We contend that the highest form of the
filmmaking art, the very pinnacle, is the art of the explanation. In
this cinematic form, a character explains "what is really going
on" to another character or characters in our drama. It may or
may not be in the form of a confrontation, or it may be a pleasant
chat over dinner, or in a hallway.
The exciting new structural form is
superior to the old method of filmmaking which might show the
character doing something. How dreary it is to see in film after film, characters demonstrating who they are through their actions. Another giant robot fight, another planet exploding, another superhero revealing him or herself as a super villain and so on and so forth. What a relief it would be to have one of these superheroes make a conference call and just explain to all the super villains why what they are doing is a bad thing to do and that they really ought to stop doing it. This new approach, the explanation, is much less expensive,
avoids unnecessary action, reduces noise, and can be very dramatic
and memorable for those few films which indulge in that optional
element of filmmaking, the story. We will review these advantages in
this essay.
The first benefit of the explanation is
that it is always much more efficient and cost-effective to shoot
then actually showing what happened. Why bother to show it if you
can just talk about it? For example, instead of spending millions
of dollars showing giant robots beating the shit out of each other,
you might have one character say to another "Wow, did you see
those giant robots beating the shit out of each other?" Then
the other character might say "I sure did, we were lucky to get
out of there! Whew". The plot point having been established,
giant robots beating the shit out of each other, the film can move on
and has saved millions in production costs.
The second advantage of the explanation
is that it avoids the drag of too much action. Many movies have too
much stuff going on, it would be much better if they just had a few
characters talk about what was going on. I suppose that is an
aesthetic choice, but I think having too many giant robots or
exploding planets in a film is an impediment, not an asset. Maybe
that is just me.
And that leads to our third advantage of the explanation:
less extremely loud noise. Although the film industry today creates
product in many very different but important topics, from giant
robots fighting, to mutant superheroes saving the world, to hordes of
zombies eating every brain in sight, these very different themes do
seem to involve very long sequences of things exploding and hitting
each other, loudly. How much more civilized to have several members of the cast narrating the action instead of showing the action: "Look! The horde of zombies! Oh my! A planet exploding!" Then one would not have to bring earplugs to the theatre as one has to do so often today.
But nothing in life is free, and the
explanation does have its downsides in that it makes certain requirements and demands on the script. The biggest demand, and the most problematic, is that, generally speaking, the script needs to have a story. This by implication may mean that the production may have to have a writer who, naturally enough, writes the story. Many modern films have neither writer nor story, and without one our new technique here does not work well.
But when it is done well, the
explanation can be some of the most memorable in film. We have
previously presented several such explanations, see here, here, and here.
Here we present another one, from the
movie The Departed (2006).






