Storytelling rules or existential nonsense?

Tools    





This came to me after watching Nebraska a few days ago. What I’m wondering can be easily dismissed via the “this is how fiction works” route, but I’ve been thinking about the deep reasoning behind it all the same. This probably ties in quite a bit with the “no respectable film has a happy ending” concept, but either way, I’ve been thinking it gets a bit boring when whenever
WARNING: spoilers below
a lottery ticket is mentioned, the protagonist never (yes, there are exceptions such as Run, Lola, Run,
WARNING: spoilers below
though to be pedantic, there’s no anticipation/disappointment dynamic of the lottery win there
) wins/if they’re told they won, it all turns out to be a mistake/they have to give it back/etc
. This, in turn, probably ties in with the existential postmodern dilemma of “what do you do if the audience is savvy enough to anticipate every potential plot twist”, but even so, I feel like it makes even more sense to go with the “less expected” option (e.g.
WARNING: spoilers below
the lottery win being real, because as it is, it’s genuinely boring to watch someone discover that, oops, tough luck, they (obviously, duh) didn’t actually win.
.

This can be extrapolated to other examples of picking the, as it were, “unhappy turn of events” option, such as in Philomena the
WARNING: spoilers below
son turning out to be long dead
. Don’t get me wrong, I mostly hate happy endings, but I also feel this in itself is a bit of a cop out/like taking the easy route.

With the lottery example, I’d be very interested to watch a fiction narrative about someone who did actually win the lottery and that ****ed the person up (like Michael Carroll, or maybe in a slightly more sophisticated Lords of the Rings/elder wand”-type way, such as that the money led the person to be killed in a robbery etc). My point is not that I’m particularly interested in watching people win the lottery and live happily ever after, but it could be spun differently, even as a Wolf of Wall Street-type redemption narrative where they spent all the money and then did something worthwhile with themselves, whatever. Yet we only seem to see that in biographies, very rarely (if at all) in fiction. In Nebraska itself, I’d be much more interested in seeing how
WARNING: spoilers below
an 85-year-old man would spend a million dollars - would he share? Gamble? Buy a house? Buy a million beer bottles?
than in the “redemption”/“emotional journey” narrative being pushed (though I enjoyed the film).

Same applies to Harry Potter snapping the elder wand - there are tons of examples. I feel like it’d be much more interesting, narratively challenging and exciting to try to see that story to its logical conclusion when someone does win the lottery, does meet a long-lost son who, I don’t know, hates them but isn’t just dead, does turn out to be the descendant of royalty with a claim to fame, etc. Feels like there’s also an element of glee of sorts in watching these people get their faces rubbed in the dirt, not win the lottery, get the thing taken from them, etc, which is not unlike the worst kind of “torture porn” impulse making people delight in Hostel.



I loved “Nebraska”.

I play the lottery twice a week. One plays the lottery & hopes for a win because people do win. One guy in New York State has won $10,000,000 twice off a scratch-off ticket.

But with the Clearing House thing or whatever it’s called, does anyone ever win? Isn’t it considered a total sham? So to me that’s what the movie was about. Daft old geezer with unrealistic expectations. The sadness of a long life that, maybe, didn’t work out as he would have liked. Even his wife called him a “dumb cluck”. Though they loved each other in their own weird way. Also very amusing how the entire family wanted a piece of this non-existent fortune.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



I loved “Nebraska”.

I play the lottery twice a week. One plays the lottery & hopes for a win because people do win. One guy in New York State has won $10,000,000 twice off a scratch-off ticket.

But with the Clearing House thing or whatever it’s called, does anyone ever win? Isn’t it considered a total sham? So to me that’s what the movie was about. Daft old geezer with unrealistic expectations. The sadness of a long life that, maybe, didn’t work out as he would have liked. Even his wife called him a “dumb cluck”. Though they loved each other in their own weird way. Also very amusing how the entire family wanted a piece of this non-existent fortune.
Interesting. I definitely do see your point.



This can be extrapolated to other examples of picking the, as it were, “unhappy turn of events” option, such as in Philomena the
WARNING: spoilers below
son turning out to be long dead
. Don’t get me wrong, I mostly hate happy endings, but I also feel this in itself is a bit of a cop out/like taking the easy route.
I get the gist of your overall post, but I do feel compelled to point out that Philomena was based on a true story, and Philomena's actual son
WARNING: spoilers below
did die before she could locate him, and it turned out he'd tried to track down his birth mother for years before dying. He even arranged to be buried in the abbey where he was taken from his mother in hopes she would find him by coming across his grave.
.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philomena_Lee

In terms of the fictional element you're talking about, I do think that there's a belief that for a fictional story to seem "real" it has to have a serious/sad ending.

In terms of the specific element of the lottery ticket, I think that it's often shorthand for hope, but an extrinsic hope. The hope that magically all of your problems will be solved. And in a story about character growth (or just a character study), a lottery win would often short-circuit the kind of character development you get when a person has to solve (or not solve) their problems on their own.



