procedurals continued

commenter todd left a lengthy entry on my previous post, 'why procedurals don't work in movies', and i thought it better to create a follow-up post rather than leave another lengthy response. here's todd's comment:

Hey Christopher,
Came across your blog as a result of finding your comments to another blogger about your impressions of Chris Soth's Million Dollar Screenwriting.

(I felt the same "snakeoil" vibe from his site as you did and it turned me off as well.)

Then I found this entry from you on procedurals. What intrigued me were the comments/feedback you said you'd received on your script in various forms adding up to not getting involved with the characters.

I've been having the same response to a screenplay of mine that's been always a bridesmaid but never a bride in screenplay contests. Mine is something of a hybrid with two intertwined story lines... one a psychological thriller game of cat and mouse enveloped in the context of a procedural.

The response I get from most people is that the central idea is very appealing, cool and even quite original. But the feedback inevitably boils down to making the cops in my procedural timeline more "human" more like "buddies". But their not "buddies". It's not a buddy cop picture. They're cops. They're the people who embody the mechanisms by which society attempts to regulate itself.

It seems to me that the feedback I'm getting--and perhaps this was the case with your project as well-- isn't about problems in the story I'm telling per se, (since everyone seems to love it) so much as it is an expression of their instinctive desire/preference for a different kind of story. A desire for something with that "comfort" element Anonymous mentioned even though that element has no place in the genre (mixed as it is) in which I'm working.

I felt when you were talking about the feedback you were getting that I was "listening" in to a mirror.

I guess I was intrigued by your title (and conclusion?) "procedurals" don't work.

Is it really that they don't work? Or is it simply that by choosing to work in that genre we have to accept that they only work for a niche audience? And that finding members of that audience is exceedingly difficult.

Psychological thrillers for example, often take us on a character's journey, have us empathize with them, root for them, only to often reveal at the end that we were being fooled, the character was the bad guy all along (or is the person they were searching for, or is already dead or it's all a hoax... I'm thinking of thrillers like Jagged Edge or What Lies Beneath or The Game). Inevitably, some people love these movies, some hate them.

I'd like to suggest that those who hate them (assuming the movie isn't simply technically "bad" in some way), feel that way because they want the "comfort" experience (the one Anonymous talked about) in their stories. They feel ripped off when they don't get it, tricked that the character they've been rooting for was the killer all along.

The flipside, of course, are those who love the feeling of being fooled and thus enjoy these movies. (I know I'm off on thrillers here but bear with me.)

I've come to believe that while some prefer their stories as an emotional experience (Rom/Coms, Drama, Action, Hero's Journey), there are other people, whose tastes are no less valid, who cherish the intellectual experience over the emotional (Interest in the situational, Didactic, "puzzle"-movie, Procedural or Psychological Thriller. People who may well prefer fast, clever Farce to emotive, character-driven Comedy).

These latter folk are "good losers". If you fool them well they'll thank you for it because of the intellectual payoff they get from having their blindspots revealed.

BUT... I'm also convinced these folk are in the vast minority and that their population may be shrinking.

If these assertions are true, I put the following to you...

Do you think it's really the case that "procedurals" or other genres that appeal to the intellect (more than to the emotive) don't work?

Or is it simply that they don't sell in our particular cultural context, where the majority prefer/require more "heart-plucking" than thought provoking?

and my response:

i mostly agree with you todd. i did basically equate "doesn't work" with "not appealing to the majority". but i also don't believe we can talk down to the general audience and say they just want comfort. i think there's an element of truth to making your characters more accessible.

people don't go to the movies like they read a story in the newspaper. just giving the facts isn't enough. it does seem, for better or worse, that the medium itself dictates that to some to degree we need a personal connection to the story.

and i think the best procedurals and twist-endings utilize that element. they draw you in. sure some don't enjoy that. but i think even less enjoy a dry procedural with no personal element they can hook into. i could have dismissed those who "didn't get" my story, but i feel they have a valid complaint - nothing wrong with getting more involved with these guys.

"They're the people who embody the mechanisms by which society attempts to regulate itself."

but they're human beings, with lives and concerns and all kinds of messy stuff that isn't just about the case they're working on. and not including at least some of that can feel antiseptic.

"Do you think it's really the case that "procedurals" or other genres that appeal to the intellect (more than to the emotive) don't work?"

no. i do think they simply appeal to a smaller subset of the main demographic. but i also feel that can't be used as an excuse, because another truth about these types of stories is that one of their pitfalls can be not including enough emotion. more intellect than emotion isn't bad, but there's a threshold ratio in there somewhere that's too skewed toward intellect.

story-telling at it's heart (an emotional term right there), is an emotional process, not an intellectual one. i believe it arose out of love and caring, a desire to communicate more effectively with another. in one form it can be simply to entertain, to allay fears of the dark; in another, to be a more effective way to communicate necessary information - a fable. either way, it's interpersonal communication, human beings sharing. so some of that needs to be present in any recitation, or it just won't connect.