The Auteurs filmmaker community—The Garage
The Garage: Laboratory
The Garage: Screening Room
“If you want to tell stories, be a writer, not a filmmaker.” – Peter Greenaway
Yes I think like you, I have just written something similar in my theories about Ozu cinema in the Yasujiro Ozu forum, cinema is not just story, it is also spaces and objects. I hate storytelling, I love L’Avventura because It is one of the most dangerous films in a cinematographic and philosophical level . When you watch L’Avventura you are always “feeling” that there is something more abstract in the deeper levels of the universe, that there is something more than just people, people are not the center of the universe, and L’Avventura is a proof of that, the character that just disappear in the indifferent universe, and not just the character, all the story that was developed is lost in that island, I love that film.
@Surrealist Gesture: An odd statement considering Greenaway made one of the most narratively dense films in history.
I’m a bit confused Follow My Film. You complain about story-telling yet a lot of your highly rated films are very plot oriented. What exactly is your particular gripe with story-telling?
Dude, you’re not alone at all on this. Plenty of filmmakers are understanding that cinema is bigger than the conventional idea of storytelling,
“I despise stories, as they mislead people into believing that something has happened. In fact, nothing really happens as we flee from one condition to another. Because today there are only states of being – all stories have become obsolete and cliched, and have resolved themselves. All that remains is time. This is probably the only thing that’s still genuine – time itself: the years, days, hours, minutes and seconds. And film time has also ceased to exist, since the film itself has ceased to exist. Luckily there is no authentic form or current fashion. Some kind of massive introversion, a searching of our own souls can help ease the situation.”
-Béla Tarr
“Cinema is not a painting, a novel, a play, or a still photograph. The rules and methods used to create cinema should not be tied to these other creative endeavors. Cinema should NOT be thought of as being “all about telling a story”. Story is a convention of writing, and should not necessarily be considered a convention of filmmaking”.
-Remodernist Film Manifesto
(sorry, had to!)
For further thought on this check out Tarkovsky’s book if you haven’t, also Jean Epstein’s ideas on cinema, check out silent films by Epstein, Kirsanoff and others- the people who get described as "French Impressionist Cinema- that’s a good place to look.
Does A Zed and Two Naughts not have a story? Is there no story in Stalker? Days of Heaven? Damnation? Those narratives are full of incident. It seems to me what you should be examining is the process of narration. Very different.
“If you want to tell stories, be a writer, not a filmmaker.” – Peter Greenaway
Despite my great love for Greenaway’s work, he’s simply wrong. EVERY film tells a story (including his), it’s just not always told “conventionally.” Even a film that gives literally no exposition or presents no pattern of narrative such as Menkes’ Queen of Diamonds is telling a story. The OP mentions Antonioni, who is often regarded as a “plotless” filmmaker, but I disagree with that as well. It’s just a matter of becoming accustomed to (and finding, of course) these kinds of films. Once you’ve gotten used to that type of style, you begin to realize that these films are stories as well.
So, if one’s sick of storytelling then I suppose one should stay away from all narrative-driven mediums such as books and film …
Every film is a story. Perhaps you misunderstand how broad the definition of “story” is. All of human history is a story. Storytelling is a basic human tradition and need, it helps make sense of the world.
story is relative, especially if put in terms of it’s actual meaning with relates to structure. not all stories have the same structure, and not all films or novels have the same structure. The idea can, and should be played with. It’s frustrating though, on a not so affluent attempt at filmmaking perspective to look at these assholes talk about the art as though they’ve figured it out, when writing and any other kind of expression constantly grows. It’s because money’s involved more inherently in the process than any other art-form which is why story is such a deep thought. It’s the shallowest thing to consider, and also the most sellable.
Yes, yes… that quote of Greenaway’s has always stuck in my head precisely because I do not understand it in the least bit. I’ve always found his films to have a VERY dense narrative to them. I just thought it was ambiguously apropos for the thread.
isn’t it ALL about stories, anyhow? If not, if we are trying for abstract expressionism, then isn’t then end result, gained by the viewer…a story.
You hate “storytelling” in films? That’s kind of weird but, to each their own. I think I kind of understand what you’re getting at but it seems like you might be overreacting a bit. When you watch a movie and you start noticing cause/effect happening or a story slowly unfolding, do you start screaming “no, no, NOOO, I CAN’T TAKE THIS!”?
To me, telling a story is just one of the instruments a filmmaker can use. That would be like hating all songs that have a guitar in it, regardless of how good the melody is. Which is fine if you feel that way too, I’m just saying.
