Does the success of a film hinge on the audience’s ability to understand the subject matter? As viewers, we enter into an unwritten contract with the film we’re watching. We know it might be necessary to suspend our expectations of reality or grapple with concepts that may otherwise be impossible.
However, for films that are based on true events, there seems to be a need for a certain amount of exposition. Too much and the film becomes obtuse. Too little and viewers won’t understand the basics of what’s happening.
Real Events Need Real Explanations
There are various genres where a grounding in the fundamentals is necessary for viewers to understand the plot. Casino-based films are a case in point. Take the movie 21. The film dramatized the real-life story of blackjack players from MIT. They were math experts with the ability to track patterns and get an edge over the casino. The early part of the film sees Micky Rosa explain the basics of blackjack to Ben.
This doesn’t take up much time in the film. Indeed, the card values in blackjack and the game’s fundamentals are simple to explain. However, they’re essential to the plot because, without understanding the basics, you can’t develop a potentially profitable blackjack strategy. As noted by experts, “calculating hand values is central to getting the most out of the game.” That’s because, at its core, blackjack is a game of odds. You’re assessing your hand’s chances of winning based on the dealer’s card (that you can see). Therefore, for 21 to make sense as a film, the director had to insert a short sequence explaining the basics.
The same strategy is used in Jurassic Park. We all have a general understanding of dinosaurs, but the nuances of DNA sequencing are less familiar. That’s where Mr. DNA comes in (see video above). The animated character appears during a presentation shown to Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern), and chaotician Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) when they first take a tour of Jurassic Park.
We assume they understand the basics of DNA but, as an audience, we need some education. Only once we know this can we start to see why the concept of Jurassic Park is possible and, from there, why things start to go horrifically wrong as the film progresses.
Context Matters as Much as Exposition
These movies did well at the box office. 21 grossed $159.8 million, while Jurassic Park made almost $1 billion ($978.1 million, to be exact). This suggests exposition is important. Movies with little exposition, such as Hereditary which grossed $82 million, suggest this is the case. However, we can counter this with examples of movies with very little in the way of exposition, such as A Quiet Place (see video below). It’s not until the very end of the film that we find out why sound is dangerous. That film grossed $314 million and has an audience score of 83% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Therefore, it’s not a clearcut case. What we can do is distinguish between the types of film that require clear exposition and those that don’t. 21 was based on true events so knowing the basics of blackjack is non-negotiable. With exposition, we’d just be watching people playing cards without knowing why. It’s the same story as Jurassic Park. Although it’s not real, the plot is plausible. Thus, we need some foundation to work from.
A Quiet Place is based on suspense. It’s a sci-fi thriller, so keeping us in the dark is part of the process. Telling us too much too soon would render it predictable. Context matters. We can all agree that too much exposition pulls out of the fantasy. It makes a movie feel stilted and unrealistic. However, if we don’t get any exposition in certain contexts, deciphering the plot becomes impossible. So, while success might not hinge on the right amount of exposition, it’s a dramatic technique that can’t be overlooked.
[…] Source link […]