Life and death of the great American plot

Entertainment: The pleasures of narrative have all but disappeared, lost in the jukebox of popular culture.

September 24, 2000|By Neal Gabler

WE HAVE come full circle. More than 100 years ago, audiences were held rapt by the first films of the French Lumiere brothers - a locomotive grinding into a station or parents feeding their baby - and by those of Thomas Alva Edison - a man sneezing or a couple robustly bussing. Simple quotidian gestures.

This summer, audiences were held rapt by 16 people scavenging about a tropical island or 10 strangers trying to coexist in a California prefab. Maybe not exactly everyday life, but not high drama, either. We began a century ago with plain unvarnished realism; we have arrived at only slightly varnished realism.

But if you sense that something is missing from these entertainments, you are right. They are incidents, at best, episodes (or in the case of "Survivor" and "Big Brother," strings of episodes); but they are not what anyone would call well-crafted narratives of the sort traditionally associated with popular entertainment.

After decades of attempting to create satisfying plots in movies, books and television programs, the mavens of popular culture have reversed field. Almost imperceptibly, we have been losing our stories. Look around the culture, from MTV to the latest movie blockbuster, and what you find is creeping plotlessness.

Narrative hasn't vanished from all media. John Grisham, Stephen King and J. K. Rowling, among other popular novelists, still provide old-fashioned plots, and occasional television series, such as "The Sopranos," feel like sagas, unspooling long narrative skeins. But where once every entertainment came fitted with a plot, today well-plotted entertainments are the exceptions that prove the rule. Even ostensibly conventional -- which is to say storybound -- movies and TV shows just go through the motions, feebly recycling tired plots that have attenuated to wisps.

In truth, it is surprising that narrative has managed to last as long as it did. The assault on it began early in the last century, as part of the modernist movement. Increasingly, intellectuals and younger artists felt that plot itself was inadequate to convey the modern condition. Plot, by its nature, incorporated cause and effect. It assumed a sense of logic and order, which seemed appropriate to the 19th century, with its belief in progress and the perfectibility of man.

But the 20th century wasn't about order; it was about fragmentation, dislocation, anomie, a sense not that man was progressing but that he was lurching aimlessly. Just as visual artists invented Cubism to deconstruct reality and express the discontinuities of modern life in painting and sculpture, literary artists needed new devices to convey a new reality in poetry and prose.

The 20th century's answer to the great 19th-century plot-maker Leo Tolstoy was James Joyce, with his verbal tricks, his skewed literary architecture and his elongated sense of time. An old-fashioned storyteller he wasn't. Yet he shaped not one but three literary generations, essentially convincing them that narrative was not only inadequate, it was a cop-out for timorous souls who hadn't the guts to take on the challenges of modern times. Many academics still make the same charges.

If narrative was undermined by intellectuals, it also received a jolt from the producers of popular culture. They had always relied on narrative because it was the surest way to engage an audience. After all, what were plots but mechanisms for inducing in audiences a heightened sense of the emotions and sensations that they feel in real life: fear, love, happiness, melancholy, exhilaration? Basically, plots were rigged to trigger the responses viewers presumably wanted to feel.

It was, however, a cumbersome and unreliable way to elicit responses precisely because it did require skill. What entertainers always sought was a less taxing, more dependable means of affecting the audience. Though it took a while, technology finally provided one. Through special effects and creative sound, filmmakers realized they could generate sensations in the audience without the need for a narrative.

Instead of routing through the emotional system, as movies traditionally had done, they could attack the viscera and avoid the narrative middleman. The result is that big American movies, which rake in most of the money now, are almost always sensation machines with only the most cursory plots to connect the effects and give the audience a small rooting interest.

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.