Genre, Structure & Cinematic Spacetime Part II
Thoughts On: Genre & Structure
A continuation of the previous post and another element of our objective-subjective theory.
We continue on today from the previous post to ask a fundamental question concerning genre which has not yet been confronted: How and why do we, as spectators, sense the inevitable and predictable in the cinematic space? Why are certain movies predictable?
These are rather deceptive questions as there is an accessible answer that is, on reflection, too simple. The basic response to the above questions is that movies can be predictable because we have seen many before and/or that they can be unoriginal. Let us now, however, pose some follow up questions. Why are films unoriginal? Is it because every film bears a fundamental, irrevocable relationship with all other films (which is conceptualised via genre)? If so, can you make an original film?
In response to these questions, I think it is best to return to structuralist assertion that 'literature is created from literature'. There is ill-logic in this assertion and its subsequent dismissal of literature imitating life for the simple fact that it inadvertently forms a genealogy of literature--which must have a start. If a piece of art made in 2007 is only a reworking of a piece of art made in in 1956, and that work is a re-working of something made in 1812, then we can keep falling down the annals of history until we very quickly get to a point where there was no established system of art. If literature is only created from literature, then how did literature first come about? Was it given to us by aliens?
This conclusion seems absurd in face of a philosophy of mimesis. Literature comes from the world, comes from truths of reality passing through the body of an artist and into others via the communicative construct that is art. Literature, art, was then born when and as communication was developed. And what was communicated was, and always has been, reports on reality and perception - and art remains to be just this.
Let us step back. Literature (art, generally) is not necessarily created from literature. However, literature relates to all other literature. This, as our current logic reveals if we follow it, means that, whilst all art fundamentally reports on reality and perception, all art makes very similar reports. We categorise highly similar reports on truth, reality and perception via genre; reports on love, we call romance, reports on confronting the unknown, we all adventure, reports on danger we call horror, speculative reports on the future, we call sci-fi. Genre gets more complicated than this, but let us not linger. Let us instead realise that there is an unrecognised element of our set of assertions.
If literature is created from literature, there must have a first work of literature from which everything emerges. We have dismissed this assertion and that possibility. However, if art is created via mimesis, from perception and reality, there must be a foundational realisation: the first and most fundamental report. We have hit a realm of metaphysical hypothesising now. How do we confront and explore this conclusion?
I shall make my attempt via Taoist thought and the Tao Te Ching. I will provide two translations of a few famous lines from chapter 42 of the classical Chinese text. First:
Second translation:
The quality of the visual poetry here is astounding and it evokes one of the most visceral and elemental creation myths you can come across. This creation myth is one that suggest that there is a primordial way and mode of existence that pre-exists existence, that is existence, that cannot be known, but may be followed, this is Tao, The Way. Tao is said to give birth to one, or a unity. This unity naturally cleaves into two, that two into three, and that three into an endless myriad of things. This unfathomable myriad retains a fundamental duality, yin and yang, and, in balancing these, all that is may find unity that leads back to Tao: harmony. This astonishing wisdom is stupefying. Lao-Tzu is seemingly speaking on the most fundamental realisation any human can ever make, the foundation of reality a few dozen words. To extrapolate, it is suggested here that reality has a way and rule, this is Tao. Tao manifests reality, a whole, a unity. This unity is harmony, is the descendent and archetype of Tao, the fluid, unknowable prototype. However, that reality and harmony naturally cleaves. It cleaves into dark and light, yin and yang, and from this dark and light comes something mediary; something that moves in between yin and yang, heaven and earth, masculine and feminine. This third being that forms a trinity, in my estimation, is consciousness itself or something equating free will and active life beyond the elements. And it is this consciousness that creates creatures and the ten thousand things; all that is, all that exists physically on earth. These ten thousand things, by virtue of their consciousness, the third element that forms the trinity that gave birth to them, is their link to duality: yin and yang, it is what allows them to be both, to carry shade and sunlight simultaneously. In balancing these forces, in breathing, in neutralising the vapour, there is harmony, a return to unity above The Way: natural existence is found, Tao followed blindly.
