodney]

Simon,

Thanks for adding your thoughts into the mix. That's what all good discussions need.

 

I too am impressed by the effort that goes into telling stories these days. I am perhaps most impressed by those that seek to create 'family films' as those are tough to do well*. The attempt to engage all the various interests of the members of a family whether they are older, younger, male, female... striving to connect with each of them cannot be easy. That is an art and a craft that holds great interest to me. I might not care for 'Shrek' in many ways but it has enough substance/entertainment to grab my attention, hold my interestand after I've left the theater still have me looking back and recalling the experience.

 

The layering in of detail in such a way that everyone in the intended audience sees something of value is a skill that all storytellers should strive to incorporate into their stories. This is my focus as I consider how to create (and animate) compelling characters that will help to better layer in those details.

 

Now, there will always be those who close their minds (or advert their eyes) and have no interest in the message that is being communicated. This also is valuable feedback (and educational) because we can study that (verbal or nonverbal) feedback to better understand the origins of their disinterest and why they have an aversion in the first place. As Edweard Deming might say, "Can we not learn?" We'll learn a lot as we continually strive to improve our storytelling.

 

Note that I am not suggesting that we will always agree with messages communicated. We shouldn't.

If we agree with everything we read or hear we can only be guaranteed of one thing, that we will very often be wrong.

 

I went to see Brave last week and was stunned by the visual quality of the film. The lighting and colour was almost literally breathtaking in places but, the story itself left me a bit short. It seemed a bit too formulaic

 

This is my primary concern with much of what is preached these days concerning filmmaking. While there is no doubt that certain approaches work well that doesn't mean other approaches won't work just as well and, who knows, they might even work better! As a for instance, I'm a fan of the concept of a three act play (I find that to be a foundational principle of storytelling) but that doesn't keep me from also embracing the concept of a four act story. Similarly, it doesn't in any way keep me from dissecting that first act into parts, nor the second or the third. The three act story is just a means of getting -through- that story. It seems to me that is important that we (at least eventually) do just that and get through to the end of the story. Perhaps more importantly though is that once we get to the end we really aren't at the end of the story we've just satisfactorily concluded it for the audience who then is freed to consider what they've just experienced and provide (to whatever extent they see fit) their own continuation and conclusion to 'the rest of' that story.

 

This last aspect is why sequels do so well. People want to revisit old friends (and enemies), to continue the journey and prolong the story, and to relive the experience they had when they attended the first movie. We also hate to miss out on anything we consider to be 'important'.

 

 

*Most critiques of family films tend to be of the 'there was nothing in it for me' variety.

[TheSpleen]

NEVER overthink it

entertain

[Rodney]

NEVER overthink it

entertain

 

You appear to be over-thinking that a bit Gene but I confess that I cannot tell from the brief description.

 

That would most definitely make a good line for a song.

 

Never.

Overthink it.

Ennnnnn...terrrrrrrrr...tain.

 

To the tune of:

BumpBump

BumpBumpBumpBump

Bump.

Bump.

Bump.

 

(I am too easily entertained)

[Simon Edmondson]

"You appear to be over-thinking that a bit Gene but I confess that I cannot tell from the brief description.

 

That would most definitely make a good line for a song.

...

 

Rodney

 

Might that be a variation on,

 

" It ain't what you do,

its the way that you do it,

And thats what gets results... "?

 

 

Sorry.

 

On a more serious line,

I've not worked in a big company with a lot of writers 'chipping in' to story development so I can't really comment on that. My background is in Arts education. I have a limited experience of writing scripts for others to make. ( My first effort was changed by the director on the eve of production but thats a different subject ). The limited experience has opened my eyes to the potential horrors of working with people who have a say on your work but don't seem to have much by the way of thought.

 

I have to go catch up with some sleep but, have you heard of a book called "Exercises in Style" by the French writer Raymond Queneau ?

It tells the same simple story in 99 different ways. It may be of interest ? A lot of people far more literate than I seem to rate it highly.

regards

Simon

 

 

PS

Some years ago The Daily Telegraph here in the UK ran a literary competition called " Mini Saga's". Writers had to supply a story with a beginning, middle and end in not more, or less, than 50 words. They were allowed extra words for the title but 50 was it for the story. They ran the competition for a number of years and it attracted a lot of entries from amateurs of all ages to serious literary authors such as Martin Amis, Julian Barnes ...

[robcat2075]

The limited experience has opened my eyes to the potential horrors of working with people who have a say on your work but don't seem to have much by the way of thought.

 

My corporate media horror story.

 

 

 

I have to go catch up with some sleep but, have you heard of a book called "Exercises in Style" by the French writer Raymond Queneau ?

It tells the same simple story in 99 different ways. It may be of interest ? A lot of people far more literate than I seem to rate it highly.

 

I have that. It struck me as being a bit too contrived but... he tried.

[Rodney]

I have to go catch up with some sleep but, have you heard of a book called "Exercises in Style" by the French writer Raymond Queneau ?

It tells the same simple story in 99 different ways. It may be of interest ? A lot of people far more literate than I seem to rate it highly.

regards

Simon

 

That doesn't sound familiar to me so I will look it up. Thanks!

 

There is a point in this that turns toward madness... or mathematics... which may be largely the same thing.

Robert uses the word 'contrived' and I think that artificiality I think is to be avoided wherever possible.

This is one of the reason I like to focus on characters rather than just their story's structure.

This gets into to the realm of stylistic storytelling which seems to me relies mostly on a particular author's voice and vision.

As much as possible I want to remove myself from the equation so that (at least in theory) my personal biases dissipate.

I believe this approach to be somewhat at odds with artistic visions wherein artists engage in expressing themselves.

By the very nature of being involved in a work I will express myself but that is far from being the reason I am there.

This might equate closely to the difference between collaborative works and individual artists who do everything themselves.

