How to relate to fan theories or tablecloth lace
Hello!
I'll start again with Q&A
A little discussion on the topic of fan theories, stories, sequels and symbolism in films. What is the contribution of the authors, and what kind of viewers. Why fan theories are fun and a bit about future articles. I will also flavor the text with various movie bikes that I was lucky to hear at one 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 go over the headlines of spoilers, I hid some interesting stories there. Also, help a lot if you express your position in the comments and take part in the survey.
In a previous 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 thing with us. This is certainly not a fact, but it is believed that beyond the hill people have developed an amazing ability to live in two mutually exclusive realities. A kind of liberal doublethink . I read the best description of this phenomenon in the article by Sergey Golubitsky “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 built are not the thoughtful ideas of the authors - these are mistakes, annoying mistakes, technological imperfection of film production, etc. There is nothing to be done about it, filmmaking is quite a difficult thing, it is not always possible to take everything into account. You can come to terms with this, but, also, we can find ourselves in a parallel world, in where the action takes place. This is where the place for speculation appears.
Here you need to take a step back. Or even a few. Suppose we watch a movie or read a book. At what point does what the author wanted to say end and what we all understand begins. Speaking of 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 rather concrete images, exact sounds, there is less room for imagination. The difference appears at the script stage.
Literature is written for a wide range of readers. The reader himself interprets everything written and adds the details. The script is a semi-finished product, it is written for a very small circle of readers, director, cameraman, etc. To understand how important this is, you can read the script for the cableman . It is immediately evident that the film by Ben Steeler 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, of course, Jim Carrey's manner of behavior could not be written there.
There are many such examples, but there are also reverse ones. Say, the film, redistributed in due time, is a red line.
The film is based on the story of Alexei Berezin, from the point of view of directing made disgusting. And these camera arrivals are not for you, and mess with the sound, a huge gap between good actors and bad ones, but initially the story was made so well that a poor implementation did not ruin the film itself.
Some directors believe that we can act in a film with a hypothetical tablecloth just like King did. They leave a huge amount of understatement and hints in places directly related to the plot. Later, when someone points out that the film is completely incomprehensible, they are told that this is the problem of the viewer himself. But a hint of meaning does not mean that this meaning exists. Let's imagine:
Here is a girl sitting by the window. She is very sad, her eyes are down, slightly swollen from tears. Outside the window - a stunning view, the endless sea and the sun at sunset. A yacht appears over the horizon, white and white sails. The girl raises her eyes and peers into the distance. She notices a yacht, something is changing in her eyes, she wants to live again ... And so on and so on.
Now let's figure out why this girl wanted to live? Yes, because, the sophisticated reader will tell me, that a yacht with white sails symbolizes hope ...
The problem is that it can also symbolize death, surrender, travel, etc. But by and large, it does not symbolize a damn thing: Quare non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit pop intelligere, curandum
There is no point in making a script from a story, a movie from a script, involving artists, cameramen, montage directors, piling up special effects and all just to leave the character’s thoughts and feelings to the viewer’s discretion (especially if it’s important for the plot). Cinema should show. If we see a yacht, then this is a yacht, we see sails - that means sails. And it remains to be seen what this yacht is doing here, why it has white sails and why this girl decided to look up. If the scene is not justified by the plot - it should not be, if it is justified - it should be understood.
Francois Truffaut and Alfred Hitchcock Hitchcock
very accurately said this in an interview with Francois Truffaut, which was later framed in a book . Highly recommend.
There is no room for artistic tricks in the script. Only what can be shown on the screen should go into it. Unfortunately, this rule is often neglected. As a result, the director has to go to 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. I must say that these methods, like any other, are not bad in themselves, but the application should be justified by the plot, and not the desire of the scriptwriter, to explain the slurred 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 themselves in the shoes of the author, to understand what it is. To do this, he interspersed reality with memories and thoughts. Viewers say that at that time, who had not yet been spoiled by such a manner of narration, they did not understand what was happening on the screen.
As with many other pioneer tricks, a sad story happened with flashbacks. Copying the trick from film to film, and from author to author, soon, everyone forgot what its essence is. Flashbacks today 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 make excuses.
