Originality Doesn’t Make Great Drama
January 9, 2008 by clive
You talk to most film makers and they almost all equate “making it†with originality. The motivation to create a unique vision is strong in indie film makers. And yet, although I’m also motivated to create a unique brand for both my movies and my writing, over the last couple of years I grown increasingly suspicious of this search for the “holy grail†of originality. Often the phrase “I’m trying to do something new†is used as an excuse for poor writing technique and as a way to dodge criticism… I don’t know how many times I had feedback thrown back in my face along with “…but I’m trying to do something original.†In fact, when I used to teach film making to drama students, I would tell them there was only one rule for their first film,“don’t cross the line  every time I did that, I could guarantee the first question asked would be “what exceptions are there to that crossing the line thing?†People mistakenly equate rule breaking with originality; they believe originality automatically makes something good; and, they also think being different is the key to success… when, in fact, being good is… and, there is no direct link between being excellent and being original.
About a year ago I was looking at a radical reworking of the Sherlock Holmes story as a possible project; it’s still a possibility, but for the moment it’s on the back burner. One of the main reasons I was looking at Conan Doyle’s great detective, was because we’re pretty close to the 75th anniversary of Doyle’s death and therefore all his books are about to go public domain. The upshot of this, is I got to spend a lot of time looking at Sherlock Holmes as a character.
The reason I mention this, is because those who worship “originality†would find it hard to believe you could create award winning drama, from the starting point of photocopying a character as well known as Sherlock Holmes. But, there is a fairly compelling argument which destroys this kind of thinking… the Emmy award winning TV series “House†can be pitched as “a modern day Sherlock Holmes uses deductive logic to solve, unsolvable medical cases.â€
What’s surprising about House as a character isn’t the originality of the character… it’s how little they changed him from Sherlock Holmes. In House we have a character who is misanthropic, who can deduce personality traits from seemingly trivial observations and who is a raving drug addict when he doesn’t have a case to distract him. And, they haven’t exactly hidden the source of their “inspiration†… House lives at number 221 (in some episodes it’s 221B) and House/Holmes… how obvious did they need to make it.
However, none of this is important… the real question is, does this blatant use of an existing famous character make the series less good as a drama. Of course it doesn’t. The series is wonderful. It has huge audiences. It wins awards.
But, how can this be? Surely if you rip off one of the world’s best known characters and build a TV series around it, then you should be doomed to failure. Where is the originality in that?
But, that’s my point. My guess is, the guys who developed House understand that it’s great characters and great writing that make great drama… and originality isn’t as important as having a great character… even if you’ve lifted that character straight from classic literature.
Where spec screen writers and indie film makers all too often go wrong, is they get all bent out of shape trying to be original, when what they ought to concentrate on is competence. Good writing technique, well rounded characters (no matter where you stole them from) and high quality story telling will always triumph over originality.
However, this isn’t as simple as merely lifting a character from someone’s work and telling a new story. Where the team who developed House really kicked ass, was in looking at what new stuff you could do with an existing character. There is real skill and art in that. In fact, there is more skill in seeing the potential in an existing concept than there is in trying to be original through arbitrary rule breaking.
Like I said at the top of this article… I still strive for originality in my work, but over the last couple of years I’ve realised that even the pieces that seem to be the most original, all have influences from stuff I’ve seen, stuff I’ve read, stuff I’ve heard.
Ironically, this is the reason I don’t like to hear other film makers pitch their ideas… because even though I’m too arrogant to steal, I also know you can’t unhear a concept. And, you never know when someone’s forgotten idea is going to leak out all over your page.
Interesting post. True and yet interesting. I personally steal from everyone I can. Well, not really, but sort of.
I guess people (writers) forget that there are no new stories just new characters having the same things happen to them.
A good example is a script I wrote based on two different stories. I took the protag from one and the story from the other. It is nothing like either movie but if you examine it you can find clues.
Though I was working on it prior, I have a new script that has similarities to “Michael Clayton.” Another “borrows” - steals is such a bad word - from Home Alone. I mean, look at how many remakes, sequels, prequels, etc. came out this year.
Doyle died in 1930…so that would make this year the 78th year since his death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Conan_Doyle
Thanks for that Jef.
Normally I’d check details like that for an article, but I’m surviving on limited internet access at the moment, via my mobile phone, whilst I move house… so this time I skimped on my background check. LOL
What do you mean exactly by “don’t cross the line”?
Jahn
Crossing the line is easier to show, than it is to explain… but I’ll give it a go.
When you have a scene with more than one person in it, and you are shooting a variety of shots, you need to be sure that they will edit together in a way that makes sense to the audience.
In order to for the edit to make sense, you draw an imaginary line between the two characters… and only place your camera on one side of that line. That way if character A is on the left hand side of the screen, facing to the right, she’ll always be on that side. If you cross the line, she’ll suddenly be on the right edge, facing left.
Figuring out where the line is gets more complicated the more people there are in the scene.
In terms of making shooting choices, crossing the line is one of the most basic pieces of technique a director is required to know.
Now, as it happens there are ways to cross the line and not screw the edit, some of which involve showing the move across the line, some of which involve matching camera angles and some which involve saturation shooting both sides of the line and cutting on the same character both sides of the line, before moving onto the next. However, these are all techniques that require a fairly advanced understanding of the relationship between shooting and editing.
