Films with no real plot

[bambifan56]

Well I have figured out lately I really enjoy films with no real plots (Forest Gump, Bambi, Old Yeller). I think America really likes films that just show a cycle of something, A day in the life of or something like that. If you think about it in all of these there isn't really a villian to defeat, or a task they must complete, its just showing life as it is, and that Is what america truely likes to see. If hollywood could come up with more of these I honestly think the box office would return, people are just sick of seeing the same ole plot and story (If I see another film about a rappers story I'm gonna be sick..Bleh!)

[Escapay]

The Breakfast Club - no "real" plot, more of a "here's what happens during a Saturday detention". I love this film.

Ferris Bueller's Day Off - like Breakfast Club, there's no real plot, but it's just a fun romp around Chicago.

Spice World - as awesomely bad as it is, it's got a camp factor that makes it worth watching, and has no true plot to it at all.

Escapay

[Lazario]

Films with no plot are glorified art films. We've had a few of those really break through. But in essence, I really think every film has some kind of plot. Unless it's a documentary or shot with non-actors. And every film is some kind of art, which we interpret, which is what makes it a film - so we naturally find a plot or a logical progression of events, which is the same thing as a plot. A plot in this case is what happens to a group of characters, and actually even in a documentary or reality-shot film, you can effortlessly make a plot out of the succession of events that take place.

A lot of movies have no real plot, though. One doesn't need a standard plot to be interesting either, of course. The Breakfast Club had a plot really, the same way it didn't have a plot. The kids got together not knowing who each other were behind the stereotypes and their time together broke the boundaries of their limited perception. It didn't really have a villain, the Principal/VP was just a pathetic numbskull. I almost felt really bad for him when he spilt his coffee all over his food and his desk. What a sad, desperate creature. Real villains are a tad more interesting. If we assume plots are all manufactured- generally unrealistic.

Don't we all sort of see though, that most movies with no plot are really shoddy and unentertaining - like that Ready to Wear / Port a Pret or whatever that Miramax produced, the Robert Altman film about a bunch of boring dorks on some kind of fashion week in the early 1990's. Or that other Miramax movie, Steven Soderberg movie, Full Frontal. Funny how they both had Julia Roberts in them, perhaps she naturally attracts bad, flat ensemble messes. Coming-of-age movies also have less plot than your average Plotty. Hollywood could really use some Plotty-Training in their bad movies coming out now.

[DaveWadding]

Amelie *cough*

[bambifan56]

Yea, I guess you are right, they don't have the typical plot though. With no central villian you really have to rely on the characters for the story though. I dunno, I guess the cycle of things is a plot itself, but I think you get my drift haha

[Disney-Fan]

I think what you mean is, that some movies are narrative driven, and some are character driven. There is no film without a plot. A film without one would make for quite a boring / stupid experience. Me personally... I prefer a good narrated story. I find those to be more interesting, since they usually have a good arc story for both the narrative and the characters (one prime example is the new Batman Begins movie). Character driven plots are usually much slower paced, hence are less fun to watch. There are some I like (American Psycho, Brokeback Mountain etc), but my favourite movies are mostly story driven.

[Loomis]

There has been a movement lately of 'independant whimsy', with films content to focus on a lampshade or a field for several minutes. There are some films that thinks this is all that it takes to be thoughtful.

However, in the hands of the right director, photographer and actors; lengthy scenes such as this can have tremendous emotional weight and greatly add to the mood of the piece.

Done badly, the movie will bore you witless for over two hours.

Trying to think of a comparative example...

[creid]

The film La Dolce Vita, Fellini, feels like it has no plot. It is just a series of 8 nights of the good life and just sort has a surrealist ending. (The heavy dead fish symbolism and Marcello confronting lack of ambition through the innocent child.) Of course, it would take the talent of Fellini to pull this movie off.

[Lazario]

That's one of the great things about film, is it serves as an artform first. It's only been taken over by the Hollywood industry as a means of major money-making. Which actually sort of disgusts me. I know without it we wouldn't have all those blockbusters we love so much, of whatever decade you prefer. But the business side of things killed artistic motivation, though it eventually gave rise to independent filmmaking, whose glory days in a sence haven't ended yet, it's ensured that the movies that get the most money are usually just mainstream garbage and their only merit is higher-paying jobs for movie stars while you can imagine most of the real crew gets paid scale. For them, the only reward from the film is exposure, and they have to hope for loyalty on the part of the people who get the main credit. That they'll eventually join repertory companies or groups with make-up, special effects, stuntwork, or music composition. The industry still glorifies the actor because of the old tradition of people wanting to identify movies with movie stars, films with high-profile directors, cash-flow with executives. Movie-making seems to be a dirty business for the most part. They love you today but tomorrow, you're dirt on the ground that they walk on. Which is why I always tell anyone I know thinking of becoming an actor... don't. More people with experience in the industry usually end up falling back on something else, or becoming a tragedy / horror story.