Andrei Tarkovsky
Once, I had a chance to hear such a conversation between a famous director and his student:
R: long plans make you sad
S: but what about Tarkovsky?
R: young man, let's be honest, you are not Tarkovsky
This is a frequent argument in a dispute. At what it is optional in the cinema. Swindlers are hiding behind Pushkin, losers - Einstein (although, of course, Einstein was not at all a loser, except, perhaps, in French). Writers, if you're curious, are hiding behind Mario Puzo, who wrote his first successful book, The Godfather, at 40 years old. (By the way, few people know that Puzo was also a screenwriter, in particular, he wrote the script for the very same superman with Christopher Reeve). The problem is that no matter how skillfully a person swears, he will not become Pushkin.
American filmmakers are especially fond of various references to mythology. As a result, the same stories pass from film to film. Borges believed that there are only four plots . French researcher Georges Polti, believed that their (stories) 36
Take a concrete example. The Lion King, for the most part, is based on Hamlet. There is a king, there is his brother who decided to kill him and appropriate the kingdom with the queen. There is a ghost of a father. Who knows, maybe Timon and Pumbaa is such a Nord-Nord-West, in which the prince goes crazy.
Shot from the cartoon The Lion King
But this is important, The Lion King! = Hamlet, this is not plagiarism and not a remake. This is such an elegant reference, resting on the shoulders of giants. There is nothing wrong with that; moreover, this is a completely different story. Those of you who have children can ask them what the difference between the Lion King and Hamlet is, they will most likely answer you: The Lion King is about animals and the Jungle, and Hamlet is about some unbalanced Danes. And that is the correct answer. But imagine if the “Lion King” would not have been a magnificent work, if most of the audience turned their nose. What would the critics' admiring cries be worth: “Oh, how gracefully they rethought Hamlet, how subtle, brave”?
Do not get me wrong, the authors are free to follow their ideas about the necessary measures. They say that for grinding DavidMichelangelo ordered special leather gloves for unborn puppies. Crazy barbarism! Personally, I don’t have the guts to raise the question, but was it worth it. But I can ask two others:
1) Would the statue become worse if he used other gloves?
2) Can these gloves be made from a sculptor of the middle arm of Michelangelo?
Masters, they are masters. They do not need to prove anything to anyone in words, they do everything in their own way and they themselves are responsible for the consequences. You can argue about this for a long time, but the article is not about that, so we are moving on.
The White Rabbit put on his glasses.
“Where do you order your Majesty to begin?” He asked.
“Start from the beginning,” the King answered thoughtfully, “and continue until you reach the end.” Then stop.
Lewis Carroll “Alice in Wonderland ” At the time of my youth, I was naive, but since I did not ask to be born, I asked my literary agent for advice on how to finish the story without interrupting all the characters. My agent worked as a literary editor in a thick magazine and, in addition, was a scripting consultant in Hollywood. He said: "There is nothing easier, my boy, - the hero mounts his horse and leaves for the horizon illuminated by the setting sun." Many years later, in his right mind and solid memory, he will commit suicide, shoot himself from a twelfth-caliber shotgun.
Kurt Vonnegut "Quake"
In a good way, from the point of view of the viewer, the story should be atomic. Authors can be tormented with their twists and turns, story arches, acts, climaxes and other paraphernalia, as much as you like. The viewer should sit down, listen to the story and move on. This is where the root of all evil lies, IMHO. If the story is really good, one cannot help but regret that it is over. Fear, how you want to know what happened next, or earlier, or in parallel reality, but with the same heroes, well, or, to the extreme, in the same reality, albeit without these heroes.
frame from the movie "Back to the Future 2"
The sequels / prequels and stuff, of course, did not come from the movies. In the literature, this is a pretty well-known thing (cap here!). History knows both successful and failed attempts to “tell” the story (for the most part, failed, of course), but, regardless of success, there is a very important criterion that cannot be overlooked: what are we watching, 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 didn’t receive recognition for two reasons:
1) Critics' general contempt for action and science fiction (with the exception of a few classic examples)
2) Sequels
The first film told an exciting story. And, although the idea of the illusory nature of reality, to put it mildly, is not new, for many people unfamiliar with the works of Kant, the world turned upside down after watching the film.