In collaborative works we have to let go of our 'selves'. The more self-less generally the better.

This is not as true with singular visions carried out by one artist. Either way there are sacrifices to be made.

 

In thinking of the idea of 'telling the same simple story in 99 different ways' the easiest way I can think to tell 'the same story' differently is to introduce a new/different character. The perspective of a different character alone would be sufficient to launch the story in a multitude of different directions.

 

 

Some years ago The Daily Telegraph here in the UK ran a literary competition called " Mini Saga's". Writers had to supply a story with a beginning, middle and end in not more, or less, than 50 words. They were allowed extra words for the title but 50 was it for the story. They ran the competition for a number of years and it attracted a lot of entries from amateurs of all ages to serious literary authors such as Martin Amis, Julian Barnes ...

 

I can see why this would be a neat competition/exercise. To be able to tell a (good) story in 50 words would require a good deal of understanding of the english language with an eye toward precision. Personally I think it a bit odd to require exactly 50 words... that has it approaching something akin to a poetry contest... but that's just me. I'd hate to think that the best story ever told might consist of 49 words... to think that adding one more word might ruin the whole thing.

[Rodney]

My corporate media horror story.

 

Very cool animation.

In its own way it almost makes up for the craziness you had to deal with.

Knowing it got into the final product at least makes for a happy ending.

[robcat2075]

From the always-reliable Wikipedia...

 

Exercises in Style (French: Exercices de style), written by Raymond Queneau, is a collection of 99 retellings of the same story, each in a different style. In each, the narrator gets on the "S" bus (now no. 84), witnesses an altercation between a man (a zazou) with a long neck and funny hat and another passenger, and then sees the same person two hours later at the Gare St-Lazare getting advice on adding a button to his overcoat.

[robcat2075]

You can preview a few pages on Amazon...

 

http://www.amazon.com/Exercises-Style-Raym...u/dp/0811207897

[Rodney]

Thanks Robert!

 

 

I didn't mean to dismiss Gene's comment. I was hoping he'd add some more commentary.

I saw this quote posted on Andreas Deja's blog that summarizes how animation intersects with an audience. It fits in with the theme of this topic by targeting the first key element of storytelling; entertaining the audience:

 

"We don't just move things around, we are here to entertain an audience" - Eric Larson

 

Eric Larson was not only one of Disney's Nine Old Men responsible for creating animated magic on the screen, he was one of the main instructors at Disney toward the end of his career. Many of the notes collected from his courses have been shared widely over the years and can now be found online.

[Rodney]

I'll add this to the mix as well.

 

This is a very brief excerpt from Richard Williams notes to his animators long before he published his book, 'The Animator's Survival Kit'.

Herein he outlines two things that animators should strive for in their (story) animation:

 

Main Considerations for Story Animation:

 

1. Simplicity and Clarity

2. Caricature: We should make action stronger than it would be in human life. Otherwise we are not taking advantage of our medium.

 

He then follows that up immediately with:

 

There are no hard and fast rules in our studio - exceptions to everything.

 

I've attached the page which this is taken from and note that this might actually be a page from Don Graham's course at Disney. The filename points back to that timeframe (1937 - When Disney had hired Don Graham in order to train the studio up to standard so they could make 'Snow White').

 

Edit: Confirmed. Dick states that the notes are taken from Disney on page one of the handout. For those interested I tracked down a PDF copy of the handout and it is also attached here.

Richard_Williams_studio_practice.pdf

[Simon Edmondson]

In thinking of the idea of 'telling the same simple story in 99 different ways' the easiest way I can think to tell 'the same story' differently is to introduce a new/different character. The perspective of a different character alone would be sufficient to launch the story in a multitude of different directions....

 

I can see why this would be a neat competition/exercise. To be able to tell a (good) story in 50 words would require a good deal of understanding of the english language with an eye toward precision. Personally I think it a bit odd to require exactly 50 words... that has it approaching something akin to a poetry contest... but that's just me. I'd hate to think that the best story ever told might consist of 49 words... to think that adding one more word might ruin the whole thing.

 

 

Rodney

A few years ago ( about 5 I think ) there was a trilogy of French/Swiss films which used the same story and characters but shot it in different ways so that it became a Thriller, a comedy or a farce, they could be watched in any order. I saw them at my local Art cinema in Norwich. I didn't think they were very succesful but, they received a lot of critical attention at the time. It was an interesting idea, possibly not the sort of thing that would get an opening in US corporate finance ?

 

I'm fortunate in not having worked for a large corporation but, I think the sort of practices that Rob describes are not just limited to to large companies. Small educational colleges experience them too !

 

To stay on subject. My all time favourite short story was written by Richard Brautigan and is called "The Scarlattiti Tilt"

 

It goes.

 

" It is Very hard living in a studio apartment in San Jose with a man learning to play the violin" Thats what she told the policeman as she handed him the empty gun.

 

 

Now thats economy of means ! I tend to agree with your view as to trying to stay outside the story however, as always in such debates, it comes down to questions of degree and interpretation of involved ? I try not to use autobiography but there are things I've seen or experienced, they are not really about me, or at least thats my conceit I suppose. Used to worry about it but now tend to ignore the question.

 

On the same them, possibly the Road Runner cartoons could be regarded as telling the same story in different ways ? Chuck Jones even had rules for the timing of Wile E Coyote's falls off the cliff. You can watch them separately or as a series. They set up their own world and the action and story are consistent within that world. I still find them very funny too.

regards

simon

[Gerry]

Rodney, the three act structure became standardized because, with each act climax representing a major reveresal for the protagonist, three came to be seen as the minimum number of reversals for the audience to feel they've been told a "complete" story.

 

I always thought that was a hard and fast rule, but McKee states, pretty pesuasively, that if you need more acts, just keep adding them until your story is finished!

 

The main example he points out is the first "Indiana Jones" movie, which has seven acts!