I get the gist of your overall post, but I do feel compelled to point out that Philomena was based on a true story, and Philomena's actual son
WARNING: spoilers below
did die before she could locate him, and it turned out he'd tried to track down his birth mother for years before dying. He even arranged to be buried in the abbey where he was taken from his mother in hopes she would find him by coming across his grave.
.
Ah, right; I had no idea re: Philomena! That’s part of it, I guess, because for me it’s precisely the death that makes it feel so “fictional”.

I do think that there's a belief that for a fictional story to seem "real" it has to have a serious/sad ending.
I was mainly getting at that, yes.



In terms of the specific element of the lottery ticket, I think that it's often shorthand for hope, but an extrinsic hope. The hope that magically all of your problems will be solved. And in a story about character growth (or just a character study), a lottery win would often short-circuit the kind of character development you get when a person has to solve (or not solve) their problems on their own.
I’m guessing millions play the lottery around the world. To me, it’s not hope, it’s just a bit of fun twice a week. The lottery I play pays out $100k max. A lot of money, but not life-changing unless one were very careful.

I think Dern’s movie character is not solving any problems on his own. In fact, he’s creating them throughout the movie. And he’s old: way too late for more character development. A modest lottery win would bring him a lot of joy.



Ah, right; I had no idea re: Philomena! That’s part of it, I guess, because for me it’s precisely the death that makes it feel so “fictional”.
While you could argue that the filmmakers picked a story that had a really harsh outcome, I think that Philomena's story highlights just how cruel the system was that took her child away and how cruel that system continued to be long after the "worst" of it was over.

I have a friend from college whose mother immigrated to the US from Ireland in the 1980s. Her mother spent several years at one of the "houses" and had two different children adopted away from her without her consent. Her mother has a TON of (justified!) paranoia about institutions, and it's had a horrible impact on her life because she suffers from mental illness and is scared to death of places like hospitals. Anyway, my friend was finally able to get access to the adoption records in the last few years and actually find her two half-sisters. At this point in time my friend's story is a happy one. She has been over to Ireland several times, including a several-month theater residency there.

There's that old saying about how stories are happy or sad depending on when you stop telling them. I suppose you could, like I said up at the top, argue that the filmmakers picked a "sad story". But it's also a true story and it's a true story that is a variation on something that happened to a LOT of women.
.
.
.
Back to being more general, I think that it's hard to stick a landing that's nicely balanced between "the world is magical!" and "the world is cruel!". Rather than necessarily focusing on endings being happy or sad (and I unabashedly prefer happy conclusions to stories), I think it's more about whether it actually fits the narrative/characters.

To me the only sad endings that fall short are those that feel like they were put there for the sole purpose of making the audience sad or being unexpected.



I’m guessing millions play the lottery around the world. To me, it’s not hope, it’s just a bit of fun twice a week. The lottery I play pays out $100k max. A lot of money, but not life-changing unless one were very careful.
I think a lot of people probably play the lottery mostly for fun (and maybe a little wishful thinking).

In a movie/story, I think that they tend to be a little more symbolic.



I think a lot of people probably play the lottery mostly for fun (and maybe a little wishful thinking).

In a movie/story, I think that they tend to be a little more symbolic.
Maybe a little. I think they’re used in anything, even time travel stories; often pretty randomly. Hence to me it would stand to reason that winning should be portrayed as often as not winning.



Maybe a little. I think they’re used in anything, even time travel stories; often pretty randomly. Hence to me it would stand to reason that winning should be portrayed as often as not winning.
Statistically, though, winning the lottery is incredibly unlikely, and when you consider that we often meet characters at some significant point in their life, the odds seem even less likely.

I actually can't think of a time that a lottery ticket purchase was just a casual plot point.



Statistically, though, winning the lottery is incredibly unlikely, and when you consider that we often meet characters at some significant point in their life, the odds seem even less likely.

I actually can't think of a time that a lottery ticket purchase was just a casual plot point.
True re: the odds. Well, I think it does just pop up. I don’t feel like the act of playing/winning the lottery in itself is significant in the likes of Waking Ned Devine (this again seems to be all about bringing the community together). Anyway, as you’ve rightly pinpointed, my point is less about the lottery and more about a very artificial sense of poignancy constructed via such plotlines. I get the same feeling when someone dies moments before reaching the hospital (e.g. in Fauda), not in hospital from heart failure post-treatment, not before an ambulance is called/waiting for one etc, but right there moments before they’d have been saved). Again, it feels a bit more manipulative/forced/crude than many other cinematic tricks.



I get the same feeling when someone dies moments before reaching the hospital (e.g. in Fauda), not in hospital from heart failure post-treatment, not before an ambulance is called/waiting for one etc, but right there moments before they’d have been saved). Again, it feels a bit more manipulative/forced/crude than many other cinematic tricks.
Well to go back to your thread title, I think that's to do with storytelling beats.

There's only so much "back and forth" an audience can take before getting kind of annoyed.

"He's been shot" (oh, no!) --> "We're going to the hospital!" (hurry!) --> "He died on the way there" (oh, no!)

