The Mystery Box: The McGuffin Theory of Emplotment

JJ Abrams advanced his idea in a Ted Talk in 2008.



What's in the mystery box matters not, according to Abrams. In his presentation, he boasts of an actual magic box he acquired as a child (a multi-pack of magic tricks) from a magic shop and which he has never opened.

The idea is that the magic of movies is in our minds, our anticipation, guessing, wonderment, etc. and so the content doesn't matter all that much. The plot or premise is, itself, just a McGuffin.

This goes a bit beyond even the debate between plotters and pantsers
You can be a pantser and still recognize that you need to deliver the goods in terms of actual content in the finished product. That stated, "pantsers" sometimes meander through their stories. Stephen King, for example, is a pantser. He claims that when writing he is surprised by what his characters do. He sets the initial conditions and watches the garden grow on the page. Gardens still need weeding and trimming, however, and Kinds books tend to be long, ponderous, and poorly resolved. He seems to writing until he's out of gas. If you don't know where you're trying to get at the end of the story, you might wind up just stopping at some random point. King's short stories, on the hand, concise and quite effective in terms of emplotment--he know's how he wants these stories to end (he doesn't just sit behind keyboard watching a culture grow in a bottle as he types away, but has the end in sight), and have more satisfying endings.

I propose something rather stodgy here and something dissatisfyingly unromantic. It is bad, as a global policy, to flaunt emplotment so as to rely upon one's muse to "see where it goes." The end matters as much as the premise matters (Breaking Bad works so well IMO, because the premise IS the plot, the arc is baked into the premise of "Mister Chips becomes Scarface").

After having watched JJ try to outrun his plotholes in his action fare, Ronald D. Moore make increasingly strained story choices (Look, this is shiny!) in his reboot of Battlestar Galactica, and David Benioff and Dan Weiss ruin Game of Thrones when they ran out of source material, I am convinced that you need a pilot who has a good sense of where the plane is supposed to land.

Emplotment isn't sexy and I am all for being a pantser, but the final product has to deliver the goods and writers need a process by which quality is assured in the final product.

What does 'deliver the goods' even mean? Resolution? A narratively structured pay off? Or does it just have to **** on your face?


Good endings are nice. But so are good beginnings. And good middles. I don't favor any of them over the other, particularly, but for some it seems they believe theyve wasted their time if they don't get 'goods' at the conclusion. It's like some kind of brain disease that I'm terrified of catching myself coming onto movie forums or listening to people talk about film. It certainly appears to be contagious.


Now, yes, I get the disappointment that can sometimes come with a movie or tv show which seems to promise some big revelation looming. Like Lost, which is one of the more gut wrenchingly awful finales in history, and was the failed narrative anvil I let get hung around my neck for a few years. But even in that, its shit job of properly resolving the shows mysteries actually opens the door for further reflection on what we already have seen. And, now without all the hoo ha about 'how it will end' behind us, we can realize it already delivered the goods over the course of its many episodes. Everything we needed to understand was already there (if you're willing to look). As it turns out, the lack of payoff is in fact its own payoff.


Basically pantsing it will always be the way to go. Unless you are talking about artists who are masters of narrative, and can be brilliant and truly original inside of those constraints. But those people are super rare. Instead, I just want to join an artist on their process of creation. Dead ends and macguffins and unresolved character arcs are just a bit of scenery to take in on the trip. They aren't anything to fret or mope over. And if they stumble into a great ending, fantastic, if not, I give the world's biggest shrug

I'm not entirely sure what Abrams means, but when reading this, I couldn't help but think of the fan film Grayson.

It's probably the greatest comic book movie that was never made (a look at an attempt to extend the old 60's Batman TV series in a modern & serious way). The film is a preview for a movie that doesn't exist - and that's what makes it so great - there was no film for which audiences could say was a let down compared to the build up of the preview.

As a preview, it's a little movie in itself, but the payoff is the anticipation of something you'll never see because an actual movie was never made.



Come to think of it, Abrams' Star Trek films probably would have been better just as fan-made previews!


P.S. I haven't read a lot of Stephen King novels (so I don't want to generalize)... but I thought a couple of his conclusions made me think, "What a cop out for an ending". The Stand, for instance, has chapters of build up, bringing all the disconnected parts together, but I remember being disappointed by the ending - all I could think was, after all the brilliance of the story, King didn't know how to end it so he just threw a bomb at it.

It has to deliver in terms of the audience's intersubjectivity. We might argue, for example, the fine details of how, why, and when (i.e., jumping sharks) the end of Game of Thrones series did not deliver the goods, but seeing as how so many people were angered by where the show went after they ran out of source material, I am comfortable with the Justice Potter standard that "we know it when we see it."