When the sequels came out, I, like many, watched them with pleasure, and later revised more than once. But, over time, delight gave way to disappointment. The second film had no beginning or end. There was no history at all. There were many cool scenes and characters, there was Monica Bellucci and other charms, but there was no story.
The third film was better. Although there was no beginning, there was a clearly marked end. The problem is that the end. This, like everything that happened before, just duplicated the original. It was the same story. The same savior, who went a long way, refused to put up with fate and sacrificed himself, and later was reborn. And, although it was done well, the first film, having become a part of the triptych, lost much in quality.
Here all the spears break. Definitions of history vary among many authors. Most often refer to the "Poetics" of Aristotle. But for us, the audience, why? I come to this easier. Most often, it’s 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 there - where the problem is finally resolved. It does not always work, sometimes you have to make a lot of assumptions, but in general the system is quite working.
Let's take an example. Very nice illustration - Planet Ka-Pak. There was a lot of controversy about the origin of Proth (by the way, also a reference to Christ ...), but, as for me, this is not important. The protagonist of the film is not Prot, but Mark Powell, a psychiatrist. When we see him for the first time, he listens to the story of one of the patients and is obviously bored (looks at his watch, listens inattentively). He leaves the office and says to his assistant that there is a new patient, “Who is this time, Jesus (sic!) Or Joan of Arc?” The story ends when a previously bored, divorced from life and family man "returns to the earth" and meets his son. Exactly at the same moment, the alleged Prot, supposedly flies from the ground. Since the story ends, it is not so important whether Prot or not flew away, as they say, this is a completely different story.
This is usually called an open ending, although the ending is not open at all. It doesn’t matter whether the spinning top falls at the end of the movie “Beginning” or not, no matter what happens to the heroes of the Fight Club after the explosion of buildings. No matter what the mysterious smile meant in the finale of “The Night of Kobiria”. It may seem that this is not so, but the authors most often finish their stories very clearly, and everything else is already lace on the tablecloth, your territory.
That's what they are about, those same lace on the tablecloth. This may be interesting to some, but not to all, but all these theories, like the ones that I described in a previous article, have nothing to do with history itself. It (the story) is still the same, it begins there, it ends there. Fan theories, just like the search for interesting references or parallels, are just entertainment, work of fantasy where the author himself might not have looked.
I really like the term Paratext . Although this is completely different, the word itself could ideally explain what I am talking about. The parahistory, unfortunately, does not sound so cool, and the expanded universe is a bit 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.
That’s probably all. In this article, the problem was not to write, but to reduce all unnecessary, 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 wishes regarding the following articles. I will definitely include the most popular offers in the next survey. Feel free to criticize, in the comments, I will try to take into account the comments, so that in the future the articles are as interesting as possible.
Thank you for reading to the end!
I'll start again with Q&A
What is it?
A little discussion on the topic of fan theories, stories, sequels and symbolism in films. What is the contribution of the authors, and what kind of viewers. Why fan theories are fun and a bit about future articles. I will also flavor the text with various movie bikes that I was lucky to hear at one time.
Why should I 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 go over the headlines of spoilers, I hid some interesting stories there. Also, help a lot if you express your position in the comments and take part in the survey.
In a previous 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 thing with us. This is certainly not a fact, but it is believed that beyond the hill people have developed an amazing ability to live in two mutually exclusive realities. A kind of liberal doublethink . I read the best description of this phenomenon in the article by Sergey Golubitsky “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 planes: a real plan and a mythological plan. Maybe this perception was influenced by philological education, maybe I took “Travel to Hyperreality” by Umberto Eco too close to my heart, or maybe there really is not one America, but two ...
... The fact that Americans, unlike Russians, have a seventh sense, which allows them to live simultaneously in “America” and “America”, is best seen on the example of such entertainment as wrestling. Our man cannot calmly watch a sadist climb onto the ropes and then jump on his opponent’s head. Our person either takes everything seriously, as it was in the era of the film “Sport, Sport, Sport,” or thinks that wrestling is a clowning, circus. In fact, wrestling, just like any other horror movie, is just another reality, it is America. Just look at how fully the American audience is experiencing wrestling, how sincerely and violently it reacts to every successful blow under the breath and scrapping of the hip joint! And everything - from small to large. It's not that American people are insensitive nerds, unable to distinguish a real fight from imitation. They are all distinguished. They are simply given the ability to live and experience in a world that from the outside seems fake.
