While watching The Great Train Robbery, I couldn't help but think to myself about the three layers of story: the fabula, the story, and the narrative text. Specifically, I was struck by how the medium of film, in its infancy, seemed to be merely a portrayal of a series of events (the fabula.) Sure, over the course of the ten and a half minute film, there are things you can point to as examples of story and narrative text: the very existence of the film itself means all three layers are intrinsically present, there to be seen. But TGTR is, more than anything, a simple sequential unfolding of events: A is followed by B, B by C, and so on.
You may be thinking, "yes, but all narratives are, at their core, the sequential unfolding of events - that's what narratives are!" That's true, but what I'm trying to get at is the fact that certain mediums, and the specific narratives of that medium (be they films, novels, TV shows, etc.) can have the three different layers valued at different proportions to each other: in silent films, the fabula was the most important layer: merely showing a series of events occuring was enough to entertain an audience at the time. The elements of the story and the narrative text - the rudimentary special effects, the cheesy old timey piano music, and so on- are there, but they clearly take a back seat to the fabula.
Compare this to modern narratives. Oftentimes, the fabula is the least important of the three layers (from the point of view of the audience.) Sure, you often will see a movie because the plot (what occurs) sounds interesting, but you are just as likely to see a movie because of the way it is presented: the story and narrative text. I love the movie The Big Lebowski, but if I knew the fabula before I had seen it, I might not have bothered. The entire appeal of the movie is the way in which the fabula is presented: the story and the narrative text.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the three layers of narrative are not created equal: the medium, the viewer, and the creator of the narrative decide how much value each one has in comparison to the others.
Trailers
Actually your blog got me thinking about something a bit similar, and that's the way movie trailers are sort of hatched together to make the fabula appear interesting enough to the viewer to immediately put faith into the story and narrative text as well. But an example that came to mind was the trailer for the new Christopher Nolan film "Inception" starring Leonardo DiCaprio.
This trailer pretty much exhibits none of the three. I've heard many complaints that you don't even know what it's about, it seems like a series of random images. And yes, that's a teaser trailer technically, but even teasers give you SOMETHING. Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMseGyQ7PTs
Even though elements aren't present, just the box office lure of Christopher Nolan directing (Dark Knight) and Leo Dicaprio starring, seem to be enough to entice to viewer to want to see it. We sort of get the promise of an intricate story, because it's directed by Nolan, with some smashing acting, from Leo, without even knowing what the movie will be about. Kinda interesting in my opinion.
Expectations
I agree -- we get used to certain styles, certain grammars of presentation so that we learn to expect a quality product from certain artists, performers, editors. This is also kind of how genre works.
Another film trailer with similar issues (also starring DiCaprio) is the one for Shutter Island. It looks like a film with a mystery, but the trailer really seems to be giving away its major plot twist (unless it's a fake twist). Still, I probably want to go see it still because I trust Scorsese to handle a story well, and Shutter Island looks like an unusual story for him.
Also, does it seem to anyone else that DiCaprio is kind of playing the same character in these two movies?
Post new comment