Delivering the good also involves coherence, staying within the rules that it has created for itself.

Minimally, stories should have a beginning, middle, and end which have obvious functions (e.g., beginnings should capture our attention, set the scene, establish the premise), so yes the conclusion should, in some way "tie it all together," "pay it off," "give closure," etc. So, yeah, some sort of fitting resolution/narratively structured pay-off is needed. Themes are set up. Questions are raised. A thought experiment is started. The joke has the set up--we want the punchline.
And a good story should have all of these. These are not mutually exclusive properties.
To the extent that any part of the story is not good, our time is wasted on the not good part. And it is bad theory of invention which holds that endings will take care of themselves and/or that the plot doesn't really matter. I am tired of hacks in love with romantic theories of production who run out of gas in the middle of a story.
If having standards is a disease, don't worry. You ain't catching it.
The movie cleverly subverts its audience's expectation to be entertained.
Why? I take no issue with sketching and revising. I merely take issue with the idea of turning in what amounts to a first draft and then futzing around with another poorly developed narrative. Not everyone, however, has a process of pantsing at the start, nor should they. You do what works for you. You do what works for the story, just so long as the story--the whole story--works.
There is no such thing as "truly original." There is only "relatively original" in the sense of scratching the itch that people presently have and rearranging the old narrative furniture in a way that seems fresh, in the way that a dish that you haven't had in years suddenly seems "new" when you encounter it again.

Besides this, part of being creative and original is coming up with the actually story you intend to tell, knowing the point, crafting it all together, having those arcs set up. This is part of the job. It's not just shiny descriptions, surprising turns, and cutting slices of life in isolated scenes, but about the greater whole in which these pieces fit. Some people work better with the plot already in mind.
If that's what you really want, then read biographies, marginal notes, and drafts. You will find the confusion and agony of a teenager with pimples.
Nonsense. This is accepting a first draft as if it is a completed project. The dead ends, dead weight, false starts, and so on should be excised from the final project.
It's something to mope over when the overall work of art is damaged by the sloppy finish or the loss of course halfway through. To hell with "stumbling" into an ending. The ending should be as well wrought as the beginning. The whole work should be polished and fit together.

It's ok to prefer one approach over another but I take issue with the word "should" when it comes to art.

Exactly this


I dont think people should reject conventional narrative structures or payoffs. I just don't see why audiences constantly limit themselves to this one way of appreciating film. I ask 'why should' we have to fret over whether a story is perfectly or unconventionally told (or told at all)


Whereas the other side of the argument always seems to be, no, it's wrong to do it any other way. And it's super ****ing annoying. Especially considering how many times this argument comes up and certain people just can't get their heads around it.


Of course we aren't allowed to say 'you don't get it', but at some point what other response can there be? There is rarely any wiggle room on that side. It's their way or the highway.


One of the great things about art is that it is an open forum for everyone to discuss their interests and preferences and blow hard over their opinions. I can't step into an economic or scientific or theological debate, because I only know a fraction of what those people are talking about. But in art, everyone who has ever been in the room with a movie considers themselves an expert. Even when it can clearly be shown they have either no knowledge or completely resist learning about all the different theories that go into creating art. This is one of the main reason storytelling becomes such a focal point of these conversations. It is the element of film that even children being to understand the basics of at an early age. Any veering into abstraction or experimentation, therefore diluting the storytelling, becomes 'wrong'. But this is the equivalent of someone looking at a Cy Twombly painting and being angry that it isn't a picture of horses.

I think what Crummy is saying is that he wants to *** on my face.


I'll do it, but you have to buy me dinner first.

__________________
A hundred percent death proof.

Tomato Necromancy - now with Vitamin R!
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=65140

In essence.


Taco Bell

Art admits of equifinality. There are many ways to achieve the general goal of producing a quality product and even many ways of producing a particular effect (e.g., plotters and pantsers are both welcome). The "should" I am speaking of here is loose. A story does need, minimally, a "beginning," a "middle," and an "end" which are all of good quality, hanging together to form a whole. Regardless of how the thing is put together, it should be a fit together well. Cashing out for "the mystery box view" (i.e., content doesn't matter, just show them something shiny, jangle the mystery keys, and they will be entertained), however, holds the audience in contempt. Holding, as general rule, that the story/plot itself is a McGuffin is terrible recommendation for artistic production.

If, however, we hold to the view that there are no rules in art, at all, that there are no "shoulds," then a master artist will not even know which rules she might break in defying conventions. Devoid of all normativity, we have no way to appraise art as good or bad, because -- after all -- there is no saying that it should have been one way or other that it should have been better or worse. And this is too far.