Film has not be fundamentally based on storylines or narratives, cause and effect cannot be always true in this world, even when you put the human in the equation, things get more complicated. Understanding film as a poetic language rather than a narrative languaje is important to expand the universe of film, your vision is not that narrow. I have always found somewhat egocentric or anthropocentric to put the story as the center of how a movie should be made, discriminating other aspects of this universe that we dont fully understand. Like science that explores things that are not always related to practical reasons or have an apparent relation to human acts.
How do you feel about Todd Solondz’s STORYTELLING?
In reference to L’AVVENTURA, it may be a prime example for you, but that doesn’t mean Antonioni’s opposed to storytelling or doesn’t have think it merits extensive examination: BLOW UP is certainly an example of fairly straightforward storytelling that at the same time investigates our very necessary cognitive function of narratizing via visual experience.
I think we’re really talking about relative emphasis on traditional narrative. Even just showing a series of arranged images, it could be argued, is a form of narrative, a giving of an account of what is.
If the old saying is true, that “every picture tells a story”, then it’s only natural that every film tells a story as well. Certainly, the films you list as examples have stories to tell, and tell them in a way that isn’t too far removed from the conventions of traditional cinema.
“If you want to tell stories, be a writer, not a filmmaker.” – Peter Greenaway
Idiot. I suppose he’s never written a technical manual before. Of course you can tell stories with movies. Of course writing could have developed without being narratively driven.
“I think we’re really talking about relative emphasis on traditional narrative.” Of course, which leads me to respond to the OP, just track down and watch more interesting movies! And, indeed, discuss those more interesting movies with more interesting people.
“Even just showing a series of arranged images, it could be argued, is a form of narrative, a giving of an account of what is.” Exactly. BLOW UP. Which is a good example of cinematic storytelling done interestingly…the more work the viewer has to do to put the story together through the components the director has provided, the more in sync with the creative process of the artwork the audience will be.
To be fair to Greenaway, I believe that quote was an intentional hyperbole to express a specific point unrelated to “storytelling” per se, and not meant to be analyzed by a handful of “20 somethings”. Of course taken out of context, it’s a ludicrous statement.
I think calling Greenaway an “idiot” is very amusing to say the least, considering his filmography.
Well, I think what Greenaway is saying is something close to what Brakhage was after when he talked about “a pursuit of knowledge foreign to language and founded upon visual communication, demanding a development of the optical mind, and dependent upon perception in the original and deepest sense of the word.” It’s more of a manifesto about trying to get beyond the limits of language-dependent perception than an actual expectation to.
Wow. That Brakhage quote is the best thing ever. However, to bring it back to the Greenaway (and my own reaction of intentional hyperbole to him…though I certainly see more sense in the Brakhage here), I feel like narratizing will be an impulse we retain no matter how far we “get beyond the limits of language-dependent perception”. Which certainly is happening.
It’s from his essay “Metaphors on Vision,” which is anthologized in Essential Brakhage: Selected Writings on Filmmaking. The other famous bit I like:
“Imagine an eye unruled by man-made laws of perspective, an eye unprejudiced by compositional logic, an eye which does not respond to the name of everything but which must know each object encountered in life through an adventure of perception”
I relate the OP’s question less to the established theory of “what cinema is,” and more to the specific question of how cinema is created. As someone who’s interested in trying my hand at film-making, I often feel paralyzed by the need to create a story. The art of the moving image has become so reliant on the groundwork of script-writing… it’s hard to imagine having any kind of legitimacy if you don’t start with a wild, cleverly-scripted narrative.
I realize there are counter-examples… Fata Morgana, F for Fake_, and surely some of the films cited above (many of which I haven’t seen). Still, as the OP says, there’s a strong inclination toward traditional story in the world of filmmaking, and even the films considered “innovative” (_The Hurt Locker, Memento in its time, Antonioni) are all variations at the level of story structure. I want to create excellent films, and I don’t want to be chained to a script that I’m not even sure is that good, but to make a film without having a script seems almost half-assed, doesn’t it?
I think I understand where the OP is coming from, but storytelling is the essence of cinema. I should note that a story is not the same thing as a plot. The notion that films don’t have a plot (such as the films of Antonioni or Tarr) is typically false. They have plots, it’s just that the plot is not the driving force of the film. There are very few films that truly don’t have a plot, but there are none (that I can think of) that don’t have a story. It’s simply a matter of deciphering what the story is. For me, the way the story is told is usually more important that the story itself.
There definitely is confusion about story and plot. They’re related but not exactly the same thing. Story has more to do with causation and chronology of events while plot has more to do with how events are positioned in a work. For example, you can plot backwards and still tell a comprehensible story.
Like movie legend Samuel Goldwyn once said, “If you want to send a message, call Western Union.”
Wow, I’m thrilled with the response to my rant! Thank you everyone for the great thoughts and insight. I feel like I’m in an MFA film class….