The Bible, in my belief, tells a similar but less direct story through Genesis:
Rather similar to Lao-Tzu's exposition, the Bible's creation myth sees God and his word be pre-existing 'in the beginning'. God is his word, is logos, is the rule and way of the universe. His first act is to manifest heaven and earth, but the two are not separate, they are one unified mesh. So, from logos, comes dark, formless unity, and over this unity, this black is the spirit of God. From the dark singularity comes light, and thus there is a duality: heaven and earth. (It is noteworthy that darkness is inherent, yet light must be pronounced; suffering and evil is a given in this universe, but God calls out the light and the good). God continues to alter the light, to create night and day, embedding into the earth the duality that forms the foundation of heaven and earth. Just as the universe is dark and light, so is the earth. Furthermore, into the dark firmament God puts stars. And so there is light that shines down from the greater light, from heaven, that earth can gaze up at at its darkest time (this idea brings to mind the image of someone praying upon a star). From this system of dark and light comes the word of God again once he splits the water on earth to create land. From here there emerges a trinity, the firmament, water and land, that quickly gives way to all the world's creatures and humanity; Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve are dark and light; we see this as we travel into the Garden of Eden. When they are cast out, they multiply, creating good and bad - and this continues, the logos interacting with the multiplying good and bad of humanity, throughout the Bible.
Though the two creation myths have their differences, the wisdom is fundamentally similar. Rule exists and births unity; unity gives way to duality, duality to trinity, trinity to multitude, yet that multitude is embedded with a duality that can brings them closer to fundamental rule (God or Tao). It is this logic that strikes me as earth-shatteringly fundamental.
Here we then have a means to confront the question: If art is mimesis, what is the fundamental act of imitation, the most foundational report on reality and perception that can be made? I do not wish to suggest that the Tao Te Ching or The Bible are the first stories, but their creation myths appear to me to convey a foundational archetype, a version of the fundamental story. The fundamental story of being, in my view, concerns pre-existent rule manifesting reality that multiplies, but retains the ability to return to the initial rule. A religious conceptualisation of this idea is that God made us, we are born and we must strive to find God for the rest of our lives before finding our way to heaven or hell; Tao manifested existence and it is our duty to align ourselves with Tao as to gain access to harmony and heaven. Let us break this down into the fundamental stories we tell on film and in books: There is an ideal mode of existence, we only find ourselves in existence, however; therefore we must try to return to the pre-existent ideal.
Todorov, as we have explored, comes close to mapping out an accurate idea of narrative with his two formulations: 1) condition, consequence, implication, 2) equilibrium, disruption, recognition, search, new equilibrium. What is missing from his two formulations of the fundamental narrative is pre-existent reason, lasting meaning and, for his first formula, a closing of a loop. Let us make the comparison between the Taoist creation narrative and Todorov's theory (I hesitate to label it as such... alas) of equilibrium:
These two formulations map onto one another very well. Equilibrium and unity are, essentially, synonymous. Disruption in a narrative implies the emergence of a duality, of two modes of being or two possible actions; a good guy and a bad guy, a good action and a bad action, a good path and a bad path, emerge. (I will not strive to complicate things, but it is preferable to swap 'good' and 'bad' out and substitute in something equating light and dark, yin and yang, to be optimally accurate through a certain ambiguity). A recognition of the disruption is equal to duality becoming a trinity, as the duality is given autonomy of sorts as it is the third element that forces a mediation between the duality. The result of this is that the conflict between the initial dichotomy is intensified in a way that gives birth to greater possibility. The search is this possibility, the ten thousand things. The ten thousand things emerge because being conscious of a duality, being able to step outside of nature, one manifests innumerable possibilities as to understand the inconceivable. If humans are to reach God again after being cast out of Eden, it will be through trial and error, humanity expanding and, hopefully, becoming enlightened simultaneously. This can be simplified; if one finds that there is a problem in their life, a negative condition to a positive possibility, then they will immediately perceive ten thousand solutions, possibilities, hurdles and actions that will emerge if they try confront it. It is this confrontation that can be described as balancing out the ten thousand things by witnessing a transcendence of every individual elements' inner duality of good and bad; light and dark must be perceived in each of the ten thousand things and brought into balance. This allows a return to unity and a new equilibrium: harmony.
