welsch@ihu1e.UUCP (l.a. welsch) (03/02/86)
I am somewhat surprised by the debate on new or novel. A summary of comments is given below, followed by my own observations. >>>So name a movie made in the last twenty years that has had "new or novel ideas" >>>in it. (and describe which part you consider new or novel) >>>David Siskel Ebert Richards, III >> >>How about '2001: A Space Odyssey'. This movie was many, many, many years >>ahead of its time in special effects (as space movies go). The scenes with >>the 'shuttle' into the rotating space station are still considered to be >>pretty decent effects (even in this age of 'Star Wars' and kin). Most of >>the space movies up to that point were of b-grade quality or worse (Don't >>you remember watching 'Lost in Space'?) Pretty awful effectw, what say? > >Correct me if I'm wrong but what I believe the original writer is saying >in his challenge is that there is no such thing as an original idea, only >new presentations of old ideas. In other words, any "new" story idea can be >broken down into its elements and traced back to other story ideas. The >only thing a filmmaker can hope for is a "novel" approach to that idea. > >Look at "Star Wars" for example. Nothing new there in basic plot elements, >it's just good vs. evil. What makes it different is its presentation. It >convincingly takes you to faraway worlds and introduces you to strange >characters. It all comes down to how the characters and events are portrayed >and that's where the originality lies. > >A book by Wells Root called "Writing the Script" says there are only about >thirty-six basic dramatic situations and goes onto a list a few of them. I'm >not about to list them here, but if anyone is curious, I suggest they take a >look at this book. It offers a good explanation of this "dilemma". What does it take to be new and novel in a movie? I don't know, but, I see a lot of movies and some are new and novel. The criteria is not one of just plot, but includes direction, music, photography, and all the factors that go into making a film. Further, I consider a unique combination of standard techniques, which artisticly makes sense to be new and novel. Also, for a film to have new and novel ideas, does not require all aspects of the film to be new and novel, just one new and novel idea for the film is all that is required. '2001: A Space Odyssey' was certainly new and novel, not only for its special effects, but for its treatment of intelligence, particularly machine intelligence. I know of no earlier movie that seriously considered a computer capable of independent thought. HAL was not just a machine gone mad, but, a thinking machine that made a decision to kill people based on the data available. Another Stanly Kubrick film dealing with a new or novel ideas is 'A Clock Work Orange' which deals with the concept of conditioning as a means of rehabilitating criminals. Two other films come immediately to mind. Woody Allen's 'Zelig' which deals with a human chameleon, and Woody Allen's 'Purple Rose of Cairo' which deals with an actor who climbs out of the screen into reality. Certainly Zelig was motivated by the concept of the invisible Jew who fades into his surroundings, not a new concept, but certainly not a concept treated in the movies nor one treated so well as Woody Allen does. I would be curious as to which of the "thirty-six basic dramatic situations" 'Zelig' fits. The Beatles 'Yellow Submarine' combined popular music and cartooning, in a way never done before. Nothing like it has been since. 'Fritz the Cat' brought X rated cartoons to the film industry. Andy Warhol's 'Watermellons' was a classic underground film. I doubt if you can find the plot of 'Watermellons' as one of your standard "thirty-six" plots. More recently consider 'Saturday Night Fever' and 'Flashdance' for their use of photography, dance and music. Not that there was never dance or music in films before, but the way these two films treated dance and music is unique, and have had influence over the whole Music Video Industry. You have to be blind, or only interested in a small subset of film not to see many new ideas and concepts in film in the past 20 years. People do categorize and there are similarities. The problem with categories, such as plot categories, is that categories are dependent on similarities, not differences. For example take the category of films dealing with "disaster." They range from the 'Poseidan Adventure' to 'A Boy and His Dog.' But, to claim there is no difference between these films because they are both disaster films is blind. Larry Welsch ihnp4!iwvae!welsch
ecl@mtgzy.UUCP (e.c.leeper) (03/06/86)
> >A book by Wells Root called "Writing the Script" says there are only about > >thirty-six basic dramatic situations and goes onto a list a few of them. > > Andy Warhol's > 'Watermellons' was a classic underground film. I doubt if you can find the > plot of 'Watermellons' as one of your standard "thirty-six" plots. Robert Heinlein once claimed there were three, count 'em, three plots: 1) boy meets girl 2) the little tailor 3) the man who learned better (He later added a fourth, which escapes me.) He's probably right. But, then, not every movie has a plot either. Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl (or ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl)