Tell me a story... or don't

"You can provide your own examples."

Alright then :
From my favorite movie of all time, Barton Fink :
We're only interested in one thing: Can you tell a story, Bart? Can you make us laugh, can you make us cry, can you make us wanna break out in joyous song?
Yes but the Coen Bros. had a far better idea: tell a story that would be different every time you hear it. There is one story, and yet their execution manage to uncover several other stories (or maybe it's just the same story seen from another angle); it's a comedy, a satire, and a love story, and a noir, and I guess, a supernatural thriller. Or none of the above. The "story" doesn't matter, because I experience another one each time watch it.

Jim talks about films that are great because they provide an experience and films that are great because they have you react to what will happen next.For me,The best example of a film that is great of the experience is "The Searchers"(which I saw on Netflix last night online) because there is so much one can interpret from it because of its complexity and richness it put me in a sense of awe when I watched it.As for the best example of a great film where we respond to what happens next would be "Hoop Dreams" because the film gives us completely realistic twists and turns that no hollywood screenwriter could pull off in a fictional film and made want find out what will happen to William and Arthur even after the movie was over.

Personally I like films where I respond to with my mind more than with my gut.I think I'm the only person who actually prefers "Apocalypse Now" (which is another great movie experience)to "The Godfather" films(not saying that I don't love those films)because it seemed to me like it was more personal and can feel coppola's struggle making it being reflected.To me by comparison "The Godfather" pictures seem like action movies while "Apocalypse Now" comes across that is thoughtful and therefore to me it seems more profound.I think most of the critics and audiences back in 1979 were appalled by the fact that the film was trying to be meditation on the mind.

As for The Dark Knight, I'm going to see it with lowered expectations(which was the same way I saw Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull)because we are already getting a series of superhero films already this summer(not that there is anything wrong with this)that another superhero movie doesn't excite me that much.

Some movies have exoskeletons. (I don't know what I mean by that...

Movies, perhaps, that are essentially a series of set-pieces with a structure bolted on? I’m thinking of martial-arts movies (Ong Bak springs to mind) where it’s obvious that the fights were all choreographed before anybody bothered to, y’know, write a script – and the script, when it does come, is a purely functional object designed to move the characters from Point A to Point B. It pays lip service to narrative because the conventions of the genre demand a narrative, but the "story," rather than growing out of the characters and the setting, feels imposed from outside. Hence, an exoskeleton.

Great post, Jim. After the first paragraph I was thinking about how much I disagreed with you, until I started thinking about it and realized that you were just articulating how I've always felt. Then I thought about Ebert's quote (it's my favorite quote about movies, too) "A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it." Of course, I saw a few sentences later that you used that quote. It's an interesting subject to think about, how much movies are story driven, and yet how little the story can matter.

When I read this article, all I could think of was Bela Tarr and Werckmeister Harmonies.

I completely agree with you Jim...when I talk to people about what they liked or disliked about a film, I am often dismayed that many of them revert to praising (or more often, complaining about) the plot. I heard several people who disliked "No Country for Old Men" because they wanted a confrontation at the end, or "There Will Be Blood" because "nothing much happened".

To me, a film is about its feelings...the moods it conjures up, the sense of awe it creates in the viewer, the glee we get by watching a perfectly-crafted scene, sequence or film. Yes, sometimes those things can be done by a brilliantly-twisting story...but that is very often the last thing I react to when watching a film. The twist ending of "The Usual Suspects" left me very much impressed, primarily because I enjoyed the way Bryan Singer meshed various audio strands from the rest of the film into a mosaic of confusion. But the supposedly great twist in "The Sixth Sense" left me cold because I felt that Shyamalan rushed the reveal.

To me, one of the most underrated films of the past few years, because people are focusing on storytelling instead of moviemaking, is Spielberg's "War of the Worlds". While I was in awe of the way Spielberg crafted sequences of dread and palpable mass terror (thereby working through our reactions to 9/11), people were complaining about what they saw as an anticlimactic ending, or that a videocamera was working when the power was supposed to be out. It's like complaining that Da Vinci was no good because the Mona Lisa actually wore red most of the time.