At 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 kill the villain. Going out into the street after the session, the same American is fully aware that if he is hit by a street bully and breaks his jaw just once, then there will be no chance to come to his senses. One does not contradict the other. Because the American knows that in "America" they beat for a long time and to no avail, and in "America" - only once and completely.
... The fact that Americans, unlike Russians, have a seventh sense, which allows them to live simultaneously in “America” and “America”, is best seen on the example of such entertainment as wrestling. Our man cannot calmly watch a sadist climb onto the ropes and then jump on his opponent’s head. Our person either takes everything seriously, as it was in the era of the film “Sport, Sport, Sport,” or thinks that wrestling is a clowning, circus. In fact, wrestling, just like any other horror movie, is just another reality, it is America. Just look at how fully the American audience is experiencing wrestling, how sincerely and violently it reacts to every successful blow under the breath and scrapping of the hip joint! And everything - from small to large. It's not that American people are insensitive nerds, unable to distinguish a real fight from imitation. They are all distinguished. They are simply given the ability to live and experience in a world that from the outside seems fake.
At 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 kill the villain. Going out into the street after the session, the same American is fully aware that if he is hit by a street bully and breaks his jaw just once, then there will be no chance to come to his senses. One does not contradict the other. Because the American knows that in "America" they beat for a long time and to no avail, and in "America" - only once and completely.
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 built are not the thoughtful ideas of the authors - these are mistakes, annoying mistakes, technological imperfection of film production, etc. There is nothing to be done about it, filmmaking is quite a difficult thing, it is not always possible to take everything into account. You can come to terms with this, but, also, we can find ourselves in a parallel world, in where the action takes place. This is where the place for speculation appears.
But this is not true!
Here you need to take a step back. Or even a few. Suppose we watch a movie or read a book. At what point does what the author wanted to say end and what we all understand begins. Speaking of 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 slope) on a snowy morning of December 1997 ...
... This book is intended for printing in late summer or early fall of the two thousandth year. If so, then now you have come down to me along the river of time ...
... Look - this is a table covered with red cloth. It has a cage the size of an aquarium. In a cage a rabbit with a pink nose and pink eyelids. In his front legs he has a piece of carrot, which he chews with a pleased look. The number 8 is clearly written on his back in blue ink. How do we see the same thing? For fidelity it would be necessary to compare our records, but I think so. Of course, there are inevitable variations: someone will see a crimson tablecloth, someone red, there will be other shades. (For acceptors with color blindness, the tablecloth will be gray or dark gray.) Someone will see the fringe, others will have even edges. Beauty lovers will add lace - and for God's sake: my tablecloth is your tablecloth, be at home.
... This book is intended for printing in late summer or early fall of the two thousandth year. If so, then now you have come down to me along the river of time ...
... Look - this is a table covered with red cloth. It has a cage the size of an aquarium. In a cage a rabbit with a pink nose and pink eyelids. In his front legs he has a piece of carrot, which he chews with a pleased look. The number 8 is clearly written on his back in blue ink. How do we see the same thing? For fidelity it would be necessary to compare our records, but I think so. Of course, there are inevitable variations: someone will see a crimson tablecloth, someone red, there will be other shades. (For acceptors with color blindness, the tablecloth will be gray or dark gray.) Someone will see the fringe, others will have even edges. Beauty lovers will add lace - and for God's sake: my tablecloth is your tablecloth, be at home.
Literature is one thing, cinema is quite another, we see not abstract words, but rather concrete images, exact sounds, there is less room for imagination. The difference appears at the script stage.
Literature is written for a wide range of readers. The reader himself interprets everything written and adds the details. The script is a semi-finished product, it is written for a very small circle of readers, director, cameraman, etc. To understand how important this is, you can read the script for the cableman . It is immediately evident that the film by Ben Steeler 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, of course, Jim Carrey's manner of behavior could not be written there.
There are many such examples, but there are also reverse ones. Say, the film, redistributed in due time, is a red line.
The film is based on the story of Alexei Berezin, from the point of view of directing made disgusting. And these camera arrivals are not for you, and mess with the sound, a huge gap between good actors and bad ones, but initially the story was made so well that a poor implementation did not ruin the film itself.
