How to treat fan theories or lace on a tablecloth
Hello!
I'll start again with Q & A
A bit of discussion on fan theories, stories, sequels and symbolism in films. What is the contribution of the authors, and what the audience. Why fan theory is fun and a little about future articles. I will also add text with various moviebikes, which I was lucky to hear at the time.
')
1) It's about movies and stories in general.
2) It's about mythology and symbolism.
3) It's about fan theories.
If, nevertheless, you are interested in cinema - you can run over the spoiler titles, I hid some interesting stories there. Also, it will help if you express your position in the comments and take part in the survey.
In the last article I wrote about fan theories in Star Wars. This time I would like to talk about the very concept of fan theories. There is a reason why this is not such a common business here. This is certainly not a fact, but it is believed that over the hill people have developed an amazing ability to live in two mutually exclusive realities. A sort of liberal doublethink . I read the best description of this phenomenon in Sergey Golubitsky ’s article “The Triumph of the Dead Leviathan”
If you think about it, it becomes clear how fan-theories work, we are well aware that all these insignificant clues on which the next theory is based are not the thoughtful ideas of the authors - these are mistakes, annoying bloops, technological imperfection of filmmaking, etc. There's nothing you can do about it, filmmaking is pretty hard stuff, it’s not always possible to take everything into account. This can be reconciled, but, also, we can find ourselves in a parallel world, in the place where the action takes place. Here is a place for speculation.
Here we must take a step back. Or even a few. Suppose we watch a movie or read a book. At what point ends what the author wanted to say and begins what we understood. If we talk about literature, I like the way Stephen King thinks about it in How to write books .
Literature is one thing, cinema is quite another, we see not abstract words, but quite concrete images, precise sounds, there is less room for imagination. The difference appears at the stage of the script.
Literature is written for a wide range of readers. The reader himself interprets everything written and appends the details. The script is a semifinished product, it is written for a very small circle of readers, the director, the operator, etc. To understand how important it is you can read the script of the film “The Cable Guy” . Immediately striking that the film Ben Stiller is very different from what was planned in the script. At the stage of the script, it was more of a thriller than a comedy, and, naturally, there could not have been a Jim Carrey manner of behavior.
There are many such examples, but there are also reverse ones. For example, the red line that has spread in its time.
The film on the story of Alexei Berezin, from the point of view of directing made disgusting. And to you these assaults of the camera, not the topic, and crap with sound, a huge gap between good actors and bad ones, but, initially, the story was made so well that the poor realization did not ruin the film itself.
Some directors believe that we can do a hypothetical tablecloth in the film as well as King did. They leave a huge number of understatements and hints in places directly related to the plot. Later, when someone points out that the film is completely incomprehensible about what, he is told that this is a problem for the viewer himself. But hinting at the meaning does not mean that it does exist. Let's imagine:
Here is a girl sitting at the window. She is very sad, eyes lowered, slightly swollen from tears. Outside the window - a stunning view, the endless sea and the sun at sunset. From behind the horizon appears the yacht, white and white sails. The girl looks up and peers into the distance. She notices a yacht, something changes in her view, she wants to live again ... And so on, other mura.
Now let's figure out why this girl wanted to live? Yes, because, a sophisticated reader will tell me, that a yacht on white sails symbolizes hope ...
The problem is that it can also symbolize death, surrender, travel, etc. And by and large, it does not symbolize a damn Quare non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit pop intelligere, curandum
There is no point in making a script from history, from a script, to attract artists, cameramen, directors of editing, heaping up special effects and everything just to leave to the viewer the character’s thoughts and feelings (especially if this is important for the plot). Cinema should show. If we see a yacht, then this is a yacht, we see sails - it means sails. And yet to understand what this boat is doing here, why she has white sails, and why is she a girl who decided to look up. If the scene is not justified by the plot - it should not be, if it is justified - it should be clear.
Francois Truffaut and Alfred Hitchcock
Hitchcock said this very precisely in his interview with Francois Truffaut, which was later written into a book . Highly recommend.
In the script there is no place for artistic tricks. It should go only what can be shown on the screen. Unfortunately, this rule is often neglected. As a result, the director has to go for various tricks to figure out how to show "a beautiful face with the first signs of aging."
Another common sin is the use of flashbacks / fantasies and voiceover. It must be said that these methods, like any other, are not bad in themselves, but the application must be justified by the plot, and not by the desire of the scriptwriter, to explain the vague nonsense that occurs on the screen.
Frame from the movie 8 1/2
One of the first flashbacks and fantasies was used by Federico Fellini, in the movie 8 1/2. This is an autobiographical film in which the story is told on behalf of the author. Fellini wanted the audience to feel in the skin of the author, understand what it is. To this end, he interspersed reality with memories and reflections. They say the audience, while not yet spoiled by such a narrative style, did not understand what was happening on the screen.
