Storytelling is natural for humans. It exists in every culture and existed far earlier than the earliest writing. We have told stories since we learnt to communicate and one can argue that the advanced form of communication we have evolved out of our need to tell stories. Storytelling is in our blood.
We are all fairly good storytellers, at least when we don't really try. We say: "A crazy thing happened me last weekend. I went out with some friends and on our way this half-naked man painted in pink a purple jumped out and started dancing the ballet. It was hilarious!" Or with other words, we tell them what the story is about (act one: showing the theme and building expectation), we tell them the story (act 2: deliberating the theme), we again tell them what the story is about (act 3: tying up the story, proving the theme).
This may at first seem too simplistic but it is a natural way for us to communicate. If you disagree with me you can argue: "I think you are wrong! Because this idea is too simplistic and could used in every situation. I mean, the stories I'm telling are far too deep and philosophical to fit in to a simplistic formula like that! That's why I think you are wrong in saying that this is how we should tell stories!" Or, in other words. You first told me your message (I think your wrong!), you then tell deliberate the message, stating why I am wrong (I mean the stories I'm telling...), and you then finish with stating the message again (That's why I think you are wrong...).
This is a natural way for us to communicate that we have heard since we were born and have done since we learnt to talk. Why would we go against it? If we started our story without stating what it is about we will not be able to build expectation and excitement in your audience and it will be hard for them to understand what it is you're trying to tell them. If you leave out the deliberation and just state your opinion once and again your story will sound like propaganda and you'll lose your audience because no one wants to be preached to. And if you leave out the ending, where you again state your message and prove your point, your audience will probably not see what it is you are trying to tell them or even dislike you because they feel robbed by you leaving out the ending.
Ideally, even though what your film is about should be clearly stated in the beginning, the deliberation be clear in the middle, and the message clearly proven in the end, it shouldn't be stated out loud. It should be stated in the subtext, but still be clear. The actions and the plot are only the metaphors you use to carry your message and make your message more easily digestible and less preachy.
The message of your film, your reason of making it, is the spine of your film, the skeleton that holds it up. Without the skeleton the body of the film will fall flat, but a visible skeleton also means that the film is broken, just as the skeleton works in a human body. And that is what storytelling is about.
Thank you for taking your time,
Peter Hertzberg
We are all fairly good storytellers, at least when we don't really try. We say: "A crazy thing happened me last weekend. I went out with some friends and on our way this half-naked man painted in pink a purple jumped out and started dancing the ballet. It was hilarious!" Or with other words, we tell them what the story is about (act one: showing the theme and building expectation), we tell them the story (act 2: deliberating the theme), we again tell them what the story is about (act 3: tying up the story, proving the theme).
This may at first seem too simplistic but it is a natural way for us to communicate. If you disagree with me you can argue: "I think you are wrong! Because this idea is too simplistic and could used in every situation. I mean, the stories I'm telling are far too deep and philosophical to fit in to a simplistic formula like that! That's why I think you are wrong in saying that this is how we should tell stories!" Or, in other words. You first told me your message (I think your wrong!), you then tell deliberate the message, stating why I am wrong (I mean the stories I'm telling...), and you then finish with stating the message again (That's why I think you are wrong...).
This is a natural way for us to communicate that we have heard since we were born and have done since we learnt to talk. Why would we go against it? If we started our story without stating what it is about we will not be able to build expectation and excitement in your audience and it will be hard for them to understand what it is you're trying to tell them. If you leave out the deliberation and just state your opinion once and again your story will sound like propaganda and you'll lose your audience because no one wants to be preached to. And if you leave out the ending, where you again state your message and prove your point, your audience will probably not see what it is you are trying to tell them or even dislike you because they feel robbed by you leaving out the ending.
Ideally, even though what your film is about should be clearly stated in the beginning, the deliberation be clear in the middle, and the message clearly proven in the end, it shouldn't be stated out loud. It should be stated in the subtext, but still be clear. The actions and the plot are only the metaphors you use to carry your message and make your message more easily digestible and less preachy.
The message of your film, your reason of making it, is the spine of your film, the skeleton that holds it up. Without the skeleton the body of the film will fall flat, but a visible skeleton also means that the film is broken, just as the skeleton works in a human body. And that is what storytelling is about.
Thank you for taking your time,
Peter Hertzberg
Comments
Post a Comment