Black cat in a black room
Some directors believe that we can act in a film with a hypothetical tablecloth just like King did. They leave a huge amount of understatement and hints in places directly related to the plot. Later, when someone points out that the film is completely incomprehensible, they are told that this is the problem of the viewer himself. But a hint of meaning does not mean that this meaning exists. Let's imagine:
Here is a girl sitting by the window. She is very sad, her eyes are down, slightly swollen from tears. Outside the window - a stunning view, the endless sea and the sun at sunset. A yacht appears over the horizon, white and white sails. The girl raises her eyes and peers into the distance. She notices a yacht, something is changing in her eyes, she wants to live again ... And so on and so on.
Now let's figure out why this girl wanted to live? Yes, because, the sophisticated reader will tell me, that a yacht with white sails symbolizes hope ...
The problem is that it can also symbolize death, surrender, travel, etc. But by and large, it does not symbolize a damn thing: Quare non ut intelligere possit, sed ne omnino possit pop intelligere, curandum
There is no point in making a script from a story, a movie from a script, involving artists, cameramen, montage directors, piling up special effects and all just to leave the character’s thoughts and feelings to the viewer’s discretion (especially if it’s important for the plot). Cinema should show. If we see a yacht, then this is a yacht, we see sails - that means sails. And it remains to be seen what this yacht is doing here, why it has white sails and why this girl decided to look up. If the scene is not justified by the plot - it should not be, if it is justified - it should be understood.
Francois Truffaut and Alfred Hitchcock Hitchcock
very accurately said this in an interview with Francois Truffaut, which was later framed in a book . Highly recommend.
Absolute Nothing
A.Kh.… Guided by a sense of inherent unchained fantasy, I also came up with an episode for the film “To the North through the North-West,” which, unfortunately, we did not shoot. The movement with us, as you know, went from New York towards the northwest, and one of the stops on this route was Detroit, where Ford cars are made. Have you ever seen an assembly line?
F.T. No, I didn’t have to.
OH. This is just fantastic. I dreamed of shooting a long travel with a dialogue between Carey Grant and one of the factory workers as they walk along the conveyor belt. They can talk, say, about masters. Next to them is the assembly of cars, detail after detail. Finally, the Ford, born in the eyes of our heroes and our viewers, is ready to leave the line. They look at him and cannot help but delight in astonishment, open the door - and a 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 literally from the first bolt! The corpse falls out of nowhere, you see! And this may be the corpse of that same master, about whom they reasoned.
F.T. A wonderful example of absolute nothing! Why did you break up with this plan? Is it because this episode would lengthen the picture?
OH. It was not about the duration of the film. The trouble is that he did not fit into the plot. The scene can be arbitrarily improbable in itself, but it should fit into a context!
F.T. No, I didn’t have to.
OH. This is just fantastic. I dreamed of shooting a long travel with a dialogue between Carey Grant and one of the factory workers as they walk along the conveyor belt. They can talk, say, about masters. Next to them is the assembly of cars, detail after detail. Finally, the Ford, born in the eyes of our heroes and our viewers, is ready to leave the line. They look at him and cannot help but delight in astonishment, open the door - and a 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 literally from the first bolt! The corpse falls out of nowhere, you see! And this may be the corpse of that same master, about whom they reasoned.
F.T. A wonderful example of absolute nothing! Why did you break up with this plan? Is it because this episode would lengthen the picture?
OH. It was not about the duration of the film. The trouble is that he did not fit into the plot. The scene can be arbitrarily improbable in itself, but it should fit into a context!
There is no room for artistic tricks in the script. Only what can be shown on the screen should go into it. Unfortunately, this rule is often neglected. As a result, the director has to go to 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. I must say that these methods, like any other, are not bad in themselves, but the application should be justified by the plot, and not the desire of the scriptwriter, to explain the slurred 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 themselves in the shoes of the author, to understand what it is. To do this, he interspersed reality with memories and thoughts. Viewers say that at that time, who had not yet been spoiled by such a manner of narration, they did not understand what was happening on the screen.
