Post 5: Narrative Theory

Narrative is an element of genre and is essential to the experience of the viewing. Narratives provide a framework which, like genre, lends a structure and provides key signposts that we can understand and then respond to. The narratives help us to understand how the characters we see exist within the narrative and how they react as the action takes place. The narratives, along with the genre, help us make expectations of how the story may unfold and from this we try to predict the outcome. At the end of a film we usually find the narrative closes, providing satisfaction and pleasure.

Many critics have looked at narrative and have analysed how it works in various texts. Todorov wrote about the equilibrium and disequilibrium model that he pointed out could be seen in the majority of mainstream Hollywood films.He said the pattern of most films is equilibrium, disequilibrium and equilibrium-restored. This then gives the audience a sense of adventure and then restores the film at the end, creating satisfaction for the audience. Christopher Vogler then took this idea from Todorov and developed it. Vogler claimed there was 'a universal story form- a mythic structure, in all stories across all cultures, throughout human history'. He expanded this in his work and suggested that story elements that were repeated through narratives were based on a series of actions and situations. Vogler then developed twelve stages of the typical hero's journey. Barthes also looked into narrative and developed five action codes. These were the Hermeneutic code, Proairetic code, Semantic code, Symbolic code and the Cultural code

In class we watched various short films and looked at the narratives to see how they compared. One short film we watched was called 'Pop Art', this was about a blow-up boy and how difficult life was for him. We found that this short film fitted into Vogler's twelve steps of action and it also fitted in to Barthes five action codes. From watching the film we found that the hermeneutic code was why was he a blow-up boy and not a normal human. The proairetic code was the pin falling on the blow-up boy's chair. The semantic code was what the blow up boy was being used to represent. The symbolic code was someone who is different from others. And finally the cultural code was bullying and child deprivation.

Another short film we watched was called 'Tender'. Tender doesn't really follow Todorov's equilibrium, disequilibrium model, there is ambigious closure and there is no resolution rather the implication of further disruption. The film shows the boy as quite lonely and isolated from others as there's lots of silence and we are made to feel sorry for him. Although at the end of the film we are not satisfied with an equilibrium restored as we normally would be in mainstream hollywood films. The ending is more dark and we are left questioning what will happen next, rather than being satisfied with a happy ending.

The third short film that we watched was called 'Jade'. The storyline seemed to be quite unclear and was quite difficult to read from an audience perspective. We see that she has a job as a cleaner at a caravan park, where she is also romantically linked to an older man. We are also shown her to be romantically linked to a younger boy more of her own age, this becomes quite confusing as we are not sure what is happening with either of the men. Jade is also pregnant and so where we would usually be made to feel quite sorry for her, we can't as much in this film. Like Tender, it doesn't have an equilibrium, disequilibrium, equilibrium-restored pattern and so at the end of the film we are not taken back to where we started and we are not satisfied with a happy ending, we are left questioning what is going on and what will happen next.  

From watching these three short films it has helped me to come up with ways to make our short film different to others and different to mainstream Hollywood style films. They have helped me discover new ideas of film making, for instance we don't have to always have a happy ending and necessarily follow Todorov's model. For our own short film we have decided that we are going to follow our main character through just one day of his life and instead of having a typical happy reolution ending, we want to have a more unconventional ending and leave the audience asking questions.