{"id":26017,"date":"2014-01-12T21:07:28","date_gmt":"2014-01-13T03:07:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/?p=26017"},"modified":"2014-04-21T16:37:47","modified_gmt":"2014-04-21T21:37:47","slug":"understanding-film-narrative-the-trailer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/2014\/01\/12\/understanding-film-narrative-the-trailer\/","title":{"rendered":"Understanding film narrative: The trailer"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Wolf of Wall Street.<\/em><\/p>\n

DB here:<\/p>\n

At many points in The Wolf of Wall Street<\/em>, we hear the voice of Jordan Belfort chronicling his exploits in building up a rapacious investment company. A few times he even addresses the camera.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s he doing? Well, he\u2019s telling us a story, obviously. Stories are what many (not all) films present to us. But how, exactly, can we understand the storytelling process in film? What do the filmmakers do, and what do we do?<\/p>\n

For my book Poetics of Cinema<\/em>, I wrote a chapter called \u201cThree Dimensions of Film Narrative.\u201d This 2007 essay tries to come to grips with several questions.\u00a0Some are pretty general. What makes a film a narrative? How does a narrative film shape our response? What roles do visual and auditory techniques play? What are the roles of emotional responses and broad cultural factors? How does characterization work in a movie?<\/p>\n

Other questions are narrower. How revelatory is Hollywood\u2019s three-act model of plot? How do we pick out a story\u2019s protagonist? Do literary concepts like \u201cnarrator\u201d and \u201cimplied author\u201d apply to films?<\/p>\n

Since the chapter is part of a larger book, some of these matters are dealt with at greater length in other chapters. Some are developed in other books, notably Narration in the Fiction Film<\/em>, and elsewhere on this site. This essay was my attempt to boil down my thinking about filmic storytelling into one convenient, if sometimes sketchy, form.<\/p>\n

Today I\u2019m posting a corrected, slightly revised version of that chapter as a downloadable pdf file. Thanks to our web tsarina Meg Hamel, it has links as well. Students, teachers, researchers, and casual or ardent cinephiles: Make use of this as you like.<\/p>\n

The essay is\u00a0here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This blog entry is a guide to the essay, or maybe just a trailer. As with a trailer, my use of The Wolf of Wall Street<\/em> is illustrative; I’m not offering anything like a full analysis or even a review. And like most trailers, mine has spoilers<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The three dimensions I explore in the essay are narration, plot structure, and story world.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Dimension 1: Pushy narration<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A film\u2019s narration<\/em>\u00a0I take to be unfolding and organization of story information as the viewer encounters it, moment by moment.\u00a0. (This is distinct from the term \u201cvoice-over narration,\u201d like Jordan\u2019s in The Wolf of Wall Street<\/em>, though voice-over commentary is part of the overall narration.) Narration is designed to shape our itinerary through the film. It\u2019s a complex array of cues that guide us in building up the story.<\/p>\n

In The Wolf of Wall Street<\/em>, the first dose of information we get is a TV commercial for the Stratton Oakmont investment company. We see busy, efficient brokers bent over their desks in a vast office as a lion paces the aisles. But then we get another view of the office, as partying staff prepare to launch a little man in a Velcro suit toward a target. The man is hurled, and one of the men who tosses him identifies himself as Jordan Belfort. We\u2019re then launched into a sequence laying out Jordan\u2019s lifestyle.<\/span><\/p>\n

One thing this portion of the narration does is to peel back the staid, solid image of the brokering house and show the orgiastic self-indulgence behind it. What if Scorsese and his screenwriter Terrence Winter hadn\u2019t included the commercial? Our sense of the contrast between public image and internal debauchery wouldn\u2019t be so strong.<\/p>\n

The quick scenes of Jordan\u2019s lifestyle, driven by drugs, sex, and high living constitute a block of concentrated exposition. The narration could have introduced Jordan\u2019s debauchery gradually through hints, but instead we\u2019re told of it bluntly and swiftly. Jordan boasts that at age 26 he made nearly fifty million dollars a year. We\u2019re coaxed to ask: How did he get so far?<\/p>\n

