We have all heard that great stories are told through their subtext. But what is subtext? Generally it's said that the subtext is what is not being said, but if this is the case, why doesn't a TV, that's been turned of, communicate a lot of wonderful subtext?
Saying that subtext is what's not being said is just explanation using empty words and has no practical value. Subtext is the part of the story told in the audiences imagination. To use subtext optimally we need to influence and control our audiences imagination and do it with out them noticing it. If they start noticing the tools we use to try to influence them they will be paying attention to the tools and not the characters and the story - with other words: We've lost them.
Since the subtext is told in the audiences imagination and therefore is influenced by their life experiences and who they are as people, the subtext is the part of the story that the audience have the strongest emotional connection to, and therefore is the part of the story that communicates the strongest to them. If we have a theme or message that we want to influence people with, that message should be communicated through the subtext.
Although the filmmaker know that the subtext the "strongest" part of the story and they understand that the subtext is told in the audiences imagination, filmmakers still tend to ignore the audience when writing and directing the film, probably because the audience is a storytelling element that the filmmaker can not directly control and therefore is more afraid of failing with. But the irony is that ignoring the audience when making the film is taking a very uncertain path that probably will lead to failure.
So, how can we influence the audiences imagination? One way is through using metaphors and metonymies. A metaphor is something everybody has heard of, but what is a metonymy? A metonymy is something that communicates a message by being part of or closely related to the message it communicates. Smoke can be a metonymy for fire, a ring can be a metonymy for marriage etc. A metaphor communicates a message it is not a part of and not directly related to. So, just as a ring can be a metonymy for a marriage a blanket can be a metaphor for a marriage.
There is a difference in how metonymies and metaphors communicate and influences the audience. Metonymies, since being a part of the message they covey, communicate much faster, where as metaphors generally need to get their message "baked in to" or dramatized in to the metaphor itself for the audience to see the connection.
I'll try to explain this clearer by using a story of a failing marriage as an example. When using the metonymy of a ring for the marriage, it would be enough to start with one scene of a woman tearing the ring of her finger and throwing it at her man for the audience to understand that this is a failed marriage. If we, however, use blanket as a metaphor for the marriage we need to dramatize the message (the marriage) that the blanket needs to communicate by, for example, first showing a scene with the woman running in the rain and a man offering her cover under a blanket his holding over his head, then a scene of the couple in front of an open fire sitting in close together under the blanket, maybe also a scene with the couple holding a baby wrapped in the same blanket, and then a scene showing the man seeing the blanket hanging out of a moving box.
Both these examples communicate a message but do it totally differently. The efficiency in the ring example allows for more action where as the more dramatized blanket example creates a stronger emotional connection with the audience. Now, this doesn't mean that metaphors are always better than metonymies, it depends on the situation. It isn't possible to dramatize the message in to all signs used in a film (with signs I mean anything that communicates a message, visual or aural), it would just make the film totally unbearable. In my opinion, metaphors should be used for the more important signs that represent some bigger thematic elements in the film, where as metonymies can be used for the less important things that are needed to move the story forward.
Also, look at the two examples above and think about what they tell you about the rest of the story. Will they both end in separation or is there a chance in either for the couple to solve their problems and get back together? The faster opening in the ring example gives the audience less emotional connection to the sign (the ring) and therefore also to the marriage, this hints at an ending where they won't get back together. The blanket example does the opposite, creates a emotional connection to the sign and therefore to the marriage and through this hinting that the couple may get back together in the end. Having a clear opening of a story is very important, using metaphors and metonymies intelligently can help you with this.
Another thing to think about is that a sign can, at the same time, be both a metonymy for one thing and a metaphor for another. Taking the ring example, the ring can be a metonymy for the mans failed marriage and at the same time, if the man tries to get her back, a metaphor for his naiveté. In the story, it will be first when he gets rid of the ring that he will have changed as a person and has matured.
To complicate things further, signs often communicate a different meaning alone than together with other signs. But my thoughts on how signs can work in juxtaposition to each other, in synergy and in contrast, and how one plus one may equal three is something I will save for a later article.
I hope you have enjoyed reading this article. I'm sorry for the lack of new post these last two months but they where fairly chaotic and I felt I needed to prioritize away something. I promise improvements in the future.
