Anton Chekhov was famously NOT doing this very thing. He didn't argue for anything. He was often criticized for not taking a stand on the issues he wrote about. He simply displayed them. Such approach didn't stop him from cementing his place in the history of literature. Now, as you said, he mostly wrote short stories and your point may apply differently in his case. But The Cherry Orchard could be viewed as a feature-length narrative :)
Most people aren't Chekhov, I think that's the key there. People like Chekhov don't need a video like this. More importantly, however, is that Checkhov isn't writing right now. No one reads Chekhov now, and I'm not interested in pulling an audience who wants that kind of narrative anyway. narratives without anything to say are less interesting to me.
well, if you are Anton Chekhov, you can do as you please. but a few thoughts: 1) a lot of writers, understandably, want the work to speak for itself (ie, they don't want to reveal the 'design' behind the thing or else they want to preserve the mystique of writing). 2) narrative comes easier to some than to others. what is intuitive to some must be studied by others. there are geniuses among us. 3) imo, the big beautiful idea is a *feature* of successful narrative. even when it isn't *used* in the creation of a story, it can nonetheless be discovered after the fact. 4) life is chaos; it has no narrative. narrative is a human construct. to write is to impose narrative. all to say, it's been a while since i read Chekhov but my favorite is Three Sisters and, i think the argument can be made, that the big beautiful idea is that meaning must be found in the here and now and not in the glories of the past or the promise of the future.
I don't think that Checkov's works don't have this feature. Yes, he didn't argue and didn't explicitly question anything. But his works raise those questions without even ever mentioning them. He just doesn't answer them making readers think about it themselves. And to be honest it is a really hard, but really effective way to present your "theme". I read Checkov when I was a kid and I really didn't understand anything back then except what was explicitly written. But rereading it today really opened my view on what Checkov was thinking when he was writing his works.
I fundamentally disagree with this. Arguing for something doesn't have to be on the nose. I have read plenty of his works to claim that there's a thorough point that he's trying to make.
I would say that "The Big Beautiful Idea" usually is represented with "philosophical conflict". Calling it conflict simplifies it in many ways from the point of view of a screenwriter, because this can be approached in narrative like any other conflict, like external or internal. Especially if a finale resolves all 3 conflicts almost simultaneously making it really memorable.
i think i see what you're saying but i'd still hold out and suggest that the big beautiful idea-as used here-is the architectural principle by which all conflicts (external, internal, philosophical, etc) are explored and resolved. does that make sense? also, THANK YOU for watching!
Once in a while I stumble on a beautiful gem of a channel. This is one of those gems. Keep it up with these videos and I bet you’ll have a million subs in due time.
It's a cooler way of saying "Theme", but it explains better what theme should be, because people think of themes as a single word, when it's more of a question or a statement. Dystopian stories are the ones that mess it up the most, because the antagonist side it's always just evil and that's it, yes we know that an authoritarian group of rulers would generally be pretty bad people, but WHY? If you can't write a reasonable argument as to why your antagonists are doing what they are doing then you're just writing propaganda (or being preachy).
also, 'theme' gets confused with 'motif,' with recurring ideas or guiding principles. different from theme as an *argument*. & yes, the more complex the villain, the more complex the story (usually). thanks for the comments!
Love this! It's hard to work it in to a story, but thinking like this might make it easier for me! However, I gotta disagree what the theme in Jurassic Park is, it's about becoming a parent. The idea of creating life (Hammond and his park) translates to caring for children (Grant and not wanting kids to protecting and loving the kids)
thanks for watching! i take your point about parenthood being A theme (this word gets used differently by different people) and also that Grant transforms from not wanting kids into a father figure. on the helicopter, as they fly away, ellie gives him a knowing look as if certain that 'life will find a way' (ie, that he will become a parent). so, where the theme is THE argument (and not A motif), i come up with 'life will find a way.' but, again, i absolutely take your point.
Stephen kings the dark tower. It’s big beautiful idea is that Roland gets to relive the best part of his journey as his reward for achieving his mission of saving the tower from the crimson king. The theme is being rewarded for never giving up. Yes bad stuff happens in the series, but ultimately the best section of his life was spent with the ka-tet. So he is rewarded by getting to repeat the journey. The series also touches on the theme of time being cyclical in nature. But I as a reader feel it’s less important then being rewarded for never giving up.
