Tag Archives: theme

How ‘A Christmas Story’ Tricked Us Into Loving It

Let’s get this out of the way up front; I love this movie and am here to sing its praises. If you love it as much as I do, this next bit may sting a little.

A Christmas Story is a facade of a narrative. It makes a mockery of several cardinal rules of screenwriting, leaving it no right to be as good as it turns out being.

Let the nitpicking begin…

There’s no overarching story goal. “Nonsense,” you may say. “Protagonist Ralphie wants to get an official Red Ryder carbine-action 200-shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock and this thing which tells time! If that’s not a story goal, I don’t know what is!” And here we arrive at the first big trick. As far as plot structure goes, this goal is a decoy.

The BB gun pursuit adeptly disguises itself well as a legitimate story goal. It’s established in the opening scene, and Ralphie takes several overt actions toward it; placing the ad in his mom’s issue of Look magazine, crafting his theme assignment at school to make a case for the blue steel beauty’s superiority to a football, bringing up the grizzly bears spotted in town (disclaimer: nothing in this blog post should be interpreted as hunting advice, and we would never recommend going after grizzly bears with a BB gun). These attempts are all swatted down like flies and Ralphie’s mission feels more and more hopeless, yet another way it appears to follow a proper plot trajectory. BUT… these setbacks don’t result in Ralphie learning anything, acquiring new skills or insights, or toughening him up to rise to the achievement of the goal.

This brings us to another issue; Ralphie doesn’t really develop as a character and has no arc.  He doesn’t even overcome the antagonistic mantra “you’ll shoot your eye out,” as he very nearly does. (For the record, I’m so glad this incident didn’t dissuade him from wanting the BB gun even a little. That would’ve ruined it for me.) I’ll discuss this more below, and address the counterarguments you’re muttering right now.

The resolution comes from the one adult in Ralph’s life whom he didn’t appeal to on his journey; the Old Man. The prize is there on Christmas morning, not as a result of any of Ralphie’s efforts, but because his dad wanted to surprise him with it. Sure, it’s possible that Mom passed along Ralpie’s Christmas wish after he let it slip in the kitchen, but going by the Old Man’s child-like giddiness (as only the great Darren McGavin could pull off) while Ralphie was opening it, it looks to be something he’d planned all along, regardless of his son’s coaxing.

So, he wanted the BB gun, some things happened, and then he got it. Hardly a killer logline. How does a story get arranged in such a way?

A Christmas Story is based on a book of several fun short stories by the great Jean Shepherd, but high-quality source material does not a great movie make. If you don’t believe me, just search something like “great books adapted into terrible movies” on YouTube, and I’ll see you in a few hours.

Combining multiple short stories into one film (that’s not an anthology) brings about numerous hazards, namely that it’ll come out like a disjointed episodic series of stuff that happens, not a cohesive story.  And indeed, even if you haven’t read the book (as I haven’t), you can see the separate story threads in there. Several of them don’t focus on our protagonist Ralphie, or even really involve him. Sure, some of them are bona fide subplots, like the Scut Farkus affair and the Major Award impasse, but others don’t qualify (the tongue freezing to the lamppost, The secret message from Little Orphan Annie, the mouth washing for saying the f— word, etc.), as they largely come up and get resolved in one scene. Plus nearly ALL of these break a sacred rule of subplots and asides; they don’t serve the main plot in any way. They don’t cross paths with Ralphie’s quest for Old Blue, they don’t move the story forward by changing the status of the story world, they’re just there… for fun (a factor we’ll come back to).

With all this going against it, how did it turn out so good?

Brilliant story construction. 

The filmmakers knew this script’s inherent flaws and challenges, leaned into them, and produced something not only passable but truly special. By harnessing the universal themes around being a kid at Christmastime, A Christmas Story does plotting all wrong while appearing to do it all right, that appearance becomes our reality and shapes the viewing experience, so the flaws cease to matter in the least.

While there’s no throughline of Ralphie achieving his goal, there is a clear ticking clock established immediately, leading us up to Christmas, that creates a timeline and framework upon which the Parker family and friends’ disparate episodes are woven so seamlessly that we don’t question them for a second. It’s the winter Christmas season, so kids dare each other to stick their tongues to metal objects, companies run aggressive ad campaigns for sponsors like Ovaltine and scammy sweepstakes for gaudy prizes like leg lamps, furnaces are working overtime and may need to be battled, and tire blowouts are more common. They sprout up as naturally as the grass.