I think "story" is a tad too specific of a word. It's like saying "deep focus" instead of cinematography: of course not all movies are about deep focus. Story is merely a branch of writing, and writing can encompass any number of things, such as dialogue, plot, character, theme, action, surreal scenes, etc...

"Story" is the most naive and obvious way to put it, I think, because it only describes one aspect of what one can consider to be the supreme starting point of any movie: the script. Yes, some people call the script "the story" but that's not always true, as your article makes so clear. Even films that do not rely so heavily on story rely heavily on the script. Lynch's 'Inland Empire' was reportedly written as it was shot. In this case the script was important in ways beyond the usual storymaking; it was used as a blueprint for Lynch's ideas.

Films, I think, are about ideas. Like books and documents, the script is the only (and only?) way to effectively communicate those ideas to any interested parties. To put it bluntly, the script is, in the words of Robert McKee, the only non-interpretive part of the moviemaking process. Everything else, from acting to cinematography, is interpreted from the script.

The *degree* of which depends upon the movie.

I think this commentary would be well-served by replacing the word "story" in almost every instance with the word "plot". A story is more than a plot, and being a "storyteller" is about more than just coming up with a sequence of events.

JE: Well put, Stephen. That's the distinction I was trying to make in employing the common usage of the term "story." You're right -- they're not necessarily the same thing. The "story" of "Kings of the Road" (a picaresque road movie), for example, has to do with the friendship that develops between the two characters, not so much with what they do. But if you ask most people to tell you the story (or to tell you what the movie is "about"), they will recount the events of the plot.

Interesting thoughts. I'm far from a screnwriting expert, but here's my 2 cents.

The "story guidelines" Bordwell quotes are from Campbell's "hero's journey". This is the template by which most Hollywood (ie commercial)movies are made. The lead character must "grow" in order to overcome his obstacles, usually successfully.

I find these types of stories to generally be trite, since they are so predictable. My favorite movies feature leads who can't or won't change (Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Citizen Kane, There Will Be Blood).

But the hero's journey is only one type of story. Polti theory says there are 36 dramatic situations, and everything we see or read falls into one of these catagories (I've attached links). Most of the best movies fall into one of these catagories, or some combination of them.

http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/wp12.Been.Done.html

http://www.wordplayer.com/archives/poltisitu.01-12.html

So we truly have seen it all before, and as Ebert says, it's "the way in which the story is told" that is important.

Yet, I think you underrate the value of story, or "plot" to be more accurate in this context. ALL the best movies " keep you involved by teasing your curiosities about what will happen next." Even Nashville (which I like but don't love) ultimately, by the end, involved me by making me CARE about the fate of the characters. But one hour in, I certainly didn't feel that way. The first hour is SO meandering that I almost turned it off.

On the other hand, to defend a movie you like far less than me, I think some of the editing choices in The Departed greatly enhance that movie.
The story is a straight chronology (unlike say Citizen Kane or Pulp Fiction). In other words, the plot movies from scene A to B to C in linear fashion, with no flashbacks or flash forwards.

Yet the scene construction is brilliant in how it cuts out of a scene, sometimes for quite a bit, and then cuts back in. Two examples: 1)When Leo is first interviewed by Sheen and Wahlberg (right after Damon "You rise fast" "Yeah like a 12 year olds dick), the actual scene of the interview is interrupted to show Damon in a meeting with A Baldwin and the rest of the task force, and then comes back to the interview. 2) When Leo is first in session with V. Farmagia (sp?), the scene is interrupted quite a bit, including a lengthy scene involving Sheen and Wahlberg confronting Jack by the river. So instead of Scene A,B,C, we get start of A, B, end of A, C, etc.

These editing choices don't logically or chronlogically make sense, but they greatly enhance the momentum of the movie. Again, it's the way the story is told that matters.