I’d really be interested to know how it operates in short films! Because im trying to write a short film to produce with some friends. Great video btw!
hey, thank you! and really super question. the critical thing about a feature length narrative is that it depicts the *transformation* of the protagonist (ie, change over time). a feature is a journey from the ignorance of the big beautiful idea to the embodiment of the big beautiful idea. but a short film is not in the business of transformation. it is in the business of dramatization-meaning it is a meticulously crafted *moment* that most powerfully (or hilariously or terrifyingly or tenderly) dramatizes the big beautiful idea. if you watch the spectacular short film SPIDER (vimeo.com/13070194), the big beautiful idea is that obsession is self destructive. if you watch the also-spectacular short TURN OFF THE LIGHTS (ua-cam.com/video/FUQhNGEu2KA/v-deo.html), the big beautiful idea is that darkness is dangerous. in both films, there is no transformation, no change. everything is 100% what it is and the filmmakers masterfully craft moments that work on a plot level but also thrill on an idea level. i hope this helps! wishing you the best of luck with your film! ***edited to correct URL of short film SPIDER.
I could have sworn that the moral of the turtle vs the rabbit is don’t be a cocky asshole. Slow and steady would not have won the race if the rabbit didn’t choose to showboat at the end.
Just like Queen's Gamit is 'about' Chess, but it's actually about how addiction and obsession can make your life empty even if you reach economic success.
I don't know bro. Usually when the story is making an argument that's when I usually stop reading them... Probably it is just me, but I can't stand when an author trying to push their values down my throat... Especially since the vast majority of these are just simple strawmen arguments. I could write you a story in which I make an argument and make you belive I'm right, then I write the same story from an another story from the opposite perspecitve and I can make you belive I'm right once again. Now which one is right? Neither... There is no right or wrong, everything depends on the perspecitve, hence every argument made is just a strawmen. Heck, I could write story in which I would be able to justify a sensless serial murderer's action and you would think he is damn right... Or just take your example "Slow and steady wins the race?" Well, maybe occationally... Other times the fast, other times the lazy, other times the hardworking etc.etc... We have way less control over our life than we want to admit it. The only thing we have control over is how we deal with lemon life throws at us. Anyway, I know, I belong to a small minority, but for me the best stories are just atmospheres. There is no argument, just events in which I may see through the eyes of different people. Hence, I can experience different lifes other than myself... I don't need to be told, if something is a mistake or how I should live, that I can decide for myself. I'm not so stupid to don't know what the consequences of my actions will be. Actually, I'm that stupid. The thing is though, most of the stupid things I did made my life much-much better... Things, what these stories tell me not to do.
i hear you. two things though. first is that arguments don't have to be preachy or moralizing. certainly, no one wants to feel lectured or preached at. second, this is aimed at writers, not readers or viewers. imo, the writer's goal should absolutely be for the argument to be imperceptible (unless they're selling something-iphones, religion, propaganda, etc). so i agree that the best stories are events seen through the eyes of others. but writing is deceptively difficult so i'd just tweak that to say that the best stories *feel* like nothing more than events seen through the eyes of others precisely because the writer-or writers-are working so hard to make it feel that way. and, of course, there are a million different philosophies about how stories work. in the end, every writer will develop their own philosophy on the matter. a very sincere thank you for watching and for taking the time to comment! it is very appreciated!
Anton Chekhov was famously NOT doing this very thing. He didn't argue for anything. He was often criticized for not taking a stand on the issues he wrote about. He simply displayed them. Such approach didn't stop him from cementing his place in the history of literature. Now, as you said, he mostly wrote short stories and your point may apply differently in his case. But The Cherry Orchard could be viewed as a feature-length narrative :)
Most people aren't Chekhov, I think that's the key there. People like Chekhov don't need a video like this. More importantly, however, is that Checkhov isn't writing right now. No one reads Chekhov now, and I'm not interested in pulling an audience who wants that kind of narrative anyway. narratives without anything to say are less interesting to me.
well, if you are Anton Chekhov, you can do as you please.