Before further expanding on this theory of narrative, it is important to stitch some patches onto this formulation. To begin, Todorov's theory of equilibrium is best combined with his formulation of condition, consequence and implication. What Todorov identifies here is a cycle between a state of disarray or disharmony that has consequences that must be confronted because of their implication. I would then suggest that Disruption = Condition, Recognition = Consequence, Search = Implication. Disruption as equal to a condition implies that the disruption has embedded within it implicit movement forwards. After all, we may describe an equilibrium as 'a plant sitting in a windowsill'. A disruption could be anything: the wind blowing. A condition, however, (as we discussed previously) is a state of change or rather a state of dynamism, of moving parts. So a disruptive condition would be something such as the wind blowing the plant off its ledge or windowsill. Here the equilibrium is perturbed dynamically; there is change with consequence that, itself, has an implication that will force a new cycle of condition, consequence, etc. If the disruption was basic, such as wind merely blowing, the consequence would be the plant's leaves moving, and the implication is that it will be still when the wind stops. The condition here is the old equilibrium, not a new one. For a new equilibrium, the disruption must be a new dynamic condition: the plant falls, or even better, the plant falls into a new garden where it must deal with the consequences of accidental trespassing, confront the implication of danger and violence from evil weeds, and, through settling that, find a new equilibrium as king of the new garden.
As implied here, a recognition of consequence would follow a disruptive condition. Thus, in any story, something must happen after the equilibrium is broken and this must be witnessed. After this, a search in face of an implication of that consequence will see a new equilibrium established. So, let us return to the plant. The plant is blown off a window ledge and into a new garden. He has trespassed as a consequence. He must then search for safety and a new equilibrium whilst dealing with the implications of falling into the garden. Thus he must fight off the evil weeds and befriend the dandelions and sunflowers.
This formulation, a combination of Todorov's two suggested paradigms, in my estimation, is the most value you can extract out of him. Not only does this work to describe a general plot or a short story - such as the one we made with the plant - but it will describe the details of a more expansive, feature-length narrative. For example, after the plant falls, a consequence may be a broken stem, he has to recognise this and then search for a solution to come back to a previous consequential condition of having fallen in the garden. More consequences may arise: the weeds start to see him, so he searches for safety assuming they will hurt him, thus returning to previous consequential condition of being in the garden, in danger of being hurt by the weeds. Another new condition may arise, a friendly dandelion gives him shelter, and he tells him of a growing resistance force in the sunflower patch, but this only opens up a new world of issues. We can continue on here with a cycle between condition, consequence an implication, to create a grander narrative. Alas, whilst Todorov's theory will get you from an A to B, and whilst his altered theory will explain many steps in between A and B, this is all still incomplete.
Structuralists such as Todorov fail to fully account for theme and meaning in their formulation of narrative. This is why I began with a look into the Taoist creation myth. Let us come again to this:
I have modified Todorov's formulation here and we can still see it to match the Taoist formulation. Let us map just that onto the plant story. The plant is in unity on his ledge. The wind cleaves his stable unity, he is separated from safety: duality. Aware of safety, but trapped in a foreign garden, a third element is introduced: he may never be safe again due to the weeds. From this conscious recognition comes ten thousand possibilities that he must confront and balance; he must secure safety among the danger as to achieve harmony.