I'm probably someone who puts writing first when it comes to movies. I would definitely give up movies before books, if it came to that, and however much of a visual medium it may be, I'm just not that impressed by visual showmanship. I certainly appreciate the beauty of films by Ford or the Coens but if I don't feel a movie's well-written it probably won't grab me. All that said, I'm not that concerned about plot. Great dialogue and great characterization matter a lot more and if those things are present (and delivered by good actors) I'm not that concerned with where the plot (or story) will go. They can take me wherever they want to. I would say that the big climax often fizzles while the little moment often moves and that, as much as anything, is why I tend to value the low-budget, independent pictures more. They don't feel the pressure to "blow you away". Many's the time that that moment blew me right out of the movie--you know, the "Oh, come on!" moment.

Movies have historically been a narrative medium, but theoretically there's nothing forcing them to be that way. It just happened to be the most popular way of doing things and so we come to expect it. The "essence" of film is really just the moving image.

Personally I like storytelling, and seeing something with a really good plot or one that plays around with the elements of story. HOT FUZZ was one of the best movies of last year because, among all the other things it did right, its plot holds together well enough that it could almost be played straight. That said, a film can be strong enough in some other area that I'll overlook weaknesses in the story; there are parts of KING KONG that don't entirely make sense but who cares? (I can't think of a converse- i.e., some film that's really well plotted but so deficient on another level that it can't be saved- but if I'm not being gripped by a film it's easier to find fault with its story.)

I think this post is interesting because a "story", or lack thereof, is only as good as how it's told. Maybe it's true, and there are only eight stories in the whole world. It seems to me that there are about a million or so ways to tell each one of those stories.

When I think of great romantic comedies I think of films like "The Shop Around the Corner", "The Clock", "Only Angels Have Wings", and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". All of those stories seem fundamentally the same to me. Boy and girl meet, fall in love (or maybe their not sure if they're in love of if they should be in love), have some type of obstacle (real or imagined) to get through before their love can be complete. Then, in the end, the couple come to the realization that they should express their love, or that there is a way in which their feelings can work on a practical level. While "Eternal Sunshine" might be a bit darker than the others, that doesn't stop it from being (like the others) a straight up romantic film. All four films are unique and special to me, because they each express a slightly different aspect or idea of romantic relationships.

Believability might be one of the least interesting things in any given movie. As the Robert McKee character in "Adaptation" tells Charlie Kauffmann, there are stories, great dramas happening all over the world every day, every hour. people succeed, fail, people die, get born, fall in love, fall out of love, etc. etc. Often times the fiction stories we read in books or see in movies are less fantastic than their real world counterparts. The difference lies in how the story is told. And anyway, who could really believe "The Shop Around the Corner"? There are so many reasons why that story should never happen in the real world. But I'm glad it happened in Ernst Lubitsch's world.

JE: Yes! Yes! Beautifully said.

Al,

Thank you! My first thought was Werckmeister Harmonies too, probably because I saw it for the first time on Sunday. What an experience. There is a plot, but it is inconsequential compared with the experience Bela Tarr puts us through, forcing us to confront the issues of the film with his long shots that geometrically orbit or follow the characters.

Another example my mind went to is David Gordon Green's George Washington, which is so not about what its IMDb plot description would have you believe.

I've had this argument with my friends countless of times and I'm the only one of us who subscribes to the way of thinking you describe here.

To use music as an analogy, how many pop songs use the same three (or sometimes four) chord structure and yet how many of them sound completely different?

When I tell my friends movies are more than just "story," but also about editing, cinematography, sound design, etc., they scoff and say that stuff doesn't matter to them. My reply is that, "Yes, it does. You may not know it, but it completely affects the way you react to what's going on."

I will point them to your post in the futile attempts to convert them.

Beery wrestling picture? Could be a pip, could be a pip.