This is, we might say, a curiosity<\/em> question\u2014a question about what in the past led up to the present. A film\u2019s narration is often prodding us to ask just this question. A piece of narration may also provoke effects of surprise<\/em>, as when the Velcro-target episode undercuts the corporate image. Surprise is central to narrative because knowledge is distributed unequally among characters and spectators; any character may have a secret.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s also suspense<\/em>, which we can consider broadly as a sharpened anticipation of what might happen next. In The Wolf<\/em>, I\u2019d argue that there\u2019s some suspense when Jordan, zonked on Quaaludes, must save Donnie from choking on a piece of ham. Curiosity, surprise, and suspense aren\u2019t of course the only effects of storytelling, but they function as \u201cmaster-effects,\u201d in Meir Sternberg\u2019s phrase. They are central to our comprehension of the story.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Style as narration<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

At the same time, narration is shaping our experience through film style. The staid tracking shot along the desks in the commercial, with the firm\u2019s trademark lion prowling the aisles, clashes with the abrupt editing and freeze-frame that introduces Jordan. The actors\u2019 performances, centrally the swaggering performance of DiCaprio, are part of narration as well. The soundtrack\u2019s stylistic texture contributes a lot too, with Jordan\u2019s voice-over and the music and effects creating a rousing, exhilarating effect. The narration\u2019s use of film technique, I think, aims to summon up a shocked but fascinated and amused awareness of the decadent world that Jordan rules.<\/p>\n

Throughout Wolf<\/em>, Scorese\u2019s stylistic choices serve narrational purposes. There are rapid montage sequences, commenting musical tunes, and dialogue hooks<\/a> (\u201cI won\u2019t call him\u201d\/shot of Denham, called, approaching Jordan\u2019s yacht). Scorsese\u2019s fondness for rendering psychological states\u2014here, druggy ones\u2014is presented through classic \u201cimpressionist\u201d techniques<\/a>. As the film goes on, he starts to take us into characters\u2019 minds through inner monologues and misperceptions (the smashed Ferarri). Stylistic patterning also contributes to the film\u2019s tone of grotesque comedy, not just through the dialogue, delivery, and music but through editing. The potentially dramatic moment of Jordan rescuing Donnie with CPR is intercut with a Popeye cartoon: Jordan\u2019s miraculous spinach is coke.<\/p>\n

By shaping our knowledge, the narration also throttles the film\u2019s emotional appeal up or down. For example, in one scene Jordan punches his second wife Naomi. Scorsese presents the action in a distant shot, in which a doorway allows us merely to glimpse the violence.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This choice lessens the impact of Jordan’s aggression. It gives us important information about the story action, but not nearly as forcefully as the tight close-ups of sexual and drug-fueled escapades in other scenes do. You could argue that closer and more visceral views (of the sort we get during\u00a0Raging Bull<\/em>\u2019s domestic violence, as above) would make it harder to treat Jordan\u2019s bad-boy high-jinks as entertaining.<\/p>\n

A more detailed analysis would trace the overall development of the film\u2019s narration. We\u2019d consider, for instance, how it restricts our information at key points. Although the narration breaks with its attachment to Jordan to show Denham\u2019s investigation, it doesn\u2019t reveal Naomi\u2019s scheme to divorce him. We learn of that only when he does. As we indicate in Film Art: An Introduction<\/em>, “Who knows what when?” is a central question for understanding film narration.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Narration as inference-making<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

More generally, the essay develops in some detail a notion that\u2019s central to understanding narration.\u00a0I offer a mentalistic<\/em> account of narrative understanding.<\/p>\n

I think that a storytelling movie, through its narration, impels us to draw inferences. To follow a movie story is to turn the images and sounds into characters, actions, events, causes, and the like. This happens partly through fast, automatic inferences of the kind we make constantly in perceiving the world, and partly and more evidently through the inferences we make in building up that construct we call the movie\u2019s story.<\/p>\n

Everything I\u2019ve been describing so far asks us to fill in, extrapolate, and draw conclusions at the level of comprehension. We take the Stratton Oakmont commercial as indicating trustworthiness. We\u2019re encouraged to see the little-person-tossing scene as outrageous and boisterous but cruel, the amusement of people charged with a reckless energy. Jordan\u2019s bragging montage sequence invites us see him as powerful, arrogant, and materialistic.<\/p>\n