What is missing from this formulation, you may guess, is the presence of Tao. There is a way that precedes unity. With that in mind, let us ask this question: Would we not expect a film about this plant falling into a garden, say if it were made by Pixar, to imply something such as 'plants should not be alone'? Let us run with this. The natural way of things is for plants to be together in the soil, and so this plant sitting on the windowsill may be arrogant and aloof. This forms his unity and defines the narrative space; it is the implication of pre-existing meaning that characterises, defines and manifests the initial unity. It is then when that unity is broken that a duality may form between the plant being arrogant and humble/afraid/cautious/smart. The trinity, the new danger, is a third element that may change the unity for good, that will allow him to recognise such a duality between arrogance and humbleness. In balancing out these forces in the ten thousand things that emerge from the conflict in the trinity - in fighting a war against the weeds and cultivating his own army of dandelions and sunflowers by being a humble, good leader - our plant would find harmony. This harmony would be presided over by Tao or, similarly, Logos, the Word of God. The harmony would be the film's final meaning, would be the implied meaning that gave birth to the unity realised in a new form.
This is a far more genuine formula that describes, not all, but the classical, basic narrative. And does this not sound more like, for example, a classical Disney film? It is not just that these films move from one equilibrium to a new equilibrium through disruption, recognition and a search. What motivates everything is meaning. We can recognise in the beginning of a film such as Beauty and the Beast that, whilst there is equilibrium, there is something wrong: Bell is unhappy, and this is because she believes that the way that she must live is beyond the confines of her town. There must be meaning, logos, Tao, presiding over the initial unity, and it must be realised in the new unity for a film to be classically complete. It is this formulation that accounts for a film having meaning, and provides a reason why there is change and what that change may be. This is what Todorov structural theory lacks.
So, let us end this section by listing a whole and complete formulation of the fundamental narrative:
Classical, fundamental narratives all follow this basic formula because narrative is mimetic; it imitates the universe. This structure (which I would not claim possession over) is one of the most fundamental reports that humanity has made on the nature of the universe; this is the fundamental story that is told by the Taoists, by Abrahamic religions and, likely, more - and we continue to tell this in books and on film.
Previous post:
Genre, Structure & Cinematic Spacetime Part I
Next post:
Genre, Structure & Cinematic Spacetime Part III
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
A continuation of the previous post and another element of our objective-subjective theory.
We continue on today from the previous post to ask a fundamental question concerning genre which has not yet been confronted: How and why do we, as spectators, sense the inevitable and predictable in the cinematic space? Why are certain movies predictable?
These are rather deceptive questions as there is an accessible answer that is, on reflection, too simple. The basic response to the above questions is that movies can be predictable because we have seen many before and/or that they can be unoriginal. Let us now, however, pose some follow up questions. Why are films unoriginal? Is it because every film bears a fundamental, irrevocable relationship with all other films (which is conceptualised via genre)? If so, can you make an original film?
In response to these questions, I think it is best to return to structuralist assertion that 'literature is created from literature'. There is ill-logic in this assertion and its subsequent dismissal of literature imitating life for the simple fact that it inadvertently forms a genealogy of literature--which must have a start. If a piece of art made in 2007 is only a reworking of a piece of art made in in 1956, and that work is a re-working of something made in 1812, then we can keep falling down the annals of history until we very quickly get to a point where there was no established system of art. If literature is only created from literature, then how did literature first come about? Was it given to us by aliens?
This conclusion seems absurd in face of a philosophy of mimesis. Literature comes from the world, comes from truths of reality passing through the body of an artist and into others via the communicative construct that is art. Literature, art, was then born when and as communication was developed. And what was communicated was, and always has been, reports on reality and perception - and art remains to be just this.
Let us step back. Literature (art, generally) is not necessarily created from literature. However, literature relates to all other literature. This, as our current logic reveals if we follow it, means that, whilst all art fundamentally reports on reality and perception, all art makes very similar reports. We categorise highly similar reports on truth, reality and perception via genre; reports on love, we call romance, reports on confronting the unknown, we all adventure, reports on danger we call horror, speculative reports on the future, we call sci-fi. Genre gets more complicated than this, but let us not linger. Let us instead realise that there is an unrecognised element of our set of assertions.