But anyway, the movie business doesn't have anymore Fellini's and it never really will.

[Karushifa]

There has been a movement lately of 'independant whimsy', with films content to focus on a lampshade or a field for several minutes. There are some films that thinks this is all that it takes to be thoughtful.

However, in the hands of the right director, photographer and actors; lengthy scenes such as this can have tremendous emotional weight and greatly add to the mood of the piece.

Done badly, the movie will bore you witless for over two hours.

Trying to think of a comparative example...

Have you seen the Qatsi films by Godfrey Reggio? Two hours each of shots of nature intertwined with shots of mankind, set to music. No dialogue or narration whatsoever. Beautiful cinematography, nice editing, and perhaps an overarching commentary on what humans have done to the natural world, but nothing I would call a plot. At least they're better than staring at a lampshade for two hours

[Lazario]

That sounds like an interesting movie. Desperate times call for desperate measures, I say.

What disgusts me the most is the conservatism of movie-making. Everyone took over the artistic value and turned it into an agenda for money, which makes it hard for any film taking a risk to be considered for a larger budget. This even leading to the formation of a group with no valid reason for existing whatsoever, like the MPAA. A group that dooms films to edits against the filmmakers' wishes to conform to parental groups and so-called 'family' standards. Which is the very beginning of political correctness, and also lent itself to music being edited, and made it acceptable for a portion of the population to use their morals as an excuse to alter art for their own purposes. Leading to art galleries where race-related art and sexual art had to be removed due to potential offensiveness. And you'd better believe has also influenced Disney into it's controversial decisions in relation to Fantasia, Make Mine Music, Saludos Amigos, Melody Time, not to re-release Song of the South in any form. Anyone remember why Tommy Kirk was released from his contract at Disney? Because the studio considered his private life a financial liability to the studio, not his ability to continue making great movies.

Whether you consider it money or mass-consumption to be the killer of art, it's undeniable that film and cinema have suffered because of it. The movie business doesn't have anymore Fellini's and it never really will. Because though we know they're out there, nobody's willing to give them a chance. But we all know there are potentially amazing movies that could come out of this, if some of the independent films planned had come out with the budgets of, even something like Pulp Fiction (I wonder everyday where Miramax came up with the dough for that one), but rather something like Passion of the Christ, movies wouldn't be in such direly horrible shape.

Plots are still an abstract thing where anyone can still make their own interpretation. But the difference between an original movie now is that Hollywood keeps recycling the tried-and-true plots and formulas for films that were already successful. It's so bad now that I'm starting to think of supporting movie piracy. The new crappy movies deserve to see Hollywood taken down a peg or two. There are original plots and different plots out there but the reliance on the standard plots is why movies can only thrive now off of movie personalities. I'd love to see more movies take chances. And people stop going to see bad, predictable movies.

Which is probably the reason why I love that there's so much gender-shakeup in the movies recently. TransAmerica, Brokeback Mountain, and now Amanda Bynes' new flick, She's the Man. I can't wait to see that. Amanda Bynes has an amazingly infectious personality and she has quite a talent of parody and spoofing, and if there was ever a time in history where we desperately need to be spoofed, the time is now. I think we're seeing people in the movie industry so incredibly bored with what's already been done - and we're starting to really see who the Routine Players are. Denzel Washington, as I've predicted time and again, just does the same movie over and over. Bruce Willis, sitting firmly on action-thrillers again (Armageddon, the movie, was a curse on humanity!!). Plots are a throwaway these days, I imagine doing without it might make movies interesting again. Show people just how many cliches are involved in the movies I keep telling everyone are horrible. Plots are just not required anymore in the mission to broaden cinematic horizons.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

If hollywood could come up with more of these I honestly think the box office would return, people are just sick of seeing the same ole plot and story

Interesting.... but that doesn't explain why "Napoleon Dynamite" was a flop!

[Lazario]

(If I see another film about a rappers story I'm gonna be sick..Bleh!)

Even though I completely respect rap... I agree with you, whole heartedly. It's the same with any movie about a person trying to make it in the music business - including Crossroads (I didn't see the whole thing, I assume because her character wrote a song she has to perform it in a scene and that counts) and Coyote Ugly. Not compelling storylines. And characters that you can't relate to beyond that 'trying-to-make-it against adversity, pretty people have problems too' cliche. They don't ever explain why the adversity is the way it is. Hard to understand where the progression really is.

[bambifan56]

I do like very little rap, just isn't my bag lol...I walked out of 8 mile, I thought the film was annoying and just didn't like it at all. I am kind of like Hank Hill when it comes to some things haha

[Zoltack]

I like some rap, you know I'll listen the the Geto Boys, but that's about it. Yes I also agree that movies with rappers... suck!

I'm not sure if Resident Evil or Resident Evil: Apocalypse has a plot, I mean they just go around killing zombies. I guess in Resident Evil they were trying to reboot "Red Queen" and get out of the hive without getting turned into or eaten by a zombie. Then in Resident Evil II, they try to get Dr. Doom's daugher out of the city so they can get out of the city before it get's nuked.

