Fiction gives the illusion of reality without literally
depicting reality. A simple example of this is seen in dialogue. Real dialogue
is much more open ended than story dialogue. In a story, good dialogue makes it
“sound” like real people are speaking, but the dialogue carries weight and
information that is not often seen in actual dialogue between real people.
Unlike real life, fictional stories and movies are self
contained entities and pretty much every major aspect of said story needs to be
self-referential to the story itself. For example, most of you are probably
familiar with the statement that, if you show a gun in the first act, then that
gun should be used by the third act. Fortunately,
this is not the case in the real world. A correlate of the “gun” rule in
fiction is that the gun used in the third act should not be revealed only in
the third act. It should be part of “setting the stage” for the third act.
The “gun” rule extends to other aspects of a story as well, particularly
to characters. In the best storytelling, I believe, all the important
characters in a book or movie should appear within the first half dozen or so
scenes. I’d go so far as to consider it something of a cheat to introduce a new
character halfway through or later that plays a major role in how the story
ends. This happens in real life all the time, of course, but fiction and real
life are not the same thing. If one must introduce a brand new character
halfway through a book or movie, then I believe it becomes extremely important
to tie that new character to someone who was
introduced earlier. That helps, at least, although it doesn’t completely fix the
problem.
All of these thoughts coalesced in my head this morning
after watching the movie L o o p e r last
night with Lana. If you haven’t seen it, you might not want to read further
because I’m not sure if I can keep from giving away some spoilers.
There was some good stuff in L o o p e r, including some pretty good acting jobs, especially by this
little kid actor who was awesome. It had some interesting ideas, but there were
some huge plot holes that really took away from my enjoyment of the movie. It
also had a violation of the “gun law,” which troubled me just as much as the
plot holes.
A number of characters are introduced early in the movie,
and the viewer begins to make some judgments about them. As the plot unfolds,
the viewer, this viewer anyway, begins to seek within the existing characters for
the connections that will play out in the movie’s finale. Then, halfway through the movie, two new
characters are introduced, almost literally from left field. These characters
have no relationship initially to ‘any’ character introduced before, but the
whole ending of the movie revolves around them. The original characters come in
contact with the new characters and the movie proceeds from there. To me, the “gun,” the new characters, was
introduced far too late to play fairly with the viewer and it left me feeling
dissatisfied.
By its very nature, fiction manipulates the reader or viewer,
but because of that the writer has to bend over backward to play as fairly as
possible. Only in such a way will the reader or viewer feel as if they were
part of the fun instead of being yanked around by a chain.
If you saw the movie,
did this aspect of it bother you at all? Do you find violations of the “gun
law” troubling? I’d love to know.
----
----