The Article, “How ‘No Coutnry for Old Men’ Successfully Defies Narrative Expectations” by Justin Marrow, makes a very good point about movie plots. A good story teller should give the audience information in pieces, like 2 plus 2, instead of giving the audience everything in the form of 4. This forces the audience to put information together themselves, rather than having to “spoon-feed” it to them.
Though never seeing the movie myself, hearing that “the first murder we see is careful, violent and powerful, but the second is polite and clean. His apathetic attitude and his disturbing efficacy auggests a long history of taking life” gives me a clear image of the character. Through the story telling and through the characters attitude, we can get a sense of what’s gone on before the movie takes place, even without a backstory.
As a film maker, I can see this as a very good way to tell stories. In movies and tv shows I watch, eveytime there is a mystery or something unknown to the audience, I want to see clues or things that catch my eye and hint toward the answer. Most of the time it is just a reveal and the mystery is concluded with out any deductive reasoning used, which can be disappointing. If I were to direct a tv show, I would leave subtle clues and hints scattered throughout the episodes. People who catch them would be able to theorize but not be certain on the answer, but could still make their guesses.
In the same way, I would not want backstory and characters traits to be revealed through simple dialogue exposition, or certainly not a narrator. I would want to gradually reveal traits and backstory through actions, emotions or expressions, leaving the audience wondering if that was an evil smirk or an antagonizing taunt. An audience cannot enjoy a movie that gives them bleak concrete evidence after bleak concrete evidence. An audience wants to use their brain and say to themselves “oh I get it” or “that’s who’s under the mask” or “he’s the traitor!”. No audience wants to know what to expect before the scene even happens. Throughout “No Country for Old Men”, the audience is expected their protagonist vs. antagonist showdown. But Moss is killed off screen, leaving the audience bewildered yet so much more intrigued with where the story is going.
After reading the article, I have a one question. How can you put together such an effective story while at the same time leaving things out so the audience can put them together. Specifically, how would you know how much you leave your audience to figure out before plot holes become imminent. Is there a certain set of rules to follow for this type of plot, or do multiple groups of people analyze and find out exactly how much works and how much doesn’t everytime a change is made. I feel like if I tried to create something along these lines, I would disappoint the groups of people who did not put two and two together or maybe dissapoint those who found it too easy. I believe the best person to ask would be a novelist or someone working with reviewing books because a book plot is much more drawn out in the process and may have more answers.
Parker's FMC Blog 