Tip for other writers: watch old movies. Here's why. · 6:08pm Oct 20th, 2013
Some people have asked me for tips in writing, and by 'some' I mean 'one or two readers'. Let's just say I want to throw out some content and none of the four stories I'm working on are done.
Having just watched 'The Private Life of Henry VIII', I think I've come up with a good tip. If you want to be a good writer or a better writer, try watching old movies, especially classics like the aforementioned or things like 'Metropolis' (the black and white German classic, not the Superman series) or the original 'Planet of the Apes' or 'The Ten Commandments', or 'Queen of Sheba', if I remember the title correctly. 'Soylent Green' was okay, I think, but I've only seen the French-dubbed version. Also, minor spoiler on that one: Soylent Green is not made of people. Check the context of what is happening, it's not what most people think it is.
But why? What makes this type of movie good for a writer, and what would a modern movie need to do to be as useful? A couple of things come to mind.
For starters, the really old movies, the silent ones, were made with a handicap. There could be no dialogue, no talking, no emoting through voice. As a result, you'll notice in Metropolis a lot of the body language is exaggerated. The mad scientist looks absolutely bonkers, the deranged robot is completely out of this world. Likewise, Charles Chaplin made his career by exaggerating his motions, precisely because he couldn't do it with dialogue at first. And later when he did get to use dialogue, it blended well with his acting. But we'll get to that in a second.
Why does this acting matter to a writer? Well, how do you define a character? A character should be unique. It needs to present a Self. And as such, there needs to be a Not-Self. But how do you show that? The way Carroll (Pete, not Lewis) described it was thus:
"The thing that makes two people react to the same stimulus in a different way is called the ego."
There's more to personality than ego, and the stars know I'm no certified psychologist, but it gets the point across. In silent movies, characters convey nearly everything through motion alone. You learn what the character is like, what their personality is and what their values are, not just because of how they react to things, but because of how differently they react to the same thing compared to other characters. Why is this one guy so obsessed with the workers' plight? Why does this other guy, knowing the same thing, not react the same way? More to the point, why is this one character constantly looking wide-eyed and terrified of what he sees, while this other one remains calm? How are these actors conveying these characters? How does the story illustrate their differences? Are they being faced with different stimuli (betrayal, victory) or the same ones?
For a pony example, look no further than the Season 1 pilot. Same stimulus: Equestria under threat, going into a dangerous forest. Different reactions: putting up a brave face, admitting to fear, laughing to cheer the group up. If you want a more modern movie that shows good characterisation, I'd refer to How to Train Your Dragon, especially the parts with the dragon training. You know who's the macho in the group, who's the nerd, and who's just in it for the laughs not because of how they look, but because of how they act.
There's a reason animation classes often repeat that a walk cycle is the most important thing to learn. It's one of the ways one character acts differently from another, visually speaking. In writing, that means knowing which gestures go with which characters. Will Octavia be more prone to facehoofing or will she just glare in front of her when somepony around her messes up? What about Twilight and Rarity? Is one more prone to some behaviours than the other?
What does this mean for story writing? Ask yourself which characters are being put in the same position and how differently they are reacting. Are they all school children reacting differently to a new student? How different? Are they all yearning to get a certain something? Do they all care about this thing as much, or is there one who cares more, and if so, how is this one's response different from that of the others?
Another good reason to check out older movies, this time with dialogue, is just for dialogue. If nothing else, older movies seem to resort to more powerful dialogues, little lines that give you a jolt or a chuckle. This is usually a way of adding character to a film, rather than an individual in the story. And again, the way a character talks is a way to distinguish it from others. That's not just in the voice, but the mannerisms as they talk. Why does the antagonist of 'Food Fight' insist on waving her arms in the air as she talks? Does Will Turner wave his head around as much as Jack Sparrow while speaking, or does he tend to keep it more stable? What about Davey Jones? How do his lips move when he talks, or the rest of his head?
In writing, that becomes a matter of knowing a character's habits. Do they call someone 'doll' in a Southern drawl or a sophisticated 'darling'? How do they talk when they are happy? How does their speech evolve into fear, or anger? And, if relevant, how does their body language evolve along with it?
Does Fluttershy keep her head as high as the rest of the main cast, or does she let it hang more often? How often does Twilight groan in frustration, compared to Fluttershy? What does Fluttershy sound like when she groans? Can you recall the sound she makes? Does she even have that sound in her repertoire?
[Note: you don't want to get repetitive with these things, not in writing. In writing, overusing this will stick out. Keep the mannerisms the same, but try to either vary the wording of the same gesture or consistently use a unique wording and use it sparingly enough to be a running gag. Alternatively, if the gesture is something that is held as a posture or ongoing action, describe how the posture evolves to keep it fresh.]
If you want a modern example of a movie where the dialogue and the body language are meshed well, I'd recommend Muppet Treasure Island. Because you're dealing with puppets, all of the motions have to be deliberate. Every sway of the head, every little tremor, that needs to be added in either for comedic effect or because the character moves that way. Another good point to remember is that puppets have a limited range of motion, so certain human expressions simply aren't possible. That needs to be compensated for somehow. Check out where the articulations are, what the moving parts are and which motions come up for which personality traits, it's a lot more clever than you might realise. To be fair, though, it's worth watching that one just to see Tim Curry hamming his way out of being executed. Even Jack Sparrow couldn't manage that on Ham alone. It's also good just for animation fans, if you just watch for which pieces of the puppets are in the frame.