By saying that narration pushes us to make inferences I\u2019m not suggesting that the inferences are models of deep thinking. They are, we say, commonsensical. In the multiplex, we\u2019re not logicians. Understanding and responding to a story are processes based largely on folk psychology. In that respect, the chapter argues a point I\u2019ve made elsewhere on the site<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Of course not all our inferences will be correct. It would be possible to knock down our first impressions of Jordan with information suggesting that beneath the sharkskin is a likable idealist. (That happens in Jerry Maguire.<\/em>) Here, other sorts of moments steer our inferences astray. We\u2019re led to think that Jordan drives his Lamborghini home safely, but that impression gets recalibrated the next morning. Earlier, when Denham visits Jordan on his yacht, the rather long, tense scene leads us to consider the possibility that the FBI agent is susceptible to bribery. His questions and facial expressions suggest that he\u2019s weighing Jordan\u2019s offer to help him with some investments. This interchange is conveyed in fairly tight shot\/ reverse shots.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Only when Denham asks Jordan to repeat his offer does Scorsese cut to an angle showing that Denham\u2019s colleague has, offscreen,\u00a0quietly\u00a0stepped close enough to bear witness to the bribe Jordan might offer.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Scorsese has choked off some information about the scene in order to yield a surprise, one that corrects the impression we were building up. One of cinema\u2019s great pleasures is catching up with a narration that has been designed to lead us astray. Hitchcock fans, take note.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Dimension 2: Plot as pattern<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

You can also think about the narrative as having a more abstract, geometrical structure: that\u2019s given to us as the plot<\/em>. Narration creates on-line, moment-by-moment pickup; as viewers we go with the flow. The plot is more architectural, a sort of static anatomy of the film as a whole. We can think of it in a couple of ways.<\/p>\n

As a map of a particular film, the plot consists of the overall arrangement of incidents. It lays out the story actions in time. It can proceed chronologically, as plots do most of the time, or it can rearrange incidents out of linear order. The Wolf of Wall Street<\/em> follows the Stratton Oakmont commercial with the Velcro-target scene, and then presents Jordan at the height of his powers. But after the quick exposition of his lifestyle, the plot flashes back to his first day on Wall Street in 1987.<\/p>\n

Now the film presents a mostly chronological layout. Jordan gets his broker\u2019s license, loses his job, picks up a low-end one, and then rises to the spot running his company. This trajectory is sometimes interrupted by quick flashbacks filling in background on a character or a situation; we even get flashbacks within flashbacks<\/a>. The overall time scheme is hazy, since we\u2019re never shown exactly what point in time is \u201cnow.\u201d There\u2019s the suggestion that the initial flashback is rounded off when Jordan\u2019s cohorts meet to plan the Velcro-tossing stunt, but that opening scene isn\u2019t replayed, so we can\u2019t be sure exactly when the opening flashback ends. The flashback must be finished at some indeterminate time late in the film, when Jordan\u2019s fortunes decline and Naomi is alienated from him. But the narration whisks us along without establishing the firm framing devices<\/a> of traditional flashback plotting.<\/p>\n

From this perspective, every film establishes its own plot structure, based on the overall \u201cgeometry\u201d of its scenes and sequences. There\u2019d be a lot to say about this in The Wolf<\/em>, such as the introduction of Denham (and the brief alternating scenes of his investigation) and the various lines of action that fill out the plot: Jordan\u2019s addictions, his plan for an IPO, his two marriages, the SEC inquiry, his Swiss money-laundering schemes, and the like. The craft of screenwriting consists in large part of developing and braiding lines of action in this way. Several entries on this site, as well as many chapters of Narration in the Fiction Film<\/em> and Poetics of Cinema<\/em>, analyze how such plot patterns work in tandem with the narration’s unfolding.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Caught in the act(s)<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Another way to think about plot structure is to consider how the particular film obeys broader principles of construction. Tragedy, comedy, melodrama, mystery stories, and other genres have distinct, widely-known conventions of plot geometry. There are as well traditions of plotting that cross genres.<\/p>\n

