Words and Images ? pamela marcantel

You know, I?ve been writing for a lot of years, and over time have found myself wading through very different modes of communication.? Essays, poetry, literary criticism, movie reviews, short stories, novels, screenplays?I?ve done `em all.

People sometimes ask me which I prefer to write, novels or movies.? That?s like asking which I like best: chocolate cake or chocolate ice cream.? They?re kind of the same, but different.? And I do love chocolate.

The thing is, when it comes to writing fiction, the kind you read or the kind you watch, there are pros and cons depending on which you?re crafting.? That?s because books are about space, and movies are about time.

Allow me to explain, thusly (ahem):

Books not only are meant to be read, but read in a certain way, by putting them down and returning to them again when time allows.? Sure, you can read a short novel in one sitting, but I dare you to go through something in the 300+ page range in a couple of hours or less, unless of course you?re an exceptionally gifted speed reader.? It?s a given that reading a book is a relatively leisurely pursuit, and it?s in the nature of a novel?s consumption that you might even want to return to an earlier chapter or passage to re-read it.? Maybe you admire the writing so much you want to re-experience it; maybe you read it so quickly the first time that you missed some crucial detail and want to pick it up.? The point is, books are about space unconstrained by the limitations of time.

Not so with movies, which are deliberately made to be viewed in one sitting.? Yes, the advancements in technology have made it possible to stop viewing a film and return to it whenever you want.? However, that?s not what the filmmakers intended when they made it in the first place.? And you do lose some of the fluidity and momentum inherent in the film when you jump around from one scene to another.? That?s because movies are about time.

All of this describes the experiences of the readers and audiences.? This space/time dichotomy has an effect on the writers as well.

There are no rules when it comes to writing fiction (well, very few anyway). ?This gives a novelist or short story writer almost unlimited freedom, and all writers tend to be an independent lot, generally speaking.? If you want, you can write a novel that takes place entirely within the protagonist?s head?and many novelists have, with varying degrees of success (Ulysses being arguably the most famous).? Indeed, internal monologues are de rigeur in modern fiction, so the reader has access to every formative ordeal and neurotic tic in the characters? lives.? A novelist can lovingly create their back stories and other salient events at a gradual pace, allowing them to unfold like budding flowers.? In other words, nothing much has to happen in a novel for it to be an interesting read.? More or less.

Not so with film, and that?s because they?re entirely visual, and constructed with time as the underlying element.? Almost all movies run somewhere in the 90-120 minute range.? No matter how interesting a film might be, only the most rabid fan will sit still long enough for his backside to go numb from the inactivity that watching a very long movie demands.? Even The Lord of the Rings had to be divided into three separate movies, and those fans are among the most devoted on earth (and yes, I?m one).

What this means for the screenwriter is that he has to limit himself to a preordained number of pages, between 80 and 120, roughly, and the entire story has to fit within that template.? Not only that, but because the medium ultimately will play out visually, s/he has to show everything going on with the characters from the outside looking in, rather than the other way around.? And she has to do it while still being mindful of revealing the necessary subtext, motivations, and layers to the characters.? That plus that the fact that things have to happen, My Dinner with Andre notwithstanding (and even that fits into the three-point plot model).? Historically, only the most experimental art films (European-made, primarily) have bucked that imperative.

Which brings me to another feature of movies:? Unlike purely verbal fiction, they are highly structured according to universally approved formulae.? There has to be an opening, an event that sets the plot in motion, and challenges of ever-increasing intensity for the characters right up to the climax and resolution.? This is applicable regardless of genre, of whether the movie is about an unraveling marriage or an invasion from outer space.? A movie has to. . .well, move.? There can?t be (or shouldn?t be) any fat hanging around to slow down the action or distract the viewer from the story.? Screenwriters therefore are constrained in ways that novelists aren?t.? It?s also true, however, that writing a good script demands that the writer bring a particular discipline and concentration to his craft as he closes the seams and makes his story appear free of the calculus that in fact underlies it.? A challenge that the fiction writer never encounters.

So which do I prefer writing?? Depends.

Yeah, yeah, that?s a weaselly answer.? But it also happens to be true.? Some stories inherently are books, others movies, and some can successfully straddle both media.? It?s the tale itself that decides what it wants to be.? Know what I mean?

Like this:

Be the first to like this.

Source: http://pamelamarcantel.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/words-and-images/

bruins boston bruins carl crawford mad cow disease rampart jimmy fallon jimmy fallon