« Stalling For Time | Home | Self Imposed Exile »
Luc Besson: Storyteller
By Corvus | June 1, 2007
After watching the stylistic train wreck lat weekend that was Arthur and the Invisibles, I’ve been stewing over Luc Besson’s creative output and thinking how I might depict it using the storytelling model I wrote our white paper on…
When I hit upon it the other day, I thought it would be a good opportunity to discuss the physical representation of our model a little more in depth, specifically how the skill of a storyteller and the influence of the audience are portrayed.
Color Key
- Green = Story
- Blue = Plot
- Red = Narrative
- Magenta = Structure
- Cyan = Theme
- Yellow = Metaphor
The storytelling model is read from the bottom up. The lower two rings represent the author’s (in this case, Besson’s) story and plot. They are not only lower in the two dimensional space of the image itself, but in the three dimensional space the image represents. That is to say, the author’s story and plot underlie and support the narrative.
The center solid disk represents the actual narrative which is passed to the audience. The structure and metaphors influence the shape of the narrative.
The upper rings represent that audience’s involvement in the storytelling process. The audience layers their understanding of the medium (film in this case) and its structure (the means by which it conveys plot) and their awareness of cultural and personal metaphors over the narrative and recreate the plot (as they understand it) and experience their own story, which gives rise to an understanding of the theme of the piece.
You’ll notice a few things about Luc’s diagram here. First off, his story and plot are disconnected from each other, resulting in a lack of theme. This is, perhaps, slightly uncharitable of me. Some of his movies have very clear themes– Fifth Element and Leon for example. However, I don’t feel that Besson’s use of theme is a truly integrated approach of allowing the story to be expressed via the plot. Instead, theme is tossed into the narrative as a stylistic element which has little bearing on the events of the plot.
You also notice that structure and metaphor have very little impact on the narrative. The reasons for this are pretty self explanatory. Structurally, Besson’s films (particularly his later films) are a mess. Some of the issue are with the editing, other seem to stem from an incomplete vision of the project as a whole (i.e. lack of solid plot).
Likewise, there is very little use of intentional metaphor in Besson’s films. Rather than focusing on conveying story in this manner, Besson seems to fixate on what would “look cool”.
The narrative itself is the largest element of Besson’s contribution to the model. This reflects his focus on style and presentation. Of course, given the small impact of plot and story on the narrative, it’s left to the audience to decide if style is enough.
Moving on to the audience portion of the model, I decided to be generous and not model my own involvement in Besson’s work.
When the overlying audience rings are used to show what experience the storyteller hopes to provide the audience, they exactly mirror the underlying story and plot rings.
This model shows the effect of a very active audience member, who goes to great lengths to apply their understanding of film and awareness of cultural myths and metaphors to build a complete and satisfying experience from the narrative. In other words, this model show the audience doing most of Besson’s work for him. I, however, am not so generous…
In actuality, my awareness of metaphor and my understanding of the medium of film so completely overlay Besson’s offerings that they practically envelop his entire narrative, story, and plot (I’m not bragging here. After all, it’s not like I’m talking about David Lynch or David Cronenberg). This results in a complete disconnect between my storytelling experience and Besson’s storytelling attempt. In other words, I so completely over analyze my media that Besson’s work completely fails to connect with me on almost any level (although do tend to enjoy seeing still shots of his work and I love the character design of the Minimoys).
—
Okay, that was fun. Hopefully it was also useful. By and large, I’ve not had a lot of specific feedback on the white paper (beyond the initial peer review and congratulatory comments) and I’m curious to know what you think of the practicality and/or comprehensibility of the model.
Also, would it help (or just be fun) to have me discuss models of particular games, or other directors, or novels, or comic books? Would it be helpful (or even simply fun) to provide your own applications of the model to a particular storytelling experience and we can discuss them*? Would it be terribly selfish if that were the topic of this month’s Round Table? If describing a game or movie with the model were the topic, would you join in? What if I volunteered to render your sketches of the model in 3d for you (limit two or three per blogger)?
These questions aren’t rhetorical in the least, so please toss out some answers for me!
*Don’t worry about doing them in 3D, you can hand draw them. Although, I will happily make the Blender 3D file available if you want it.