[Gerry]

Just one more comment, an aprochryphal story supposedly about Hemingway in a contest to write the shortest story possible. He wrote one in six words, and it makes me tear up everytime I think of it. His entry:

 

"For sale: baby shoes. Never used."

[Rodney]

The Road Runner cartoon may be a good example of using a story framework to explore character.

It's the same characters and same basic plot but the continual drive of the protagonist explores a wide range of variations.

This is not unlike real life in that we live within a specific framework until we venture out into a different (presumably larger) framework.

That the Coyote's perspective adjusts but never quite changes is a satirical look at the daily grind where every day plays out in very much the same way... over and over again... every time.

 

We tend to identify with the Coyote often more than the Roadrunner... we laugh... not only because of the preposterous situations he gets himself into but also because we identify and understand his frustration. There is also that ever present comedic element of repetition that works time and time... and time and time... and time and time again as we cannot help but laugh (or scoff) at such clear examples of absurdity. I'm convinced that at least a part of this is our (mostly unconscious) understanding that a real human being has crafted this story purposefully and intentionally and to think that someone would devote such effort to endeavor is in itself a proof of the power of caricature; exaggeration to the point of absurdity.

 

My all time favourite short story was written by Richard Brautigan and is called "The Scarlattiti Tilt". It goes.

 

" It is Very hard living in a studio apartment in San Jose with a man learning to play the violin" Thats what she told the policeman as she handed him the empty gun.

 

I can easily see the benefits of describing a story in just such a fashion as that sets the stage for the players.

Here's a quick breakdown/dissection of what I think I see in this particular storyline:>

The title asks us to discover what 'the Scarlattiti Tilt' is.

We instinctively know or at least can supply our understanding of what 'hard living' is.

We can visualize a studio apartment and (may know) where San Jose is.

Our senses are engaged in more than one way. We can recall the actual sounds of a violin even though they aren't present here.

We can easily imagine the frustration of someone learning to play a musical instrument and cringe at the thought of the inevitable notes that are off key.

We can see the stereotypical policeman and know what a gun is. That is it empty is telling but vaguely mysterious.

We begin to imagine the relationships.

This story will play out differently based upon each individual in the audience's experience.

 

Most stories will strive to engage the audiences imagination but there is a class of story that leaves almost everything to the imagination. I'd love to explore the point of where a plot becomes a story but I'm not sure if I'm qualified. It does seem to me that rather than being a story this is more of a setup for a story... hence my use of the term above 'storyline'. The story isn't told but the basic directions of that story are implied. It's almost as if it were a single frame or short sequence extracted from an old film that is forever lost to time. Assuming we can muster up the curiosity, we will forever wonder about the deeper motivations behind it. (See #3 above on Motivation).*

 

It is wise to leave gaps for the audience to fill in with their imagination and audiences do expect to be surprised but there is a danger of leaving too wide a gap.

On another note, this does demonstrate one prime example of the old adage about starting a story in the middle with the action already well underway. The goal in this is to deeply involve the audience from the start. This automatically supplies the element of Time and is key to storytelling (see #5 above concerning Timing) which relates to the revelation, reciting or repetition of something that has already happened. To the audience everything is unfolding/unraveling in time but to the author everything has already happened in the past, out of time.

 

 

 

*I tend to get frustrated when authors leave the ending of a story up to the audience. If the author would have told me up front that I would be finishing their story I would at least feel better about investing the time. In all fairness, I realize that satisfactory conclusions are not easy to come by and that all stories worth watching don't stop at the credits but continue on in the audience's hearts and minds.

[mouseman]

A couple of more lists of story focus/components:

 

From Mark Kennedy's Temple of the Golden Camel:

• Clarity
  
• Character
  
• Conflict
  

From the author Robert McKee (a book titled Story: Substance, Structure, Style and the Principles of Screenwriting):

• Substance
  
• Structure
  
• Style
  

[Rodney]

I'm a bit frustrated at the moment and as that may translate over into this post so I'm going to keep my response short and get some sleep. Tomorrow will be brighter.

 

From the author Robert McKee (a book titled Story: Substance, Structure, Style and the Principles of Screenwriting):

Substance

Structure

Style

 

Yes, that a nice outline but what does it mean?

I'm not reading 'a story' in that outline.

It could just as well be a book on how to approach font design.

 

I like Mark Kennedy's outline better. Now, that's got style!

 

Clarity

Character

Conflict

 

There is a story there already.

 

The key difference between the two lists appears to be Action or at least the implied potential for Activity.

The Robert McKee's list is something of a given. Every story will have them.

This is not true with Mark Kennedy's list. The author must supply them.

 

Note: I'm not really trying to read into the lists and recognize that they are just sound bites. I'm very interested in this stuff... so I'm commenting.

[Gerry]

I've been looking over my notes from the McKee seminar and this list is a good (though not complete!) overview of the basis of story structure the way he teaches it:

 

a Beat (McKee's term for a simple exchange of dialog) = a change of behavior;

 

Beats build scenes;

 

Scenes build sequences;

 

Scenes create minor change;

 

The last scene of a sequence creates moderate change;

 

Sequences build acts;

 

The climax of each act is a major change or reversal for the protagonist;

 

The climax of the last act is the story climax, which can be defined as "irreversible change".

[Simon Edmondson]

I like Mark Kennedy's outline better. Now, that's got style!

 

Clarity

Character

Conflict

 

There is a story there already....

(Mod Note: fixed quote container)

 

 

I love Gerry's explanation of the Hemingway story. I think what it shares with the Brautigan, is just what Fuchur says. Clarity, character and conflict. You already have the story and all the essentials are there.

 

I did some screen writing development courses a few years back and they kept telling us not to overwrite. The thing we mustn't do ( unless directing ) was to write in shot details, like "wide view, pulling into ...". Even scene details were frowned upon to some extent, "Interior, domestic living room, daylight" was OK but detailing what that space contained, unless directly relevant to the action of that scene, was not. That was the work of the production designer and the Director. In a novel the writer is both the storyteller and the director screen writing, whether for animation or live action is something different again.

