Gamebook store

Friday 17 July 2020

Stories that resonate



The film director Brian De Palma once gave a vivid description of how resonance works in storytelling. He likened different elements of the story to charged rods. When they get to just the right separation – CRACK! – you get a spark that illuminates the narrative. Too far apart and the discharge doesn’t happen. Too near and you get a closed circuit that never charges up in the first place.


One of the best uses of resonance in games is in Grim Fandango. The 1930s style of the setting allows a pseudo-Art Deco motif in the office block where the hero works, which is the headquarters of the Department of Death. Real-world Art Deco was influenced by Egyptian art, making it an excellent metaphor for the afterlife which is the setting of the game. In Grim Fandango, that Art Deco style comes with a spin, though, in that the decorative images used are not Egyptian but Aztec – which pulls us back to the origins of the Day of the Dead festival in pre-Columbian myth.

The 1930s trope also works well with Grim Fandango’s noirish private-eye slant and the slightly shabby elegance familiar to anyone who has ever visited a Mexican town like Morelia or Oaxaca. The game begins in the city of El Marrow, which looks like a sleepy burg that time has passed by. Indeed, this impression is accentuated by styling the world of the living, which the hero briefly visits, on Richard Hamilton's brashly colourful Pop Art paintings of the 1950s. (Life is to afterlife as the urban USA is to rural Mexico? That's resonance.)

Resonance can be used with varying degrees of subtlety. The least overt involves repeated images that defy instant critical analysis and so work on a very deep level. Examples of this kind of resonance – which we may call motifs – are hats in Miller's Crossing, water and the lack of it in Chinatown, and the use of discordant sounds and background noise in Touch of Evil.

More obvious are symbols that visually express the subtext. Hitchcock's thrillers often embody a sense of inevitability or danger by using shadows that seem to form a web or the bars of a cage. Orson Welles' Touch of Evil is set on the border between the USA and Mexico, and the story concerns a moral border: the grey area between the two lead characters, played by Welles and Charlton Heston. Those are more overt forms of resonance because they operate at the mind's liminal threshold.


Least subtle of all is resonance that simply swipes its whole scenario from another story or from the real world. I haven’t seen the new Picard series and know nothing about it apart from the screenshot that suggests Jean-Luc is now hanging out with Elrond. But a review mentioned that it deals with the refugees displaced by the destruction of the planet Romulus (what is it with Star Trek writers and blowing up planets?) and the notion that a less progressive administration at Starfleet is shirking their responsibility to help them.

Now, I have no quarrel with Star Trek being political. It always was; that was the whole point of it. The question here is whether it’s the kind of Roddenberrian allegorical scenario that fires us up with interesting ideas about timeless philosophical or political issues, or whether you’ll watch it and say, “Oh, so it’s a story about Trump.” The former is one of Mr De Palma’s lightning flashes: it’s alive! The latter fizzles out, its energy draining away in worthy obviousness.

I’m not sure if I’ll ever find out. There’s way too much TV these days to keep track of, and after seven seasons of TNG and Grabthar knows how many movies I don’t really feel the need for yet more Picard. But if you liked the show and can convince me it’s not from Western Union – well, okay then. Make it so.


28 comments:

  1. "what is it with Star Trek writers and blowing up planets" One assumes it's an inexplicable envy of their opposite numbers in the Star Wars franchise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point. Looked at that way, they're never going to catch up.

      Delete
    2. Star wars is massively overrated;the originals were OK (though only OK), the rest are just dross, particularly the most recent outings. I know it's not really relevant to anything in your post Dave, but I feel it needs to be said.

      Delete
    3. No argument from me on that score. Like you I prefer the originals but the only one I thought was really any good was Empire Strikes Back, and even that isn't in my SF movies Top 20.

      Delete
    4. You've gone and said it now, Dave! Any chance we can have that top 20 list please?!

      Delete
    5. Ooh... it changes as fast as I think about it, Andy. Call it Morris's Uncertainty Principle. Some random thoughts -- well, Blade Runner, obviously, and the original Alien. Oblivion. Passengers. Edge of Tomorrow. Ex Machina. Android. Europa Report. District 9. Frequency. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Twelve Monkeys. Predestination. Total Recall. Quatermass IV. I'll have a different list by tomorrow -- and I left five gaps because I know I'll think of more!