IMO every movie has a plot but some movies like Bambi, Forest Gump ect. doesn't have a focus. As in they don't focus on a particular issue. I don't know it's just my opinion.

[Karushifa]

A word about Forrest Gump's "plot", or lack thereof: the whole movie IS essentially about one thing, and that is Forrest's love of Jenny. At almost every point in the movie, whether he's meeting the president (which he does a few times and invariably thinks of as no big deal) or fighting in a trench in Viet Nam, he is always thinking about Jenny. Now some may find that cheesy or whatever, but I find it rather sweet, and don't think the movie would have worked at all without it.

[creid]

Lazario,

Hasn't Hollywood always been about money? The only time the artist/film-makers really dominated the industry would be the 1968-1977 Easy Rider/Raging Bull generation. They only took over because the studio system fell apart, and these film-makers better connected to the youth generation at the time.

This era would end because:
1) These filmmakers got too full of themselves and/or were drugged out. (Boganvich, Hopper, Altman, and Marty for a time)
2) These filmmakers would usher the blockbuster era. (Spielberg, Lucas, possibly Coppola.)

Another way to put it. Just think, Orson Welles, the most talented person in film history, spent a lifetime trying to make his films without studio interference or butchering and would only succeed once. That film was Citizen Kane.

[Lazario]

I wasn't really saying filmmaking from the studios point of view wasn't about making money. Yes it always was. But there's a point where movies were largely taken from the people who tried to make art, and given to people who wanted to just make money, and didn't care about what they did to get it. The movie business wasn't always as corrupt as it became. In the very earliest days of film, you may have heard of expressionism. An entire movement of film focused on art. And something that died when the whole world 'fell in love' with what Hollywood was. It died because no small part of it survived, none of the filmmakers traditions continued on out of film schools. People who came to places like Hollywood where all the films were brought to be made learned that this art was controlled by money. And filmmaking for art became a smaller piece of a big hunk of hollowed-out cinematic product.

I never said anything that wasn't true. Don't assume I was saying there were studios of films being made before Hollywood that freely made films not corrupted by business-politics, studios and movies that never existed. I'm talking about filmmaking itself. Unless you think the vast majority of filmmakers enjoyed creative conflicts with executives, having their careers cut short because of an underwhelmingly performing film - a film either poorly advertised or a shot-to-hell version of what they intended it to be, or having their careers extinguished because of rumors of their personal lives. This includes actors too. It could never just have been a concern to filmmakers, the corruption of studio-politics affects everyone who interprets art. That's basically what I was saying. And I felt it important to draw connections to different examples where art was compromised for money or conservatism.

[Spongebob Squarepants]

If hollywood could come up with more of these I honestly think the box office would return, people are just sick of seeing the same ole plot and story

Interesting.... but that doesn't explain why "Napoleon Dynamite" was a flop!

Not to prove you wrong Timon/Pumba fan but actually Napoleon Dynamite wasn't really a flop..it just wasn't released into the same amount of theaters like other movies are. It became more popular as it was out which brought but up to 9 or 8 or so.

[2099net]

In the very earliest days of film, you may have heard of expressionism. An entire movement of film focused on art. And something that died when the whole world 'fell in love' with what Hollywood was. It died because no small part of it survived, none of the filmmakers traditions continued on out of film schools. People who came to places like Hollywood where all the films were brought to be made learned that this art was controlled by money. And filmmaking for art became a smaller piece of a big hunk of hollowed-out cinematic product.

Well Expressionism was originated in and mainly confined to Europe. It never was a US thing, even though a number of American directors and filmmakers appreciated it (and, indeed, hired European expressionists for some early US films).

During the days of silent cinema, European cinema was just as viable and strong as American. However, with the invention of sound, European cinema found itself marginalised, even in Europe, due to the large numbers of languages we have, while American cinema flourished, due to the size of the English speaking - read homeland American - audience.

Of course, dubbing technology came later, but the rest of the world generally found itself unable to compete and catch-up to the expense and lavish productions Hollywood had initiated. (Plus, the lucrative US market is pretty much hostile to any non-US film with the odd exception that proves the rule).

As for films with no real plot, there's lots. Clerks and the Clerks wannabe Waiting... don't really have much of a through plot. Monty Python and the Holy Grail plays up it's lack of proper narrative conclusion (then thinking of Monty Python who also released a live sketch show, there's concert footage films such as Talking Heads' Stop Making Sense or Eddie Murphy's RAW). In addition most could argue most of David Lynch's films don't have a plot in a typical sense of the word. Also, while improvised films do have a plot - the results are varied. This is Spinal Tap and Best in Show are pretty aimless, while Jiminy Glink in La La Wood does have a plot with a proper beginning and ending.

And I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks the Japanese Ring 2 is 'totally uncomprehensible' (but it still has some knockout scares in it).