 

With the three C's model it allows for subtle variations that would come down to the writer or director in the way the different aspects are brought forward at each moment. An example of that might be the work of my favourite Director, Robert Altman who choses to emphasise different aspects in successive scenes. When it goes well the total is greater than the sum of its parts. When badly the audience or consumer, feels confused and perhaps let down? For me the McKee approach seems a bit too mechanistic but, if it helps to get your work completed thats grand.

 

I'm not a fan of the sometimes schmaltzy production values of country music but, the song "Good year for the Roses" has all the, Clarity, Character and Conflict you need, and it does it in less than three mins. Hank williams song "Move it on Over" would be another good example. My interest in animation was sparked when I heard a song called " The Band played Watzing Matilda", sung accapela by June Tabor. It was all about the Gallipoli landings in WWI and the aftermath in Australia. I wanted to make a film with that power and strength. In the end a friend suggested it was better left to the song and I reluctantly agreed.

 

regards

simon

[Gerry]

Well, McKee's method helped me plot out and write an outline in pretty quick order, something I'd been struggling with for months, with no idea how to begin. I've got a five-act outline for a pretty good story and though I'm still trying to maintain the structure via his method, it's not quite so cut-and-dried when you're writing from scratch.

 

But I'm going to press on, since for the most part it's still working for me. And even when a step doesn't fall right into place, I put in a placeholder and come back to it.

 

I'm also taking a tip from Anne Lamott's "Bird by Bird" and giving myself permission to write a "shitty first draft", a step she believes is absolutely necessary in order to get started at all. So that's what I'm doing.

 

McKee also mentioned in passing an interesting point about writing a treatment. He described the "old" method of writing a treatment, then he got sidetracked (of I wasn't listening) and I never did hear how it's done today. But I like the old method as he described it, and though it's a ton of work I can see how it enables the writing of the actual screenplay.

 

A treatment done the "old" way is to write out a detailed description of the entire story, scene by scene, going into great detail about each scene, where it takes place, who's in it, what's discussed, what's at stake, but NO DIALOG. Purely description. A treatment like this usually runs much longer than the finished screenplay, but once it's laid out like that, you now have a detailed roadmap for the final step, writing dialog.

 

It's way more work than I've ever done before, and I don't know if I'll make it even halfway, but it sounds like a good method in theory.

[robcat2075]

My impression of McKee after getting about 2/3 of the way through "Story" is that he's not much of a writer himself.

 

Not a great instructional writer, certainly.

 

He has the tone a self-impressed academic professor who babbled observations into a Dictaphone for several days and then told his graduate assistant to "type this up."

 

His own success in the screenwriting field is pretty minimal. Certainly a master screenwriter would have more under his belt than an episode of of "Spenser for Hire" or "Mrs. Columbo"?

[Simon Edmondson]

Well, McKee's method helped me plot out and write an outline in pretty quick order, something I'd been struggling with for months, with no idea how to begin. I've got a five-act outline for a pretty good story and though I'm still trying to maintain the structure via his method, it's not quite so cut-and-dried when you're writing from scratch.

(Mode Note: Quote Repaired)

 

Gerry

 

If you find a method that works for you, thats what you want. Your own way will develop as you do more of it. In my naivety, when I started out I thought it would just be the first draft. HA !!!. The one that got made by others, went through about 10 versions and ended up silent with no dialogue. I'd thought it would be an animation and it ended up live action. The original outline was about three sentences. I'm still learning how to do it and probably will be up until I finally pop my clogs.

 

I've mentioned Robert Rodriquez elsewhere, when he was doing the medical experiments, he sat there writing out each scene on index cards until he had a structure he liked, then wrote it up from there. I tried that but didn't get very far. When I start I usually have a beginning and an end but not sure about the bit inbetween and thats where all the exasperation goes on with a lot of revisions along the way.

 

I wishj you well with it.

regards

simon

[Rodney]

My impression of McKee after getting about 2/3 of the way through "Story" is that he's not much of a writer himself.

 

Not a great instructional writer, certainly.

 

He has the tone a self-impressed academic professor who babbled observations into a Dictaphone for several days and then told his graduate assistant to "type this up."

 

His own success in the screenwriting field is pretty minimal. Certainly a master screenwriter would have more under his belt than an episode of of "Spenser for Hire" or "Mrs. Columbo"?

 

Ouch. Now that is one short and sweet, scathingly pointed critique.

I really need to get McKee's book if only so that I form an opinion. When I do, I'll keep your crit in mind.

Regarding the utility of his approach and ideas, at this point I remain mostly uninitiated and unbiased.

 

As a counterpoint I'll suggest that while McKee may not have the credentials of an accomplished screenwriter, I'd be cautious of equating his lack of success as a working screenwriter as any true test of the value of his ideas. Some folks are excellent at capturing successful methodology (re: his babbled observations) but not as effective at applying those ideas. In truth, he might be a really lousy screenwriter with excellent ideas.

 

'Mrs Columbo' and 'Spenser for Hire' huh?

[Gerry]

It's true, my wife and I laugh about his actual writing credits. He's apparently a dreadful writer, but a highly influential teacher, doing this seminar all over the world for like 30 years. Disney and others send their whole writing staffs.

 

But I'll also say that the attrition of the audience over four days was noticeable, so he's obviously not for everyone. For me it was a way in to my story, but in practice I can already see some limitations. But I do want to carry on because I think at the end I will have a well structured story, and it's just a step toward developing a method of my own.

[Rodney]

This is something of a tangent but I post it because it serves to go back and address of few of the things brought up during this discussion. I'll say going into this that there are a few aspects of the project this guy is working on that I would like to critique and I won't spend time doing that here. I was debating doing that in another forum where he asked for feedback. My primary thought is that I think he does himself a disservice when he uses silhouetted (black) flat figures against flat colored backgrounds in 3D. To my eye this seems to counter the 3D effect he is seeking.