As with many other discoverer techniques, a sad story happened to flashbacks. Copying the trick from movie to movie, and from author to author, soon, everyone forgot what its essence is. Today, flashbacks simply chew on the plot, but are not part of the story. This does not stop the authors, because there remains a great opportunity to justify themselves.
Andrey Tarkovsky
Somehow, I happened to hear such a conversation a famous director and his student:
R: Long plans make melancholy.
S: what about Tarkovsky?
R: young man, let's be honest, you are not Tarkovsky
This is a frequent argument in the dispute. What does not necessarily in the movie. The fighters hide behind Pushkin, the losers - Einstein (although, of course, Einstein was not at all a Losers, except in French). Writers, if you're interested, hide behind Mario Puzo, who wrote his first successful book, The Godfather, in about 40 years. (By the way, few people know that Puzo was also a screenwriter, in particular, he wrote the script for Tom himself superman with Christopher Reeve). The problem is that no matter how clever a man is, he will not become Pushkin.
American directors especially love the various references to mythology. As a result, the same plots are transferred from film to film. Borges believed that there are only four plots . French researcher Georges Polti, believed that their (plots) 36
Take a concrete example. The Lion King, for the most part based on Hamlet. There is a king, there is his brother, who decided to kill him and take over the kingdom with the queen. There is a ghost of the father. Who knows, maybe Timon and Pumba - this is such a north-north-west, in which the prince goes mad.
Cartoon Lion King
But what is important, the Lion King! = Hamlet, this is not plagiarism or a remake. This is such an elegant reference, resting on the shoulders of giants . There is nothing bad in it, moreover, it is a completely different story. Those of you who have children may ask them what is the difference between King Lion and Hamlet, most likely they will answer you: The Lion King is about animals and the Jungle, and Hamlet is about some unbalanced Danes. And this is the correct answer. But imagine if the "Lion King" would not be a great piece if most of the audience turned up their noses. What would the admiring cries of critics say: “oh, how gracefully did they rethink Hamlet, how subtly, bravo”?
Do not get me wrong, the authors are free to follow their ideas about the necessary measures. It is said that for grinding David , Michelangelo ordered special gloves made from the skin of unborn puppies. Crazy barbarism! I, personally, do not have the heart to raise the question of whether it was worth it. But I can ask two others:
1) Would a statue be worse if he used other gloves?
2) Can these gloves be made from medium-sized sculptor Michelangelo?
Masters, they are masters. They do not need to prove anything to anyone verbally; they do everything in their own way and are responsible for the consequences. One can argue about this for a long time, but the article is not about that, so we move on.
White Rabbit put on his glasses.
“Where will your majesty order you to start?” He asked.
“Start at the beginning,” replied the King thoughtfully, “and continue until you reach the end.” Then stop.
Lewis Carroll "Alice in Wonderland "
When I was young, I was naive, but since I didn’t ask to be brought into the world, I asked for advice from my then literary agent - how to finish the story without interrupting all the characters. My agent worked as a literary editor in a thick magazine and, moreover, was a script consultant in Hollywood. He said: "There is nothing simpler, my boy, - the hero sits on a horse and drives off beyond the horizon, lit by the setting sun." After many years he in his right mind and solid memory would kill himself, shoot himself with a shotgun of the twelfth caliber.
Kurt Vonnegut "Time Out"
From the viewer's point of view, the story should be atomic. Authors can be tormented with their peripetia, plot arches, acts, climaxes and other attributes, as you like. The viewer should sit down, listen to the story and go on. Here lies the root of all evil, IMHO. If the story is really good, it is impossible not to regret that it is over. Fear, one wants to know what happened next, or earlier, or in a parallel reality, but with the same heroes, well, or, to the extreme, in the same reality, even if without these heroes.
still from the movie “Back to the Future 2”
Sequels / prequels and stuff, of course, did not come from the movies. In the literature, this is a pretty famous thing (cap here!). History knows both successful and failed attempts to “finish” the story (for the most part, failures, of course), but, regardless of success, there is a very important criterion that cannot be overlooked: what we are looking at, a new story, or just satisfy curiosity? Let's take a painful example:
The Matrix is ​​a great movie on many levels. This is my opinion, I do not urge to agree. As for me, the film received less recognition for two reasons:
1) The general contempt of critics to action and fiction (with the exception of a few classic examples)
2) Sequels
The first film told a fascinating story. And, although the thought of the illusory reality, to put it mildly, is not new, for many people unfamiliar with the works of Kant, the world turned over after watching the movie.
When the sequels came out, I, like many, looked at them with pleasure, and later I revised them more than once. But over time, enthusiasm gave way to disappointment. The second film had no beginning or end. There was no history at all. There were a lot of cool scenes and characters, there was Monica Bellucci and other charms, but there was no history.