Story isn't synonymous with plot. It's not the events that happen, that we as an audience are simply waiting to unfold. It's not the characters, and whether we like them or not.

It is a sum of all the parts. It is the journey and the characters on it. It is the tone and feeling. It is everything.

"Let's keep the story in perspective as just one element of a film -- like the aspect ratio or the the way it uses (or does not use) color."

You seriously put story on par with ASPECT RATIO?

You are telling your readers that story matters so little, that it is on par with the shape and size of the frame?

Give me a break.

Of course most movies today are simply films; they dont try to attain an emotional level with the audience. If it does its simply visceral and hollow, mere brain candy; and not the good kind. Its sad actually that great films and directors are so few. While watching BICYCLE THIEVES the other night I could only wonder what films from the past decade would stand next to this film fifty years later. If I was being generous I figured only five. Though movies were always shown in "democracy's theater" they never failed to challenge or enlighten even the most simplest of minds. Today however its kept simple for stupid. Take for instance YOUTH WITHOUT YOUTH and MEET THE SPARTANS, two different films entirely but which one gained greater recognition ? Twenty years ago, SPARTANS wouldnt even make it to the theaters. This is due to numerous factors though mostly focus groups and a lack of originality; both which either trim the film in content or reproduce scenes in different context to avoid plagerism. Therefore the days of seeing a memorable maverick film is gone. Im rambling on but my point is story has lost out to time which equals money. Hence, why films like GONE BABY GONE, THERE WILL BE BLOOD recieve recognition because they maintain and continue with the tradition of film.

I'm fairly sure something like SPARTANS would probably make it to theaters, especially in the late Eighties. "Anything goes" comedy revues have a long tradition, and really bad, obvious ones aren't anything new. For gods sakes, 1988 saw the release of CADDYSHACK II, COCKTAIL, COCCOON: THE RETURN, ERNEST SAVES CHRISTMAS, FRIDAY THE 13TH PART VII, MY STEPMOTHER IS AN ALIEN, NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 4, POLICE ACADEMY 5, the POUND PUPPIES movie, MAC AND ME, RAMBO III... I'm going to stop there. The threshold for getting into theaters was not high.

YOUTH WITHOUT YOUTH may not be the best choice for comparison, too, because notices were kind of mixed. Meanwhile THE FALL and MONGOL are picking up some good word of mouth in the art house circuit.

Great films and directors are always few anyway.

"this template or formula is a bit like the sonnet or the well-made play: a form that can yield results good, bad, and indifferent."

Naturally. I don't watch a movie to find out if Batman will catch the Joker. I watch with the hope of experiencing the thrill that comes from the story of Batman catching the Joker being well told. (Whatever that means.) The fact that it's so often done poorly means there must be something going on when it's done right.

Stephen: "A story is more than a plot, and being a "storyteller" is about more than just coming up with a sequence of events."

Without a sequence of events, there is no story. The difference between storytelling (in all its forms) and graphic and plastic arts is that it must be experienced in time, in a given sequence. By this definition, music is storytelling, too.

Kubrick said "I think that the best plot is no apparent plot. I like a slow start, the start that gets under the audiences skin and involves them so that they can appreciate grace notes and soft tones and don't have to be pounded over the head with plot points and suspense hooks."

I think The Shining would be a good example of what you're discussing. In summary of the plot points, very little happens in the film. But in terms of leaving the viewer with a feeling, it pack a wallop through acting, set design, cinematography, costumes, and music.

This leads directly into the controversy over the many incarnations of The Shining, book vs. movie vs. television miniseries. The arguments of cinema vs. literature that it inspired is incredible, and has been expressed in numerous full-length essays, websites with side by side comparisons, and a significant amount of Hollywood's Stephen King by Tony Magistrale.

