Originally published 01/09/2009
One other thing to come out of these discussions has to do with story real estate.
In the world of the 20 minute half hour and the 40 minute hour the problem with the "Why" obsession is that when execs insist too much on the explanation, the time you have to spend on that explanation is robbing time from the entertainment value of the show. (Oddly, film has the opposite story real estate problem. Because running time isn't finite, and it's Director-driven, and Directors are deferred to in a way that writers usually aren't, today you have comedies that should be 90 mins regularly clocking in at 2:10. Think about it. When was the last time you saw a movie that wasn't too long?)
The only alternative to robbing entertainment to explain 'why' is to make the 'Why' intrinsically hilarious or compelling on its own. But of course, the 'why' rarely is. Which is why you want to spend your time on the 'What happens next.'
Last time we got hung up a bit on concrete examples, which is why one of my conversationalists this A.M. really hit on something. The example is Groundhog Day.
If you think of Groundhog Day -- the only 'why's' that are ever explored is the 'why's' behind the individual choices Bill Murray makes during his endlessly repeating day. What you are NOT ever given the 'why' answer to is:
Why did this start? Is it God? Why did he pick Bill Murray? Why this particular Groundhog Day? In other words, Danny Rubin & Harold Ramis do not bog you down in any of the metaphysical questions of how this world came to be or why this is happening to Bill Murray because they know it doesn't matter; what people want to see -- what they willenjoy, is seeing what happens next: why Bill Murray makes the choices he does, and eventually, how he comes to see the world differently.
Well, wait, when he sees the world differently, why does the day move on?
Because it does.
But why?
I don't know. Why do you think?
And that's the movie, and the audience's experience of it.
Now a more recent example of the other way to go - Ghost Town. In this movie, Ricky Gervais' character suddenly starts seeing and being able to talk to dead people. Why? Well, in this case, the explanation of the 'why' IS inherently entertaining. It leads to a great little scene where Gervais slowly pulls the fact that he died for seven minutes while under general anaesthetic out of his reluctant Doctor and a hospital laywer. The scene doesn't particularly move the plot along, but it is entertaining, and helps to reveal Gervais' character a little bit -- you see how impatient he is.
So there you see, the difference in two films where a big "Why" is left unanswered, and where it is answered. And the difference between them is entertainment value. If you can answer the "Why" in an entertaining and inventive way that the audience will enjoy, then do it. But if you can't, it's probably better not to shoehorn in an explanation that may add a scene to a schedule and rob you of a minute of time that could be better spent on making the funny, or deepening the stakes or suspense -- whatever genre you're in. Remember that the total audience you're writing for is not the Simpsons' Comic Book Guy, who are specifically looking for any little thing they can pick apart so they have something to say on Television Without Pity. Civilians just want to be entertained.
In TV, the "Why" argument can go on and on for years. There are lots of people out there who want to say that the pain in his leg is the reason HOUSE is the way he is, even though the show has gone to great pains to suggest here and there that he was completely the same even beforethe thing with the leg. So why is he that way?
I don't know. Why do you think?
Though I'm a big believer in trying to accomodate notes whenever you can, the tyranny of the 'why' can be particularly destructive. Because it forces you to spend brain real estate on something that doesn't make the story better. If there is not an entertaining answer to your 'big why' question, then it doesn't belong in the picture, and this one of those cases where you might have to take a stand.
So, with that in mind: here's your homework: Besides Groundhog Day, can you name other comedy or dramas where a big "Why this Happened" went unanswered and worked -- where, in fact, an explanation of the 'why' would have ruined it.
(Which I firmly believe about Groundhog Day, BTW.)
If you'd like to comment, please click through and add your comment to the original post.
