Up to chapter 15: Why to discuss firsthand the obvious fact?

MOVIES ARE NOT THE SAME AS NOVELS

Well, Mr. Robert McKee writes something in chapter 15 of Story (back then I had no idea) he should had long before.

Movies are different to novels[1] — fortunately for me, the book has proved useful itself[2] in spite of this small truth.

Is it clear? I mean, movies have actors and novels don’t — read it aloud in a smart alecky a… You know voice.  Not so much. The basics or narrative building up for both cases is not as clearly different as one could muster up[3]. The media is different, thus the techniques differ. However, narrative has its own particular ideas about herself.

Hence fore, the differences are technical and related to the inherent possibilities and limitations of each media without excluding the only two possible outcomes: it is rather well done or badly done. And the reason how a good book can end up being a bad movie. The off voices, flashbacks and explanations should or should not be there according to such limitations and possibilities. The limitations are the key cues to use or not to use something. Yet, that’s not the important matter.

PHILOSOPHY VS ACTION

Whilst McKee says novels are the mental door to the character’s mind; which offers us the entrance to philosophical deranging, movies are to be PURE ACTION. [I never stood on my toes wondering when was he to mention this difference]. For Robert, this is so painfully obvious; the matter is not to be mentioned until he realizes he has to speak about adaptation. And only due to the difficulties of adapting and the need to expose his ideas or tips on it; otherwise he wouldn’t have mentioned it.

I mean, such a difference is BASIC ENOUGH for us to notice… Such as the difference between reality and fiction… And for anyone who has watched The matrix, the difference is not so obvious. Not because we believe in the machines using us as batteries. BUT because we are aware of the things a mind can do. There’s schizophrenia out there [not to say Alz]. A mind can blurry the difference easily. We don’t know how the mind does REALLY WORK to claim reality and fiction are just plainly two separate things altogether just like that because it is obvious. Yes, it is obvious but only until someone does point it out and wonders. Lately there are historians wondering if History is truly a separated thing from narrative and discovering the Law is a pretty useful way of using narrative.

WHY THE OBVIOUS HAS TO BE DISCUSSED PRIORLY

Thus, such a basic obvious fact needs to be discussed in order for us to notice and not waste our time following tips or ideas just to discover later, we’re not aware of the media’s strengths and weaknesses.

You don’t write a movie the same way you write a novel despite it being quite difficult not to learn how to, by reading novels when you’re a scriptwriter and watching movies as a novel writer. Movies envy novels and novels envy movies.

The difference is the spotlight. Movies have spotlights for the main characters whilst they lack the inherent interest in the internal mechanisms of the mind a novel might have. And I won’t say HAS. Some novels are not at all exemplary in terms of elaborated thoughts. It’s impossible to compare the guy with a killing permit by her majesty to Milan Kundera. Kundera can pull a deux ex machine out and still leave us unsatisfiedly happy.

Vice versa, I won’t say novels can’t be action. The thing is, we see the action in the movie. We don’t care about what’s going on internally by listening to the thinking since we SEE it (or listen to it) and believe we have access to the thinking through the actions. Novels are… for a different nation altogether. Yes, imagination. And for this difference, I think it is best you listen to Hilary Mantel in Adaptation than my nonsensing.

Do you like nonsense? Share it, tear it apart, squeeze it, comment. This blog is not me alone. It features you too. Pasto kalo.

The difference is the spotlight. Movies have spotlights for the main characters whilst they lack the inherent interest in the internal mechanisms of the mind a novel might have. And I won’t say HAS. Some novels are not at all exemplary in terms of elaborated thoughts. It’s impossible to compare the guy with a killing permit by her majesty to Milan Kundera. Kundera can pull a deux ex machine out and still leave us unsatisfiedly happy.

Vice versa, I won’t say novels can’t be action. The thing is, we see the action in the movie. We don’t care about what’s going on internally by listening to the thinking since we SEE it (or listen to it) and believe we have access to the thinking through the actions. Novels are… for a different nation altogether. Yes, imagination. And for this difference, I think it is best you listen to Hilary Mantel in Adaptation than my nonsensing.



Do you like nonsense? Share it, tear it apart, squeeze it, comment. This blog is not me alone. It features you too. Pasto kalo.

---

[1] What can I do if I live under a mushroom? It’s not my fault the guy writes a book as if everybody does know he is a famous script writer or script writing teacher. I’ve never seen his name on any credits. I usually pay attention when the credits have the phrase «Based in the book Y by J’ in case the book is any good.

[2] Specially when writing new entries for this nonsense of a blog

[3] The usual division in three acts, dialogues, the «show never tell» rule, focalization through POV, information manipulation…

Cuentos escritos a máquina Uno para cada mes