Back to Ralphie’s character development, or lack thereof, he does have a few mini-arcs in some of the sequences. The most prominent is that he learns to stand up for himself when he wades into Scut Farkus and beats him to a pulp, completing a solid subplot. He also learns something about the dark side of mass media advertising when Little Orphan Annie’s secret message is an Ovaltine ad.

While none of these serve the main conflict, they do inspire empathy and relatability like few other pieces ever have, which goes a long way in explaining why this film is played for 24 hours straight every Christmas Day on at least one network.

Your humble blogger naturally exaggerated the point of “does plotting all wrong” earlier. The employment of setup and payoff is executed to perfection here.  Take the Bumpus’s Hounds thread, for example. They show up a few times as extras for what seems like comedic garnish, becoming an organic part of the movie’s landscape, only to emerge as a major plot influence when they infiltrate the Parker house, eat the Christmas turkey, and displace the family from their home so they can be introduced to Chinese Turkey. And that’s only one example of how adeptly story elements are introduced and played out across multiple episodes.

One last factor that can’t be overlooked or overstated in a piece like this is the charm, style, and just plain fun of the direction and wordsmithing. It reminds me of a quote I heard from Karl Iglesias, author of Writing for Emotional Impact; “you can break every rule except one, be interesting”. The dialog, comedic timing, and creative craziness of the recurring calamities of this movie keep us so charmed in the moment, that there’s little concern for the big picture or how it all connects, and while we writers would like to always be firing on all cylinders, this is something we should all relish, as it’s rare to reach this high a level of captivation.

So, there you have it; a dissection of a beloved holiday classic that hopefully we can all learn from. Rules can be bent, broken, and mangled; and you can still come out with a timeless classic on your hands if you sprinkle in the right doses of the right storytelling magic.

 

Predator (1987): Like Long Tall Sally… It’s Built Sweet

This is one of the most accessible and enjoyable story structure breakdowns I’ve ever seen, and his nickname for Shane Black made me laugh out loud! Enjoy!

The Predator Review: They Were Shooting In All Directions… and Hit Nothing

(Spoiler-free)

There’s no need to go over the amount of anticipation that comes with this one, or the fact that comparisons to the first one are unavoidable. Let’s just get into whether it delivers or not…

Like the original, it opens with a Predator ship entering Earth’s orbit and delivering a creature to the surface. But this time, instead of just a quick shot to set up the premise that we’re dealing with an alien, it’s a more convoluted space chase that ends up being a significant setup for a later reveal. In this intro sequence, we get a lot of stuff happening, information thrown at us that we should store for later, and nothing too engaging in any of it. I’m sorry to say, this is an apt microcosm of the entire movie.

We’re soon introduced to protagonist McKenna (Boyd Holbrook), an Army Ranger sniper who is mid-op with his team, when they get attacked by the recently arrived Predator and we’re given another rushed and crammed sequence in which they essentially try to do the first movie in about two minutes or less. McKenna’s team gets wiped out, which he lets us know he’s upset about in a few lines of dialog, but we didn’t get to know them at all, so who cares?

This necessitates McKenna being brought to a secret government lab full of scientists and mercenaries who have been studying the Predators for years, want to maintain their secrecy, and are wondering why the visits are rising in frequency. He is transferred there with a group of combat-hardened misfit military prisoners that will become his new team, and this is where the wisecracks really start flying, the action set pieces start popping off, and one of the greatest flaws of the movie becomes glaringly obvious….

It’s packed with misfires. The humor doesn’t land, the spectacle doesn’t excite, and the characters don’t draw us in. What’s worse is that it’s made blatantly obvious what we’re supposed to be feeling and when, particularly in a few moments that are intended to be especially dramatic, but it just isn’t happening. Like the acquaintance constantly uttering bad jokes and leaving pauses where you’re expected to laugh, but it just isn’t in you.

The 1987 masterpiece got us attached to seven characters effortlessly in a short helicopter ride, with almost no talking among them. Here we’re introduced by a quick exchange of quips and a bit of clunky exposition, which is usually the kind of setup given to expendable fodder, but in this case we’re actually expected to care what happens to them without any proper emotional foundation.

