Good plot / bad plot / no plot - discuss [Archive]

View Full Version : Good plot / bad plot / no plot - discuss

Rob

28-02-2002, 06:54

I often read reviews, from both professionals and amateurs alike and one thing that always puzzles me are the phases "no plot" or "thin plot".

I don't understand how a film can have "no plot" and think that maybe lazy journalism is at work and that people don't really understand what a plot is (myself included!).

So, what is your understanding of "plot"? Can you provide an example of a film with a good/bad/no plot? If you can, Summarise this film's plot in one or two lines.

Noel M

28-02-2002, 07:46

There’s no easy way to answer this question, because any example of a film given to demonstrate what constitutes a ‘good plot’ can easily be contradicted by another example of a better film that doesn’t have a conventional good plot. If film plots could be easily defined and all films adhered to that framework, we wouldn’t get any innovation or originality in films and films would be very dull indeed.

Very basically however, a film has a good plot if it tells a story with usually, but not essentially, a beginning a middle and an end (and not necessarily in that order). You can tell if a film has a good plot if it keeps you interested to find out what happens next and doesn't have flaws or inconsistencies. There are many ways a plot can fail - bad/unbelievable characterisation, poor/unconvincing acting failing to convey the desired effect, deus ex machina plot twists, but there is no way that you can hold a film to keep within these guidlines and say - that is a good plot. Many films play around with these conventions and expectations deliberately to create an effect.

An example I would use of a good plot would be Memento, which plays around with the conventions of revealing the plot in the order it happened and consequently keeps you riveted to the screen in an attempt to find out what happens next (or before, in this case). At the end, it tells a complete story and resolves most of the issues raised in the film. There are however many examples of films that have little or no conventional recognisable plot or story – the 'plot' of In The Mood For Love could be summarised in one sentence for example, yet it is still brilliant. Plot isn’t everything.

Rob

28-02-2002, 08:02

I'm glad you mentioned Memento as I think this is a brilliant film which is consistently riveting and does indeed make you want to know what happens next (or in this case, last!).

However, I would say it is the style or production/presentation that makes this film great and not the plot. I would say that the plot has been done before - i.e. bloke loses his memory and tries to find out what happened. Simple. Memory loss thriller plots are ten a penny, but Memento does it in an interesting way.

This illustrates the point I was hoping to make - saying that a film has no plot is wrong and is not a good reason for rating a film as poor - it's just lazy journalism. I think that there are only a hundful of plots in existence anyway, its how you present them or what atmosphere/visuals/novel spin you can add which makes or breaks the film.

"Plot isn't everything" - glad you agree.

Noel M

28-02-2002, 08:17

Originally posted by Rob
I'm glad you mentioned Memento as I think this is a brilliant film which is consistently riveting and does indeed make you want to know what happens next (or in this case, last!).

However, I would say it is the style or production/presentation that makes this film great and not the plot.

I wouldn't say I entirely agree with you. In the case of Memento, the plot is crucial. If the story fails to convince or the lead character's illness lacks believability or the film fails to deliver on the set-up it has presented, then it has failed. Fortunately the film delivers both in terms of plot and method of presentation of that plot. If the film was merely about technique, it wouldn't be half the film it is.

In the case of In The Mood For Love, its aims are entirely different. It isn't attempting to tell a story - it is trying to convey a period, a time, a feeling, an emotion. It very much depends on what the aim of a film is whether a plot is important or not.

Michael Brooke

28-02-2002, 08:31

This illustrates the point I was hoping to make - saying that a film has no plot is wrong 

Plenty of films have no “plot” as such (Noel’s example of In the Mood for Love is an excellent one), so it’s hardly a criticism if it’s true! Many of Federico Fellini’s late films (I watched Roma last week, which is a near-perfect example) could have their reels shown in just about any order.

and is not a good reason for rating a film as poor

It can be, if there’s little else going for it – for instance, a thriller where all the characters are stock archetypes, the dialogue comes straight from cliché hell, the performances are flat and lifeless and the production values are uninspired can still be redeemed by a surprising and involving plot. On the other hand, if it lacks that as well, it’s a good reason for damning the film as a whole.

In the case of Memento, I would argue that if the film had had all the other elements intact but skimped on the innovative plot structure, it would be a far less interesting – and therefore “poorer” – film than it turned out to be. On the other hand, as the title rather gives away, In the Mood for Love is about mood rather than story, and the level of visual and conceptual invention in Roma outweighs the lack of any overarching structure – though I do think that this latter point makes it one of Fellini’s weaker films.

