The Archaeology of Storytelling
posted by Rob on 26 Sep 2008

I find it sort of strange and sort of interesting that some events take place in stories because they took place in previous stories and have become sort of weird convention. It's even stranger when these events don't happen naturally in real life. For instance, I've lost count of the number of times someone on TV has magnified a grainy photograph a few hundred times and then 'enhanced' it to reveal an important clue. That might have worked before most of us had either digital cameras or much experience of computers, but surely no one is fooled now. We don't really think that even the most powerful computer can take the three dots on a photo that represent a shiny brass button and reveal a reflection which shows the number plate of the killer's car, do we?
Likewise I've mentioned before my surprise at how often I see a 'binary explosive' on TV. Nothing wrong with the idea of a two-part explosive, any more than there's anything wrong with the idea of a two-part glue, but in movies it's always used as a way to evade detection because the two components are harmless before you mix them. We've all seen it half a dozen times on TV and are probably quite surprised to find it's make believe (which is a problem if you happen to be locked up for planning to make such a thing).
Strangest of all is the Hollywood view that if you show people in a spacecraft floating weightlessly it won't look real, so they're shown in a sort of slow-motion instead which the audience interprets as weightlessness and supposedly finds more convincing. In case I didn't make that clear, I'm saying that real weightlessness is thought to look fake, so Hollywood has invented its own fake weightlessness which apparently looks more real. Check out video footage from shuttle missions if you want to see what I mean; it looks nothing like 2001.
I've even seen B movies with time travel devices in them which feature a little three-pronged dealie-bob like the flux capacitor out of Back to the Future. Of course that could just be an homage, but I doubt it. The last thing most B movies want to do is raise the suspicion that they're lifting their ideas from popular blockbusters - specifically popular blockbusters with enough money to afford scary intellectual property lawyers. No, sad to say, I think it's much more likely that whoever designed these knock-off flux capacitors thinks "that's how time machines look".
Of course lots of weird and unrealistic things that happen over and over in movies happen simply because they're awfully damn handy if you've got a plot to service. And there's a sort of pleasurable frisson of recognition when you have one pointed out to you. For instance, it is an inviolable law that if anyone in America is murdered, their front door unlocks itself making it easy for the next visitor to discover the body.
If you haven't already read it, Roger Ebert (who's America's Barry Norman) has compiled a highly entertaining collection of them in The Bigger Little Book of Hollywood Cliches and I recommend it.
Comments: 5

This is all very well, but what, precisely, is a Jigawatt?
Posted by: John A-W | September 26, 2008 09:57 AM
John, check out the wikipedia entry. The sad truth appears to be confusion about how to pronounce 'giga'.
Posted by: Rob | September 26, 2008 10:02 AM
My favourite annoyance is when people drive cars in Hollywood films; they never look at the road but spend the whole time arguing with the passenger, and vaguely moving the steering wheel once in a while.
Posted by: Richie D | September 26, 2008 12:31 PM
I feel that all this has something to do with the development of cultural language, which is something none of us can deny. Flux capacitors appear everywhere because they're a shortcut for time travel that (just about) everyone knows of and understands. Cliches, although they can be tiresome, can also be useful to avoid long explanation - to keep everyone in the loop.
I understand that in cases like the weightlessness thing, directors have had to depend upon what people want to see rather than the truth, but it's not so very different.
Posted by: KatharineC | September 26, 2008 01:28 PM
I'm wondering when the first law enforcement agency employs Mssrs Voight and Kampff.
Posted by: Christopher Teague | September 28, 2008 07:25 PM