Jim,
Your post made me think of one of my favorite movies of all time, The Big Sleep. I think the movie is a good example of what you're talking about. It so cleverly makes the viewer think that the story, or plot, is what matters, when in fact the plot is somewhat elusive and it's the characters that are all we really care about. Since the underlying truth behind all the events is kept obscure, we can only get a vague picture of the "story". No matter though, because what we are gaining from the world of The Big Sleep is great characters, unforgettable dialogue, absorbing atmosphere, and yes.. a slyly seductive "story".

With respect, I don't agree with this article at all.
There are lots of fresh, new stories. You can pick up any issue of "Alfred Hitchcock Mystery Magazine" or "Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine", and see new plots and situations you've never encountered. The latest issue of Hitchcock contains Donald Moffitt's "Feat of Clay". This story takes place in ancient Sumer, and stars a scribe battling forged seals and clay tablets - the 2,500 BC version of identity theft. You've never read this plot - and you won't know it "in your bones". John Dirckx's "First Cousin, Twice Removed" takes place in a familiar contemporary USA. But it manages to unleash some startling plot surprises.
Hollywood could do this too. But it doesn't. Old Hollywood used to buy outstanding books and stories, and hire famous writers to bring them to film. Modern Hollywood has insiders who cobble together hack screenplays. Who You Know causes employment in today's Hollywood - not writing ability.
"Primer", mentioned in a comment, is an example of what can be done by a writer far from Hollywood. It has an ultra-complex, original plot. You can find such plots in the Hitchcock and Queen Mystery magazines - but never by today's Hollywood hacks.
Justifying Hollywood cronyism and ineptness by saying that "plot doesn't matter very much" is the wrong approach. We have a corrupt, tenth rate industry in Hollywood, that Dumbs Down everything. We should admit this - and look for alternatives.
Lots of writers are still turning out first rate, original stories. They should get some credit!

James,

I think what Jim follows up with beyond the quote you've chosen is far more important than the quote you've chosen..."It may be more significant than that, or it may be less. Depends on the movie." Sometimes the color of a single shot will dictate the meaning of an entire film, while in the end the story may be worthless to the movie.

In Terry Gilliam's "Twelve Monkey's" the type of lenses used to create a mood is just as important as how the story is told, jumping back and forth in time. In this case the aperture and color temperature are just as important as the words on the page in telling the story.

Michael Haneke's "Code Unknown" or "Cache" or Takeshi Kitano's "Dolls" or Wong Kar-Wai's "In the Mood for Love", Ridley Scott's "Bladerunner" and "Alien" are all films that sometimes present a story, not always from beginning to in, and many times in segments, but for these director/writers (or just director in Scott's case) it isn't the story from the outset that they want to be the most involving, but the way the story is presented. The images have meaning beyond the words on the page or through line. The aspect ratio, the angle of the camera, the sudden cuts, the long slow motion shots. If it wasn't for the slow motion in "Mood for Love" the film would have been 45 minutes long! A lot of times for filmmakers an idea for a "story" will begin with an image and not a through line.

In a medium that deals with the interpretation of imagery how could "aspect ratio" not be just as important as the story? And as suggested by the movies I've mentioned, sometimes even moreso than the story or script or plot or whatever the heck you want to call it, because in the end, all of these little elements are about storytelling. From the performance, to the editing, to the musical score, to the background actors, they all, every aspect of every moment that goes into a film production is just as important as the next. To state otherwise is to simply not understand the breadth of what it requires to tell a story for the cinema.

No take a look at "Battlefield Earth". There's a story with a structure, all classical form fitted for the audience's enjoyment. Now look at every other shot in the film. The filmmakers jumped through hoops to make every other show a dutch angle. Now you tell me that the angle of the camera isn't as important as the story, because Mr. it is. This movie blew!

As this thread has developed, an interesting thing has happened: the definition of "story" has been picked over and (in the sum total of the comments) enlarged, so that it's practically a synonym for "movie." Alex Murillo, above, suggest that "War of the Worlds" wasn't taken as seriously as it should have been because people value storytelling over moviemaking. I think he's onto something; I also think that within the context of his opinion, the terms are interchangeable. If you're riveted by an experiential spectacle like "War of the Worlds" (which I was, big time) then the moviemaking IS the storytelling.