The third film was better, Although there was no beginning, but there was a clearly marked end. The problem is that the end. This, like everything that happened before, simply duplicated the original. It was all the same story. The same savior who has come a long way, who refused to put up with fate and sacrificed himself, and later reborn. And, although it was done well, but the first film, becoming part of the triptych, was greatly lost in quality.
Here all the spears and break. The definitions of the story vary among many authors. Most often refer to the "Poetics" of Aristotle. But we, the viewers, why? I approach this easier. Most often, it is easy to determine who the main character of the film is. The formula is simple, the main character is the one who was given the most screen time. The story begins where the hero had a problem, and ends where the problem is finally solved. It does not always work, sometimes you have to make many assumptions, but in general the system is quite working.
Let's take an example. A very nice illustration is Planet Ka-Pax . There was a lot of controversy about the origin of Prot (by the way, also a reference to Christ ...), but, as for me, it does not matter. The main character of the film is not Prot at all, but Mark Powell, a psychiatrist. When we see him for the first time, he listens to the story of one of the sick and obviously misses (looks at his watch, listens inattentively). He leaves the office and to the words of his assistant that there is a new patient answers: “Who is this time, Jesus (sic!) Or Joan of Arc?”. The story ends when the formerly bored, divorced from the life and family of a person “returns to the ground” and meets with his son. Exactly at the same moment, the alleged Prot, allegedly flies off the ground. Since the story ends, it is not so important whether Prot has flown away or not, as they say, is another story.
This is usually called the open ending, although the ending is not at all open. It is not so important whether the top will drop at the end of the film “The Beginning” or not, no matter what happens to the heroes of “Fight Club” after the explosion of buildings. It doesn't matter what the mysterious smile meant in the finale of the Night of Kobiria. It may seem that this is not the case, but the authors, most often, finish their stories quite unequivocally, and the rest is already lace on the tablecloth, your territory.
That's what they are, about those same lace on the tablecloth. It may be interesting to someone, not to someone, but all these theories, like the ones I described in the previous article, are in no way in contact with the story itself. It (the story) is still the same, it begins there, it ends there. Fan theories, exactly like the search for interesting references or parallels, are just entertainment, a work of fantasy where the author himself may not have looked.
I really like the term Paratext . Although this is a completely different thing, the word itself could ideally explain what I am talking about. Paraistory, unfortunately, does not sound so cool, and the expanded universe is a little different. But, whatever you call it, such an approach to works of art, and to cinema, in the first place, seems to me very useful, and most importantly interesting.
On this, perhaps all. In this article, the problem was not to write, but to cut everything superfluous, although something must have remained.
In the future, I’m unlikely to write general articles like this. I think it will be more interesting for you to read / comment on the analysis of individual films, as was the case with Star Wars. A big request to participate in the survey. Add in the comments your suggestions and suggestions about the following articles. The most popular offers will definitely be included in the next survey. Do not hesitate in the criticism, in the comments, I will try to take into account the comments, so that in the future the articles were as interesting as possible.
Thank you for reading to the end!
I'll start again with Q & A
What is it?
A bit of discussion on fan theories, stories, sequels and symbolism in films. What is the contribution of the authors, and what the audience. Why fan theory is fun and a little about future articles. I will also add text with various moviebikes, which I was lucky to hear at the time.
')
Why do I need to read this?
1) It's about movies and stories in general.
2) It's about mythology and symbolism.
3) It's about fan theories.
And if I'm not interested?
If, nevertheless, you are interested in cinema - you can run over the spoiler titles, I hid some interesting stories there. Also, it will help if you express your position in the comments and take part in the survey.
In the last article I wrote about fan theories in Star Wars. This time I would like to talk about the very concept of fan theories. There is a reason why this is not such a common business here. This is certainly not a fact, but it is believed that over the hill people have developed an amazing ability to live in two mutually exclusive realities. A sort of liberal doublethink . I read the best description of this phenomenon in Sergey Golubitsky ’s article “The Triumph of the Dead Leviathan”
Quote
... from the first days of my acquaintance with America, for unknown reasons, I began to perceive it simultaneously in two plans: the real plan and the mythological plan. Maybe this perception was influenced by philological education, maybe I took “Journey to Hyper-reality” too close to my heart, Umberto Eco, and maybe in fact there is not one America, but two ...