Tagged:storytelling. | 15 Comments »
June 1st, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Too many vague terms here. Plot is well defined as the “events.” But then you’ve got story and narrative, which provide measurements of what? Structure is easy… is it 3 Act? 4 Act? 5 Act? 12 stage Hero’s Journey? 9 act? Although I’m not familiar with Arthur and the Invisibles, so I’ll have to take your word that the structure is not easily discerned.
I guess you could say the characters and their conflicts help define the narrative. And that all of these things combined make up the grand total ’story,’ although as a word it only serves measurement of the total — and not in any definite way. The sum is always ’story’ no matter how you cut it, right? So it’s a bit non-essential to what it is you’re trying to measure unless you have a different definition which places story further down in the hierarchy as one part of the greater sum (a sum which is also, confusingly, often called a story).
Which raises a good question; What is it you’re trying to measure?
Theme is fine, granted the story has one–which it sounds like it doesn’t. I’d place metaphor and symbolism under theme in the hierarchy as more often than not a story’s metaphors (note I say story metaphors and not prose metaphors) usually allude to the larger theme.
Were you simply looking to create a graphical representation? Trying to sort the purpose of the exercise and how each term functions within that purpose.
Sorry to go off on semantics…
June 1st, 2007 at 12:24 pm
The ringed cluster is a little bit confusing, for something like this I’d probably go with a mind map. If you’re just trying to measuare comparative tally of the different elements, a bar graph might work better.
Apologies for poking at your sand castle, when I see stuff like this it just becomes immediately apparent how I’d measure things differently.
Can’t help geeking out on this stuff.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Eric — did you read the storytelling whitepaper? Not that any of your points is necessarily invalid, it’s just that it seems your post is a response to this particular blog entry alone… ?
Corvus — If this month’s roundtable is based on the whitepaper you might kill off those of us participating in the drinking game.
As for my own tastes, descriptions of movies and games with the model would not be all that entertaining, but then I’m not one for literary analysis either. I’d rather see a loose “Respond to the model” or “What can you do with the model” theme if it’s to be a whitepaper flavored month. Mebbe that’s just me though.
-Tim
June 1st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
The point of the exercise is to provide more concrete examples based upon the model described by the white paper, the latest iteration of which is illustrated with models very similar to this one.
I already know you take issue with the concept behind the model and refer to things things very differently, so… I guess I’m glad you’re geeking out on it at least!
June 1st, 2007 at 12:53 pm
I think what makes the ringed cluster misrepresentative is that the three rings are shown as equadistant to one another, and depending on the construction of the story they may or may not be. It’s confusing to show some parts as equal for a story where clearly there is a deficiency in one or more of the circle overlaps.
I see character & conflicts being a circle, which overlaps with plot (events) as another circle, and that overlap is RED forming the narrative, where narrative is more or less just ’story’ but we’re not done adding up a sum of parts and should reserve ’story’ for the grand total.
In other words, narrative isn’t a circle but a color defined by the overlap of two other circles.
I guess what I’m saying is you’ve got to separate colors from circles, and that some elements are only colors, and others only circles. And that circles overlap to define a color, so colors represent sums while circles represent individual elements.
Does that make sense? Trying to get the system straight in my head here, so forgive me for thinking out loud.
I’ll stop being spammy for now and allow you to parse all my gibberish. heh
June 1st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
“Circles” are really just there to define areas of color, so there’s no real way to separate them, is there? The reason narrative is solid and plot and story are not is that narrative is the only actual thing to be transmitted to the audience in the process.
And again, story is an element in this process, not the whole. If you conflate the entire model with “story” then it’s not our model.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:03 pm
…and please, Eric, keep arguing your point! I’m terse because I’m at work and having a terrible afternoon. I really do want to have this discussion in public, so keep at it.
Also, it’s not a measurement but a model. A new method of depicting the act of storytelling.
I’ll put together a more substantial response based on all the feedback later…
Tim, I’ll keep those things in mind and I did warn you that you might need two bottle of tequila!
June 1st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
I think Eric is pointing out that there can be more depth to both the plot and the narrative, specifically using his examples of characters and conflicts. While it’s true that these elements exist in stories, I think that they are effectively covered in the narrative and plot circles. A conflict is a part of the plot, as is its resolution. A character is part of the narrative as are their clothing and speech.
I think it would be interesting to analyze a story by its balance between character development and plot development, but I don’t think its the purpose of this model. If the characters are shallow, that’s an aspect of the narrative, and if there aren’t any conflicts or any conflict resolutions, that’s an aspect of plot.