In modern commercial cinema, the most famous structural convention is the three-act pattern. Kristin has proposed that Hollywood feature filmmaking is better thought of as adhering to a multiple-part principle based on characters\u2019 goals. The film might have two, three, four, or more parts, depending on its running time and the ways it shows character goals created, reformulated, blocked, delayed, and fulfilled (or not). We\u2019ve tested Kristin\u2019s proposal in books (Storytelling in the New Hollywood<\/em>, The Way Hollywood Tells it<\/em>) and on this site (here<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0here<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The essay considers the matter more theoretically, but just to illustrate, I\u2019ll hazard a layout of The Wolf of Wall Street<\/em>\u2019s plot structure. It’s nothing but spoilers<\/strong>, so I’ve flagged it all in olive green if you want to skip it.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Since Wolf<\/em> runs about 173 minutes without credits, I think it can be usefully laid out in five large-scale parts. These are framed by a brief prologue (the commercial and the Velcro-target scene) and an epilogue summing up Jordan\u2019s court sentence, his stay in a country-club prison, and his new career as \u201cthe World\u2019s Greatest Sales Trainer.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The Setup<\/strong> shifts from Jordan\u2019s life at the pinnacle to his beginnings in the business and his rise as an entrepreneur. In the course of this portion he meets Donnie and the two assemble their team of eccentric, grotesque staff. After establishing Stratton Oakmont, Jordan demonstrates his sales technique and the script his salespeople will follow.\u00a0<\/span>This section consumes the first thirty-five minutes of the film. <\/span><\/p>\n

What Kristin calls the Complicating Action<\/strong>, which resets the protagonist\u2019s goals, centers on Jordan\u2019s plan for an IPO and his affair with Naomi. Around the hour mark, Jordan is divorced and free to pursue the IPO, but now Denham of the FBI is following the company and the SEC is getting curious.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Development<\/strong> section, which typically expands and delays the fulfillment of the goals set earlier, shows Jordan marrying Naomi, the firm\u2019s frenzied launch of the IPO, and Jordan\u2019s botched effort to bribe Denham. By about 96 minutes into the film, the two antagonists, Jordan and Denham, have faced off in a preliminary conflict. What remains is to see how Jordan will evade capture.<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u2019m inclined to see the fourth part as a second Complicating Action<\/strong>, because Jordan recalibrates his goal. Stratton Oakmont is making so much money he needs to find an offshore place for it. He decides on Switzerland, and the bulk of this section of Wolf<\/em> focuses on whether he\u2019ll be successful. But the SEC is breathing down his neck, and he momentarily considers quitting his firm. During a pep talk to his staff, his resolve weakens (he\u2019s sold by his own rhetoric), and he decides to fight the regulatory battle. This is a turning point: now both the SEC and the FBI are on his tail with renewed vigor.<\/span><\/p>\n

This section, a bit longer than the others, runs about forty minutes. I attribute that mostly to a wedged-in scene that\u2019s almost pure delay: Jordan\u2019s and Donnie\u2019s wild night on Quaaludes, which ends with Jordan crawling toward his car, smashing it up, and saving Donnie from choking. Nearly all of this has no effect on the plot\u2019s forward movement; Donnie survives and Jordan isn\u2019t charged for the road mishaps. The only plot causality here is the fact that a wacked-out Donnie makes an incriminating call on Jordan\u2019s home phone, which is tapped. This bit of action could have been handled much more briefly, but the Quaalude gluttony is so inherently funny, and forms such a plausible topper to the \u2018lude motif throughout the film, that it\u2019s expanded to a remarkable twelve minutes. This sort of delay is usually seen in Development sections, but because Jordan resets his goals in this section I\u2019m considering it a Complicating Action.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Climax<\/strong> (25 minutes) arrives when Jordan, hiding in Italy with Donnie and their wives, learns that Aunt Emma, his front for the Swiss money-laundering, has died. He must race back to Zurich to shift the money to a new account, and in the process the yacht is wrecked in a storm. He\u2019s arrested and agrees to rat on his friends. Naomi divorces him. He tries to protect Donnie but fails and is sent to jail. In the epilogue<\/strong> he\u2019s shown bouncing back, playing to an audience of suckers who share his dream of getting very rich.<\/span><\/p>\n