... The fact that Americans, unlike Russians, possess the seventh sense that allows them to live simultaneously in “America” and “Americas” is best seen in the example of such entertainment as wrestling struggle. Our man can not calmly observe how a sadist climbs on the ropes, and then jumps on the head of his opponent. Our man either takes everything seriously, as it was in the era of the film “Sport, Sport, Sport”, or thinks that wrestling is a clownery, a circus. In fact, wrestling, like any horror movie, is just another reality, it is “American.” Just look at how the American public is fully experiencing wrestling, how sincerely and violently it reacts to every successful blow in the gut and breaking of the hip joint! And everything - from small to large. The point is not that the American people are insensitive half-idiots who cannot distinguish a real fight from imitation. They are all different. They just have the ability to live and experience in a world that seems unreal from the outside.
In the cinema, the American sincerely believes that you can give Schwarzenegger fifteen times in a row in the face and after that the actor will rise and dodge the villain. After leaving the session after the session, the same American is fully aware that if a street hooligan rolls over to him now and breaks his jaw only once, then there will be no chance to recover. One does not contradict the other. Because the American knows that in the Ameriza they have been beaten for a long time and to no avail, and in America they have been beaten only once.
... The fact that Americans, unlike Russians, possess the seventh sense that allows them to live simultaneously in “America” and “Americas” is best seen in the example of such entertainment as wrestling struggle. Our man can not calmly observe how a sadist climbs on the ropes, and then jumps on the head of his opponent. Our man either takes everything seriously, as it was in the era of the film “Sport, Sport, Sport”, or thinks that wrestling is a clownery, a circus. In fact, wrestling, like any horror movie, is just another reality, it is “American.” Just look at how the American public is fully experiencing wrestling, how sincerely and violently it reacts to every successful blow in the gut and breaking of the hip joint! And everything - from small to large. The point is not that the American people are insensitive half-idiots who cannot distinguish a real fight from imitation. They are all different. They just have the ability to live and experience in a world that seems unreal from the outside.
In the cinema, the American sincerely believes that you can give Schwarzenegger fifteen times in a row in the face and after that the actor will rise and dodge the villain. After leaving the session after the session, the same American is fully aware that if a street hooligan rolls over to him now and breaks his jaw only once, then there will be no chance to recover. One does not contradict the other. Because the American knows that in the Ameriza they have been beaten for a long time and to no avail, and in America they have been beaten only once.
If you think about it, it becomes clear how fan-theories work, we are well aware that all these insignificant clues on which the next theory is based are not the thoughtful ideas of the authors - these are mistakes, annoying bloops, technological imperfection of filmmaking, etc. There's nothing you can do about it, filmmaking is pretty hard stuff, it’s not always possible to take everything into account. This can be reconciled, but, also, we can find ourselves in a parallel world, in the place where the action takes place. Here is a place for speculation.
But this is not true!
Here we must take a step back. Or even a few. Suppose we watch a movie or read a book. At what point ends what the author wanted to say and begins what we understood. If we talk about literature, I like the way Stephen King thinks about it in How to write books .
Telepathy
My name is Stephen King. I am writing the first version of this text on my desk (which is under the roof) on a snowy morning of December 1997 ...
... This book is intended for printing in the late summer or early fall of the two thousandth year. If it will be so, now you have come down to me along the river of time ...
... Look - here is a table covered with red cloth. On it is a cage the size of an aquarium. In a cage, a rabbit with a pink nose and pink eyelids. In his front paws he has a stump of a carrot, which he chews with a contented look. The number 8 is clearly written on his back in blue ink. How do we see the same thing? For fidelity, we should compare our records, but I think so. Of course, there are inevitable variations: someone will see a purple tablecloth, someone will scarlet, there will be other shades. (For acceptors with color blindness, the tablecloth will be gray or dark gray.) Someone will see the fringe, someone - smooth edges. Beauty lovers will add lace - and for God's sake: my tablecloth is your tablecloth, make yourself at home.
... This book is intended for printing in the late summer or early fall of the two thousandth year. If it will be so, now you have come down to me along the river of time ...
... Look - here is a table covered with red cloth. On it is a cage the size of an aquarium. In a cage, a rabbit with a pink nose and pink eyelids. In his front paws he has a stump of a carrot, which he chews with a contented look. The number 8 is clearly written on his back in blue ink. How do we see the same thing? For fidelity, we should compare our records, but I think so. Of course, there are inevitable variations: someone will see a purple tablecloth, someone will scarlet, there will be other shades. (For acceptors with color blindness, the tablecloth will be gray or dark gray.) Someone will see the fringe, someone - smooth edges. Beauty lovers will add lace - and for God's sake: my tablecloth is your tablecloth, make yourself at home.
Literature is one thing, cinema is quite another, we see not abstract words, but quite concrete images, precise sounds, there is less room for imagination. The difference appears at the stage of the script.
Literature is written for a wide range of readers. The reader himself interprets everything written and appends the details. The script is a semifinished product, it is written for a very small circle of readers, the director, the operator, etc. To understand how important it is you can read the script of the film “The Cable Guy” . Immediately striking that the film Ben Stiller is very different from what was planned in the script. At the stage of the script, it was more of a thriller than a comedy, and, naturally, there could not have been a Jim Carrey manner of behavior.
