Post by MenelaosGkikas on Apr 13, 2022 12:32:26 GMT
Republished from my Facebook Page Maker's Dust, February 28 2022
Hello writers and all creative individuals! I’ve been fascinated by the experience of reading La La Land script of Damien Chazelle, so today I would like to discuss what truly made that script a masterpiece and perhaps reflect in an emotional way the perspective of the director, writer and cast members towards great art and patterns of ambition. Those of you who have seen the film may understand immediately what I am talking about, as well as those of you who haven’t may be intrigued to discover more about my writings.
So far, I’ve discussed a lot about the unification of literature with screenwriting. That could possibly mean of creating a paradigm shift from literature in dialogue towards literature in scenic action. The fact that the complexity of a script should be reorganized towards the entire kinesthetic experience of the movies instead of intellectual dialogue. Where with the term kinesthetic, I refer to the entire feelings around action, spacetimes, exterior shots versus interior shots, scene headings, pictures, every tiny word in the script matters. The audience thinks and knows by using emerging pictures and with an indirect instead of direct understanding of metaphors, allegories and messages. That’s the exact sense of showing instead of telling.
La La Land begins with a completely narrational set up as well as narrational closure. Especially in the end part, we enter a fully fantastical realm, the realm of the old Hollywood ballets of the 40’s and the 50’s. At the beginning on the other hand, there’s a traffic jam and music, whereas music pieces are scattered all over the script. What I understood by reading it is that there is very sharp dialogue, unnecessary descriptions are omitted and the minimalization in expression in terms of the economy of language is better portrayed not inside the script but with the emerging messages and emerging feelings. So, here’s where it’s getting a little tough, folks. Characters talk “WITH” each other, NOT “AT” each other. Characters don’t give explanations and analyses in terms of directing others and telling them what to do. Contrary to the previous, there’s positive, forward, motivational communication besides the mishaps. Especially when Sebastian and Mia quarrel, the motivation heads always towards the dreams of the other side, even using songs and messages that seek catharsis and salvation instead of bubbling by directing others and the intellectuality of pinpointing errors, omissions and “what could it be” discussions.
In the entire film there are plenty of pure narrational opportunities that fastly alternate with minimal dialogue that brings us back to my initial point that every tiny word of the movie format structure of scripts, matters more in terms of applying the kinesthetic rule to the audiences. Meaning, to create kinesthetic audiences and not intellectuals. All along, this slight but very important difference in writing is what Hollywood and many screenwriting gurus judge as exposition. There’s not the slightest need of creating plenty of backstory to understand what happens next, but instead of it hide the exposition and move forward. It may not mean though that such observations may become easier in the future, but there is this quote that necessity is the mother of invention! Have a great time folks!!
Hello writers and all creative individuals! I’ve been fascinated by the experience of reading La La Land script of Damien Chazelle, so today I would like to discuss what truly made that script a masterpiece and perhaps reflect in an emotional way the perspective of the director, writer and cast members towards great art and patterns of ambition. Those of you who have seen the film may understand immediately what I am talking about, as well as those of you who haven’t may be intrigued to discover more about my writings.
So far, I’ve discussed a lot about the unification of literature with screenwriting. That could possibly mean of creating a paradigm shift from literature in dialogue towards literature in scenic action. The fact that the complexity of a script should be reorganized towards the entire kinesthetic experience of the movies instead of intellectual dialogue. Where with the term kinesthetic, I refer to the entire feelings around action, spacetimes, exterior shots versus interior shots, scene headings, pictures, every tiny word in the script matters. The audience thinks and knows by using emerging pictures and with an indirect instead of direct understanding of metaphors, allegories and messages. That’s the exact sense of showing instead of telling.
La La Land begins with a completely narrational set up as well as narrational closure. Especially in the end part, we enter a fully fantastical realm, the realm of the old Hollywood ballets of the 40’s and the 50’s. At the beginning on the other hand, there’s a traffic jam and music, whereas music pieces are scattered all over the script. What I understood by reading it is that there is very sharp dialogue, unnecessary descriptions are omitted and the minimalization in expression in terms of the economy of language is better portrayed not inside the script but with the emerging messages and emerging feelings. So, here’s where it’s getting a little tough, folks. Characters talk “WITH” each other, NOT “AT” each other. Characters don’t give explanations and analyses in terms of directing others and telling them what to do. Contrary to the previous, there’s positive, forward, motivational communication besides the mishaps. Especially when Sebastian and Mia quarrel, the motivation heads always towards the dreams of the other side, even using songs and messages that seek catharsis and salvation instead of bubbling by directing others and the intellectuality of pinpointing errors, omissions and “what could it be” discussions.
In the entire film there are plenty of pure narrational opportunities that fastly alternate with minimal dialogue that brings us back to my initial point that every tiny word of the movie format structure of scripts, matters more in terms of applying the kinesthetic rule to the audiences. Meaning, to create kinesthetic audiences and not intellectuals. All along, this slight but very important difference in writing is what Hollywood and many screenwriting gurus judge as exposition. There’s not the slightest need of creating plenty of backstory to understand what happens next, but instead of it hide the exposition and move forward. It may not mean though that such observations may become easier in the future, but there is this quote that necessity is the mother of invention! Have a great time folks!!