Winter\u2019s screenplay, with its parallelled and intertwined lines of goal-driven action and its reiteration of one large-scale component, a second Complicating Action, shows how the classical pattern can be expanded to fill out a longer-than-average running time.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Dimension 3: The story and its world<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

There\u2019s a tendency to think of the story action as existing virtually before it becomes a plot and is presented through narration. It\u2019s as if the story was already there, waiting to be turned into a film. To some extent, this can happen with documentary narratives and adaptations of \u00a0novels, plays, and comic books. Nonetheless, as viewers we access a movie\u2019s world only through narration and plot structures. In fact, \u201caccess\u201d isn\u2019t quite right. As I\u2019ve indicated, I think that we construct<\/em> the story inferentially, on the basis of the cues given by those other dimensions.<\/p>\n

If every viewer has to build up the story herself, shouldn\u2019t we have widely different senses of what happens? To some extent we do. People might fill in certain gaps differently, or draw divergent conclusions about what made something happen. Certain films, not typically Hollywood ones, do encourage more open explorations of the story situations. Here plot construction and narration may follow other conventions, such as those I\u2019ve tried to chart in Narration in the Fiction Film<\/em> and elsewhere.<\/p>\n

Mostly, though, even in \u201cindependent films,\u201d there\u2019s a great deal of convergence among viewers\u2019 inference-making. Sooner or later, we arrive at a common understanding of most of what happened and why. As we leave the shared realms of perception and comprehension, of course, viewers\u2019 construals can diverge a lot. Once we get to abstract interpretations\u2014such as whether The Wolf of Wall Street<\/em> celebrates or condemns the anything-for-a-buck culture\u2014we should expect a lot of variations. (I try to explain why this happens elsewhere in the book, in the essay \u201cPoetics of Cinema.\u201d)<\/p>\n

“Three Dimensions of Film Narrative” considers the story and its world broadly, in terms of cues for causation and characterization. It focuses particularly on characters and how we understand them. Again I argue for an inferential model. This means that, as in real life, we\u2019re practicing \u201cmind-reading\u201d—trying to figure out characters’ traits and temperaments on the basis of their behavior, trying to grasp their motives and goals. We build them up as persons on the basis of cues, and we ascribe to them many of the qualities we expect persons in the real world to exhibit. Again, folk psychology provides the ground: the film is likely to streamline and simplify the complexities of real-world personhood.<\/p>\n

As viewers we don’t understand a character in isolation. Characters interact, and the narration and plot structure prompt us to compare them, rank them, sort them in different ways. In The Wolf<\/em>, Jordan is handsome, brazen, and suave; Donnie, a classic weak friend, is awkward and homely, but he has a primal energy that matches Jordan\u2019s slick \u00e9lan.<\/p>\n

Jordan’s father and most of his elders are more prudent and cautious than his crew, who are uninhibited. The guys are\u00a0a bevy of misfits, distinguished from one another by looks and one or two tricks of demeanor.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Jordan\u2019s first wife is a brunette hair stylist who voices doubts about his schemes; his second wife is a gorgeous blonde party girl who happily plunges into his lifestyle. In each case, the narration and the plot structure give us the necessary cues, usually redundantly. Jordan’s voice-over commentary reinforces the character information we get from the actors\u2019 appearance and performance.<\/p>\n

The essay also considers how films present character change. Sometimes characters come to learn more; they may not vary their distinguishing traits but they realize they have made a mistake. More deeply, characters may decide to get in touch with a suppressed side of themselves. That\u2019s what happens, I think, in Jerry Maguire<\/em>; he becomes the man his wife thinks he could be.<\/p>\n