 

What to expect if you click this link:

 

Jeff Boller is a guy who creates his own movies (playing all the music, animating etc.) and in this case talking about short 3D films/music videos.

 

In the video he discusses his approach to 3D and along the way he covers some interesting information.

He covers very quickly a few things I would like to have said in response to some ideas raised. For instance he very briefly talks about beats and rhythm, rule of thirds, leading the audience's eyes, etc. There are a few things that he covers more briefly and clearly than I have seen to date and he punctuates his presentation with humor that obviously engages his audience.

 

There are some technical aspects in his presentation that are easy to pick at (for instance, he forgets what you call those thingies down at the bottom of his animation program.... oh yes, keyframes!) but overall his video provides a nice survey of his approach to filmmaking and is possibly the most accessible to beginners than many I have seen.

 

3D Filmmaking Lecture

He says it is:

My presentation from Hack Pittsburgh ( http://www.hackpittsburgh.org ) in which I try to squeeze several semesters of film school and an introduction into 3D into a half hour.

 

For such a short video he covers a lot of territory. Rather importantly, he is experimenting and sharing what he has learned.

 

 

There is much that could be said regarding the effectiveness of the end product; the music video 'Tornado' (shown at the end of the video). While there is a story to be found therein I hesitate to say what is there constitutes effective storytelling but figuring out what good storytelling is and applying that to our efforts seems to be the whole point of discussion here. There are aspects of his video that remind me a lot of of Gerry's 'Cicak' music video. (For what it's worth Gerry, yours is much more cohesive and entertaining)

[Simon Edmondson]

For such a short video he covers a lot of territory. Rather importantly, he is experimenting and sharing what he has learned.

 

 

I would have liked to see it but sadly, the recent flash upgrade won't work for me so it won't allow me to see it.

simon

[robcat2075]

Some other books I'd note on this topic

 

"Save the Cat, The Last Book on Screenwriting You'll Ever Need" by a guy who screens screenplays for studios.

 

 

"Screenplay" by Syd Fields has been around for decades and is highly regarded.

 

 

Directing the Story: Professional Storytelling and Storyboarding Techniques for Live Action and Animation by a former Disney and Dreamworks storyboarder. This book is blurbed by no less than Roy Disney and Jeffrey Katzenberg

[Rodney]

The last two I've heard of before but the first is new to me.

Sadly, none of those three are in my library.

 

Speaking of Libraries, I need to visit my local one!

They often have these kind of books for check out.

It's books on animation that they tend to lack.

 

Simon,

Hope they get that fixed soon!

[itsjustme]

A couple of other resources that I like are:

 

Jim Butcher's (author of "The Dresden Files") blog....here. Start at the beginning with the "Thoughts On Writing" post.

 

Wordplayer.com...which is screenwriter/producers Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio's site (screenwriters for Aladdin, The Mask of Zorro, Shrek, Pirates of the Caribbean:Curse of the Black Pearl, etc)

 

Hope those are helpful.

[Rodney]

Nice blog link David. I'm liking it.

 

The one thing that I grabbed out of what I just skimmed through:

Jim Butcher says:

STORY QUESTION

The first thing you need is your STORY QUESTION. See the article earlier in this journal. Get your story question and write it down.

 

 

and some text from the referred to location:

The story skeleton (also called a story question) consists of a simple format:

 

*WHEN SOMETHING HAPPENS*, *YOUR PROTAGONIST* *PURSUES A GOAL*. But will he succeed when *ANTAGONIST PROVIDES OPPOSITION*?

 

and

 

WHAT IS A CLIMAX?

*****************

 

A story climax is, in structure terms the ANSWER to the STORY QUESTION that we talked about earlier.

 

There, see how tidy that is? Simple! Again, not EASY, but simple!

 

Regarding the second link I see there something that I recall being linked here in the forum before. Namely, 'The Thirty-six Dramatic Situations' by Georges Polti. I've always wanted to read that but as of yet have only skimmed over it.

 

 

Hope those are helpful.

They are indeed. Thanks.

 

Added: Perhaps a bit off topic but here's an article on the Wordplay site by Terry Rossio that tells us why we shouldn't write scripts for animation (with the expectation they'll get put on screen by the big animation companies): http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/wp22.Ink.and.Paint.html

[Rodney]

(Just returned from the Library were I grabbed a few books on writing... nothing particularly focused on story or storytelling... but all cross pollinate in some way. One book that caught my eye was 'The Hidden Art of Hollywood' not so much for the title but for some of the short stories contained therein. Those stories are related as factual as observed by witnesses from that time period.

 

A name that interested me is that of Ernst Lubitsch and I hope to read a bit more about him.*

I don't know much about him but folks in the biz sure knew him.

He's said to have been inspired by Charlie Chaplin and was renown for his ability to construct a sequence.

 

Here is a short story within a story that relates some of Lubitsch's approach to establishing a sequence for two characters in conflict:

 

Rouben Mamoulina liked to tell the story in which Lubitsch asked his writer to communicate that a man was tired of his wife and had developed a roving eye. The writer, says Mamoulina, brought Lubitsch four pages of "introductor exposition of the character," which Lubitsch immediately rejected: "Just put down this--the man walks into the elevator with his wife, and he keeps his hat on. On the seventh floor a pretty blond walks in, and the man takes his hat off." This sequence has the same virtues the Chaplin sequence Hitchcock refers to does: it's quick and efficient; it's comic; and its comic success in part rests on the pleasure we take in getting the joke.

 

I recall similar stories being told of Walt Disney, also an avid Charlie Chaplin fan, who was able to describe and act out sequences instinctively and with a flair of pantomime.

 

This is something I hope to consider more in my consideration of story.

