Importance of the "Plot"

[criterionmaster]

Now I figured this is enough discussion for its own thread, and I wanted to get this out of the way of people grading films since it was getting confusing and would have gotten harder to discuss the actual films being graded. Here is what has been said before.

Beed complained about the plot for Science of Sleep and agentknight said plot doesn't matter. He then went on with this rant:

agentknight said:

I think the whole idea of plot is silly and overrated. I mean, what is the "plot"? A story? Is, say, The Godfather a bad movie because most scenes do not relate to an overreaching plot? The most famous scene in the film, the horse's head scene, is merely orientation and has very, very little to do with some kind of overreaching narrative.

Of course, there are lots of plot heavy films that are successful with the general public, like The Shawshank Redemption, but those films aren't generally seen in a positive light by film fans such as myself. Why? Because too much story makes the film seem "fake". It is obvious that when you are watching a heavily plot-driven film such as that, you are not watching actual humans, characters with some kind of motivation outside of the narrative, you are not watching realistic interactions between people; we are indeed watching merely a "story" told by the positioning and actions of what are essentially carboard cutouts the director can manipulate. This is why improv feels very real and warm in film - because these are real interactions, not heavy-handed manipulation.

So, ultimately, an overabundance of plot proves merely frustrating and fake, and while this is acceptable to mainstream audiences, I think that even mainstream audiences can dismiss the idea of it when watching a very well made film like The Godfather, further debunking the "plot" argument.

And then there is the ambiguousness of what "plot" actually is. Critics complain when they see a film "there were a few hiccups in the plot along the way," but what does that actually mean? Did all the scenes in the film not connect to an overreaching narrative? Or did they not relate to the message of the film? Or, perhaps more plausibly, did the critic simply not like the film as much as they could have, and the "plot" was just an unimaginative excuse for his/her indifference/dislike of certain parts, or perhaps the whole, of the film?

/rant

Ptahole said:

ptahole said:

Plot is important in most cases. Not every scene has to adhere to the plot, but some sort of narrative usually makes the film better.

police386 said:

well-said, agentknight, but to say that plot just isn't important is taking it too far i think. i'll agree that the plot-heavy melodrama, action movies, and what have you that're being spewed out today are a far-cry from the classics and some of the greats, and atmosphere and characters are vital, but you at least have to have some kind of coherent story to push it all along.

This is where we are at now in the discussion. While I do agree with agentknight that plot is overrated and overanalyzed, in that people use "lack of plot" as a fault for most films, even though some of my favorites ever have no real plot. But also, I believe that if a film does have a plot it may interrupt the flow of the film if it strayed super far away from a plot. I have more to say but I will let other people say their thoughts and let agentknight respond as well.

[sacrilegend]

Sometimes not having a plot can make the film seem to try too hard to be indie, sometimes plots aren't so coole either. It depends how they are used.

[captainofbeef]

If a film has not plot at all, it loses direction 90% of the time. All films have a basic story, without one you wouldn't have a film. It doesn't have to be really complicated or surreal, it can be simple for all I care. But I just like films, for the most part, that have some semblance of plot.

[PTAhole]

Sometimes plotless films work: Slacker for instance, really only has an idea. Follow the lives of various people in Austin in a given 24 hour period. But it adheres to that structure.
Some people consider Clerks to be a "plotless" film, but it does have a basic plot. My point is, that all movies need some sort of plot to keep me interested in the film. (This usually doesn't apply for short films, as strange imagery can hold my attention for a short amount of time, but it becomes tedious in a feature format)

[malicious32dll]

PTAhole... this is for you:"The story in a movie is like the story in a porn movie... It's expected to be there, but it doesnt matter all that much." lol

[lordofdance]

I've been thinking about this, and the only real purpose plot holds for me is that it gives the film some kind of structure. I watched The Man Who Fell to Earth and 3 Women recently, and neither of them had a conventional plot that I could determine, but at least they had a beginning that progressed toward a conclusion. Maybe that's all I require. Story isn't important to me as much as how the film is put together (flow, atmosphere, interesting characters, ect.), so I don't need much of a plot if there are other things to divert my attention.

I guess I don't want a bunch of images put together with no coherence, but I don't require a whole lot beyond a beginning and an end. In fact, I probably enjoy films more that aren't conventional plot-wise. Just as long as they make some sense.

[ie]

How would movies like Baraka and the Qatsi trilogy relate to all of this healthy discussion?
I haven't seen any of them, but I heard that they are both very moving and... no plot. There's probably a director's objective, but no main characters, no plot or character development, nothing like that.


I'd clump "plot" in with conventional directorial work.
That is to say, anyone can make a movie with a plot, who cares? I try to look for, and appreciate movies, that either show me something entirely new - effects standard in documentary footage used in a major motion picture - or something new to the movies - attention to detail is one thing I really like about Park Chanwook's movies.

So, if a movie has a bad plot, if it has something to make up for that, what's the difference? When I try to appreciate movies, I try to find one value that I like most about the movie; plot, characters, style, what have you. In effect, that causes me to not worry specifically about a weak plot, because sometimes plots are really only there to get from Point A to Point B, but when Point A and Point B are just so well done, they overshadow the weaknesses.


In summary, anyone can make movies and anyone can make a conventional movie, with a conventional plot. These movies are not very noteworthy. But for someone to come along and bring something new to this, now, 119-year old medium, that's something to celebrate. Even if that person is like "nope, not gonna do a plot, but here's something you've never seen before."