Tell universal stories – Food for thought

I’ve had numerous conversations with quite a few people on what might be wrong with South African cinema. In our discussions we considered politics, acting, money, professionalism, lack of understanding and even mediocrity came up once or twice. While the above-mentioned issues certainly deserve some of the blame, there might be another problem in particular, that could be the main culprit. We are too fixated on telling “local” stories. The reason I place this in quotations is because the idea of the "local" story is somewhat ambiguous to me, not by design but because for the most part, stories seem to be universal. Now there are two ways in which this approach could be menacing, Directly or Indirectly.

Directly refers to the obvious, which would be to make films that deal with South African specific subject-matter, such as crime, race, politics etc. I’m not suggesting that there is no place for these types of films, not at all but if part of the goal is only to represent heritage on the world-stage of film, then there could be another way and that is through the backdoor. Focus on universal themes. The length to which the industry has gone to understand the inner workings of stories has yielded proof, in my opinion, that they could indeed, be seen as universal concepts. Take the revenge-plot. All of us have been burned in one way or another, it’s just a consequence of life I guess. Knowing that, if I was to watch a revenge-film set in New-Zealand with Kiwi-actors, Writers and Directors, I would still understand and be able to relate to the content. It’s instinctive. The fact that it’s a Kiwi-production is noticeable but secondary. So, focus on the story and the rest will happen all by itself. I am Afrikaans. I grew up Afrikaans. Cultural and societal-traditions in rearing have imprinted on me, the same way it has for every other person in every other society on earth. You cannot escape it, even if you wanted to. So, if I was to Write, Direct or act in a film, all which was imprinted on me would automatically surface because I cannot be any other way and nor can you. South-Korean films are a wonderful example of this. The South Korean films I’ve seen and others I know about, don’t lecture me on South Korea, instead they take concepts that might work in almost every cultural setting around the world and focus on that. Their particular flavor (being South Korean) comes across naturally because they are telling the story. I might not be able to relate to the language but the stories are right up my alley because they are universal.

So, if you are a writer looking to start a new project, perhaps you might try Horror or Adventure. Now, I know what you’re thinking, those are genres. True, but I believe genre-consideration to be one of the best ways to escape the "local" monster, which tends to come in the form of dramas. Don't get too excited just yet, even other genres are not immune to this type of meddling via other avenues, such as the characters.

This leads us to the Secondary way it might stunt our potential. Sometimes characters are baptized in this idea of "local", forcing the Director to then explain obscure details about the characters so the audience might grasp their existence within the frame. This wastes time and might do nothing to further the story. It's purely cosmetic. It is difficult however, to really identify this as there is an argument to be made for colorful characters and the only way I can think of how one might trim this fat is by scrutinizing every line of text in the script, then asking some tough questions.

For example, if you were to write a horror film about a witch doctor as the antagonist, does the character’s true cultural heritage really play a role? Does it add to the story? Would the audience be lost without this information? Would the words “witch doctor” not say it all? Is it purely cosmetic and if so, is any extra explanation required? Once again, I am not suggesting that characters should be bland or uninteresting. What I’m referring to is the consideration of the line between fiction and reality. Fictional folklore created specifically for the character could just as easily produce a vivid and intriguing impression. So why would one be better than the other? I can’t help but think that for the majority of films that adopt this “local” approach, for whatever reason, the end result will most likely turn out to be cosmetic. But this raises another concern. If we are adding details, interesting and colorful as they may be, to a story, what good does it do, if the audience does not know what it is or what it means? In that case, fictional folklore would serve just as well, not true? Isn’t the entire point of adding such representation to share it with the audience? On the other hand, if it’s not cosmetic then there would have to be some explanation for its presence on-screen. Audiences are smart but they might not know everything about everything, always and forevermore. But such exposition might just lead to useless information which does nothing to further the story and only serves to tick the “local” box. Ultimately, the decision will come down to, intent.

I really do believe the Secondary approach might be causing some confusion with filmmakers who might feel forced/compelled in some way to focus the audience’s attention on the heritage of the film or characters, rather than the story. It can never be overstated that the most important thing to consider when telling a story is, drum-roll please, the story. That should be your main concern, always and everything else should exist to supplement that, not the other way around.

In conclusion, this might not be life-altering information but in fairness, I never suggested it would be. In the very least, this idea of the universal story could, and probably should be stowed close by, along with all other screenwriting-tools that might serve to help you in traversing this tar pit trap that is screenwriting. Perhaps you never have any use for it but as the saying goes, it’s better to have it and not need it, right?

Anyways, just food for thought.

25/03/2021 – 12:56