Narrative

Media, if anything, should be qualified but what DESIGNATES it AS a distinct medium. Animation is defined by, well, animation. Film is defined by--yes--film. Games are, first and foremost, games; not "cinematic experiences" or whatever the pseudo-designers who have infested the industry may think. Yes, films and games are technically "composite media," but they do feature cores that all of their elements revolve around.

Narrative is possible within all of these media, but it defines none of them. When narrative is pulled off well, it can make a piece of art that much better, but why should, for example, a game with horrible mechanics and A.I. but with a "great story" be hailed as a masterpiece over Super Mario Bros.? Why should a film with the most excellent cinematography in the world, with beautiful lighting, imagery, and atmosphere, be held second to a film with mediocre-at-best filmic elements because it has a "good story?"

Really, what makes narrative so much more "intelligent" and deserving of respect than the other aspects of the media? Does it not take an expert understanding of camera angles and the psychological effects they may have in order to implement quality cinematography? Are not the rules of play in video games based on countless hours of logical brainstorming?

Narrative is another tool in the creation of composite media, quite like music. A movie with good narrative and cinematography is better than a movie with merely good cinematography. However, a movie with good cinematography is better than a movie with merely good narrative. The core aspect of film--what film is all about--holds the most weight in determining what, exactly, is "quality."

Some dumb-dumbs tend to misinterpret my argument as, "Well, you're essentially saying ALL FILMS SHOULD BE LIKE MICHAEL BAY'S TRANSFORMERS EXPLOSIONS PEW PEW." No. That's perhaps the dumbest assessment of my stance that could possibly be formulated. Michael Bay is most certainly NOT a master of cinematography and mise en scene, and if you think he is, then I must question your understanding of cinematography in the first place. You want films with great cinematography? Blade Runner. 2001: A Space Odyssey. Citizen Kane.

Take note: two of the above films have relatively simple narratives. You do agree, though: all three of them are great films, right?

Originally Posted by Andross

Really, what makes narrative so much more "intelligent" and deserving of respect than the other aspects of the media? Does it not take an expert understanding of camera angles and the psychological effects they may have in order to implement quality cinematography? Are not the rules of play in video games based on countless hours of logical brainstorming?

Narrative is another tool in the creation of composite media, quite like music. A movie with good narrative and cinematography is better than a movie with merely good cinematography. However, a movie with good cinematography is better than a movie with merely good narrative. The core aspect of film--what film is all about--holds the most weight in determining what, exactly, is "quality."

When you're talking about narrative-focused content, story is king. At least by my measure of quality. A movie with a great script but without a great director will always beat a movie with a bad script but a great director.

Of course, being a visual medium, the best movies are the ones that combine great story and visuals, and even moreso when they compliment one another. Black Swan was a solid script and story, but it wouldn't be half as good a film without the direction, cinematography, and camera work.

On the other hand, Clerks is as poorly directed as anything, but I would watch that because of the funny script and story over a Michael Bay movie any day.

I highly disagree with the idea that narrative is king. Movies are not narrative-focused content, but visual-focused content (The underlying, originating purpose of film is to capture motion), and therefore, cinematography is king (Otherwise, there's really no point in watching a movie instead of, say, reading a book, or listening to spoken stories).

A director should be seen as the auteur of the film. A movie with a bad director is going to be bad, no matter how good the script is. If watching a movie is unpleasant, how can the movie be redeemed as a whole, when that's the only way in which viewers experience a movie?

As mentioned earlier, Blade Runner had a pretty weak script, and so too did 2001: A Space Odyssey, but they're still the greatest science-fiction films of all time (To put this into context, the Star Wars prequel films had far more developed narratives than either of these two films, but are some of the worst science-fiction (I really shouldn't be using this because they're not actually sci-fi) films out there).

Now, of course, a great script will make a great movie even greater, yes, but it isn't the ultimate redeeming factor. Only the way the film is visually presented can be that.

It really depends on the genre, for example the comedy genre (or at least modern comedy which is for the most part not physically based) requires a great script to be a good movie. Writing and acting in this case takes precedent over cinematography. Because the modern comedy is a dialogue driven genre. The film can be beautifully shot, but if the script isn't funny, people aren't going to laugh (which is the entire point of the genre).

There are plenty of good films I can think of that have bad to subpar cinematography (the previously mentioned Clerks comes to mind.) In addition this doesn't account for the popularity of the grindhouse and certain indie genres which are somewhat characterized in their poor stylistic choices due to financial reasons or lack of experience on the part of the director, yet retain a large following. To boil down film quality to one aspect cheapens the medium and understates its vast diversity.

The same could be said of video games (the point and click adventure genre comes to mind).

It seems to me that if the point of a film was the images, the first step in making a movie would be determining the visuals, not coming up with the story and writing the script. Sure, there are some types of visual media that create the story after principal photography (lifestyle television and some forms of documentary come to mind), but most narrative-based content the story comes first.

Now, absolutely it's the director that's in charge of a movie's production. It is their vision that makes up the final product, and it is certainly the case that poor direction can hold a film back. I don't want to make it seem like I'm downplaying the importance of the visuals when it comes to making a great movie, but fact is there are excellent movies that are visually stunning and there are excellent films that are visually straight-forward or downplayed. But, in my books, there are no excellent films that lack a well-told and constructed narrative. Good films, sure. Entertaining films, absolutely. But the best are, like I said, when a movie is both a strong narrative that uses the images to not only complement, but even enhance the story.

But the story is the base. If it's not there, it doesn't matter how good the movie looks. It'll still be a mediocre painting in a really pretty frame.