This is the realm of character acting, the place where we 'show don't tell' and 'don't state the action in the dialogue'.

The audience will get to know the characters better and they won't even know 'the story' was ever there.

They'll simply connect with the characters and be entertained.

 

So the point to this post... assuming there is one... "Show don't tell!"

How can we show our story if we don't approach it through visual characterization?

 

*Lubitsch favorite subject matters are of less interest to me than is his approach to simplicity. He was simply selling sequences.

He was particularly a master of implying activity occurring off screen.

[Simon Edmondson]

...

So the point to this post... assuming there is one... "Show don't tell!"

How can we show our story if we don't approach it through visual characterization?

 

*Lubitsch favorite subject matters are of less interest to me than is his approach to simplicity. He was simply selling sequences.

He was particularly a master of implying activity occurring off screen.

 

Rodney

I was thinking about this over coffee this morning. The 'show don't tell' mantra was one we were told about on the course I mentioned before. They made the point that Novels are about the writing, everything gets done through the words, Theatre is about the dialogue and the performances, Film is primarily a visual medium and its that and the performances that do most of the work. We were told to avoid exposition as much as possible and I hear that advice in my head every time I see TV drama, especially crime based drama. This may not be the moment but, it is arguable that exposition is so prevalent in TV because of need to fit every scene inside 3mins or less and move the story arc along.

 

Going back to an earlier point, the three C's model of clarity, character and conflict would fit perfectly with Bill Watterson's "Calvin and Hobbs" and a lot of it is done with visuals as much as text. For me it has some of the best writing I've read and he does it all in such a condensed form. The transition of Hobbs from Toy to Tiger and Back in the same scene is very well done and, instantly understood by the audience.

regards

simon

 

Ps

The tenth anniversary edition is very good, not just on the evolution of the characters, stories and drawings but on the conflicts with the corporate syndicate too. The man has a very high level of personal integrity.

[Rodney]

Simon,

I'm enjoying this exploration!

 

I believe there are some great misunderstandings with regard to many of the bite sized advisories we often share with one another so I want to comment on that a little. This doesn't mean those catch phrases aren't useful but words of such brevity can lead to interpretations that weren't there in the original context where those words were being formed. "Show don't tell", is a good example of this in that if we grab hold of the phrase and mentally transform it into "Show, never tell." we'll be (unknowingly) heading down a different road. In my estimation such a misinterpretation will also plot a course to a place we don't wanna go: bad storytelling.

 

Your thoughts on exposition hit a strong chord with me.

That reverberation is intensified when I consider that, in almost every production, every single word is considered... and purposefully crafted (and people get paid big bucks for writing the words!). This last part is a factor in why we see so much dialogue... if people are getting paid to write words then the expectation is that there should be a lot of words.

 

Where these paths diverge is in understanding how a good story has layers of 'dialogue', much of the most powerful dialogue being... non-verbal.

Herein lie the danger though in that we don't want to neglect dialogue. It also has a purpose in moving the story along.

This is the realm of opposing forces that animators have the inside track on.

Like animation itself, dialogue is subject to motivated forces.

A character may think for a second about going one way before choosing another.

They may exaggerate to prove a point.

They may NOT tell the truth.

Something drives the internal and external dialogue in all of us.

Our inner motives are often betrayed by our outward display of emotions.

 

There are deep veins of rich ore that can be molded into a good story that is then spun into apparels of the finest gold.

Or they can be recklessly cast out into the drought and left forgotten and unknown.

 

There are a couple of popular sayings about writing that mirror each other; "Write what you see" and "Write what you know".

These are certainly compatible.

 

To write what we know implies that we have an intimate relationship with the subject under consideration, whereas when writing what we see we can only guess at what we do not yet know.

 

External dialogue is extremely important as will reveal (or mask) the inner motivations that prompt each character to act out their part in the story.

 

Something not discussed here but essential when considering dialogue is Sound.

To neglect good dialogue would be to miss the opportunity to fully engage the audience.

 

Going back to an earlier point, the three C's model of clarity, character and conflict would fit perfectly with Bill Watterson's "Calvin and Hobbs" and a lot of it is done with visuals as much as text. For me it has some of the best writing I've read and he does it all in such a condensed form. The transition of Hobbs from Toy to Tiger and Back in the same scene is very well done and, instantly understood by the audience.

 

We would all do well to study "Calvin and Hobbs". That is an excellent example of effectively using visuals with dialogue.

Does the fact that we haven't seen a Calvin and Hobbs movie yet suggest that translating it into moving images might be really hard?

(Note: I have seen rumors of a movie being in production)

[Simon Edmondson]

We would all do well to study "Calvin and Hobbs". That is an excellent example of effectively using visuals with dialogue.

Does the fact that we haven't seen a Calvin and Hobbs movie yet suggest that translating it into moving images might be really hard?

(Note: I have seen rumors of a movie being in production)

 

 

Rodney

This is more of a trivial contribution I'm afraid but,

There was a show on BBC R4 a few months back about Calvin and Hobbes and Bill Watterson. There was a wonderful anecdote about Steven Speilberg's assistant calling him with the possibility of making a movie. BW refused to take the call.

 

In the Anniversary book he covers some of the battles he had with the syndication people, its a while since I read it but most of them were about merchandising and possible film or TV spin offs as I recall. Unless he's changed his mind, I'd be surprised if there was a film.

 

On a fan note, his drawing are terrific. If you've not read the 10th Anniversary book I'd recommend it.

 

Less trivial, more relevant a little later.

regards

simon

[robcat2075]

Yeah, Bill Watterson is famously anti-exploitation. Ostensibly there are no authorized C&H products other than the compilation books.

 

I think an animated C&H sounds like a bad idea. Other than "Peanuts" i can't think of any hugely successful transitions from comic strip to animation and the Christmas and Halloween specials are the only ones we really remember fondly.