There are many such examples, but there are also reverse ones. For example, the red line that has spread in its time.
The film on the story of Alexei Berezin, from the point of view of directing made disgusting. And to you these assaults of the camera, not the topic, and crap with sound, a huge gap between good actors and bad ones, but, initially, the story was made so well that the poor realization did not ruin the film itself.
Black cat in the black room
Some directors believe that we can do a hypothetical tablecloth in the film as well as King did. They leave a huge number of understatements and hints in places directly related to the plot. Later, when someone points out that the film is completely incomprehensible about what, he is told that this is a problem for the viewer himself. But hinting at the meaning does not mean that it does exist. Let's imagine:
Here is a girl sitting at the window. She is very sad, eyes lowered, slightly swollen from tears. Outside the window - a stunning view, the endless sea and the sun at sunset. From behind the horizon appears the yacht, white and white sails. The girl looks up and peers into the distance. She notices a yacht, something changes in her view, she wants to live again ... And so on, other mura.
Now let's figure out why this girl wanted to live? Yes, because, a sophisticated reader will tell me, that a yacht on white sails symbolizes hope ...
The problem is that it can also symbolize death, surrender, travel, etc. And by and large, it does not symbolize a damn Quare non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit pop intelligere, curandum
There is no point in making a script from history, from a script, to attract artists, cameramen, directors of editing, heaping up special effects and everything just to leave to the viewer the character’s thoughts and feelings (especially if this is important for the plot). Cinema should show. If we see a yacht, then this is a yacht, we see sails - it means sails. And yet to understand what this boat is doing here, why she has white sails, and why is she a girl who decided to look up. If the scene is not justified by the plot - it should not be, if it is justified - it should be clear.
Francois Truffaut and Alfred Hitchcock
Hitchcock said this very precisely in his interview with Francois Truffaut, which was later written into a book . Highly recommend.
Absolute Nothing
AH ... guided by the feeling of my relaxed fantasy, I also invented an episode for the film “To the North through the North-West,” which we, unfortunately, have not shot. As you understand, our movement went from New York towards the north-west, and Detroit was one of the stops along the way, where Ford cars are made. Have you ever seen an assembly line?
F.T. No, it was not necessary.
OH. This is just fantastic. I dreamed of making a long travel with Cary Grant’s dialogue with one of the factory workers as they walk along the conveyor. They can talk, say, about the masters. Next to them is the assembly of cars, detail by detail. Finally, the Ford, born in front of our heroes and our viewers, is ready to leave the line. They look at him and cannot hold back the admiring surprise, open the door - and from there the corpse falls out!
F.T. Brilliant idea!
OH. Where did the body come from? Of course, not from the car, because they and you and I saw how it was going to literally from the first bolt! The corpse falls nowhere, you see! And it may be the corpse of the master himself, about whom they reasoned.
F.T. Wonderful example of absolute nothing! Why did you break up with this plan? Is it because this episode would extend the picture?
OH. It was not the duration of the film. The trouble is that he did not fit the plot. The scene can be arbitrarily incredible in and of itself, but it must fit into the context!
F.T. No, it was not necessary.
OH. This is just fantastic. I dreamed of making a long travel with Cary Grant’s dialogue with one of the factory workers as they walk along the conveyor. They can talk, say, about the masters. Next to them is the assembly of cars, detail by detail. Finally, the Ford, born in front of our heroes and our viewers, is ready to leave the line. They look at him and cannot hold back the admiring surprise, open the door - and from there the corpse falls out!
F.T. Brilliant idea!
OH. Where did the body come from? Of course, not from the car, because they and you and I saw how it was going to literally from the first bolt! The corpse falls nowhere, you see! And it may be the corpse of the master himself, about whom they reasoned.
F.T. Wonderful example of absolute nothing! Why did you break up with this plan? Is it because this episode would extend the picture?
OH. It was not the duration of the film. The trouble is that he did not fit the plot. The scene can be arbitrarily incredible in and of itself, but it must fit into the context!
In the script there is no place for artistic tricks. It should go only what can be shown on the screen. Unfortunately, this rule is often neglected. As a result, the director has to go for various tricks to figure out how to show "a beautiful face with the first signs of aging."
Another common sin is the use of flashbacks / fantasies and voiceover. It must be said that these methods, like any other, are not bad in themselves, but the application must be justified by the plot, and not by the desire of the scriptwriter, to explain the vague nonsense that occurs on the screen.
Frame from the movie 8 1/2
One of the first flashbacks and fantasies was used by Federico Fellini, in the movie 8 1/2. This is an autobiographical film in which the story is told on behalf of the author. Fellini wanted the audience to feel in the skin of the author, understand what it is. To this end, he interspersed reality with memories and reflections. They say the audience, while not yet spoiled by such a narrative style, did not understand what was happening on the screen.