but a few thoughts: 1) a lot of writers, understandably, want the work to speak for itself (ie, they don't want to reveal the 'design' behind the thing or else they want to preserve the mystique of writing). 2) narrative comes easier to some than to others. what is intuitive to some must be studied by others. there are geniuses among us. 3) imo, the big beautiful idea is a *feature* of successful narrative. even when it isn't *used* in the creation of a story, it can nonetheless be discovered after the fact. 4) life is chaos; it has no narrative. narrative is a human construct. to write is to impose narrative.
all to say, it's been a while since i read Chekhov but my favorite is Three Sisters and, i think the argument can be made, that the big beautiful idea is that meaning must be found in the here and now and not in the glories of the past or the promise of the future.
cool
I don't think that Checkov's works don't have this feature. Yes, he didn't argue and didn't explicitly question anything. But his works raise those questions without even ever mentioning them. He just doesn't answer them making readers think about it themselves. And to be honest it is a really hard, but really effective way to present your "theme".
I read Checkov when I was a kid and I really didn't understand anything back then except what was explicitly written. But rereading it today really opened my view on what Checkov was thinking when he was writing his works.
I fundamentally disagree with this. Arguing for something doesn't have to be on the nose. I have read plenty of his works to claim that there's a thorough point that he's trying to make.
I would say that "The Big Beautiful Idea" usually is represented with "philosophical conflict". Calling it conflict simplifies it in many ways from the point of view of a screenwriter, because this can be approached in narrative like any other conflict, like external or internal. Especially if a finale resolves all 3 conflicts almost simultaneously making it really memorable.
i think i see what you're saying but i'd still hold out and suggest that the big beautiful idea-as used here-is the architectural principle by which all conflicts (external, internal, philosophical, etc) are explored and resolved. does that make sense? also, THANK YOU for watching!
Once in a while I stumble on a beautiful gem of a channel. This is one of those gems. Keep it up with these videos and I bet you’ll have a million subs in due time.
what an encouraging comment; thank you!! and thank you for taking the time to watch. i'm glad some of the ideas here resonate with you!
@ Thank you. 💯 As a novelist/screenwriter, these videos are pure gems. Keep up the great work. 💫
@@PianoMan-hx3ev will do!!
Wow
Great video made me think about what my story is about
thanks for watching. glad it was helpful!
It's a cooler way of saying "Theme", but it explains better what theme should be, because people think of themes as a single word, when it's more of a question or a statement. Dystopian stories are the ones that mess it up the most, because the antagonist side it's always just evil and that's it, yes we know that an authoritarian group of rulers would generally be pretty bad people, but WHY? If you can't write a reasonable argument as to why your antagonists are doing what they are doing then you're just writing propaganda (or being preachy).
also, 'theme' gets confused with 'motif,' with recurring ideas or guiding principles. different from theme as an *argument*. & yes, the more complex the villain, the more complex the story (usually). thanks for the comments!
great!!!
thank you for taking the time to watch and comment!!
Killing it with these! Well done! 🔥🔥🔥
More!!!!
@@RandMpinkFilms thanks for watching!!
Another amazing video!! Thank you so much for this delightfully educating content! It really inspires me to read and write more.
thank YOU for another amazing comment!
Love this! It's hard to work it in to a story, but thinking like this might make it easier for me! However, I gotta disagree what the theme in Jurassic Park is, it's about becoming a parent. The idea of creating life (Hammond and his park) translates to caring for children (Grant and not wanting kids to protecting and loving the kids)
thanks for watching! i take your point about parenthood being A theme (this word gets used differently by different people) and also that Grant transforms from not wanting kids into a father figure. on the helicopter, as they fly away, ellie gives him a knowing look as if certain that 'life will find a way' (ie, that he will become a parent). so, where the theme is THE argument (and not A motif), i come up with 'life will find a way.' but, again, i absolutely take your point.
This is top informational video, the realization of the few views and subscribers of this channel got me confused
so grateful that you took the time to watch & comment. thank you!
Stephen kings the dark tower. It’s big beautiful idea is that Roland gets to relive the best part of his journey as his reward for achieving his mission of saving the tower from the crimson king. The theme is being rewarded for never giving up. Yes bad stuff happens in the series, but ultimately the best section of his life was spent with the ka-tet. So he is rewarded by getting to repeat the journey. The series also touches on the theme of time being cyclical in nature. But I as a reader feel it’s less important then being rewarded for never giving up.
great video!