[robcat2075]

For an example of "show it", with no dialog at all there is Frank Tashlin's "Van Boring (He Never Says a Word)" comic that he did in the 1930's

 

Almost all of it has been posted on the facebook page.

 

https://www.facebook.com/vanboring

 

[Rodney]

There was a show on BBC R4 a few months back about Calvin and Hobbes and Bill Watterson. There was a wonderful anecdote about Steven Speilberg's assistant calling him with the possibility of making a movie. BW refused to take the call.

 

I suspect there could have been several reasons for Bill Waterson's response, one of which is relates to what I'll label as 'protocol'.

In protocol terms the reason many would not accept such a call is that it wasn't Steven Speilberg that made the call himself.

Rightly or wrongly, when we get into highly successful operations where people have something of value to barter with or trade protocol, becomes a major factor in decision making and negotiation. At its most simple explanation, Bill could have just been answering the violation of the protocol required to enter into a negotiation. (I can almost imagine Bill calling a friend and saying, "Speilberg is interested' to up the anti at another corporation).

 

The general rule that Bill seems to be following is that if you have something of value you don't just 'give' it away.

 

And this relates to something I like to say regarding animation but life in general as well, "the importance of resistance cannot be overstated."

 

I think an animated C&H sounds like a bad idea. Other than "Peanuts" i can't think of any hugely successful transitions from comic strip to animation and the Christmas and Halloween specials are the only ones we really remember fondly.

 

My primary concern with this relates to the human condition. Bill Waterson will not live forever.

Eventually some derivative C&H product will be made. It may not be through negotiation with Bill. It might not even be in full compliance with the wishes of his estate. The fact is that Bill himself, who should be the one to decide what form those derivatives might take, will not be there to add his considerable 2 cents into the negotiation.

 

I am not concerned with this BTW, just acknowledging it.

Bill is a smart guy and I am quite sure he has considered his fate.

 

I once was let go from a job wherein the owners died and left their store to their children. The children (apparently) squandered their money away. The store was sold to the competition for a ridiciously low price and the competition closed everything. This silliness pointed me toward employment at the opposite end of the stability spectrum... the military. As the movie asks, "If you could change your fate. Would you?" To which I might answer, "Whoops", "Sorry" and "Too late."

 

Back to the topic a little... (and my ever present harping on the emphasis of character)

Calvin and Hobbes is an excellent example of leading stories with character.

There are an infinite number of stories that can be told with these characters but note that the monetary value of C&H is not in the stories themselves but is vested fully in those characters.

[Rodney]

For an example of "show it", with no dialog at all there is Frank Tashlin's "Van Boring (He Never Says a Word)" comic that he did in the 1930's

 

Almost all of it has been posted on the facebook page.

 

https://www.facebook.com/vanboring

 

Ooo... very nice!

 

Thanks for that!

[robcat2075]

note that the monetary value of C&H is not in the stories themselves but is vested fully in those characters.

 

I'll guess that Bill W feels only he can properly manage those characters and knows that in animation he wouldn't have that control to himself.

 

And... he's tired of the whole thing anyway.

 

 

He does strike me as a bit ornery. What could a few T-shirts or coffee mugs hurt? I suppose they don't communicate the stories he was presenting, only fragments of the artwork.

[Simon Edmondson]

Calvin and Hobbes is an excellent example of leading stories with character.

There are an infinite number of stories that can be told with these characters but note that the monetary value of C&H is not in the stories themselves but is vested fully in those characters.

 

It had not occurred to me until just now but, earlier someone mentioned Charlie Chaplin. I'm not a great fan of Chaplin although I do admire his craft but, the films of that period are great examples of visual story telling, simply because that was the only way they could do it. They did use Inter titles but the absence of sound meant that the story had to be told in other ways. The acting devices they used look rather hammy today and I'm beginning to feel that way about some of the acting in recent animation films but, thats for another thread.

 

A friend made a study of the use of Inter titles ( Interstitials ? ) for her dissertation and one of the interesting things about it, was that films could be shown all around the world with just a change of titles into the different countries national language. The visuals did the work. There was an equivalent version of that in the mid 90's when several major Hollywood films deliberately mixed down the dialogue so the films could be shown in different markets without costly change. Jurrasic Park II was a particularly painful example of that as I recall, ( I thought the cinema sound system had broken down and complained on the way out! ).

 

In the UK at the moment there is a great popularity for Scandinavian TV drama. Despite it using subtitles it attracts very large audiences and out rates much more expensive and touted US imports such as " Boardwalk Empires". It would be difficult to pin down exactly why it is so popular with so many people but I suspect it is because, visually, narratively and in terms of the acting performances, it is very unlike the norms of UK and US TV. Scenes last more than 3 mins and often contain no edit within that time frame, they assume the audience is paying attention and allow the actors to flex their muscles. I'm hooked ( you might be able to tell ! ).

 

simon

[Rodney]

I've written a few responses to posts in this topic that upon reading again weren't worth posting. Obviously, I still have a long way to go in my writing.

Rather than try to repair what I was trying to write I'll move on and hope to get back to them.

 

One of the books I picked up at the Libary is 'The Hidden Art of Hollywood: In defense of the studio era film' by John Fawell. It's concentration is on the era of silent film and a basic premise is that silent film was not silent and where it was silent that silence was carefully crafted and intentional. That is my over simplification of his theme but I'm framing it for myself in order to set up further exploration.

 

The concluding paragraph from Chapter 5 states:

 

A good story, with characters who you are worried about, a film that engages the viewers feelings--these were the goals that Cukor, Capra, and Wilder pursued and which they felt were a great deal more difficult to arrive at, if less obvious in their effect, than showy technique. Showy technique, they felt, was the quickest way to get oohs and aahs from people who didn't know much about real filmmaking but was, in the end, detrimental in creating a film that left a lasting impression or offered a rich experience.