By the way, about the difficulties of perception
There is a story about David Griffith. They say that at one time, he had a conflict with the studio because of ... close-ups. The big shots of the studio thought that people paid to look at the whole actor, and not half of it.
As with many other discoverer techniques, a sad story happened to flashbacks. Copying the trick from movie to movie, and from author to author, soon, everyone forgot what its essence is. Today, flashbacks simply chew on the plot, but are not part of the story. This does not stop the authors, because there remains a great opportunity to justify themselves.
Andrey Tarkovsky
Somehow, I happened to hear such a conversation a famous director and his student:
R: Long plans make melancholy.
S: what about Tarkovsky?
R: young man, let's be honest, you are not Tarkovsky
This is a frequent argument in the dispute. What does not necessarily in the movie. The fighters hide behind Pushkin, the losers - Einstein (although, of course, Einstein was not at all a Losers, except in French). Writers, if you're interested, hide behind Mario Puzo, who wrote his first successful book, The Godfather, in about 40 years. (By the way, few people know that Puzo was also a screenwriter, in particular, he wrote the script for Tom himself superman with Christopher Reeve). The problem is that no matter how clever a man is, he will not become Pushkin.
More about the fact that it is impossible to remove
They say that somehow having quarreled with the cameraman, Sergei Paradzhanov left, telling the film crew to shoot the scene "112". Gone, means, and comes back in an hour. The crew is sitting and doing nothing.
Paradjanov: Why are you sitting? They took that?
Operator: Not removed.
Paradzhanov: Why? What is there to shoot something? - takes the script and reads aloud, - "... By themselves, the nuns came up to the stone and left their golden sorrow on it ..." What do you not know how to shoot the "golden sorrow" ??
Operator: No, how to remove the "golden sadness" we know, we do not know how to remove "the nuns themselves."
Paradjanov: Why are you sitting? They took that?
Operator: Not removed.
Paradzhanov: Why? What is there to shoot something? - takes the script and reads aloud, - "... By themselves, the nuns came up to the stone and left their golden sorrow on it ..." What do you not know how to shoot the "golden sorrow" ??
Operator: No, how to remove the "golden sadness" we know, we do not know how to remove "the nuns themselves."
Okay with flashbacks, and symbolism?
American directors especially love the various references to mythology. As a result, the same plots are transferred from film to film. Borges believed that there are only four plots . French researcher Georges Polti, believed that their (plots) 36
what do John Conor, John Coffey and Shepard from Mass Effect have in common
Each of them is a reference to Christ.
In the case of John Conor and John Coffey, these are the initials of JC. Also, here you can add John Carpenter from “The Day When the Earth Has Stopped,” cricket Jimini Cricket from Pinocchio, John Constantine (Constantine), John Crichton (Farscape), James Cole (12 monkeys), etc.
Captain Shepard, as well as Jack Shepard (lost), Adrian Shepard (opposing force) - Shepard, like all his homonyms, are translated as shepherd or shepherd. The Good Shepherd is the symbolic name of Christ.
Of course, Hollywood and all the rest, it's time to stop making such references. JC today is more than a reference, this is a full-fledged spoiler that the hero will become a savior and, with a high degree of probability, will die for our sins
In the case of John Conor and John Coffey, these are the initials of JC. Also, here you can add John Carpenter from “The Day When the Earth Has Stopped,” cricket Jimini Cricket from Pinocchio, John Constantine (Constantine), John Crichton (Farscape), James Cole (12 monkeys), etc.
Captain Shepard, as well as Jack Shepard (lost), Adrian Shepard (opposing force) - Shepard, like all his homonyms, are translated as shepherd or shepherd. The Good Shepherd is the symbolic name of Christ.
Of course, Hollywood and all the rest, it's time to stop making such references. JC today is more than a reference, this is a full-fledged spoiler that the hero will become a savior and, with a high degree of probability, will die for our sins
Take a concrete example. The Lion King, for the most part based on Hamlet. There is a king, there is his brother, who decided to kill him and take over the kingdom with the queen. There is a ghost of the father. Who knows, maybe Timon and Pumba - this is such a north-north-west, in which the prince goes mad.
Cartoon Lion King
But what is important, the Lion King! = Hamlet, this is not plagiarism or a remake. This is such an elegant reference, resting on the shoulders of giants . There is nothing bad in it, moreover, it is a completely different story. Those of you who have children may ask them what is the difference between King Lion and Hamlet, most likely they will answer you: The Lion King is about animals and the Jungle, and Hamlet is about some unbalanced Danes. And this is the correct answer. But imagine if the "Lion King" would not be a great piece if most of the audience turned up their noses. What would the admiring cries of critics say: “oh, how gracefully did they rethink Hamlet, how subtly, bravo”?