If literature is created from literature, there must have a first work of literature from which everything emerges. We have dismissed this assertion and that possibility. However, if art is created via mimesis, from perception and reality, there must be a foundational realisation: the first and most fundamental report. We have hit a realm of metaphysical hypothesising now. How do we confront and explore this conclusion?
I shall make my attempt via Taoist thought and the Tao Te Ching. I will provide two translations of a few famous lines from chapter 42 of the classical Chinese text. First:
Tao engenders One,
One engenders Two,
Two engenders Three,
Three engenders the ten thousand things.
The ten thousand things carry shade
And embrace sunlight.
Shade and sunlight, yin and yang,
Breath blending into harmony.
Second translation:
The Way gave birth to unity,
Unity gave birth to duality,
Duality gave birth to trinity,
Trinity gave birth to the myriad creatures.
The myriad creatures bear yin on their back and embrace yang in their bosoms.
They neutralise these vapours and thereby achieve harmony.
The quality of the visual poetry here is astounding and it evokes one of the most visceral and elemental creation myths you can come across. This creation myth is one that suggest that there is a primordial way and mode of existence that pre-exists existence, that is existence, that cannot be known, but may be followed, this is Tao, The Way. Tao is said to give birth to one, or a unity. This unity naturally cleaves into two, that two into three, and that three into an endless myriad of things. This unfathomable myriad retains a fundamental duality, yin and yang, and, in balancing these, all that is may find unity that leads back to Tao: harmony. This astonishing wisdom is stupefying. Lao-Tzu is seemingly speaking on the most fundamental realisation any human can ever make, the foundation of reality a few dozen words. To extrapolate, it is suggested here that reality has a way and rule, this is Tao. Tao manifests reality, a whole, a unity. This unity is harmony, is the descendent and archetype of Tao, the fluid, unknowable prototype. However, that reality and harmony naturally cleaves. It cleaves into dark and light, yin and yang, and from this dark and light comes something mediary; something that moves in between yin and yang, heaven and earth, masculine and feminine. This third being that forms a trinity, in my estimation, is consciousness itself or something equating free will and active life beyond the elements. And it is this consciousness that creates creatures and the ten thousand things; all that is, all that exists physically on earth. These ten thousand things, by virtue of their consciousness, the third element that forms the trinity that gave birth to them, is their link to duality: yin and yang, it is what allows them to be both, to carry shade and sunlight simultaneously. In balancing these forces, in breathing, in neutralising the vapour, there is harmony, a return to unity above The Way: natural existence is found, Tao followed blindly.
The Bible, in my belief, tells a similar but less direct story through Genesis:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Rather similar to Lao-Tzu's exposition, the Bible's creation myth sees God and his word be pre-existing 'in the beginning'. God is his word, is logos, is the rule and way of the universe. His first act is to manifest heaven and earth, but the two are not separate, they are one unified mesh. So, from logos, comes dark, formless unity, and over this unity, this black is the spirit of God. From the dark singularity comes light, and thus there is a duality: heaven and earth. (It is noteworthy that darkness is inherent, yet light must be pronounced; suffering and evil is a given in this universe, but God calls out the light and the good). God continues to alter the light, to create night and day, embedding into the earth the duality that forms the foundation of heaven and earth. Just as the universe is dark and light, so is the earth. Furthermore, into the dark firmament God puts stars. And so there is light that shines down from the greater light, from heaven, that earth can gaze up at at its darkest time (this idea brings to mind the image of someone praying upon a star). From this system of dark and light comes the word of God again once he splits the water on earth to create land. From here there emerges a trinity, the firmament, water and land, that quickly gives way to all the world's creatures and humanity; Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve are dark and light; we see this as we travel into the Garden of Eden. When they are cast out, they multiply, creating good and bad - and this continues, the logos interacting with the multiplying good and bad of humanity, throughout the Bible.