By the way, about the difficulties of perception
There is a bike about David Griffith. They say that at one time, he had a conflict with the studio because of ... close-ups. Big cones of the studio believed that people pay to look at the whole actor, and not half of him.
As with many other pioneer tricks, a sad story happened with flashbacks. Copying the trick from film to film, and from author to author, soon, everyone forgot what its essence is. Flashbacks today 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 make excuses.
Andrei Tarkovsky
Once, I had a chance to hear such a conversation between a famous director and his student:
R: long plans make you sad
S: but what about Tarkovsky?
R: young man, let's be honest, you are not Tarkovsky
This is a frequent argument in a dispute. At what it is optional in the cinema. Swindlers are hiding behind Pushkin, losers - Einstein (although, of course, Einstein was not at all a loser, except, perhaps, in French). Writers, if you're curious, are hiding behind Mario Puzo, who wrote his first successful book, The Godfather, at 40 years old. (By the way, few people know that Puzo was also a screenwriter, in particular, he wrote the script for the very same superman with Christopher Reeve). The problem is that no matter how skillfully a person swears, he will not become Pushkin.
More about the fact that it is impossible to remove
They say that, having quarreled with the cameraman somehow, Sergey Parajanov left, telling the film crew to shoot the scene “112”. Gone, then, and comes back in an hour. The film crew is sitting and doing nothing.
Parajanov: Why are you sitting? Have you removed it?
Operator: Not removed.
Parajanov: Why? What is there to shoot? - takes the script and reads out loud, - "... The nuns themselves approached the stone and left their golden sorrow on it ..." What, don’t you know how to remove the “golden sorrow” ??
Operator: No, we know how to remove the "golden sorrow", we don’t know how to remove the "nuns themselves".
Parajanov: Why are you sitting? Have you removed it?
Operator: Not removed.
Parajanov: Why? What is there to shoot? - takes the script and reads out loud, - "... The nuns themselves approached the stone and left their golden sorrow on it ..." What, don’t you know how to remove the “golden sorrow” ??
Operator: No, we know how to remove the "golden sorrow", we don’t know how to remove the "nuns themselves".
Ok with flashbacks, but symbolism?
American filmmakers are especially fond of various references to mythology. As a result, the same stories pass from film to film. Borges believed that there are only four plots . French researcher Georges Polti, believed that their (stories) 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 the earth stopped”, Cricket 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 a shepherd, or shepherd. The good shepherd is a symbolic naming of Christ.
Of course, it’s high time for Hollywood and everyone else to stop making such references. JC today is more than a reference, it 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 the earth stopped”, Cricket 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 a shepherd, or shepherd. The good shepherd is a symbolic naming of Christ.
Of course, it’s high time for Hollywood and everyone else to stop making such references. JC today is more than a reference, it 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, is based on Hamlet. There is a king, there is his brother who decided to kill him and appropriate the kingdom with the queen. There is a ghost of a father. Who knows, maybe Timon and Pumbaa is such a Nord-Nord-West, in which the prince goes crazy.
Shot from the cartoon The Lion King
But this is important, The Lion King! = Hamlet, this is not plagiarism and not a remake. This is such an elegant reference, resting on the shoulders of giants. There is nothing wrong with that; moreover, this is a completely different story. Those of you who have children can ask them what the difference between the Lion King and Hamlet is, they will most likely answer you: The Lion King is about animals and the Jungle, and Hamlet is about some unbalanced Danes. And that is the correct answer. But imagine if the “Lion King” would not have been a magnificent work, if most of the audience turned their nose. What would the critics' admiring cries be worth: “Oh, how gracefully they rethought Hamlet, how subtle, brave”?
Do not get me wrong, the authors are free to follow their ideas about the necessary measures. They say that for grinding DavidMichelangelo ordered special leather gloves for unborn puppies. Crazy barbarism! Personally, I don’t have the guts to raise the question, but was it worth it. But I can ask two others:
1) Would the statue become worse if he used other gloves?
2) Can these gloves be made from a sculptor of the middle arm of Michelangelo?
Another story, without shocking details, honestly.
The story is given in Alexander Mitta ’s book “Between Hell and Paradise”
Kurosawa is known for his extraordinary integrity. Everything in his frame should breathe a genuine life. Therefore, the film, where the action takes place in the winter, went to shoot in the very north of Japan - on the island of Hokkaido, where the climate is almost the same as in Siberia.
