"All narrative is engaged, at some level, in the improbable. Part of your job, of course, is to make the improbable credible. Then once you have made it credible, you proceed to make it inevitable."

"Improbability is the basis of drama, if for no other reason than drama is based on the exceptional."

Read this today, thought I'd share it.

#jumptheshark

some of us just do it better than others.

Interesting subject kevin.

On balance i would say as a group of writers/readers we analyse things too much. We look for the holes in a script, when often i feel the viewer would be more accepting.

i have done this myself, but i'm trying to be more aware of it. What i sometimes do is point out to a writer an issue that could be a problem, but then try to ascertain whether a viewer would care as much. Also, i try to avoid using this when judging the story. Work in progress, i accept.

This industry does seem to get away with a lot, so perhaps we can be a bit more relaxed about pushing the boundaries.

I would use my recent short At the Junction as an example. Its a down to earth drama, yet it asked the viewer/reader to accept that a home owner lives there for 30 years, that he has to drive the same way and that often he is let out at the same junction by the same person.

Ok, unlikely (having said that my father has lived in the same house for 70 years and used the same bad junction during that time) but if we can land on the planet pandora, have vampires at high school, have a tree rape a girl, etc etc is it not possible. Yet it was a big issue to some readers.

I doubt we will ever answer what is right, but i do feel we could be less concerned with the fine detail and try and see the story a bit more - myself included.

Quoted from leitskev "All narrative is engaged, at some level, in the improbable.

Hi Kev. Where did you get this from? It sound a little 'Americanized'.

Do you think the same would be true for a European observational piece? Or is this solely concerned with commercial work?

Yup. It's a tough call. When is something that is completely improbable acceptable to an audience?

I watched part of a film last night, Takers. Early in the story, an elite bank robbing unit takes millions from a bank in a skyscraper. Strangely, the robbers have a teller call 911. One of the robbers, in a security guard uniform, heads for the roof. When he sees the news choppers approaching, he pretends he's been shot, waves one down to help. They do, and he pulls a gun, hijacks the copter from the reporters. The rest of the gang joins him, and the escape in the copter.

Is it realistic? Well, for an elite team to count on that method of escape...no. It's actually silly. But it was cool enough that as an audience, you don't care. I bet that scene, which comes early enough to impress a producer reading the script, really helped sell this thing.

That quote really gets to the nub of the challenges inherent in writing for film - or TV, for that matter.

Without seeing its full context, I don't know if it refers this challenge as unique to the scriptwriting process of making a film, or if more pertinently, IMO, in the entire collaborative process.

I think a compelling script that suspends disbelief can be squandered as a project, whereas a script that doesn't really make the unbelievable believable is made believable when the correct fusion of minds and talents tackle it.

For example, should a script be miscast, you can lose the essence of the character and its intended thrust. Because performance is the biggest lure in film for me, I do believe it's perhaps the most critical component. An excellent actor can make the most ridiculous lines believable. Whilst I generally agree with Reef that writers do tend to overdo the analytical process, I think the best producers instinctively analyse (and not in a navelgazing way) and understand the best scripts and then work towards bringing the best actors for the part, as well as the best directors to realise the vision - not to mention the best DOPs, etc. Note, it's the best for that role, in this production for this project, as opposed to the best overall DOP, or director, or actor. As I say, I think it's all about getting the right fusion of minds. Like any team, a filmmaking crew needs harmony and shared purpose and that's primarily the responsibility of the producer to foster from the outset, with the crew then taking on that mission and injecting their own love of filmmaking to actually realise this notion of 'making the improbable probable'. From what I see, all the people I most respect in film appear to be overanalytical - I think it's an occupational hazard that should be embraced and mitigated only by a strong conviction to follow your gut.

Lesser producers (or for any profession in film) may look purely at the successful product that's gone before, and assume it's a simple concoction; they do not delve into the whys and wherefores of what made a movie good. They may be lured into believing a script that was actually only saved by a crew able to make the world believable, is vindication of a writer in total - and thus do not address what went wrong. That's why, I think, it's true that the best writers are so self-critical and complacency is a major explanation for one-hit wonders.

I think it's also why you see many of the best talents in the business work consistently with the same people. It's most likely the reason PTA has worked with the same DOP until the most recent project where the partnership was broken up by conflicting schedules.

Andrew's point accepted, it really depends on where the script pitches itself.

Check Transformers against Bridges of Madison.

Each 'pitches' itself at different extremes: one of believablility, one of boredom.

Yet both could have an element of improbability in them.

It's like a magic show - we all know it's a con, but we accept the pitch and enjoy. As long as the product stays within the boundaries that it implies we accept the end result.

The quote was actually from a book on writing, not on screenwriting or film. I think it's good to get information from different types of sources.

I think it applies to all story, certainly to film. I don't think it matters American, European, S Korean, Hollywood, Indi. Obviously if it's an Indiana Jones film, a lot of suspension of belief is required. So it's going to vary.

A few months ago I had a conversation with one of the strong writers here. She told me a story should be organic. And I've heard that before. But I strongly disagree.

The last thing a story should be is organic, IMO. A story needs to SEEM organic. Very different.

This is not semantics. You follow your neighbor to work and film his day, that's organic. And boring. The trick is to write extraordinary things and sell the audience that it's organic. It's a big difference. The quote I saw today said it better than I could.

Andrew makes a good point that it's much more than  the writing when it comes to film.

I think you are wrong here.

Look at French cinema - in particular, I'm thinking of a'Water lilies'. It's largely about what most girls go through, and is in the main a gentle observation about the pressures and confusions in relationships.

Many French pieces are in a similar vein.

Contrast that with attention grabbing American cinema output - in the main caused IMO by the destruction of the studio system.

Hotel and Transformers, both in different ways, perpetuate the extreme - which your author defines as 'the improbable'.

Look at all of the new releases in the US - which of them are probable? None.

Then look here:

http://filmsdefrance.com/French_Films_Recent_Releases.html

New French releases. Check which of these appear to be 'probable'.

Let me know who your author is, though - he sounds interesting.

Maybe it's more important for Hollywood. I believe you. I suspect it has a role in French film, but I have no knowledge of it Simon. Perhaps it's more subtle in French film?

In my ignorant view of French film, this is what I see:

The busboy goes to work downtown at his fancy hotel every day. It's tedium. Some days he sits in the cafe across the street and watches the girls from a distance. They pay him no attention.

One day, while he is working, an enchanting young lady smiles as she walks by him. He fumbles to find the words to say hello. And then, after she passes, she stops a moment, gazes around, briefly back at him, then continues. After a step, her scarf falls to the ground and she keeps going unaware, jumps in a cab.

The busboy hurries to retrieve the scarf. Did she drop it for him to find and return to her? What will she say when he returns it?

That's my notion of French film. In that example, the girl dropping the scarf is his improbable moment. It's more subtle than American cinema.

I really know nothing about it, so I defer to your wisdom.

The above quote is from: Writer's Workshop by Stephen Koch. He quotes extensively from famous authors.

That made me smile - nicely done.  

Yeah - subtlety - it does make a difference. Let me chew on it a while - you got me thinking now...