      Delete
    6. Keep 'em coming, Dave! A few entries there that beg the question, what counts as sci-fi, or at least primarily? To give best example out of your entries, Alien vs Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

      Delete
    7. In the brief to the Dave Morris character in the early FL books, terminator 1 was cited as being better than its sequel. Not sure if that's enough to get it into the top 2020?

      Delete
    8. I would say the first Terminator edges it although both would be in my top 20. Although as with having a preference for Aliens over Alien, the margin is probably so tight as to make it unnecessary to split them. It's rather like comparing Chablis with Sancerre.

      I've had a bit more time to look at your list, Dave. A few questions if I may? Passengers, is that the 2016 film? It doesn't get great reviews? Android, Europa Report and Predestination all look interesting, I'll take a look at those. I can't remember whether I've seen all the Quatermass IV, that's a maybe. Assume the Arnie Total Recall? I remember being disappointed at the time, although a more recent viewing of it improved my opinion somewhat. I'm not sure it qualifies as Sci-Fi, but I've a soft spot for The Hidden.

      I notice 2001 is absent, Dave. Is that deliberate or omission?!

      Delete
    9. Terminator definitely way better than its sequel in my book. As for Alien, I like the original but in my headcanon there were no more.

      Passengers is the 2016 version, yes, Andy -- what can I say, the reviewers are morons. And Arnie TR, mos' def. 2001 -- of course! I told you I needed those five gaps. Now what are other four I forgot? Maybe Primer is one...

      Delete
    10. Fair enough re the morons, Dave! I'll add that and Primer then. Oh, and Frequency, thought I'd seen it but perhaps not. The only obvious ones I think you've missed (or perhaps rather would be in mine) are Predator and Robocop, assuming the former is allowed. The sequel to 2001 was better than I thought it would be thinking about it, albeit it's been a long time since I've seen it.

      Delete
    11. I ought to include Minority Report (Tom is turning out to be in a lot of these) and Robocop, certainly. Oh, and Self/less. I must have used up the spare slots by now...

      Delete
    12. Oh, and Andy, you will need the infographic for Primer. The timeline is seriously, mind-buggeringly complicated to figure out. Not that that will stop you enjoying it, but after watching it do an internet search.

      Delete
    13. Love him or loathe him, I agree, Dave, Edge of Tomorrow and Minority Report were both pretty good. I have to say I didn't actually mind War of the Worlds either. At least comparative to the recent BBC debacle, that is. Does Mad Max count as Sci-Fi? Not sure, perhaps not.

      Self/less. 19% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes! Ok, I'll give it a go. Your 100% record is on the line! I'll do just that re Primer.

      Delete
    14. I've just gone into my study, Dave (I say study, room with loads of bookcases - there is no desk) and looked at my "didn't think was brilliant but I want to watch it again before I die in case I've somewhat underrated it and don't want to have to buy it again 20 years later or didn't get it or had too much to drink when I watched it or it was quite good but not quite good enough to get into my permanent collection", shelf, and have Gattaca, Cypher, Arrival and Colossus The Forbin Project on there. I then glanced across at my permanent collection and saw Capricorn One. I may have to reset my system.

      Delete
    15. Gattaca! Oh, that's definitely on my top 20 list, Andy.

      Delete
    16. Gattaca was definitely in the "too much to drink" category. I can't remember a thing about it. I thought I had Brazil, on that shelf as well, but can't find it.

      Having sorted S&S and Sci-Fi, there's just Horror left, Dave! Or did we sort that previously? The Exorcist holds number one spot. However, I think our lists will be much more divergent, as I've about five zombie films on mine! As good as Shaun as the Dead is, I don't get how that sometimes gets categorised as Horror though. Very loosely related (to some of the cast), I watched a comedy series called Look Around You the other day. Hit and miss but worth a look if you haven't seen it.

      Delete
    17. Look Around You -- a great classic I'd forgotten, Andy. In a similar vein: People Like Us and Posh Nosh.

