Narative in Film

I seem to receive a lot of stick from people when I suggest the idea of having a narrative that flows through a film and does not require to have CGI or massive explosions in it to tell a story or to be enjoyed.

Now I may be stuck in my ways but it's is just the way I am. I remember talking to someone once about The Artist and the person turned to me and said "you know it is in black and white and is silent don't you?" I said yes and asked why did this matter?

Story telling for me is something that has to flow in a film, it has to have characters I am involved with and that I care about otherwise for me I just cannot get into the film. I know that this is subjective and please do not misunderstand me I am not against CGI and explosions but if a film relies on this to me a at least the film in itself has failed.

Kevin Smith gets a lot of criticism in his films and I can understand why at times but he at least knows how a story should continue and how to make me care about what is going on on screen.

Am I wrong in this? Do I take my cinema goings to seriously or do you think I am right in what I want?

You're right for you and those who believe the same way but wrong for those who prefer a more visual or poetic form of cinematic storytelling. I'll take what comes, but I prefer a mixture of the two.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I don't even need narration in my movies.

__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.

Would you say though that on occasions narrative is almost forgotten or is pushed aside for the sake of visual and cgi effects? I remember watching The Matrix Reloaded and seeing the fight scene and wishing they would go back to a scene with five minutes of dialogue because honestly I was loosing patience.

Failed at what, exactly?

Whether a film succeeds or fails as a whole depends on what the filmmakers were trying to achieve in the first place. You can't really apply this notion to all films universally.

So if you have a problem with a heavy reliance on CG and explosions, then the film has only failed to appeal to you specifically. Each and every film fails to appeal to every viewer. So in that respect they're all failures.

__________________

So, you aren't against CGI but you aren't exactly a fan of it either. Does that mean there are certain films you just simply won't watch? There are a lot of CGI heavy films out there which are quite good.

For me at any rate films that do rely on special effects to tell a story or to move a story along have failed, if I cannot be told a story without massive effects to make the point I am unsure they tell the story.

Like I say I accept that this maybe a purely personal thing and it others may not see in this way. I don't believe that all movies the rely on CGI etc are failures over all, it is proven with box office records etc but on a personal level I would rather see a film with less effects on screen than with more. I think less visual effects keep a film fresh and interesting, use them to much and I believe they become less interesting and pack much less of a punch when you see them.

Again, it all depends on what story the movie is trying to tell. Action, horror, science fiction, fantasy, and disaster movies have always relied heavily on special effects because most of the time it's necessary. If that sort of thing doesn't appeal to you,that's fine, but that doesn't mean the movies have failed.

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't think they have failed, they appeal to a market and many others love these films and I would never ever say to someone "don't watch this film because it does not appeal to me", that is just ignorant on my part and possibly the worst thing anyone can ever say.

I am not sure I am putting this very well but when a story is put to the back and special effects are at the front and the story is almost secondary this is when I dislike it I guess, but as I say, this is very personal to me.

I get where you're coming from, especially in regards to needing to be able to care about the characters in a film. If I don't care about the characters in a film, then I don't care about the film as a whole. But I don't necessarily see that as a failure on the part of the movie, it just means the movie isn't for me.

I have to fully admit I had kinda forgotten about these, in the sense that I still have some planned but have no real goal for when to write/make them.

CGI is as much a part of contemporary cinema as editting, animation and actors are. Some directors use it to a greater extent than others, and sometimes films solely rely on the power of awe to immerse it's viewers rather than an intriguing narrative. Depending on my mood I can admire both 'types' of films, a hungover sunday noon with The Chronicles of Riddick or The Hobbit is all good, while a friday evening probably requires something more sophisticated. What I mainly appreciate in a good film as such is the manner in which cinematography is actually used to tell a story, and - of course - the actual story. Some films are so reliant on unneccecary special effects the story gets lost and the art of skillfull editting becomes lost to the simplicity of the CGI onscreen, there is no art in that. But as stated before neither film is "bad," the goal of films such as Transformers is not to 'tell a story' I believe, but to show big robots fighting eachother, which - for the sake of god knows what - has a thin narrative to link the special effects together. Citizen Kane, suffices to say, tells an amazing story with an intelligent use of flashbacks and great cinematography, is a milestone in cinematic history and Orson Welles' use of deepfocus results in awesome shots to portray the complex narrative. I can understand you're not waiting for those things every day either. I say watch what you feel like?

Citizen Kane uses visual effects in over half of its shots, not much different from a modern CGI film, except it's used for narrative and thematic resonance

__________________
Mubi

I am aware of this, but the effects in Citizen Kane (such as long shots of Xanadu and such) are not exactly the major theme, like they are in The Lord of the Rings or Pacific Rim, for instance. There are older films that rely on special effects for a major part in order to immerse or amaze the viewer, The Ten Commendments (1956) by Cecil B. DeMille or Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927) for example.

Other visual effects in Citizen Kane (most notably the use of deepfocus) have been invoked by brilliant use of the camera, mostly, which is why I think that is different from having a special effects team create images digitally. It's more artful, I guess we could involve Walter Benjamin his notion of 'aura' on this, but that would probably overcomplicate things.

Eye candy is nice, but without a story its....The Transformers!

__________________
Under-the-radar Movie Awesomeness.
http://earlsmoviepicks.blogspot.com/