Though the two creation myths have their differences, the wisdom is fundamentally similar. Rule exists and births unity; unity gives way to duality, duality to trinity, trinity to multitude, yet that multitude is embedded with a duality that can brings them closer to fundamental rule (God or Tao). It is this logic that strikes me as earth-shatteringly fundamental.
Here we then have a means to confront the question: If art is mimesis, what is the fundamental act of imitation, the most foundational report on reality and perception that can be made? I do not wish to suggest that the Tao Te Ching or The Bible are the first stories, but their creation myths appear to me to convey a foundational archetype, a version of the fundamental story. The fundamental story of being, in my view, concerns pre-existent rule manifesting reality that multiplies, but retains the ability to return to the initial rule. A religious conceptualisation of this idea is that God made us, we are born and we must strive to find God for the rest of our lives before finding our way to heaven or hell; Tao manifested existence and it is our duty to align ourselves with Tao as to gain access to harmony and heaven. Let us break this down into the fundamental stories we tell on film and in books: There is an ideal mode of existence, we only find ourselves in existence, however; therefore we must try to return to the pre-existent ideal.
Todorov, as we have explored, comes close to mapping out an accurate idea of narrative with his two formulations: 1) condition, consequence, implication, 2) equilibrium, disruption, recognition, search, new equilibrium. What is missing from his two formulations of the fundamental narrative is pre-existent reason, lasting meaning and, for his first formula, a closing of a loop. Let us make the comparison between the Taoist creation narrative and Todorov's theory (I hesitate to label it as such... alas) of equilibrium:
Equilibrium ................................ Unity
Disruption ................................ Duality
Recognition .............................. Trinity
Search ............... Ten Thousand Things
New Equilibrium .................. Harmony
Before further expanding on this theory of narrative, it is important to stitch some patches onto this formulation. To begin, Todorov's theory of equilibrium is best combined with his formulation of condition, consequence and implication. What Todorov identifies here is a cycle between a state of disarray or disharmony that has consequences that must be confronted because of their implication. I would then suggest that Disruption = Condition, Recognition = Consequence, Search = Implication. Disruption as equal to a condition implies that the disruption has embedded within it implicit movement forwards. After all, we may describe an equilibrium as 'a plant sitting in a windowsill'. A disruption could be anything: the wind blowing. A condition, however, (as we discussed previously) is a state of change or rather a state of dynamism, of moving parts. So a disruptive condition would be something such as the wind blowing the plant off its ledge or windowsill. Here the equilibrium is perturbed dynamically; there is change with consequence that, itself, has an implication that will force a new cycle of condition, consequence, etc. If the disruption was basic, such as wind merely blowing, the consequence would be the plant's leaves moving, and the implication is that it will be still when the wind stops. The condition here is the old equilibrium, not a new one. For a new equilibrium, the disruption must be a new dynamic condition: the plant falls, or even better, the plant falls into a new garden where it must deal with the consequences of accidental trespassing, confront the implication of danger and violence from evil weeds, and, through settling that, find a new equilibrium as king of the new garden.
As implied here, a recognition of consequence would follow a disruptive condition. Thus, in any story, something must happen after the equilibrium is broken and this must be witnessed. After this, a search in face of an implication of that consequence will see a new equilibrium established. So, let us return to the plant. The plant is blown off a window ledge and into a new garden. He has trespassed as a consequence. He must then search for safety and a new equilibrium whilst dealing with the implications of falling into the garden. Thus he must fight off the evil weeds and befriend the dandelions and sunflowers.