I’d really be interested to know how it operates in short films! Because im trying to write a short film to produce with some friends. Great video btw!
hey, thank you! and really super question. the critical thing about a feature length narrative is that it depicts the *transformation* of the protagonist (ie, change over time). a feature is a journey from the ignorance of the big beautiful idea to the embodiment of the big beautiful idea. but a short film is not in the business of transformation. it is in the business of dramatization-meaning it is a meticulously crafted *moment* that most powerfully (or hilariously or terrifyingly or tenderly) dramatizes the big beautiful idea.
if you watch the spectacular short film SPIDER (vimeo.com/13070194), the big beautiful idea is that obsession is self destructive. if you watch the also-spectacular short TURN OFF THE LIGHTS (ua-cam.com/video/FUQhNGEu2KA/v-deo.html), the big beautiful idea is that darkness is dangerous. in both films, there is no transformation, no change. everything is 100% what it is and the filmmakers masterfully craft moments that work on a plot level but also thrill on an idea level.
i hope this helps! wishing you the best of luck with your film!
***edited to correct URL of short film SPIDER.
I could have sworn that the moral of the turtle vs the rabbit is don’t be a cocky asshole. Slow and steady would not have won the race if the rabbit didn’t choose to showboat at the end.
then again, cocky showboating would not have lost the race if not for slow and steady.
Well then I guess we can compromise here and say: Slow and steady will win the race...if your opponent is a cocky asshole.
@@Nextbigchingha! yes, that works for me if it works for you!
lol, I'm happy with the compromise.
Infinite jest is ‘about’ tennis and AA. It is NOT ‘about’ either of these things; and it is my favourite contemporary novel by far.
exactly!
Just like Queen's Gamit is 'about' Chess, but it's actually about how addiction and obsession can make your life empty even if you reach economic success.
@@federicopalacios7439 100% and, possibly, about how strength comes from within (not external substances).
I dislike narrators who take a side. I don’t need to be preached to. Let me come to my own conclusion.
agree completely! lecturing & preaching are sure ways to lose your audience.
I don't know bro. Usually when the story is making an argument that's when I usually stop reading them... Probably it is just me, but I can't stand when an author trying to push their values down my throat... Especially since the vast majority of these are just simple strawmen arguments. I could write you a story in which I make an argument and make you belive I'm right, then I write the same story from an another story from the opposite perspecitve and I can make you belive I'm right once again. Now which one is right? Neither... There is no right or wrong, everything depends on the perspecitve, hence every argument made is just a strawmen. Heck, I could write story in which I would be able to justify a sensless serial murderer's action and you would think he is damn right... Or just take your example "Slow and steady wins the race?" Well, maybe occationally... Other times the fast, other times the lazy, other times the hardworking etc.etc... We have way less control over our life than we want to admit it. The only thing we have control over is how we deal with lemon life throws at us.
Anyway, I know, I belong to a small minority, but for me the best stories are just atmospheres. There is no argument, just events in which I may see through the eyes of different people. Hence, I can experience different lifes other than myself... I don't need to be told, if something is a mistake or how I should live, that I can decide for myself. I'm not so stupid to don't know what the consequences of my actions will be. Actually, I'm that stupid. The thing is though, most of the stupid things I did made my life much-much better... Things, what these stories tell me not to do.
i hear you. two things though. first is that arguments don't have to be preachy or moralizing. certainly, no one wants to feel lectured or preached at. second, this is aimed at writers, not readers or viewers. imo, the writer's goal should absolutely be for the argument to be imperceptible (unless they're selling something-iphones, religion, propaganda, etc). so i agree that the best stories are events seen through the eyes of others. but writing is deceptively difficult so i'd just tweak that to say that the best stories *feel* like nothing more than events seen through the eyes of others precisely because the writer-or writers-are working so hard to make it feel that way.
and, of course, there are a million different philosophies about how stories work. in the end, every writer will develop their own philosophy on the matter.
a very sincere thank you for watching and for taking the time to comment! it is very appreciated!