I personally don't get wrapped up in the whole notion that your story has to say something. A lot of people do. That's fine. What's not fine is using the story as a pulpit to preach a gospel of -- whatever.
Maybe you feel like rich people suck and you write a story about all these awful rich people breaking the backs of the poor for their own gain while the downtrodden die early deaths, worked too hard by the corporate machine that takes far more than it gives. It's not like we haven't seen this movie before. The Justin Timberlake / Amanda Siegfried film IN TIME was essentially this setup with sci-fi elements thrown in. Yet, did anyone walk away from this film having felt a meaningful change in their life? Maybe, but I've never heard anyone say it influenced their thinking or behavior.
You know a movie that did influence culture? PHILADELPHIA, the Tom Hanks movie where he played a homosexual man with AIDS. PHILADELPHIA was released at a time when homophobia was a cultural norm and fear-mongering about the AIDS epidemic was at an all-time high. While the film itself dealt with weighty issues, what I heard more than comments about the story were remarks about watching Hanks'character in the movie made them rethink their attitudes toward homosexuals and victims of the AIDS crisis.
It's my belief that the meaning of a film comes across through the characters, not the story. When we as an audience see characters we like and can relate with, then we empathize with their choices, their problems -- their situation.
I'd humbly suggest that if you want your story to have a message, focus less on the message itself and more on the characters you're crafting. Put them into situations where they must live out your message. Don't make life easy on them even when they do the right thing. Let the audience see what it's costing these characters. Let the audience feel your message as the story progresses. That, in my opinion, is the only way a story can truly have meaning.
-The Illiterate Writer
No comments:
Post a Comment