"He's been shot" (oh, no!) --> "We're going to the hospital!" (hurry!)--> "We made it to the hospital!" (Yay!) --> "Wait, sorry, he died an hour after arriving." (What?)

Stories have a lot of shortcuts by implication. A character making it to the hospital is often shorthand for "He's going to live!". When you then subvert that, it can be confusing or annoying to the audience.

I see what you mean about it being a manipulative way to get the audience worked up. There's something that does feel more cruel about dying when you were almost to the hospital as opposed to dying 45 minutes after being admitted.

But by the same token, the latter scenario (which is more realistic) is less dramatically interesting in most stories. I mean, there are times that people are given CPR for long periods of time and still die. But you probably wouldn't want to watch 10 minutes of CPR. So instead we get *chest compression, chest compression* "CLEAR" *ZAP* "He's gone."



I mean, there are times that people are given CPR for long periods of time and still die. But you probably wouldn't want to watch 10 minutes of CPR. So instead we get *chest compression, chest compression* "CLEAR" *ZAP* "He's gone."
A common one that bugs me is when someone is having a heart-related event that miraculously disappears once they've placed a pill on their tongue. What is this miracle drug that works before it's even been ingested?



Well to go back to your thread title, I think that's to do with storytelling beats.

There's only so much "back and forth" an audience can take before getting kind of annoyed.

"He's been shot" (oh, no!) --> "We're going to the hospital!" (hurry!) --> "He died on the way there" (oh, no!)

"He's been shot" (oh, no!) --> "We're going to the hospital!" (hurry!)--> "We made it to the hospital!" (Yay!) --> "Wait, sorry, he died an hour after arriving." (What?)

Stories have a lot of shortcuts by implication. A character making it to the hospital is often shorthand for "He's going to live!". When you then subvert that, it can be confusing or annoying to the audience.

I see what you mean about it being a manipulative way to get the audience worked up. There's something that does feel more cruel about dying when you were almost to the hospital as opposed to dying 45 minutes after being admitted.

But by the same token, the latter scenario (which is more realistic) is less dramatically interesting in most stories. I mean, there are times that people are given CPR for long periods of time and still die. But you probably wouldn't want to watch 10 minutes of CPR. So instead we get *chest compression, chest compression* "CLEAR" *ZAP* "He's gone."
I mean, obviously, I know all that (duh). And yes, I get the argument that all stories are by definition manipulative (though personally I don’t feel that’s true at all, but I know how that argument goes). I think you’ve hit the nail on the head regarding the “back and forth”. However, I also feel like real geniuses (subjective as that is, etc) manage to move plot without resorting to such fake “suspense”/plot twists.

To reference your hospital point above exactly, I just watched Babel a few days ago, and when the
WARNING: spoilers below
woman who was shot and critically wounded in the beginning didn’t die at hospital after much dramatic bleeding, suffering, lying in the dirt for days etc, travelling by helicopter and so on,
I was genuinely stunned/impressed by that alone.



However, I also feel like real geniuses (subjective as that is, etc) manage to move plot without resorting to such fake “suspense”/plot twists.
Agreed. I think that there are a thousand and one tried and true plot elements that you know will get a reaction out of an audience.

Interestingly, I think that really great films and talented filmmakers almost stand out more because they are able to subvert or tweak those elements.

For example, there's the sequence in Way of the Gun where the character is dying and gives his last words . . . and then isn't dead yet and finally is like, "So yeah, I think I'd like to be alone right now."

I think that ultimately when you find yourself noticing those "fake suspense" moments in a negative way, it usually means you aren't vibing with some part of the narrative.

@CaptainTerror, does your local pharmacy not offer miracle pills? You should ask them to order some in. I think they're sold by the same supplier that provides those shock pads that restart a heart that has flatlined so that the person can then cough and wake up looking none the worse for the wear.



It's been a couple decades since I've seen The Player, but somehow the movie being pitched (you know which one), somehow seems very relevant for this thread.

ETA: I tried looking for a video clip of the lines I was thinking of, but could not find them. In real life, the internet fails you.



This probably ties in quite a bit with the “no respectable film has a happy ending” concept,

Brazil and Inland Empire have happy endings. Or at least the filmmakers intended the endings to be viewed as happy endings.


Unfortunately, I haven't seen Nebraska, so I can't weigh in on this specific example.



It's been a couple decades since I've seen The Player, but somehow the movie being pitched (you know which one), somehow seems very relevant for this thread.

ETA: I tried looking for a video clip of the lines I was thinking of, but could not find them. In real life, the internet fails you.
Can't find the pitch, just this:



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Some movies have earned happy endings, such as Slumdog Millionaire or It's A Wonderful Life.



Brazil and Inland Empire have happy endings. Or at least the filmmakers intended the endings to be viewed as happy endings.
Not the first ones that’d spring to my mind. Inland Empire probably does, on balance, but with Brazil, though I see the logic, I disagree -
WARNING: spoilers below
the protagonist has, I believe, been lobotomised and is being tortured, and though he has visions of paradise, the audience knows the truth, so that never felt like a “happy ending” to me personally.

Happy endings obviously are plentiful.