How does one even begin to pick apart the wrongness looming above.


Not understanding the history of art, its many purposes or what it does outside of one's own preferences is fine. To continue to make assumptions about how others should create art or what an audience might potentially get out of it though is to show that one fundamentally doesn't know what they are talking about.

None of those conditions Corax set up are remotely necessary. And while it can be valuable for an artist to know the 'rules', it is ultimately irrelevant what they did or did not know if their work produces an emotional or intellectual reaction, if it drives conversation, if it gets noticed. Then we can pass those expectations of what is known or not known about 'rules' down to the audience. And, yes, invariably some of those audience members definitely will not know what they are talking about...but I suppose we allow this. Or so it is being illustrated. Because how else would equifinality ever get brought up.

NO IT DOESN'T

If there was a font size bigger than 7 I would've used it.

__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection

This cuts the the heart of the matter.


It's rich that Yarn is so worried about linking the entertainment of an audience and how that reflects back on the value of a product (a movie, a piece of art....a post). Because exactly who, other than Yarn, is entertained by what he writes?


He's the only poster on this site who is even remotely in the same masturbatory ballpark as me, and yet he seems completely unable to recognize he is also predominantly writing for an audience of one. The nerve of such a brain to want everyone else to cater to his particular standards of entertainment. At least I walk the ****ing walk and consistently embrace and defend self indulgent twaddle.

Is this some new form of refutation? He yells loudest reasons best? Chest thumping aside, please feel free to offer an argument support your BOLD CLAIM.

If you are not entertained, there are other threads, other conversations, other posters. Sorry you don't like it. I'm just doing my own thing. If I make a post, feel free to keep on truckin'.

My point is that even when we might find something subpar or unsatisfying, this doesn't demand we don't engage with it at all. Sometimes its better than nothing.


And so while entertained would never be the word, I'm choosing to respond to the things you say that I think are not terribly smart things. Let's call them, incomplete. I guess you're really not that unlike a bad movie yourself. Certainly no Winterbeast, though (well, maybe with all the fun monster stuff cut out)



*translation to Yarn: Winterbeast is a movie with neither a good beginning, middle or end. But entertains me more than your average Yarn post.

The font size was meant to illustrate my frustration at having this argument again, not my relative right-ness. In fact, my entire point is that there's no such thing as being "right".

You claimed that your use of "should" is loose, and in the next sentence told us what stories "need" to do. It is my assertion that artists "need" do nothing.
Ornette Coleman and J Pollock's main contribution to society was their flouting of the rules they were given. Or to use a less extreme example: does every pop song need to have a chorus? Stairway to Heaven doesn't. Did Robert Plant compose it wrong?

How do you feel about films like Koyaanisqatsi? It doesn't fulfill the requirements of a narrative but it doesn't completely serve as a documentary either. So what do we call it? I don't care. I like the series of images the filmmakers chose to put in front of my eyeballs. That's all that matters.


Yes we do, we have our brains and our tastes. The "rules" give us convenient points of reference to discuss why we like something or don't. The rules are not without value. And one is completely within their rights to prefer things that follow the rules. But that doesn't mean anyone is obligated to follow them. The existence of Free Jazz doesn't make standard pop songs irrelevant. They both exist and we can like whichever one we choose (or BOTH!)

I'm not interested in designating things "good" or "bad". In what world is everyone going to agree that Eraserhead or The Waterboy are good or bad?
In the recent MoFo Comedy Countdown, one comment that caught my eye was the person who said, and I quote, "Chaplin isn't funny." Now I've got literally 100 years worth of contradictory evidence to dispute that claim, but what are the chances I would convince that person that they're wrong? I'm not even interested in doing so.

I enjoy hearing the reasons people respond to the art they like or dislike. I'm less interested in the need to reach a consensus regarding a work's goodness/badness, or to rank things in Top 10 lists, or to give out awards to the "best" movie. We like what we like.

TL/DR--
Acceptable: "I don't like Thelonious Monk because his music is noisy."
Unacceptable: "Thelonious Monk should play the right notes."

I think the point is that you don't like me and you just want to get some digs in. Don't we both have better uses for our time?

I don't dislike you. You frustrate me.



If I've offended, I apologize. I like to take the piss and this is just a place for me to pretend fight with people. And I guess sometimes its not so pretend when what I'm arguing about I find particularly annoying.


But to stay on topic, have you ever stepped back and thought to yourself why you think a film 'should' do these things you think are so important? Why it betrays filmdom if it doesn't do these specific things?


I mentioned him above, but go look at some Cy Twombly's work. The particularly scribbly ones. I have two questions for you.



Do you think these are acceptable as fine art?



Should film ever aspire to this kind of thing?