Clive, thanks for the reply! There’s actually a good article about it on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/180_degree_rule
I thought you meant something like “don’t break the fourth wall or do outrageous stuff to make the audience aware of the fact they are watching a movie”. Because I know many first time filmmakers like to do that. They need some time to realize that some restraint in this regard will allow people to sink in more into the story.
Anyway, thanks!
Grotowski said - “Good ideas are borrowed. Great ideas are stolen.”
Jahn
No Problem. Glad to help.
Funny you should mention the forth wall. I was watching “High Fidelity” last night and was just so impressed with how they used Cussack talking directly to camera to deal with the issue of making a film that needed massive amounts of VO to work.
Joshua
Nice to see a Grotowski quote, not many film makers who read Grotowski, more is the pity.
The Grotowski quote reminded me of a similar one that came from GM’s design chief Bill Mitchell in the mid 70s.
When asked if the then-new Cadillac Seville was a copy of a Mercedes he replied; “Hell no, I copied Rolls Royce. My father always said if you’re going to steal, rob a bank, not a grocery store.”
Clive, your article this time is one of your best yet, I certainly admire your ability to dissect the independent film industry and put the observations into words.
I’d never personally knock someone else’s film, but there seems to be a group of film makers out there that equate “original” with “incoherent”, perhaps unintentionally, and of course it is their personal vision, but sometimes a good story gets lost in the art.
Incoherent isn’t always bad either, this past Hallowe’en the film that won the ChillerTV short movie competition was bizarre to say the least, but it possessed that rare cinematic attribute of putting the viewer right into the action. You were on the stairs, you were in the rooms. The director for that film has an exceptional and talented eye and I thought the first place award was well deserved.
Neil
LOL. I know exactly what you mean. Incoherent can be good, providing there is an intention behind it to create a specific reaction in the audience. But, of itself, it’s neither new or original.
I think one of the big issues for many film makers is actually having a clear vision in the first place and then getting that vision in the can.
Where this most obviously shows up is at the script stage. I’ve had any number of conversations with film makers, where I’ve suggested the scene is a little thin… and the writer has given me all of this information, that was in their heads, but didn’t make it onto the page.
Ouch, I’m certainly guilty of using “head storage” for ideas!
Lately I’ve been getting more down on paper and less in my head as I progress from one man band operation to utilizing the services of more people.
My latest project is something of a personal triumph, 15 pages for what I project to be a 20 minute short with just a minimum of “I’ve got it up here” to fill in the blanks.
Drawing out all the scenes on 3×5 cards makes planning go like clockwork too, and it gets the rest of the cast and crew a little more interested in my vision of how the movie should go. I get better feedback when everyone else can see what’s going to happen next in the project which isn’t always apparent in the screenplay
I did exactly the same thing for years… it was only when I started to think about writing spec scripts for sale, that I really started looking at how much of my thinking made it onto the page.
My sentiments exactly, which shows that original thoughts aren’t always unique either.
In any case, arbitrary originality has become an ironically unoriginal practice in drama. My sense of irony prompts me to primarily write comedy, but comedy’s not foolproof either.
I used to write and perform stand-up comedy… but what I really liked was the writing. Mainly because I loved how changing the word order, or removing one word will make a gag either work or not work.
For me, film writing has the same kind of precision.
I’m also a belatedly aspiring comedian, and I hope that previously including “Writer†(after my name) didn’t seem as humorless as the material we’re criticizing. I forgot that all previous responses used no job titles.
LOL. Don’t worry about it.
Thats well thought out and wonderfully articulated. I also feel its true.
The catch could be that, if you end up “borrowing” a great idea, your execution needs to be even better. Its bound to be under the scanner and you risk being stamped as a “borrower”. ‘House’ is possibly a rare example of how wonderfully has such an execution been carried out. I’d love to hear about more examples of this nature. On the contrary, there are numerous examples of how a blatant borrowing of an idea attracted heavy criticism.
‘Success’ has the survivor bias. The many who failed don’t come to the light.
I do agree that the key is not necessarily the originality of the core idea/story. But originality of SOMETHING is needed (execution, marketing, production, characterisation.. anything)
Thats what I feel.
I shall be looking forward to reading you regularly.
Cheers
I agree completely. You bottom line is you have to create something entertaining… if you manage that, people either won’t notice or won’t care that you stole it from somewhere else.
Back in the 1970’s children’s cartoons would blatantly steal whole shows and sell them off as new product. The kids cartoon “Top Cat” was just “Bilko” but with cats.
But, the truth is, often when people steal ideas, they steal badly… with House you’ve got a team who wanted to do something original with an existing concept.
So, yes, there is still the need for an original execution.
[...] read with this post that’s geared to script writers, but just as easily applies to anyone trying to tell stories. [...]
David Lynch pinches alot of Jean-Luc Godard’s visual ideas and is proclaimed a genius by some. I won’t tell you which ideas, you should watch some Godard and get inspired yourself. So worry not about about borrowing, just don’t tell anyone if no one notices. As long you it is entertaining with interesting characters I for one will not not be disappointed.
Sean,
You’re right… everyone acquires from someone.
So, Lucas, Spielberg and any number of other contemporary directors borrow from Kurosawa… who in turn borrowed from John Ford… who in turn… well, you get the drift.
[...] Originality Doesn’t Make Great Drama by Clive [...]