Do not get me wrong, the authors are free to follow their ideas about the necessary measures. It is said that for grinding David , Michelangelo ordered special gloves made from the skin of unborn puppies. Crazy barbarism! I, personally, do not have the heart to raise the question of whether it was worth it. But I can ask two others:
1) Would a statue be worse if he used other gloves?
2) Can these gloves be made from medium-sized sculptor Michelangelo?
Another story, without the shocking details, honestly.
The story is given in the book by Alexander Mitta "Between Hell and Heaven"
Kurosawa is known for its extraordinary integrity. In his frame, everything must breathe real life. Therefore, the film, where the action takes place in the winter, went to shoot to the very north of Japan - on the island of Hokkaido, where the climate is almost the same as in Siberia.
According to the scenario, thick snow had to go in the frame, and the producer, knowing how it is done in the cinema, stores an unprecedented amount of bags with artificial snow, knowing that for Kurosawa, “thick” is much thicker than for any other director.
We left on the first day of shooting. Kurosawa is preparing the stage set. The producer ordered the three wind blowers to drive the wind. In the frame only Santa Claus with deer is missing. Winter, natural winter. But Kurosawa says:
- I can not shoot this snow.
- Why? It is always removed. This is the best artificial snow in Japan.
- It does not melt on the face. And I need. so that large snowflakes fall slowly and melt on the faces of the actors. This creates the necessary climate of the scene.
- What do we do?
- We will wait for this snowfall, which is famous for Hokkaido. For this we came here.
In the evening, the group left without taking a single shot. The next day, again prepared the shooting. The next - again. And so it went three weeks. All contracts with members of the group are over. Kurosawa was adamant. Producer demands facing trial. Kurosawa responds to this:
- You want to distort and destroy my creative individuality. In the interest of protecting my identity, I have to commit suicide.
Twice in his long life, Kurosawa cut his veins when the producers cornered him and demanded unacceptable compromises. If Kurosawa dies, the producer will be disgraced and thrown out of business. And if he waits another week, he will be completely ruined and also thrown out of business. The choice is not rich. The producer made new contracts with the whole group.
A few more weeks passed before it was finally possible to shoot the scene.
Kurosawa is known for its extraordinary integrity. In his frame, everything must breathe real life. Therefore, the film, where the action takes place in the winter, went to shoot to the very north of Japan - on the island of Hokkaido, where the climate is almost the same as in Siberia.
According to the scenario, thick snow had to go in the frame, and the producer, knowing how it is done in the cinema, stores an unprecedented amount of bags with artificial snow, knowing that for Kurosawa, “thick” is much thicker than for any other director.
We left on the first day of shooting. Kurosawa is preparing the stage set. The producer ordered the three wind blowers to drive the wind. In the frame only Santa Claus with deer is missing. Winter, natural winter. But Kurosawa says:
- I can not shoot this snow.
- Why? It is always removed. This is the best artificial snow in Japan.
- It does not melt on the face. And I need. so that large snowflakes fall slowly and melt on the faces of the actors. This creates the necessary climate of the scene.
- What do we do?
- We will wait for this snowfall, which is famous for Hokkaido. For this we came here.
In the evening, the group left without taking a single shot. The next day, again prepared the shooting. The next - again. And so it went three weeks. All contracts with members of the group are over. Kurosawa was adamant. Producer demands facing trial. Kurosawa responds to this:
- You want to distort and destroy my creative individuality. In the interest of protecting my identity, I have to commit suicide.
Twice in his long life, Kurosawa cut his veins when the producers cornered him and demanded unacceptable compromises. If Kurosawa dies, the producer will be disgraced and thrown out of business. And if he waits another week, he will be completely ruined and also thrown out of business. The choice is not rich. The producer made new contracts with the whole group.
A few more weeks passed before it was finally possible to shoot the scene.
Masters, they are masters. They do not need to prove anything to anyone verbally; they do everything in their own way and are responsible for the consequences. One can argue about this for a long time, but the article is not about that, so we move on.
History is a segment between two points, not a straight line.
White Rabbit put on his glasses.
“Where will your majesty order you to start?” He asked.
“Start at the beginning,” replied the King thoughtfully, “and continue until you reach the end.” Then stop.
Lewis Carroll "Alice in Wonderland "
When I was young, I was naive, but since I didn’t ask to be brought into the world, I asked for advice from my then literary agent - how to finish the story without interrupting all the characters. My agent worked as a literary editor in a thick magazine and, moreover, was a script consultant in Hollywood. He said: "There is nothing simpler, my boy, - the hero sits on a horse and drives off beyond the horizon, lit by the setting sun." After many years he in his right mind and solid memory would kill himself, shoot himself with a shotgun of the twelfth caliber.