It's absolutely true that many of the films mentioned above -- "Alien," "Blade Runner," "Barton Fink," "In the Mood for Love," "Youth Without Youth," "Werckmeister Harmonies" -- put plot (which I'll define here as an interlocking, propulsive, goal-oriented series of events, the Joseph Campbell model) somewhere near the middle or even the bottom of the list of things the filmmaker considers important. Yet if you respond to the filmmaker's aesthetic and find the characters, atmosphere, shots, cuts, sound design, situations (or all of the above) interesting, then you're absorbed anyway. I don't think anyone not playing with a stacked deck could insist with a straight face that the aforementioned movies have no story at all -- that they're just a bunch of stuff glommed together with style. They all have some sort of point and a sense of forward momentum, however circuitous or glacially paced. There's an artistic point to the entire enterprise; it might not be one that every viewer will find worthwhile, much less one that every viewer will believe was articulated perfectly on every level. But there's always a point.

"Nashville" and "Short Cuts" aren't plot-crazy movies, but they're packed with subplots that all lead somewhere (some more convincingly than others) and there's absolutely a meta-narrative unfolding that's very carefully attended to by Robert Altman and his collaborators. "2001" is often cited in this sort of discussion as an example of a movie that's really not about narrative, but philosophy, cosmology, spirituality and any number of other preoccupations ending with the letter "y." But it's got what might be the most basic story of all: the evolution of the human species and its eventual transformation into a higher form of being.

Maybe we should re-define the terms? "Plot" instead of "story" is a good start, but "2001" and "Blade Runner" and "The Man Who Fell to Earth" and "A Hard Day's Night" and many other movies that aren't primarily about what happens next all have what you might call a plot (a sequence of events that eventually deposit the hero or heroes in a different place than when they began).

Maybe the division is between those who are automatically more engaged by plot-centric films and those who are not?

I wouldn't deign to choose sides in such a conflict. My list of favorite films includes "Miller's Crossing," "Last of the Mohicans," "On the Waterfront" and Orson Welles' "Othello" (all very plot-centric) and "2001," "The Life Aquatic," "Inland Empire," "Dead Man" and "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" (which subordinate plot to other values).

Roger Ebert gets ribbed a lot for his sliding scale star-system, which gives "Lethal Weapon" and "Citizen Kane" four stars because they're both superlative examples of their sort of movie. Maybe he's more right than some of us (myself included) are willing to admit.

[Note: The following comment was cross-posted at The House Next Door. I'm trying to reply to two different comment threads on two different blogs.]

The problem with arguments in discussions like this one is that many participants, especially those in dissent, do not know what the premises of the original argument are and therefore don't really know against what they are arguing or even for what they are arguing. In this case, the problem is that we haven't established what is meant by story, plot, and narrative, which are usually regarded as synonymous but can actually hold distinct meanings.

Story refers to the course of events that are recounted in order to show a goal being accomplished or not, some sort of journey, or some moral lesson to be taught. Causality is crucial to the telling and parsing of a story. There is a clear sense of "everything happening for a reason," and there is always a beginning, middle, and end.

Plot refers to the actual sequence of events usually employed to tell a story. The best illustration of the idea that plot is distinct from story is the case of non-chronologically-told stories. Once you figure out all of the details in Chris Nolan's Memento, you can then explain what actually happens in the story in a way that completely contradicts the reverse-chronological plot structure. You can tell that story in any number of ways, reordering details however you want—as long as the result remains comprehensible and doesn't contradict any of the story's facts—but you would still have the same story.

The plot itself has certain effects on how an audience reacts to the story, as much as the events of the story themselves affect the audience in their own way. Thus, you can find examples of well-told bad stories or poorly-told good stories.