 - it's just lazy journalism.

It can be, but surely it’s equally lazy to damn all claims of a film’s alleged “plotlessness” like this? :D

Rob

28-02-2002, 09:25

One of the points I am trying to make is that many of today's blockbusters are described as having "no plot". I just don't believe this is true. I think the vast majority of them have either simple or derivative or unoriginal plots, but let's face it, in most cases, the filmmakers are out to make money and are not concerned with providing originality. In such cases, I accept a description of "thin plot", but it's hardly the kind of film to be directing a plot-based criticism at.

Recent examples that spring to mind are "The Mummy Returns", "Pearl Harbour" or "Planet Of The Apes". Whether you like them or not, they've all got plots!

I'll freely admit to being a "mainstream" film fan and I'm not ashamed of it. Fortunately (for me) I can watch films with simple plots just to enjoy the dazzling visuals, over the top acting or because there's something interesting about the setting. For me, film is a visual medium and plot/story is not everything. That's not to say I don't enjoy a thoughtful film once in a while. But going back to my original point, a "simple plot" is not "no plot", which is why I was geneuinely interested in people's views of what a plot is.

AndyWilson

28-02-2002, 09:44

I gotta admit I get a bit head-in-hands over endless discussions of movie plots. As often as not plot is just something to hang a series of set pieces off of - and that's not a criticism.

Take Burton's POTA or Spielberg's Lost World for example. Yes the plots are nonsensical, but who cares - they got talking monkeys and big eff-off dinosaurs for chrissakes - I don't care show tim roth got back to earth or how the t-rex ate everyone on the ship - both plots are just deus ex machina - and the same could be said for something like O Brother Where Art Though for example..

If I wanted endless discussions of plot points and continuity I'd go to a comic convention!

Thinking about my favourite films though, they tend to be character and dialog driven - and plot is very secondary - Gregory's Girl, Ghost World, Sling Blade, Happiness...

...but there are exceptions that break my rule such as Memento or Brighton Rock..

Michael Brooke

28-02-2002, 10:10

I'll freely admit to being a "mainstream" film fan and I'm not ashamed of it. Fortunately (for me) I can watch films with simple plots just to enjoy the dazzling visuals, over the top acting or because there's something interesting about the setting. For me, film is a visual medium and plot/story is not everything. 

It depends entirely on the individual film. With some, the plot pretty much is everything, with others it really doesn’t matter one iota, with most films it’s somewhere in between.

But I think your claim that film is a visual medium is over-simplistic – because it’s also an aural and dramatic medium: that’s what distinguishes it from, say, a painting or sculpture. It’s perfectly possible to make a great film that’s visually undistinguished (Gregory’s Girl springs to mind), and it’s equally possible to make a film that, while visually spectacular, has little else to offer.

The only one of the films that you’ve cited that I’ve seen is Planet of the Apes - and that film’s problems go far deeper than the lack of a worthwhile plot. Indeed, Tim Burton’s films have never been especially strong in the plotting department – something he’d readily agree with – but what was so frustrating about that film was its lack of almost anything else that made it worth seeing (not least even the faintest indication that Burton made it). I wasn’t the least bit surprised to discover that it was a rush job – it showed!

That's not to say I don't enjoy a thoughtful film once in a while. But going back to my original point, a "simple plot" is not "no plot", which is why I was geneuinely interested in people's views of what a plot is.

I think “no plot” in the sense you’re describing is shorthand for “there might as well be no plot for all the dramatic interest it generates”, and I think that’s an accepted (and acceptable) convention.

Cornelius

28-02-2002, 18:31

Originally posted by Rob
I often read reviews, from both professionals and amateurs alike and one thing that always puzzles me are the phases "no plot" or "thin plot".

I think you're being a bit pedantic. If a review emphasises that a film has 'no plot' or 'thin plot' then to me that indicates the film is crap, plain and simple. If that's all a review has to say about a film. If I read that in a review I wouldn't bother with the film at all.

If however the review emphasises other aspects, like the characters, the performances, or the themes explored, in other words the film has other things to offer then I would be interested. I doubt anyone would argue if I said 2001 A Space Odyssey had a thin plot, dull characters not any outstanding performances, yet it's has other things to offer, apart from 'plot'. The unconventional way in which the film unfolds, the imagery, every dayness of the use of technology, routiness of space travel, it's optimistic ending. You could say so much more about the film, the plot is just incidental and therefore not worthy of mentioning.