Kurt Vonnegut "Time Out"
From the viewer's point of view, the story should be atomic. Authors can be tormented with their peripetia, plot arches, acts, climaxes and other attributes, as you like. The viewer should sit down, listen to the story and go on. Here lies the root of all evil, IMHO. If the story is really good, it is impossible not to regret that it is over. Fear, one wants to know what happened next, or earlier, or in a parallel reality, but with the same heroes, well, or, to the extreme, in the same reality, even if without these heroes.
still from the movie “Back to the Future 2”
Sequels / prequels and stuff, of course, did not come from the movies. In the literature, this is a pretty famous thing (cap here!). History knows both successful and failed attempts to “finish” the story (for the most part, failures, of course), but, regardless of success, there is a very important criterion that cannot be overlooked: what we are looking at, a new story, or just satisfy curiosity? Let's take a painful example:
The Matrix is ​​a great movie on many levels. This is my opinion, I do not urge to agree. As for me, the film received less recognition for two reasons:
1) The general contempt of critics to action and fiction (with the exception of a few classic examples)
2) Sequels
The first film told a fascinating story. And, although the thought of the illusory reality, to put it mildly, is not new, for many people unfamiliar with the works of Kant, the world turned over after watching the movie.
When the sequels came out, I, like many, looked at them with pleasure, and later I revised them more than once. But over time, enthusiasm gave way to disappointment. The second film had no beginning or end. There was no history at all. There were a lot of cool scenes and characters, there was Monica Bellucci and other charms, but there was no history.
The third film was better, Although there was no beginning, but there was a clearly marked end. The problem is that the end. This, like everything that happened before, simply duplicated the original. It was all the same story. The same savior who has come a long way, who refused to put up with fate and sacrificed himself, and later reborn. And, although it was done well, but the first film, becoming part of the triptych, was greatly lost in quality.
What kind of beast is this, a story?
Here all the spears and break. The definitions of the story vary among many authors. Most often refer to the "Poetics" of Aristotle. But we, the viewers, why? I approach this easier. Most often, it is easy to determine who the main character of the film is. The formula is simple, the main character is the one who was given the most screen time. The story begins where the hero had a problem, and ends where the problem is finally solved. It does not always work, sometimes you have to make many assumptions, but in general the system is quite working.
Let's take an example. A very nice illustration is Planet Ka-Pax . There was a lot of controversy about the origin of Prot (by the way, also a reference to Christ ...), but, as for me, it does not matter. The main character of the film is not Prot at all, but Mark Powell, a psychiatrist. When we see him for the first time, he listens to the story of one of the sick and obviously misses (looks at his watch, listens inattentively). He leaves the office and to the words of his assistant that there is a new patient answers: “Who is this time, Jesus (sic!) Or Joan of Arc?”. The story ends when the formerly bored, divorced from the life and family of a person “returns to the ground” and meets with his son. Exactly at the same moment, the alleged Prot, allegedly flies off the ground. Since the story ends, it is not so important whether Prot has flown away or not, as they say, is another story.
This is usually called the open ending, although the ending is not at all open. It is not so important whether the top will drop at the end of the film “The Beginning” or not, no matter what happens to the heroes of “Fight Club” after the explosion of buildings. It doesn't matter what the mysterious smile meant in the finale of the Night of Kobiria. It may seem that this is not the case, but the authors, most often, finish their stories quite unequivocally, and the rest is already lace on the tablecloth, your territory.
-
, , , . , . , . . , , . , . , , , . , , , . . , , , , . - , . , , , , .
-…
That's what they are, about those same lace on the tablecloth. It may be interesting to someone, not to someone, but all these theories, like the ones I described in the previous article, are in no way in contact with the story itself. It (the story) is still the same, it begins there, it ends there. Fan theories, exactly like the search for interesting references or parallels, are just entertainment, a work of fantasy where the author himself may not have looked.
I really like the term Paratext . Although this is a completely different thing, the word itself could ideally explain what I am talking about. Paraistory, unfortunately, does not sound so cool, and the expanded universe is a little different. But, whatever you call it, such an approach to works of art, and to cinema, in the first place, seems to me very useful, and most importantly interesting.
On this, perhaps all. In this article, the problem was not to write, but to cut everything superfluous, although something must have remained.
In the future, I’m unlikely to write general articles like this. I think it will be more interesting for you to read / comment on the analysis of individual films, as was the case with Star Wars. A big request to participate in the survey. Add in the comments your suggestions and suggestions about the following articles. The most popular offers will definitely be included in the next survey. Do not hesitate in the criticism, in the comments, I will try to take into account the comments, so that in the future the articles were as interesting as possible.
Thank you for reading to the end!
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/390043/
All Articles