The article talks about how story structure is inevitably the same for every film. Many people would criticize the author's opinions by thinking that a story doesn't have to have those specific points. However a story does not happen without change. If nothing changed than everything would be the same and there would be no entertainment. It would be a educational video instead of a story. I think the author is trying to describe the necessary elements but can't find the right words that are broad enough. That is why there is so much opposition to his statement that a story structure HAS to be like his example. For example, a story doesn't have to have just "a protagonist". Most people interpret a protagonist as one person, but in the film New Year's Eve, there was more than one protagonist. Also people interpret a protagonist as a human, but it doesn't have to be a human. It can be anything. In other terms, the idea he presents is completely correct yet it is a hard concept to grasp only using simple words. It applies to every story yet people don't want to be constrained to such limits. However, people don't realize that these limitations are not limiting at all due to their broad extent and application to everything. Also, the idea in the article that humans need to recognize the "edible, nutritious things" is the idea that humans need to recognize the good and the bad in life. Without structure we couldn't separate the good stories from the bad stories. This concept is important because recognizing the good and bad in life allows humans to distinguish their own quality of life. We have the choice to pick good, edible food and good education or we can pick poison or bad education. However, having definitions between good and bad allows us the right to choose. Story structure is hard to describe yet the author did the very difficult thing of trying to find one definition that applies to all stories.
In this article by Dan Harmon, he talks about how the story structure is a vital component to the art of film making. Dan Harmon expressed that before your actors, makeup, audio and filming you must have the structure and geometry of your film. In the beginning of the article Dan Harmon talks about how even though a movie might have a perfect story structure it doesn’t technically mean that the movie is perfect and will not be entertaining to perspective of the audience. He also said that if there were a bunch of exciting happening in the film however no structure than the film wouldn’t make sense and again, boring for the audience. Dan Harmon says that the whole point of the story structure is so the audience can not only enjoy a good movie but also feel like they are part of it. A story structure isn’t needed for a movie however without a certain model of how the movie going to be like the film cannot be considered a story. Dan Harmon also expresses his own story structure and states that any good movie that someone watches will follow that exact structure. I found this article very helpful in planning for my own story structure as well, since I do agree that it is the important factor in film making and will guide the way to making the perfect you want.
This article is extremely interesting especially since it piggy backs off of the last article discussing the complexity of movies. Essentially what Dan Harmon is saying and presenting is a set of guidelines or steps that make or break a movie. These guidelines and steps are very broad and not specific. They simply make sure that the movie or story is giving the audience all the necessary information that they need to absolutely love it. If a movie is very different from the generic romance type of movies we see today, but it doesn’t follow these guidelines it will stink. It will stink simply because the audience cannot appreciate or understand the weirdness of the movie because they were not given the right information to do so. Some might argue that this means that all good movies not matter how different or complex, follow this method and this is exactly true. They would not be good movies because we as the audience would never understand what they are trying to convey. If a movie has a complex plot, but does not go as far to explain literally what the problem is, who is involved, and many of the other guidelines in this method, then the audience has to do two times the work to not only try to decipher what the problem is and who involved, but also the complex meaning that the director is trying to put in the movie on top of that. I don’t think anybody wants to think that hard while trying to enjoy themselves, or else everyone would be studying every single waking moment of their lives. This post by Dan Harmon really shows that no- matter how complex or different a movie is our human brains cannot allow it to go too far or else it will cease to be entertaining. The cookie cutter good movie guideline is essentially this.
If we don't have characters with some sort of need, and a search to fulfill that need, then we are likely to be dealing with experimental films. For example, Andy Warhol once made an 8 hour film of a man sleeping.
This Mr. Smith's blog page for PASB IB Film. Welcome.