|
|
Posted by PTravel on 09/25/73 11:53
"Martin Heffels" <spamalam@worldhello.com> wrote in message
news:j2qub2l1b0skghi1n31mhas8j8nog2se2r@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:14:10 GMT, "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>If you think the stories of all movies are the same, then I suggest you
>>don't watch any more movies. Most of us don't agree.
>
> I am not saying that stories are exactly the same, although in general
> terms they are, because they is very little new stuff to write about.
I don't think that's true. Rather, I think the studios and the networks are
so afraid of trying anything new, that they'll only produce proven formulas.
> Only
> when events are turned into pictures, like 9/11, you get something newish.
Funny, it didn't look newish. Okay, sorry -- couldn't resist.
> What is the same IMHO, is the way in which stories are told. If you look
> at
> the clock, the first 45 minutes are to introduce all the players and the
> story. We have a couple falling in love, and then halfway the silly
> love-scene, followed by a grande finale in which everything turns out for
> the big hero. Many people don't care about this formulaic approach, and
> still go to the cinema. I find it getting rather boring, that there are
> hardly any surprise endings in your standard Hollywood-fair.
Actually, there's a reason for that. The structure of contemporary drama,
whether live or filmed, was set in the 19th century by Eugene Scribe, who
was attempting to codify neo-classic concepts of drama. It's been a while
since I've thought about this (I used to teach theater history in university
in another life), so I may get the elements or order wrong, but,
essentially, Scribe wrote that the neo-classic ideal was drama divided into
five distinct parts: Status Quo, Complication, [something else which I
don't recall now], Denoument and New Status Quo. (this is embarrassing -- I
should know all of them). At any rate, this resulted in a relatively fixed
and predictable rhythm that has been adhered to, either consciously or
unconsciously, ever since. There are other aspects of well-made plays, e.g.
comedy is usually cyclical, i.e. the characters wind up exactly where they
started, all of which are, I'm sure, very familiar to modern audiences, even
if they've never heard the term.
>
>>
>>>And not to forget the happy ending,
>>> with a bunch of people clapping that all ended well.
>>> The swearing and the love-scene have to be in there, studio's wish (or
>>> demand), and a blonde girl with the usual attributes. The swearing can
>>> easily be cut out, because 99.99% of the time it doesn't add anything to
>>> the story.
>>
>>Though there is a certain amount of formula involved, it is nowhere near
>>as
>>cynically lock-step as you claim. I worked in the industry (as an actor)
>>for more than a decade before I quit and became a lawyer. I knew (and
>>still
>>know) many writers and producers. You're simply wrong.
>
> I'm not wrong :-) I have seen the side which you didn't see, so we differ
> in opinion.
When I was in the business, I knew lots of writers and producers. I'm not
wrong.
>
>>> Same with the love-scene.
>>> Therefor I don't find it censoring to cut these things out, because this
>>> kind of content is usually brought in in a later stage, to make it
>>> interesting for studios and investors, and not at the moment of creation
>>> of
>>> the story by the writer.
>>
>>Absolutely and completely wrong.
>
> No way. As an actor you have had luck then, that this never happened.
As I said, I'm not speaking from the actor's perspective. What the studios
and directors will do, though, is shape the final edit to get a specific
rating, e.g. PG is death for a more adult project, so gratuitous language
may be included just to get it up to an R, or vice versa.
>
>>> And I know this from speaking with a few people
>>> who have produced/written/directed feature-films.
>>
>>And I know you're wrong from speaking with many people who have
>>produced/written/directed feature films.
>
> Doesn't matter. Whatever I say, you always say I'm wrong.
Food for thought, isn't it?
> For you there is
> only one right, and that seems to be your's. It doesn't matter to you
> there
> is a whole world out there, where things are different. So be it :-)
Whereas you would prefer that I ignore my own personal experience,
education, training and the input of friends and associates.
"Obviously, our social spheres are widely different."
Cecily Cardew, The Importance of Being Earnest
>
> -m-
> --
> "I'm full of dust and guitars." - Syd Barrett
> 07/07/06 The Crazy Diamond is now a star in heaven
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|