Mike

28-02-2002, 23:49

It might be worth considering the structuralist notion of a distinction between 'story' and 'plot'. "Memento" is a gift for the theorist since it's an object lesson of the difference between the two. The 'story" of the film is not especially unusual, although well contrived. What makes it special is the 'plot', the way it is presented on film.

According to such a theoretical position, no film is plotless since plot is the essence of a text. Story may well be lacking, and frequently is, but to complain that there is no plot is a misnomer. Personally, I prefer to look at things from a hermeneutic position. If we accept that all filmic texts have a plot of some kind then we have to consider why someone would complain about the lack of same. I would argue, following this hermeneutic position, that a text means whatever the recipient wants it to mean and as such, "plotlessness" per se is in the eye of the beholder. Hence, a great deal can be read into something which has a minimal story - take "In The Mood For Love" as an example - if the individual is open to the text, receptive to its hints and subtle shadings. On the other hand, a very complex text which is heavily plotted, such as "Mission Impossible" can mean nothing if the recipient is alienated by the very self-consciousness of the narrative games which the film plays. "Memento" even more so. One could argue that, on one level, "Memento" uses a very clever but very simple plotting device but on another level it is very complex to follow because of the unaccustomed demands it places on the reader.

On the other hand, there's a whole semiotic debate here about the meanings which a text produces and their relations to story and other external factors. Probably not one which it's worth going into except to say that the more "plotted" a film is, the more meanings it creates. Beyond this, I'd be getting into Chicago Aristotelianism, and much as I'd like to, I won't.

TinTin

01-03-2002, 06:33

God I envy you lot!

You must have a lot of time on your hands!

Rob

01-03-2002, 06:40

Some long words there Mike! Another point I was going to raise in my original post was is there any difference between plot and story? I think its fair to say that you think this IS the case.

I also think your comment about "the eye of the beholder" is a good one. Film, like any other art, is a means of communication and communication relies on three main elements - a transmitter (i.e. the filmmaker), a medium or protocol (i.e. the film) and the receiver (i.e. the audience or "beholder"). Communication can fail if any one of these three elements is lacking or is errorneous.

Taking this analogy further, although it could be argued that a film is lacking in some respect (plot, story, characters etc.), it may not be because the film or the filmmaker is poor, but simply because the audience is not open to the meanings and sub-texts which the film conveys.

Of course, like any form of communication, there is every chanvce that things can go slighly wrong and the audience can receive the wrong message (as opposed to no message at all). Although since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, who could argue that any reception or meaning drived is wrong?

Michael Brooke

01-03-2002, 10:26

Taking this analogy further, although it could be argued that a film is lacking in some respect (plot, story, characters etc.), it may not be because the film or the filmmaker is poor, but simply because the audience is not open to the meanings and sub-texts which the film conveys. 

This is why I get so irritated with people who slam films that clearly weren’t aimed at them as being “crap”. Calling the likes of Traffic, The Thin Red Line, Heat and Babe amongst the worst films ever made, as people on these very forums have done recently, is just plain stupid – and says far more about their mentality than it does about the films in question. (I was particularly baffled by the nomination for Babe, which seems to me to be pretty close to perfection in terms of what its creators intended to convey to its target audience).

And you also run into problems when transplanting a film from one culture to another. Les Visiteurs and Johnny Stecchino were Jurassic Park-beating blockbusters in France and Italy, yet the former flopped disastrously in Britain and the latter never opened at all. And it’s easy to see why: anyone unfamiliar with the background language and culture would merely “read” them as crude slapstick comedies, completely missing the social comment and (especially in the case of Les Visiteurs) surprisingly sophisticated wordplay.

(Needless to say, there are just as many Anglo-American translation problems, which is almost certainly why BASEketball went straight to video over here and why Mike Bassett: England Manager has yet to get a US release and probably never will).

Of course, like any form of communication, there is every chanvce that things can go slighly wrong and the audience can receive the wrong message (as opposed to no message at all). Although since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, who could argue that any reception or meaning drived is wrong?

Well, that’s what good criticism is all about – though I think common sense should apply here as well. For instance, when City Limits reviewed Michael Winner’s Bullseye! as though it was a Robert Bresson masterwork with multiple levels of meaning behind every shot, I think it was pretty clear they were being deeply, deeply sarcastic: there are some films that are just irredeemably bad full stop.