We have McKenna. He’s tough, and everything he does and says reminds you of that. His kid is part of the story (who admittedly manages not to not be too annoying). He’s a genius, and everything he does and says reminds you of that. Moonlight’s Trevante Rhodes is McKenna’s instant best buddy, who has his back, and everything he does and says reminds you of that. Thomas Jane (is wasted) as the crazy guy, and everything he does and says reminds you of that. See a pattern emerging here?

So then we’re onto the main conflict, which involves a Super Predator, because the regular one isn’t formidable enough, more one-liners, explosions, some disturbingly odd-looking CGI, awkward shots (the flat-angle medium shot used to introduce Olivia Munn, the hot, tough lady scientist, is laugh-out-loud-worthy), a lot of plot-convenient occurrences, choices and actions without clear motivations (from humans and extraterrestrials alike), and it all goes by at such breakneck speed that is easily outpaces the audience’s interest.

In the end, we’re left with a wholly unsatisfying mess of a movie, and they also hit us over the head with an asinine politically-charged theme to add insult to injury. However, a few witty digs inspire some chuckles (especially from Keegan-Michael Key), and some actions scenes rise to the level of “that was kinda cool, I guess,” but that’s about as good as it gets here. It’s not a pleasant things to report, but my bleak predictions from the trailer came true, and then some. This does more (or less) than not live up to the hype. It’s likely to disappoint committed fans and newcomers alike.

Don’t Cross the Themes!

There’s no point in writing if you have nothing to say. (It sounds self-evident, but a quick glance around at what’s being produced these days reveals that this mantra doesn’t stop a lot of aimless schlock from slipping through the cracks. Anyway, pre-success bitterness aside, let’s get into this…)

It’s all about the theme. What do you, as a writer, have to say to the rest of us about what we’re doing wrong (or right, but usually wrong)? Perhaps focusing on this aspect of the craft, rather than “ya know what would make a really cool movie?!…”is the mark of a mature writer. Maybe the ideal balance is “I believe I have a new take on this or that idea, and ya know what would be a really cool way to state it?!…”

There’s a lot of debate about where theme should rightfully come from. Is it the proper starting point of the whole process, or is it more creatively organic to just start vomiting narrative chunks and let the theme naturally unfold and present itself when everyone, especially the writer, least expects it? We all know the correct answer here, right? Who cares? The all-time greats are all over the map on this one, so there could never be a definitive key to how and why the theme(s) should emerge. I think the usefulness of this debate lies in the mind of the individual writer, as an introspective exercise.

But how about this…

As I’m rewriting and contemplating what comes out, I’m coming across numerous threads that point to multiple themes, on varying levels of complexity and consequentialism. This is bound to happen to some degree, but if I remain a little hazy as to whether my story is about my protagonist’s need to grow up and become self-reliant, the obligation we all have to fight an evil despotic force rather than wallow in apathy, or the idea that risking one’s life for someone they love is not a sacrifice at all, then is this an indicator of a confused and convoluted story in desperate need of being pared down?

Countless classic stories have multiple intertwined themes, but is it more than a new writer can chew? Is the thematic volume greater than the scope of my script? Is the effectiveness of one of my underlying statements undermined by interference from the others?

If all the themes are to stay in, how are they to be managed? I have some semi-educated guesses about this one:

  • There’s seems to be a natural hierarchy that’s conducive to their harmonious execution, with one over-arching theme that the others should serve in some way, or at least be subordinate to.
  • Multiple themes seem to work better when distributed over the story, residing within the choices and actions of different characters in separate story threads.
  • It feels ill-conceived to have a theme pop up once, never to be seen or heard from again. Each one should be interlaced through a substantial segment of the plot.
  • And what seems most important is that they compliment each other philosophically, so I shouldn’t cram “no man is an island” in the same yarn as “you can only rely on yourself,” even though they could each work quite well on their own.

Those were easy enough to write, but I’m still working on developing the sense to know if I’m following them. Also still struggling with this question: Is it possible to have “too much theme” and become preachy?

So what do you think? How do you manage the themes in your writing, and how many is too many? Let us know below!