And that was my take on the discussion thus far.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Certainly there can be more depth to plot and narrative. This particular illustration deals with a (in my opinion flawed) application of the storytelling process and a slightly abstract one at that, given that it deals with a body of work rather than a specific title. Perhaps my habit of starting abstract and moving toward reality isn’t working so well here.
Additionally, Eric makes it pretty clear that the model does not fit his definitions for things. That’s fine of course, but it wasn’t exactly the conversation I set out to have here. I more meant to discuss things within the model, not definitions external to it. Now that he’s opened the lid on it, though, I’d like to continue it.
As far as characters being shallow or deep, that can be due to a number of factors. In the case of Besson, his characters are shallow because they are shells comprised primarily of stylistic narrative choices, rather than being avatars meant to convey an experience or transmit a message (which would place their origins in the story). When they do have more depth, it’s because they represent plot details meant to move things along.
Both the Ferryman and Travel Agent characters in Arthur and the Invisibles are good examples of this. Both are clearly stylized characters, but their function within the narrative is merely to move Arthur from one point to another. Neither do their job with any mythic resonance. They are not wise guides, or sly tongued inhabitants of the crossroads. Because of this, they are eminently forgettable and without depth.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I understand the use of the model for understanding the creation of narrative. I’m not sure it works as a rhetorical methodology. The relationship between the model and criticism of the movie seems shaky and arbitrary. In other words, it comes across more that you don’t like the guy’s movies, and have tried to cram an explanation into the whitepaper’s model.
I’m also confused by your audience analysis. You implicate that an active and metaphorically-aware audience is necessary to really enjoy Besson’s films. But is this actually his audience? Clearly you meet that criteria, but you’re not a fan. I was always under the impression that he was much more of a popcorn moviemaker, and didn’t rely on an involved audience at all, in which case those big circles are inappropriate.
Finally, I know that you’re a big commedia fan and all, but does everything have to be mythic?
June 1st, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I’m not 100% certain it does either, or whether it even needs to. Given that I created it to give visual form to a storytelling model, it might not be flexible enough to handle anything deeper… but I suspect it can be so I’m going to keep refining and examining it until I come to a conclusion one way or the other.
I didn’t mean to give that impression. Quite the opposite. In fact, I pointed out:
I was generous in that I modeled him an audience that could connect with him at all, as I find I cannot.
Commedia dell’arte is just one small part of my appreciation for the storytelling process. My issue with Besson is not that he fails to be mythic, but that he appears to be trying for mythic and failing miserably. Additionally, his mastery of his medium sucks. Bad writing, poor editing, insipid characters and no dramatic tension makes for a lackluster action/adventure movie in my opinion.
I enjoy a well crafted popcorn flick as much as the next person… and you know what? Most of the good ones that people really respond to in a big way are completely mythic in nature and scope.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Ah, okay, here’s the disconnect then: You’re modeling the audience rings as someone who can connect with what he’s putting out–they’re the optimal receivers for this message, in that they’re actually getting more story and plot out of the narrative than he put in. You’re saying that they have to do so, because his inputs are so poor. But your description treats those circles as a model of the audience experience, not of the audience themselves. That’s a different level–wouldn’t any storyteller ideally want the audience to have a similarly rich experience from simple inputs, even if that audience is not terribly sophisticated? After all, that’s part of the appeal of mythic shorthand.
Granted, my reading of your whitepaper was informed by comm theory, so I basically saw it as a parallel to the sender->message->receiver model. The way I saw it, you’d broken that message down into story and plot at each end, and tried to see how they influence the message as well as being interpreted on the other side.
But while this is a good model for understanding the transmission of messages, I think (as I’ve said) it doesn’t really form a good critical framework for understanding why those messages are or are not effective, which is the question you’re trying to answer here. As you say, it’s probably not supposed to–it’s meant for the design and production side of things, and it does that well.
But this raises the dilemma: what models are going to be effective at explaining how a narrative effectively reaches the audience? I usually reach for my copy of Sonja K. Foss’s Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice to answer that kind of thing, but my feeling is that any of the standard rhet-crit methodologies would do just as well.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Tim,
Yeah, I read the whitepaper. I was one of the people who gave him feedback on it. I had problems with the wet noodle that is ’story,’ from the beginning. If the model is meant to be a tool to examine stories, then I’m not sure the value ’story’ has. Even with the fabula + theme explanation from the whitepaper, it’s still pretty nebulous. The only reason I’m stuck on that is what’s the point in creating models that have very sketchy aspsects to them? The point is to make our understanding clearer, not obfuscate and muddy it by providing unclear definitions. To me it’s the Achilles Heel of what I think is a very good attempt at shedding some light on this whole storytelling thing.