First and foremost, I never said I “hate” storytelling in films – that’s a gross exaggeration. There are many story-centric films I absolutely love, BLOW-UP being one of them, as many suspected. In fact, I love LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and VERTIGO, both of which I’ve seen multiple times in 70MM!
My gripe is simply the hegemonic grip Hollywood “storytellers” have in cinema. I agree, virtually any narrative film is going to have some kind of story and plot – yes. Simply put, a story is a sequence of events/actions with a beginning, middle and end. The plot, as Matt stated, is the order in which the events/actions unfold. Therefore, any film with characters living in time tells a story. Yes, L’Avventura tells a story about two people in search of their missing friend.
My problem is the totally narrow-minded and sometimes fearful resistance to anything other than story-centric filmmaking. As Matt suggested, it’s the emphasis on story in American cinema I have a problem with and that’s what I’m sick of.
Why is this so personal to me? Because as a filmmaker in LA, I’m surrounded by storytellers and I feel alone, uninspired and even belittled at times. I’ve had industry folks jump down my throat when I suggest that a film doesn’t have to primarily tell a story. And did you hear the Pixar CARS guy during the Oscars short films segment? (paraphrasing): “Tell great stories and entertain people and you will win an Oscar.”
I love what Jesse shared: “I often feel paralyzed by the need to create a story. The art of the moving image has become so reliant on the groundwork of script-writing… it’s hard to imagine having any kind of legitimacy if you don’t start with a wild, cleverly-scripted narrative.”
That’s what I’m talking about. I want to explore living, breathing characters in time, in locations, going here and there, doing this and that, but I really don’t care about “crafting a story,” sitting down and wittily concocting scenarios, dialogue and twists and turns.
Thanks for all the insights and suggestions. I’m going to look into the GARAGE and into the books some folks mentioned. I loved many of the quotes – amazing, simply amazing!
it sounds to me like your gripe is more with “conventional” storytelling. and i think that just about anyone on this site would agree with you that there is far too much standard construction, forward moving plots (the important distinction from story mentioned earlier). many literary scholars, among which i count myself, have had the same gripe concerning literature for more than hundred years, perhaps longer. and with the advent of writers such as james joyce, thomas pynchon, henry james and a host of others literary art broke some of the chains that bound it. much the same happened with cinema but much earlier with the avant garde work of the twenties on up to peter greenaway and stan brakage.
not to downplay the op’s argument bc its certainly one that i agree with. its simply the means of discussing it that i take issue with. narrative is present in whatever we do because without it no ideas can adhere to one another. it makes connections between concepts, people, emotions, etc. no matter how big or small. if you arent positing any of those kinds of connections then i, for one, dont have any interest in what you are saying.
in the end, i think it goes back to a chapter from tim obriens book, the things they carried called “how to tell a true war story.” it talks about the essential nature of storytelling to human existence, and that if you arent telling a story you are essentially not making art.
but hey, thats just the opinion of a literature guy who also happens to love the storytelling capacity of the medium of film. all stories are important and worth telling as far as im concerned, no matter how tenuously connected the elements are.
L’Avventura is more than a search of a missing girl, many visual strategies are beyond a simple story like that, Many shots of the movie dont contribute to the flowing of that supposed narrative. An thats why is NOT a narrative film, because the images doesnt follow the logics of the story-line. Maybe the story is there but the cinematographic language explores more things than just showing that.
Follow My Film
In a desperate attempt to connect with some like-minded filmmakers and cinema aficionados, I signed-up on this site tonight.
So what’s the reason? I’m sick and tired of hearing filmmakers talk about storytelling and referring to themselves as storytellers. I live in LA and often attend conferences, seminars, Q&As, etc. Not to mention DVD commentaries, blogs, forums, yada, yada, yada… It seems everyone and their mother in filmmaking is a storyteller. The security guard at the Paramount gate probably considers him/herself a storyteller. I’m freaking bored of this already!
Okay, so, I’m desperately (pathetically? LOL) crying out to folks who also find all this storytelling hullabaloo uninspiring and downright alienating.
Last paragraph, I promise. Tonight, on my way back home from a film seminar where people babbled on about storytelling, I asked myself why I was so bothered and frustrated. I realized I’m just so uninspired. At best, Hollywood and, yes, most indie filmmakers are churning out evocative films with a message, e.g., SHAWSHANK, PRECIOUS. But there has to be something else! Something present in the films many of us love: L’AVVENTURA, CRIES AND WHISPERS, LATE SPRING. There is something else going on in these films, much more than feelings and themes. I want to connect with folks who want to make and/or support such filmmaking.
Let’s connect!!!
Christopher J. Boghosian