The distinction between plot and story leads to the well-established semiotic terms "fabula" and "sjuzhet," the former referring to story and the latter referring to plot. "Fabula time is pluridimensional, since a fabula is not a thin narrative line but a volume of relationships progressing in time" (Garcia-Landa, Jose Angel. 1990/2005).

Robert McKee has a great explanation of how stories work and how they are constructed. The foundation of stories is something called "story value," which refers to some quality or state of being that's important to the characters, an extreme example being life or death. A story always has tight control over story values and manipulates them in fluid and strategic ways for entertainment and/or didactic ends.

Take, for example, the generic romantic comedy. It establishes a relationship and introduces a number of complications that change the nature of the relationship—the story values—before uniting the central couple for a happy ending.

Story values are strongly tied to emotions, and therefore a change in a story value is called an emotional event. A break-up is an emotional event. A reconciliation between old flames is an emotional event. A story is a series of emotional events that flow from each one to the next.

Using the above explanations of plot and story, we can find some superficially paradoxical examples. You can have a plot with no story or a story with no plot. A great example of a plot with no story is a shaggy dog tale: A lot of exciting things happen, but it all amounts to nothing of significance. Story values are minimal in number and impact and don't see much change; there are almost no emotional events. Story is thus not the point of a shaggy dog tale.

On the other hand, the best example of a story with no plot is flash fiction. For instance, Ernest Hemingway famously wrote a six-word flash that conveys an intriguing story: "For sale: baby shoes, never worn."

Narrative is a more general term referring to any piece that recounts a collection of related events involving characters. Narrative can be used to describe a "plot with no story" or a traditional story. Thus, "Un chien andalou" is not a narrative. A joke that involves characters and something that happens to them (e.g. the classic "priest, rabbi, and a minister walk into a bar") is a narrative. A documentary that is not merely an explication of cold facts can be a narrative. Hoop Dreams is the epitome of a narrative documentary. A slice-of-life piece that merely recounts a bunch of episodes from a few characters' lives also can be considered a narrative.

The point of Jim's argument is that story is not what makes or breaks a movie, as is the case with plot and narrative. A movie should be enjoyed and appreciated on its own terms, not what you think that "movies should be." Cinema is about creating an experience, and we're not merely talking about stories or visual pleasures. (What about aural pleasures?) Stories, plots, visual and sound effects are all aspects of the total experience. So the pleasures of cinema are not a choice between engaging stories and "visual poetry" (again, what about sound?). We might like to watch a movie for a great performance or for some particularly fascinating interactions between the characters. We might also just want explosions. None of that has to do with story or visual poetry.

And by the way, visual poetry is by definition not empty, unless you want to assert that poetry itself is empty.

Two examples from recent memory:
- The Flight of the Red Balloon is a narrative without a story.
- No Country for Old Men is a narrative with a story.

" There must be a concrete goal, which at the end of the story is either reached—or not.

There should be a risk involved for the central character in not reaching his/her goal.

The goal is perhaps difficult to reach, and the struggle to do so should bring the central character into conflict."

one of my favorite films that I revisit time and time again and continue to awe at its complete defiance of convention, yet is masterful in its technical execution (acting, directing, writing, cinematogpraphy, score, etc) is Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven"

whenever other movie buffs discuss the "greats", I like to discuss this film because it has no heroes, no morality, no conventional plot, no real "quest" because at heart it is a meditation on the destructive nature of violence, without being preachy, and the journey of a man who had already redeemed his soul back into the darkness that once made him wicked.

A typical Hollywood movie would have been William Munny starting as a ruthless killer and meeting his wife and atoning for the sins of his past.

Instead, the film depicts his gradual descent into his own wickedness, born out of an act of desperation to save his children.

The film is unrepentant in its nihilism, summed up by one of Eastwood's most iconic lines, "We all got it coming to us, kid."

No hope, no redemption, no vital plot twist or deus ex machina . . . no goal, no triumph, no cathartic finale. Just a savage killer who fancied he had put his demons aside.

And one of the most finely crafted films in history.