      Delete
    18. They look good, Dave, although Posh Nosh doesn't appear to have been released on DVD. That basket is starting to brim again!

      Delete
    19. Better than DVD, they're all on YouTube, Andy:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzjR0yL4f0Y

      Delete
    20. "You look good here". "That's not me". Excellent. Not quite sure how I miss these things. Thanks, Dave!

      Delete
  2. That helps clarify, for me, why I dislike certain 'woke' elements in movies/books/RPGs while being in agreement with the message. It's not that there is a message, it's that it is presented in a ham-fisted way that undercuts the product as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have gone there so that you don't have to...

    I wouldn't say that it was 'about Trump'. On the other hand, it is very obviously about the idea of offering assistance to refugees, from both moral and practical points of view. So it is Roddenberrian in the 'bloody hell, this is an obvious bit of allegory' sense.

    There's a sort of interesting plot twist surrounding the whole issue of the failure to offer help to refugees. But equally one of the major themes of the show, which I will not spoil -- if not for your benefit but for anyone else who might want to watch it -- is a classic case of a show setting up a moral dilemma that hinges almost entirely on the arbitrary rules the show itself has set up.

    I enjoyed bits of it, in that 'role-player recognising odd stuff that might happen in a game' sort of a way, but I would not urge you to prioritise it over something you actually do want to watch. I have lots of good stuff to watch, and rather regret the time I spent on it. Even Patrick Melrose, which I am watching now, while being an indulgent bit of toff-junkie porn, had a nice bit of resonance in the shape of a gecko that Melrose keeps seeing. It's done quite subtlely, with a good payoff when you discover the significance of the gecko.

    Oh, and I forgot to mention that the Elrod character in Picard is bloody ridiculous: one of those ideas that an infantile Hollywood bully comes up with and the grown-ups in the room can't manage to persuade him to dispense with.

    I seem to be listed as unknown, so I'll just say that it's me, on the Road to Usenanu.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The road to Usenanu, may it never end. (Actually, it never did...)

      I liked Patrick Melrose, mainly because it was brilliantly written, acted and directed, and I simply didn't register the toff-junkie aspect (my unchecked privilege, no doubt) though in Edward St Aubyn's defence it's the only junkie experience he knows.

      "A show setting up a moral dilemma that hinges almost entirely on the arbitrary rules the show itself has set up." That's the most tantalizing thing I've heard about Picard so far. I'm sure it would annoy the hell out of me, but I'm almost curious to watch it just to find out what that is.

      Delete
  4. Just had my reply wiped when I pressed Preview. Oh joy.

    Abbreviated version: nah to the tantalizing. Artificial life. And you know how badly that gets handled.

    Petrick Melrose is great, as you say, but it's toff-junkie porn and knows it (in last night's episode Patrick shouting 'I fucking hate the rich!').

    Best thing in Picard is Santiago Cabrera who plays a role steeped in cliche (the Han Solo type) but makes it fresh, as well as adding amusement with his roles as his ship's assorted hologram programs (like the one in Voyager). But still not good enough to make up for Elrod.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just made the mistake of looking at the Wiki page, got as far as "Picard goes to a temple of warrior nuns" and had to reach for the sick bag. If the artificial life storyline is what I think it is, it seems to crop up in almost all genre TV/movie sci-fi these days. And if they have to have a character called Elron (Elrod? Elrond?) couldn't they have based him on L Ron Hubbard? That would have been unexpected, at least.

      I'd rather see Cumberbatch as Melrose than as Khan, certainly. (You know what I'm going to say: they should have cast John Lone.)

      Delete
    2. He's not called Elrod. I only called him that because you called him Elrond, and I remembered the Elric/Foghorn Leghorn hybrid from Cerebus. I don't remember what he was called, but suffice it to say that he was trained to be an unbeatable martial artist by the aforementioned warrior nuns...

      Delete
    3. According to Wiki he's called Elnor, which I'd say is close enough to assume the Picard writers were taking the piss. But the fellow in Cerberus was called Elrod (of Melvinbone IIRC). Paz still has my copies, of course.

      Delete