Peter Hertzberg
Saying that subtext is what's not being said is just explanation using empty words and has no practical value. Subtext is the part of the story told in the audiences imagination. To use subtext optimally we need to influence and control our audiences imagination and do it with out them noticing it. If they start noticing the tools we use to try to influence them they will be paying attention to the tools and not the characters and the story - with other words: We've lost them.
Since the subtext is told in the audiences imagination and therefore is influenced by their life experiences and who they are as people, the subtext is the part of the story that the audience have the strongest emotional connection to, and therefore is the part of the story that communicates the strongest to them. If we have a theme or message that we want to influence people with, that message should be communicated through the subtext.
Although the filmmaker know that the subtext the "strongest" part of the story and they understand that the subtext is told in the audiences imagination, filmmakers still tend to ignore the audience when writing and directing the film, probably because the audience is a storytelling element that the filmmaker can not directly control and therefore is more afraid of failing with. But the irony is that ignoring the audience when making the film is taking a very uncertain path that probably will lead to failure.
So, how can we influence the audiences imagination? One way is through using metaphors and metonymies. A metaphor is something everybody has heard of, but what is a metonymy? A metonymy is something that communicates a message by being part of or closely related to the message it communicates. Smoke can be a metonymy for fire, a ring can be a metonymy for marriage etc. A metaphor communicates a message it is not a part of and not directly related to. So, just as a ring can be a metonymy for a marriage a blanket can be a metaphor for a marriage.
There is a difference in how metonymies and metaphors communicate and influences the audience. Metonymies, since being a part of the message they covey, communicate much faster, where as metaphors generally need to get their message "baked in to" or dramatized in to the metaphor itself for the audience to see the connection.
I'll try to explain this clearer by using a story of a failing marriage as an example. When using the metonymy of a ring for the marriage, it would be enough to start with one scene of a woman tearing the ring of her finger and throwing it at her man for the audience to understand that this is a failed marriage. If we, however, use blanket as a metaphor for the marriage we need to dramatize the message (the marriage) that the blanket needs to communicate by, for example, first showing a scene with the woman running in the rain and a man offering her cover under a blanket his holding over his head, then a scene of the couple in front of an open fire sitting in close together under the blanket, maybe also a scene with the couple holding a baby wrapped in the same blanket, and then a scene showing the man seeing the blanket hanging out of a moving box.
Both these examples communicate a message but do it totally differently. The efficiency in the ring example allows for more action where as the more dramatized blanket example creates a stronger emotional connection with the audience. Now, this doesn't mean that metaphors are always better than metonymies, it depends on the situation. It isn't possible to dramatize the message in to all signs used in a film (with signs I mean anything that communicates a message, visual or aural), it would just make the film totally unbearable. In my opinion, metaphors should be used for the more important signs that represent some bigger thematic elements in the film, where as metonymies can be used for the less important things that are needed to move the story forward.
Also, look at the two examples above and think about what they tell you about the rest of the story. Will they both end in separation or is there a chance in either for the couple to solve their problems and get back together? The faster opening in the ring example gives the audience less emotional connection to the sign (the ring) and therefore also to the marriage, this hints at an ending where they won't get back together. The blanket example does the opposite, creates a emotional connection to the sign and therefore to the marriage and through this hinting that the couple may get back together in the end. Having a clear opening of a story is very important, using metaphors and metonymies intelligently can help you with this.
Another thing to think about is that a sign can, at the same time, be both a metonymy for one thing and a metaphor for another. Taking the ring example, the ring can be a metonymy for the mans failed marriage and at the same time, if the man tries to get her back, a metaphor for his naiveté. In the story, it will be first when he gets rid of the ring that he will have changed as a person and has matured.
To complicate things further, signs often communicate a different meaning alone than together with other signs. But my thoughts on how signs can work in juxtaposition to each other, in synergy and in contrast, and how one plus one may equal three is something I will save for a later article.
I hope you have enjoyed reading this article. I'm sorry for the lack of new post these last two months but they where fairly chaotic and I felt I needed to prioritize away something. I promise improvements in the future.
Peter Hertzberg
Comments
Post a Comment