Why is there a picture from Batman on the main-page and on this page and nothing is mentioned about the movie?

JE: Your answer is right there in the caption.

A great example to add to this discussion is Vincente Minnelli's new-to-DVD "Some Came Running," which I watched last night. The film, though certainly structured, is more a series of scenes centered around an idea than a straightforward story. Storytelling has always been a major component of the movies, but I personally care less about what a film is about, but how it goes about expressing its ideas visually.

Matt,

In response to your post and several others who rightly point out differences between story and plot. Here's one with what I can tell has no story or plot, but a bunch of scenes culled together to make a point. Luis Bunuel's "L'Age D'or".

I saw it last week for the first time and wasn't struck by the film at first because there's really no through-line, just a bunch of scenes that sometimes juxtapose the next scene and sometimes don't.

It wasn't the story necessarily that was important at all but the importance of the single images - or scenes. Once you cull together the feelings you get from these scenes, a story isn't created but an idea. Good ol' Salvador Dali.

Hitch's films - definitely those that say how their about it - the MacGuffin - the nothing that everything revolves around - Vertigo - could anyone seriously not know Jimmy Stewart was following them - his obsession made him the worst PI in the world. The mystery is not the murder set up but that of the desires of the human heart. Hitch's editing made the best suspense films ever. The plots were secondary. The films still great.

Matt, Phillip, all: I added an endnote to the post for further clarification. I use both the words "story" and "plot" -- but I'm emphasizing the use of the word "story" as it is used in the Hollywood entertainment biz, where writers do not have "plot conferences" but "story conferences" and pitches don't tell the plot (too much detail) but the story. Robert McKee's "story structure" seminars (see "Adaptation.") culminated in his best-selling bible "Story: Substance, Structure, Style and The Principles of Screenwriting." That's the context in which I'm talking about "story" here, because it is the prevailing one in the American movie biz -- studios and indies.

A very interesting thing these pitches you mention. The hooks are thrown around, and the couple of big sequences that culminate in a breath taking ending. Many times though the story persay isn't what sells the script as how the writer or pitcher pitches the project. In many ways it kind of parallels the topic of the post in the first place. If that guy jumps around with a smile on his face it sometimes becomes more important than the story itself...this is why a lot of times action movies don't really have a story, but a series of action scenes.

I noticed that someone mentioned "Vertigo" I always felt was overrated and I always much prefered "Strangers on a Train" and "North by Northwest" which I think are more confident, less gimmicky movies because they were telling a story.

Either extreme on its own could sink a film. Think of Mamet style without Mamet story.

Wes Anderson puts on a good show, but connects most when "show" is at the service of story.

I'm incredibly late to this discussion so let me just say this - That comment Nathan made where you responded, "Yes! Yes! Beautifully said." I was totally gonna say that myself, I just chose not to. Didn't want to steal Nathan's thunder and all that.

Strangers On A Train my personal favouite of Hitch's - yes it tells a story - but it also has visual images to boot - villain Bruno Antony standing in front of those steps - his reflection in the murdered woman's glasses - the out of control merry-go-round. Vertigo, for all its lack of storyline, packed the more emotional punch. I admire Hitch for doing both these great films.

People are mentioning Nashville and I haven't seen any Robert Altman films with the exception of "Popeye" which I thought was terrible.

Plots are a lot like bones. They may not be the most important part but see what happens if you take them out.

Maybe I was a bit over the top when I said that "Vertigo" was overrated because I do respect and admire quite alot and I agree what Hitchcock creates in the film is definitely captivating and exhilerating.I think I just responded to "Strangers on a Train" and "North by Northwest" a little more but then I think that "Strangers on a Train","North by Northwest" and "Vertigo" are great films and will remain great as time goes by and I always think Hitchcock's films will hold up because effective suspense is effective suspense.There still are Hitchcock films that I still have yet to see including "Foreign Correspondent","The Lady Vanishes","The 39 Steps","The Wrong Man" and "Frenzy".