And lastly, on the topic of noticing things, good movies and good stories have another thing in common: they manage to distract you from the bad things about them. "But that goes for any movie!" you might say. True, but consider the following thought.
The Ten Commandments has fairly rudimentary special effects. You don't really believe Mozes parts the Red Sea anymore, it looks green-screen. But it is still considered a classic.
The Transformers movies had special effects so intense they allegedly crashed the ILM computer trying to render them. I think it was the second one's Devastator that did it. And... most people do not look fondly on any of those films.
The good films that are considered classics and timeless become timeless because people care too much about the film to whine about plotholes or outdated special effects. The Wizard of Oz (the musical film, you know the one) has a bipedal lion. We're supposed to think that thing in makeup is a lion. And we do, because it's a character we've come to adore. In fact, watching a film where the Cowardly Lion is a quadrupedal lion, as it is in some animated versions, can make this added accuracy look bad in comparison. Yet the quadruped is closer to an actual lion, it is more 'correct', but it is not as 'iconic' or 'appealing'. We just stopped caring about it being a real lion because we liked that one more. Ditto on the whole 'sending a little girl off to commit manslaughter' gig.
How do you take that reasoning to writing?
If a story has characters the reader can care about or relate to, they'll be more forgiving of any flaws than if it were a completely unrelatable character. If a story, a plot or subplot, can grip a reader emotionally, they'll be more forgiving of logical gaps. Avatar, the Last Airbender series gripped a lot of people, so they get away with some of the lesser moments. I'd bring up my own fanfics for this, but you can probably guess which moments work and which ones do not. Likewise, which moments are compensating for the ones that really don't work? [Not counting the scene I deleted from Flight Camp]. It's the reader who decides on that one. But you need to have something good, and you cannot rely on superficial gimmicks if you want to make a quality story. Likewise, if your grammar is terrible, it can drag down a great story. If your grammar is subpar, it can be forgiven in a great story. If your grammar is excellent, your story can still be shoddy.
My point is: if you set out to tell a story you know will get people upset about one little thing, try to add to the things that make it better. If you know people will hate this Mary Sue OC at first, make sure your first chapter isn't focused on this OC, but on a more relatable character reacting naturally to this OC. If you know people will hate how much aggression is coming from one character, make sure this aggression is dosed properly and don't have the whole story centered around it. If you know people will hate the reason for this huge, epic fight, make sure the fight is worth the suspension of disbelief. People will still comment on the thing and say they hate it, but at least they'll still like the story.
Bottom line: if your readers need to make an effort, make sure you reward them adequately for this effort. And think about how older movies used to reward people, and how modern movies tend to.
Wise Cracker out.
Older movies don't reward people? They're boring and unmemorable for the most part?
1438129
You do realise that Star Wars (the original movies) pretty much fall into that category too, right?
*readies gun* Might wanna reconsider dat, pardner.
No, most older movies tend to have these really powerful oneliners that really hit home, whereas modern movies tend to rely more on imagery. It's more common to see vast landscapes or have the focus be on the world being created rather than the story or the characters. Older movies, the classics, don't tend to get bogged down by anything because there is nothing to bog them down.
For example, in the Matrix you have to put up with a predictable traitor and a needless team death. What's the payoff? The epic scene of the remaining characters storming a building, and several special effects shots with bullet time.
In "Kung Fu Hustle", you have barely defined characters, but you get a quick attachment to them in the Pig Sty Alley Showdown scene. The payoff is the fighting scenes, people forgive its lack of plot easily because it's still there.
As for older movies, take the Wizard of Oz. Why do we put up with the glaring holes in the story? Because the characters all get their good moments. The payoff you get is summarised in either feeling justified in liking a character or satisfaction that the characters have overcome an obstacle, primarily. There's exceptions, granted, but I think the rule used to be 'story and characters first' and now it seems to be 'scenes and looks first'.
At least, the good old movies do. The bad ones... yeah, bad old movies don't even have special effects to hide behind, so they can end up looking even worse in comparison.
This. This was a FANTASTIC read, and gave me a lot of things to think about. Thank you sir or madam.
1438521
. And glad you enjoyed it!
I am a sir
Little bonus round if you're an animation fan: watch 'Food Fight' or a commentary thereof, and keep an eye on the corners of the mouths. Do they ever move (smile, frown) or not? On the flips side, there's Niko and the Way to the Stars. Do the reindeer have eyebrows? More to the point, do they emote with eyebrows or is it something else that's moving when they frown? I noticed it while trying to make that Blender raindeer thing, and... yeah, still need to schedule that one properly, actually. And if you're not a movie fan, try checking the MLP episodes for instances where you see these things applied. Are Rarity and AJ different in work ethic or just in the end goals of their work?
It's a good thing to watch for, especially when writing shipping fics: where do two characters meet and react the same way? Just something to think about.