This formulation, a combination of Todorov's two suggested paradigms, in my estimation, is the most value you can extract out of him. Not only does this work to describe a general plot or a short story - such as the one we made with the plant - but it will describe the details of a more expansive, feature-length narrative. For example, after the plant falls, a consequence may be a broken stem, he has to recognise this and then search for a solution to come back to a previous consequential condition of having fallen in the garden. More consequences may arise: the weeds start to see him, so he searches for safety assuming they will hurt him, thus returning to previous consequential condition of being in the garden, in danger of being hurt by the weeds. Another new condition may arise, a friendly dandelion gives him shelter, and he tells him of a growing resistance force in the sunflower patch, but this only opens up a new world of issues. We can continue on here with a cycle between condition, consequence an implication, to create a grander narrative. Alas, whilst Todorov's theory will get you from an A to B, and whilst his altered theory will explain many steps in between A and B, this is all still incomplete.
Structuralists such as Todorov fail to fully account for theme and meaning in their formulation of narrative. This is why I began with a look into the Taoist creation myth. Let us come again to this:
Equilibrium .................................................................... Unity
Disruptive condition .................................................... Duality
Recognition of Consequence ........................................ Trinity
Search in Face of Implication ............... Ten Thousand Things
New Equilibrium ...................................................... Harmony
I have modified Todorov's formulation here and we can still see it to match the Taoist formulation. Let us map just that onto the plant story. The plant is in unity on his ledge. The wind cleaves his stable unity, he is separated from safety: duality. Aware of safety, but trapped in a foreign garden, a third element is introduced: he may never be safe again due to the weeds. From this conscious recognition comes ten thousand possibilities that he must confront and balance; he must secure safety among the danger as to achieve harmony.
What is missing from this formulation, you may guess, is the presence of Tao. There is a way that precedes unity. With that in mind, let us ask this question: Would we not expect a film about this plant falling into a garden, say if it were made by Pixar, to imply something such as 'plants should not be alone'? Let us run with this. The natural way of things is for plants to be together in the soil, and so this plant sitting on the windowsill may be arrogant and aloof. This forms his unity and defines the narrative space; it is the implication of pre-existing meaning that characterises, defines and manifests the initial unity. It is then when that unity is broken that a duality may form between the plant being arrogant and humble/afraid/cautious/smart. The trinity, the new danger, is a third element that may change the unity for good, that will allow him to recognise such a duality between arrogance and humbleness. In balancing out these forces in the ten thousand things that emerge from the conflict in the trinity - in fighting a war against the weeds and cultivating his own army of dandelions and sunflowers by being a humble, good leader - our plant would find harmony. This harmony would be presided over by Tao or, similarly, Logos, the Word of God. The harmony would be the film's final meaning, would be the implied meaning that gave birth to the unity realised in a new form.
This is a far more genuine formula that describes, not all, but the classical, basic narrative. And does this not sound more like, for example, a classical Disney film? It is not just that these films move from one equilibrium to a new equilibrium through disruption, recognition and a search. What motivates everything is meaning. We can recognise in the beginning of a film such as Beauty and the Beast that, whilst there is equilibrium, there is something wrong: Bell is unhappy, and this is because she believes that the way that she must live is beyond the confines of her town. There must be meaning, logos, Tao, presiding over the initial unity, and it must be realised in the new unity for a film to be classically complete. It is this formulation that accounts for a film having meaning, and provides a reason why there is change and what that change may be. This is what Todorov structural theory lacks.
So, let us end this section by listing a whole and complete formulation of the fundamental narrative:
Implied Tao
Unstable Unity Born
Break into Condition of Duality
Consequential Invasion of Duality
Balancing the Ten Thousand Possibilities
Harmony
Logos (Tao Whispered)
Classical, fundamental narratives all follow this basic formula because narrative is mimetic; it imitates the universe. This structure (which I would not claim possession over) is one of the most fundamental reports that humanity has made on the nature of the universe; this is the fundamental story that is told by the Taoists, by Abrahamic religions and, likely, more - and we continue to tell this in books and on film.
Previous post:
Genre, Structure & Cinematic Spacetime Part I
Next post:
Genre, Structure & Cinematic Spacetime Part III
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