But very often characters don\u2019t change. Jordan, in The Wolf of Wall Street<\/em>, has an opportunity to confess, return the money he fleeced from his clients, and take his punishment. Instead, he insists that everything he\u2019s done has been for his friends\u2014the staff of the firm\u2014and they deserve to succeed as he has. (Even though he is deceiving them too; he buys shares in his own IPO and orders the salespeople to push that stock.) What shocks many viewers about the film, I suspect, is that Jordan doesn\u2019t become a better person in the course of his adventures. His punishment is light, he learns nothing, and by the end of the film he\u2019s as amoral as he was when he started the company. (\u201cSell me this pen.\u201d) As sometimes happens, the interest of the plot comes from watching a gifted, resourceful scoundrel adapt his techniques to changing situations.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

But wait, there’s more<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Okay, you may be asking impatiently. But why? Why offer these categories, carve things up, make supersubtle distinctions, concoct new terminology? Why not just do film criticism?<\/p>\n

Well, partly because I want to articulate more than my response to a particular movie. I want to understand the more general ways in which films work and work upon us. I think we can usefully look for explanations of movies’ functions and effects, and these are things that ordinary film criticism doesn’t typically offer. For example, noticing how a film’s elements function with respect to narration, plot, style, and story world can do more than sensitize us to this or that movie. This sort of analysis can make us aware of broad norms of moviemaking and how particular films relate to those norms, currently and historically.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the line of thinking I’m proposing casts light on the skills we deploy, mostly unawares, in experiencing films. No matter how simple-minded the movie, I think that we do<\/em> things in following it; we exercise our narrative competence. On the other side, sorting things out this way can explain the range of choice and control<\/a> open to the filmmaker. I think that the poetics of cinema I propose can help filmmakers become aware of the tools they are using–and perhaps encourage them to try other ones. My categories are derived from filmmaking craft, and perhaps they can in turn illuminate the practical tasks facing filmmakers.<\/p>\n

A couple of final points. In the chapter I draw examples from a variety of films, many American (Cellular, Boyz N the Hood, You’ve Got Mail<\/em>, etc.). Despite my consideration of Ashes of Time<\/em>, Claire Dolan, Memento<\/em>, and other films, some readers will ask why I don\u2019t consider more non-Hollywood examples. The choice was strategic: Hollywood films throw the areas I\u2019m charting into sharp relief. They provide clear-cut (not necessarily simple) examples of my points. And historically, the dominance of Hollywood film in the world’s theatrical market have given them a lot of influence. Much of what we think of as non-Hollywood is based on attempts to revise or reject those norms.<\/p>\n

At the same time, I\u2019m counting on readers cutting me some slack because I\u2019ve written a lot about alternatives to Hollywood. My books on Eisenstein, Ozu, Dreyer, and Hong Kong cinema try to analyze diverse storytelling options. Elsewhere in Poetics of Cinema<\/em> I discuss various narrative traditions, including varieties of network narratives and forking-path plots. Narration in the Fiction Film<\/em> explores still other storytelling modes. And on this site I\u2019ve had a lot to say about non-Hollywood constructive principles (for example, here<\/a> and here<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The last section of the essay considers what is probably inside-baseball for many readers. Yet the underlying question is important. How adequately can \u00a0film narrative can be understood on a model of literary narrative? Some theorists think that the basic principles of narrative are to be found in verbal storytelling, and narratives in other media must find equivalents for them. My own view is that narrative as a phenomenon gets mapped onto different media in varying ways. There may not be a single model that will be valid for plays, novels, dance, comic strips, radio drama, film, digital fiction, and so on.<\/p>\n

For example, if Jordan Belfort were a character in a novel, certain weird things wouldn\u2019t be happening onscreen. A first-person narrator in the novel can tell us only things that she or he knows about. But \u201cinside\u201d Jordan\u2019s tale we get all kinds of scenes that he didn\u2019t witness. True, he knew that FBI agent Denham was on his trail, but he couldn\u2019t know the color of Denham\u2019s office, or what Denham said to his colleagues. Nor could Jordan know exactly how the quarrel between his partner Donnie Azoff and his ally Brad Bodnik went down, even though we<\/em> see the entire scene embedded in \u201chis\u201d telling.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Of course we can say that these scenes are just movie conventions. We accept that in film, first-person voice-over often includes scenes that the speaker didn\u2019t witness, or maybe didn\u2019t even know about. But that convention points to the limits of importing models of storytelling from literature to the study of cinema. A novel can\u2019t wedge those things in without raising the question of how the narrator knows this. We just don\u2019t ask such a question about Jordan.<\/p>\n