According to the scenario, heavy snow was supposed to be in the frame, and the producer, knowing how to do it in the cinema, had an unprecedented amount of bags of artificial snow, understanding that for Kurosawa it was “thick” than for any other director.
We left on the first shooting day. Kurosawa is preparing a mise-en-scene. The producer ordered three winds to drive the wind. In the frame, only Santa Claus with deer is not enough. Winter, natural winter. But Kurosawa says:
- I can’t take off this snow.
- Why? It is always taken off. This is Japan's best artificial snow.
- He does not melt on his face. I need to. so that large snowflakes slowly fall and melt on the faces of the actors. This creates the necessary climate for the scene.
- What do we do?
- We will wait for the real 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, they again prepared the shooting. The next - again. And so three weeks passed. All contracts with group members have ended. Kurosawa was adamant. The producer demands, threatens the court. Kurosawa replies to this:
“You want to distort and destroy my creative personality.” In the interest of protecting my personality, I am forced to commit suicide.
Twice in his long life, Kurosawa cut his veins when the producers drove him into a corner 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 entered into new contracts with the whole group.
It took several weeks before finally managed to shoot the scene.
Kurosawa is known for his extraordinary integrity. Everything in his frame should breathe a genuine life. Therefore, the film, where the action takes place in the winter, went to shoot in the very north of Japan - on the island of Hokkaido, where the climate is almost the same as in Siberia.
According to the scenario, heavy snow was supposed to be in the frame, and the producer, knowing how to do it in the cinema, had an unprecedented amount of bags of artificial snow, understanding that for Kurosawa it was “thick” than for any other director.
We left on the first shooting day. Kurosawa is preparing a mise-en-scene. The producer ordered three winds to drive the wind. In the frame, only Santa Claus with deer is not enough. Winter, natural winter. But Kurosawa says:
- I can’t take off this snow.
- Why? It is always taken off. This is Japan's best artificial snow.
- He does not melt on his face. I need to. so that large snowflakes slowly fall and melt on the faces of the actors. This creates the necessary climate for the scene.
- What do we do?
- We will wait for the real 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, they again prepared the shooting. The next - again. And so three weeks passed. All contracts with group members have ended. Kurosawa was adamant. The producer demands, threatens the court. Kurosawa replies to this:
“You want to distort and destroy my creative personality.” In the interest of protecting my personality, I am forced to commit suicide.
Twice in his long life, Kurosawa cut his veins when the producers drove him into a corner 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 entered into new contracts with the whole group.
It took several weeks before finally managed to shoot the scene.
Masters, they are masters. They do not need to prove anything to anyone in words, they do everything in their own way and they themselves are responsible for the consequences. You can argue about this for a long time, but the article is not about that, so we are moving on.
History is a line between two points, not a straight line.
The White Rabbit put on his glasses.
“Where do you order your Majesty to begin?” He asked.
“Start from the beginning,” the King answered thoughtfully, “and continue until you reach the end.” Then stop.
Lewis Carroll “Alice in Wonderland ” At the time of my youth, I was naive, but since I did not ask to be born, I asked my literary agent for advice on how to finish the story without interrupting all the characters. My agent worked as a literary editor in a thick magazine and, in addition, was a scripting consultant in Hollywood. He said: "There is nothing easier, my boy, - the hero mounts his horse and leaves for the horizon illuminated by the setting sun." Many years later, in his right mind and solid memory, he will commit suicide, shoot himself from a twelfth-caliber shotgun.
Kurt Vonnegut "Quake"
In a good way, from the point of view of the viewer, the story should be atomic. Authors can be tormented with their twists and turns, story arches, acts, climaxes and other paraphernalia, as much as you like. The viewer should sit down, listen to the story and move on. This is where the root of all evil lies, IMHO. If the story is really good, one cannot help but regret that it is over. Fear, how you want to know what happened next, or earlier, or in parallel reality, but with the same heroes, well, or, to the extreme, in the same reality, albeit without these heroes.
frame from the movie "Back to the Future 2"
The sequels / prequels and stuff, of course, did not come from the movies. In the literature, this is a pretty well-known thing (cap here!). History knows both successful and failed attempts to “tell” the story (for the most part, failed, of course), but, regardless of success, there is a very important criterion that cannot be overlooked: what are we watching, 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 didn’t receive recognition for two reasons:
1) Critics' general contempt for action and science fiction (with the exception of a few classic examples)
2) Sequels
The first film told an exciting story. And, although the idea of the illusory nature of reality, to put it mildly, is not new, for many people unfamiliar with the works of Kant, the world turned upside down after watching the film.