On the other hand, there are plenty of films that are undervalued or actively misunderstood – and that’s where good criticism is vital as well. One of the many reasons I revere the late Pauline Kael is that she wrote as much from gut instinct as from intellectual justification, and if that meant slamming Shoah and Raging Bull or praising ReAnimator and Star Trek II, so much the better. True, she could be spectacularly wide of the mark at times, but that comes with the territory – and emphasises the need to read criticism with a stern critical eye of one’s own.

It’s also very useful to read criticism by someone who’s closer to the film’s target audience than you might be yourself – or indeed by someone who might know less about the film’s background than you do, or who’s approaching it from a completely different perspective. For instance, I loved Simon Wyndham’s DVD Times review of Buster Keaton’s The General (<A HREF="http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/reviews/region2/thegeneral.html">here</A>), because he was approaching it as a martial arts fan rather than a silent comedy fan: my own review (<A HREF="http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/index.cgi?page=Review&id=570&story=">here</A>) is certainly more informative, but less surprising.

Rob

01-03-2002, 11:21

The Thin Red Line - not a typical candidate for my "top films" list (although I do like war films), but I have to say that I loved this film. I can understand why people don't like it but there is something so wonderful about this film that can't be put into words.

Having said that, its's beautifully shot by John Toll, which is always a plus for me. I read somehere about director Terence Malick's love of filming in the "Magic Hour" (the last hour before sunset?) which must make production a tad complex!

Hams Zimmer's score is nice as well.

The film's not perfect and I must be honest and say I would have liked a clearer interpretation of what happended to Jim Caviezel's character (Pvt. Witt) but this is a film I could watch time and again. I just brought it in to work for one of my colleague's to watch - I've warned him not to expect too much in terms of our old friend "plot" and I'll be interested in what he thinks!

Gary Couzens

01-03-2002, 23:02

For any discussion of plot, I'd recommend Robert McKee's book Story. It's particularly aimed at screenwriters, but it has plenty to offer anyone writing other forms of narrative fiction, I found it enlightening. Since I've used the same terminology myself in reviews and forum posts, I thought it might be useful to summarise the different basic types of plot available.

First of all, there is...

Archplot
This is what many people mean by a "plot". A character or characters has a goal, and the plot follows their attempts to achieve that goal...despite opposition by external forces, be they other characters, society, nature and so on. The protagonist overcomes various obstacles and setbacks and achieves their goal, or fails to. Due to the events of the story, the central character is permanently changed.

There are many examples of Archplot worldwide - it's the basic element of 90% of commercial cinema. However, there are also:

Miniplot
As with Archplot, the protagonist has a goal and conflicts, but these are internal ones. Miniplots tend to be character driven, interior dramas. Endings tend to be open rather than closed.
However, this does not necessarily mean a lack of incident. Bringing Out the Dead has a lot of medical crises and rushing about, but at heart it's a miniplot: the Nicolas Cage character's goal is peace of mind and the defeat of his inner demons. Virtually all of Eric Rohmer's films have miniplots.

Antiplot
Characterised by deliberate breaches of "reality", non-linear time schemes, emphasis on coincidence rather than cause and so on. Examples include Lost Highway, many later Bunuel films, Bad Timing.

It should be stated that no one form is inherently superior to another - all three types have produced masterpieces. However, it's fairly clear that the further away you get from a straightforward Archplot, the less commercial your film will be.
Antiplots tend only to play to large audiences when they are comedies (McKee's examples are Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Wayne's World).

A film can have characteristics of more than one plot type. The Limey and Memento have straightforward Archplots in the sense of the central character's motivation (external antagonists), but their non-linear time sequences make them Antiplots as well. As does The Limey's blurring of the line between fact and fantasy - which is both explicit (the party scene, where the Terence Stamp character imagines shooting Peter Fonda) and implicit (the whole movie can be read as the Stamp character's dream of revenge).

Finally, there is

Multiplot
Multiple characters with multiple goals. Multiplot structures tend to tie their many storylines together with an overall theme or setting. Examples include many Robert Altman films, Pulp Fiction, Magnolia and so on.

AndyWilson

02-03-2002, 00:21

Originally posted by Gary Couzens
For any discussion of plot, I'd recommend Robert McKee's book Story.

If you get commission from Amazon expect a cheque after that post!