 

Several take-away points I draw from this paragraph:

 

- Creating a good story with characters the audience worries about is a difficult goal to achieve (It'll take a conscious effort to get there)

- For the audience to care, a good story must engage the viewers feelings

- Showy technique is (in fact) the quickest way to get oohs and aahs from people

- Some things (such as showy technique) are, in the end, detrimental to leaving a lasting impression on the audience and in offering a rich and rewarding experience

 

In the previous paragraph we find:

 

Like Wilder, Cukor felt that 'the director and his camera work should not intrude on the story,' but whereas Wilder, the strict constructionist, emphasized the virtues of economical storytelling, Cukor emphasized the emotional payoff when the technique stays quiet: "One can do very dazzling tricks--dazzling beauty and pyrotechnics--but unless the human heart is there I don't think it goes very deep."

[robcat2075]

Silent film fans will enjoy Kevin Brownlow's account of silent film "The Parade's Gone By". It's not so much a linear history as a look at the pieces of the pie. Directors, producers, actors, cameramen, stuntmen, even inter-title writers.

 

He notes that acting was all over the map, good and bad, from the start and that audiences and critics noticed it. There were many complaints about bad acting in silent films even during the silent era.

 

Simon, I don't know how mobile you are, but it is rumored that Abel Gance's "Napoleon" will be playing in London in 2013 and you must get to see it if you can. I went to California to see it in March and there are not superlatives to describe the way it overwhelms you. Kevin Brownlow and Carl Davis have put together a first-class presentation with live orchestra and the biggest screen you will ever see.

[Simon Edmondson]

...He notes that acting was all over the map, good and bad, from the start and that audiences and critics noticed it. There were many complaints about bad acting in silent films even during the silent era....

 

Some things don't change I suppose !

I got a set of three DVD's of films of that era a few months back, only found time to watch one so far and that was "Steamboat Will" with Buster Keaton in the lead role. It shows its age but some of the 'effects' are jawdropping and make you wonder how they did it? These days it would all be CG but this was about 20 years before the first computer was even built. There is the one every knows, were the end of the building falls on him but he is standing in just the right place to make it through the open window. The first time I saw that, I was about 10 and just accepted it and got on with watching the next bit. Now I can barely believe they did it and got away with it ! Some of the other stunts are equally as impressive, and his face is the same whatever happens...

 

Simon, I don't know how mobile you are, but it is rumored that Abel Gance's "Napoleon" will be playing in London in 2013 and you must get to see it if you can. ...

 

Thank you very much for the tip, it sounds like something I would like to see. I'm still recovering from last years hiccups but hoping to go to Scandinavia this time next year to try and see the Northern Lights. A trip to London would depend on timing and the rate of recuperation. The trip to see the lights has been an ambition since the last, unsuccessful, attempt in 99. Which had the plus of being the most enjoyable holiday I've ever had but I digress ...

regards

simon

[Simon Edmondson]

...

 

- Creating a good story with characters the audience worries about is a difficult goal to achieve (It'll take a conscious effort to get there)

- For the audience to care, a good story must engage the viewers feelings

- Showy technique is (in fact) the quickest way to get oohs and aahs from people

- Some things (such as showy technique) are, in the end, detrimental to leaving a lasting impression on the audience and in offering a rich and rewarding experience

 

In the previous paragraph we find:

 

Like Wilder, Cukor felt that 'the director and his camera work should not intrude on the story,' but whereas Wilder, the strict constructionist, emphasized the virtues of economical storytelling, Cukor emphasized the emotional payoff when the technique stays quiet: "One can do very dazzling tricks--dazzling beauty and pyrotechnics--but unless the human heart is there I don't think it goes very deep."

 

 

For me two of the least successful films of the past 12 years were Titanic and Pearl Harbour. Both tremendous effects but the 'human interest' story threads ruined both films. "Tora, Tora, Tora" and"from here to eternity" ( ? the one with Burt Lancaster rolling in the waves ? ) did that so much better, without the effects.

 

I have a tremendous story, ( nothing to do with me its a real event) I've been trying to work out how to tell for some years as I research the period. It has all three C's and lots of drama, beginning, middle and end. Just not an author able to do it justice !

Enjoy your weekend.

regards

simon

[robcat2075]

If you ever get a chance to go see silent films with live accompanist or live musicians, that's the real experience. DVD is nice but I've decided that half the fun is the live performer aspect.

 

some of the 'effects' are jawdropping and make you wonder how they did it?

 

There were a number of scenes in Napoleon that made me wonder, how do you do that without getting someone killed?

 

 

In the 1925 "Ben Hur" there's a shot I've never been able to figure out. The shadow of Jesus passes over some lepers and the black spots on their face disappear. It wasn't a dissolve between two shots, it was one continuous take and i can't imagine how they did that.

[Simon Edmondson]

If you ever get a chance to go see silent films with live accompanist or live musicians, that's the real experience. DVD is nice but I've decided that half the fun is the live performer aspect.

 

I've been to such an event in nearby Norwich. Theres a man called Neil Brand who scores for films but he also specialises in doing live accompaniment to silent films and a friend and I went to one of his shows. Apparently the pianist and conductor Andre Previn started that same way.

 

There were a number of scenes in Napoleon that made me wonder, how do you do that without getting someone killed?

 

Cagney used to tell the story of nearly getting killed in "White Heat" because they actually used live ammunition in those days. Unthinkable now I suspect?

 

 

In the 1925 "Ben Hur" there's a shot I've never been able to figure out. The shadow of Jesus passes over some lepers and the black spots on their face disappear. It wasn't a dissolve between two shots, it was one continuous take and i can't imagine how they did that.

 

I'm no lighting man but, perhaps a version of a gobo light ?

I think thats what they are called (?) the ones that project dots of light?

Perhaps it even better that we don't know ?

 

Best get some kip ( sleep )

regards

simon