2+2 Storytelling and Growing As A Filmmaker
An Idea To Write By
Several years ago, Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo, WALL-E) gave an incredibly entertaining TED Talk, and during that talk said something that’s been rattling in my head ever since.
“Don’t give the audience 4, give them 2+2”
This was brought to my attention again after the heir apparent of Every Frame A Painting, Lessons From The Screenplay, posted a video talking about this technique in practice.
The film at the center of the video essay is No Country For Old Men, a film that I was taken off-guard by when I first saw it, BECAUSE it is so off-kilter in certain key ways, but undoubtedly utilizes this concept extremely well.
So here comes the part where I turn this essay about storytelling into an essay about ✧ me✧
I’m in the middle of editing my film Mockingbird, and because the grass is always greener wherever the fuck you ain’t (-Gandhi) I can’t help but think about what I want to write next.
I’ll give you 2+2 guesses what backbone I’d like to build this story around.
For the idea of a script to work for me, I have to hook onto an idea, which can be anything from “two stories effecting each other” to “a fuckin ghost, du`”.
The idea I’ve been harping on about to my unfortunate friends is based around one event, from five different perspectives, twice.
Once when it happens, and our five characters see one thing, then again from somewhere down the line, in my case 10 years later.
What do you see from a distance that you couldn’t from up close? How have the ten years effected their outlook on live since those ten years will be the ENTIRETY of their twenties.
It’s similar to the structure of Stephen King’s IT where the same characters come back three decades later to confront an old problem, but in my case it’s a common occurrence, instead of a giant alien thing.
Using the 2+2 formula in the opening to set up five characters in less than 90 minutes each is, in my mind, the only way I can do it on paper. The actors will elevate the material of course, but I can’t write something mediocre and hope I can cast Daniel Day Lewis in it later to make it good.
The idea of laying down ideas in Part 1, and paying them off in Part 2 is literally just utilizing Chekhov’s Gun, but laying those pieces (the gun and ammo I guess if we’re going with this metaphor) to be revisited throughout the two parts is what really intrigues me.
It requires a certain level of trust that your audience will be paying attention, and confidence in yourself that you can write something worthy of having any attention paid to it.
Not to say that audiences are stupid, but that they are fickle.
If they don’t care, they do not care, and your film will fail.
Taking a step back and realizing that “The Audience ™” are not some inconceivable other, but that I am and have been a part of the audience for a MUCH larger portion of my life than I’ve been a filmmaker, and continue to be a part of that audience after making my own movies.
What do I like?
Why did I go see Infinity War, Mission Impossible 5, and Tomb Raider (yes, really) in theaters this year, but ignore so many others?
It all boils down to being my own audience. If something bores me, cut it. If I hate it, cut it. There isn’t a point making something for someone else because I will never be able to do it (unless I shoot porn, that’s pretty straightforward.)
The simple and Herculean fact of the matter is I have to write and execute a film that I care about, otherwise all the plot and planning in the world will be useless.
The 2+2 idea is something that has fascinated me for years, and one that I’ve danced around with parts of Abigail, and with Mockingbird in it’s slightly ambiguous ending, but to really embrace the concept is something that I think will be my next step as a filmmaker.
To conclude this rambling nonsense, a short aside about growing as a filmmaker.
My first proper short film was Abigail, as I might have mentioned once or twice or forty times..
Ignoring OBVIOUS technical shortcomings, I like it. It’s a good representation of my aesthetic and my outlook on things, and a first step I think will represent me well as an Artiste™ in the future.
Mockingbird is more ambitious, incorporating a doubled character count AND running time to tell a story with a slower pace and a more subdued, tragic tone.
It also deals with more complex characters, and a more aggressive reliance on acting, instead of over-long shots of the back of Austin’s head.
Whatever the next thing will be called (Two Parter: Revenge of Chekhov), it’s going to have just about five MAIN characters (lord knows how many supporting), each dealing with a separate set of struggles, that will then be disrupted by the main event somewhere toward the middle of the movie.
It might be three hours long who knows.
The point is I seem to spend an extreme amount of time between large projects, instead of the more common and sensible technique of making a lot of smaller projects to learn in increments.
The good thing, two projects in, is that there is a marked difference between the two in terms of quality. I hope.
They were both shot on the same camera, and Mockingbird was actually shot on a lens I bought for $60 a year ago.
Both of their budgets are similar (read: nonexistent), and both of them were shot with actors working for reel footage rather than money.
The improvements, if there are any, have to come from somewhere else, like the script, and by extension from me learning to be a less shitty director.
It’s an exciting, if daunting, idea.
If Mockingbird is any better than Abigail, it won’t be because I shot it on an Alexa, or because I flew out to Iceland.
It’ll be because I got better.
(and the cast is pretty fuckin’ stellar, but like I said this article is about feeding me and my enormous fragile ego.)
Martin R. McGowan is a filmmaker living in Aston, Pa.
He enjoys long walks in Hyrule and ignoring his responsibilities.
When not stressing, he can be found asleep, or pretending to sleep as the world around him may or may not be crumbling.
I can also be found on Instagram, and building a YouTube channel, about five years late to the party.