When the sequels came out, I, like many, watched them with pleasure, and later revised more than once. But, over time, delight gave way to disappointment. The second film had no beginning or end. There was no history at all. There were many cool scenes and characters, there was Monica Bellucci and other charms, but there was no story.
The third film was better. Although there was no beginning, there was a clearly marked end. The problem is that the end. This, like everything that happened before, just duplicated the original. It was the same story. The same savior, who went a long way, refused to put up with fate and sacrificed himself, and later was reborn. And, although it was done well, the first film, having become a part of the triptych, lost much in quality.
What kind of beast is this story?
Here all the spears break. Definitions of history vary among many authors. Most often refer to the "Poetics" of Aristotle. But for us, the audience, why? I come to this easier. Most often, it’s 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 there - where the problem is finally resolved. It does not always work, sometimes you have to make a lot of assumptions, but in general the system is quite working.
Let's take an example. Very nice illustration - Planet Ka-Pak. There was a lot of controversy about the origin of Proth (by the way, also a reference to Christ ...), but, as for me, this is not important. The protagonist of the film is not Prot, but Mark Powell, a psychiatrist. When we see him for the first time, he listens to the story of one of the patients and is obviously bored (looks at his watch, listens inattentively). He leaves the office and says to his assistant that there is a new patient, “Who is this time, Jesus (sic!) Or Joan of Arc?” The story ends when a previously bored, divorced from life and family man "returns to the earth" and meets his son. Exactly at the same moment, the alleged Prot, supposedly flies from the ground. Since the story ends, it is not so important whether Prot or not flew away, as they say, this is a completely different story.
This is usually called an open ending, although the ending is not open at all. It doesn’t matter whether the spinning top falls at the end of the movie “Beginning” or not, no matter what happens to the heroes of the Fight Club after the explosion of buildings. No matter what the mysterious smile meant in the finale of “The Night of Kobiria”. It may seem that this is not so, but the authors most often finish their stories very clearly, and everything else is already lace on the tablecloth, your territory.
a little about myself
Having cited so many wonderful films as an example, I really do not want to end with this, but still, I would like to share my personal experience. At one time, I wrote a script in which a friend made a film. Student work, nothing special. We wrote the script for a couple of weeks. More precisely, I wrote, and then fought off a hail of questions from the director, after which I had to redo it. In the end, the script was ready. Our final scene turned out to be uncertain, but since the story ended earlier, we did not really argue about this. When we were first asked what was there after the final scene, it turned out that we had diametrically opposite views on this. We started to argue. It was pretty funny, because they quoted me from my own script to convince me that the ending is not what I think. Then I realized that the script was a success. We agreed on what to decide, in the end, to the viewer, and our opinion here is no longer important, since we ourselves did not say anything about this.
And finally about Fan Theories ... again
That's what they are about, those same lace on the tablecloth. This may be interesting to some, but not to all, but all these theories, like the ones that I described in a previous article, have nothing to do with history itself. It (the story) is still the same, it begins there, it ends there. Fan theories, just like the search for interesting references or parallels, are just entertainment, work of fantasy where the author himself might not have looked.
I really like the term Paratext . Although this is completely different, the word itself could ideally explain what I am talking about. The parahistory, unfortunately, does not sound so cool, and the expanded universe is a bit 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.
That’s probably all. In this article, the problem was not to write, but to reduce all unnecessary, 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 wishes regarding the following articles. I will definitely include the most popular offers in the next survey. Feel free to criticize, in the comments, I will try to take into account the comments, so that in the future the articles are as interesting as possible.
Thank you for reading to the end!
Only registered users can participate in the survey. Please come in.
Choosing a topic for the next article
- 43.1% Matrix 38
- 23.8% The X-Files 21
- 32.9% Lord of the Rings 29