By a path too winding to summarize here, these and other observations lead me to a counterintuitive conclusion: Narrative, at least in film, isn\u2019t best understood as an act of communication from an author-like entity to a reader-like one. Why do I say that? How can film not<\/em> be communication? Answer, too brief: What most people call communication I call converging inferences.<\/p>\n

And to end my trailer, I suggest that we think of narrative in all media, most especially film, as inherently promiscuous. It will pull in anything that gets the immediate job done. That includes grabbing one element of ordinary conversation–a guy telling a story–without keeping the other bits of the communicative chain, such as feedback from a listener. Jordan is talking to us, but he doesn’t know we’re here, and we can’t interrupt him.<\/p>\n

One more time: You can get the essay here<\/a>. Thanks for reading!<\/p>\n

\n

In a way this post is a sequel to the previous entry<\/a>; background on Meir Sternberg’s account of curiosity, suspense, and surprise can be found there. For more on the subject, see our category “Narrative strategies”<\/a> and the essay “Common Sense + Film Theory = Common-Sense Film Theory?”<\/a><\/p>\n

Many of the everyday terms we apply to stories are ambiguous or vague, so sometimes we need to define our terms or invent new ones. Take \u201cnarration.\u201d In ordinary talk, can mean \u201cvoice-over commentary,\u201d such as Jordan Belfort\u2019s in The Wolf of Wall Street<\/em>. But if we restrict our usage to just this form of sound, we don\u2019t have a good term for the general flow of narrative presentation in the film, let alone films that don\u2019t have voice-overs. So it\u2019s useful to reserve \u201cnarration\u201d for that general process and use \u201cvoice-over\u201d in some form to describe the soundtrack\u2019s role in that.<\/p>\n

The same problem comes up with the term \u201cpoint of view,\u201d which has many different meanings. It might refer to first-person reportage, or what a character thinks and feels, or what she believes. (Obama is a good president from her point of view<\/em>.) If we want to be precise in talking about these qualities of storytelling, we need to explain the terms we\u2019re using.<\/p>\n

And sometimes it’s just easier to introduce new terms. In the essay, I\u2019ll sometimes call the plot the syuzhet<\/em> and the story the fabula<\/em>. Why the fancy terminology? Won\u2019t \u201cplot\u201d and \u201cstory\u201d do? Well, yes, up to a point. In this entry I did use those terms, and our textbook Film Art: An Introduction<\/em> has done that ever since its first edition of 1979. Still, when we\u2019re working within a research community, it helps to have terms, even unusual ones, which say exactly what we mean. The original readership for the “Three Dimensions” chapter knows that \u201cplot\u201d and \u201cstory\u201d have different meanings in our culture, and so I tried to use terms that were less ambiguous. Not incidentally, I wanted as well to signal my debt to the Russian Formalist literary critics, perhaps our first modern narratologists.<\/p>\n

Other chapters of Poetics of Cinema<\/em> are posted online here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

P.S. 14 January 2014:<\/strong> Thanks to Steve Hilby for correcting me: I originally mis-identified Jordan’s car as a Ferrari.<\/p>\n

P.S.S. 14 January 2014:<\/strong> My old friend Brian Rose signals his Academy interview with the filmmakers, in which Scorsese and Schoonmaker declare a lack of interest in “plot.”<\/a>\u00a0Pfui, says I.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Wolf of Wall Street. DB here: At many points in The Wolf of Wall Street, we hear the voice of Jordan Belfort chronicling his exploits in building up a rapacious investment company. A few times he even addresses the camera. What\u2019s he doing? Well, he\u2019s telling us a story, obviously. Stories are what many […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36,1,79,57,54,11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26017","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-directors-scorsese","category-film-comments","category-film-theory-cognitivism","category-hollywood-aesthetic-traditions","category-narrative-strategies","category-readers-favorite-entries"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26017","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26017"}],"version-history":[{"count":50,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26017\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27452,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26017\/revisions\/27452"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26017"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26017"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26017"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}