The other half of that is, the number of elements chosen is pretty wide, while still leaving quite a few out. As discussed, there is plot and narrative, but where do characters and conflicts fall into this? Some aspects of the model cover storytelling elements in great detail while other elements are missing entirely. This tells me the model could stand to be more robust, or at least more focus placed on the definitions themselves.
Part of the confusion is also hierarchy. Themes, metahpors, and symbolism, if I understand the whitepaper, are supposed to fall under “story.” Whereas in most literary theory, greater story metaphors and symbolism fall under the topic of theme in the hierarchy. This storytelling model seems to ignore a lot of that. Granted, it is spun towards games and less towards film or literature, but I think there could be a greater attempt to fuse a bridge between them by not abandoning *all* conventions and orthodoxies from the other fields. There is quite a bit of existing literary and storytelling theory, if you dig for it. I’ve spent the last few years studying a lot of it in order to become a better storyteller.
What makes it all a little baffling is when I look at the storytelling model here and don’t understand a lot of the terms, logic, or hierarchies to the way things are organized. It seems as if it should all feel very intuitive and familiar, but it doesn’t.
And it could turn out that, if this is the way Corv likes the model, then it’s really more my problem than anyone else’s. I’m fine with that, but he’s been seeking feedback so I didn’t want to pull any punches here.
June 3rd, 2007 at 8:18 am
Eric, I fail to understand why the element of story within the model seems so nebulous to you. Is it because you’re a concrete thinker? All of your blog posts on writing seem to deal with the nuts and bolts of writing–plot and structure.
Story is simply the experience you want the user to have and, on the other half of the model, the experience they actually have. It’s doesn’t seem that nebulous to me.
I’m not a hierarchical thinker, but I don’t see how my model of expressing story via theme and metaphor differs so dramatically from placing metaphor ‘under’ theme. To my mind it’s less a hierarchy and more of a cooperation between elements to produce the whole.
Additionally, I’m sure you recognize that you’re not the only one who does a lot of reading to try and improve their storytelling skills. I clearly have done a lot of reading and studying as well. And, based upon my studies of semiotics, mythology, religion, folklore, music, art, theater, film, improvisation, sociology, anthropology, philosophy and psychology, I feel this model is incorporating conventions and orthodoxies from other fields. But when reading about the craft of writing I often ran into definitions and structures which people could use to exclude the inclusion of games into the realm of storytelling and that’s specifically what I avoided providing here.
Character and conflict exist within the entire model. Some characters exist within the plot, meant primarily as functionaries. Others are meant to convey a particular mood or communicate an experience, these exist within story. All characters, clearly, exist within the narrative (although it could be argued that Godot doesn’t exist with the narrative, but only within the story). Most characters are probably there to both advance the plot and convey a message, meaning they are comprised of all three major elements–narrative, plot, and story. The same could be said of conflict.
Perhaps the issue here is that you’re looking to this as a low level granular model which can be directly applied to the craft of writing. This isn’t my intent. This is a high level approach to the art of storytelling. I sense that you are so firmly entrenched in your own approach (which is fine) that you are placing barriers between yourself and comprehension of the model.
In other words, you’ve been layering your own understanding of the medium and your personal metaphors, metonymy, and themes over my narrative and devising your own understanding of the plot and story of the model. Unfortunately, so foreign and entrenched is your idea of things that the plot and story you devise bear little resemblance to the narrative I intended. This is evident from the feedback you initially presented me with which, in essence, was, “This model is inaccurate. You should completely restructure it.” Ironically, it’s a reaction which completely validates at a major premise of my model.
Anyway, I feel you’ve much more thoroughly addressed your issues with the model here than you had before and I appreciate it. In the long run, you’re right that if it’s the way I like the model, it’s more your problem than mine or anyone else’s. But I’m glad you’re throwing punches. It’s been very informative and will have a positive impact on the next revision of the white paper. Thank you.
Thomas, I’ll reply to your comments later!
June 6th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
[...] this link stand as a reminder that there is a palpable need for scholars of literature and film to help [...]