According to Aristotle,
there are many aspects to what makes up and constitutes a tragedy.[1] These definitions, of course, were written
anciently, when poetry and plays, art and architecture were the mediums that
storytellers had available to convey their messages, be it historical, fantasy,
or otherwise. The medium of film was not
even close to being conceived, much less developed, but does this mean that
Aristotle’s view and definition of what a tragedy is cannot be applied
successfully to film in the present day?
This essay will discuss what it is that Aristotle defines a tragedy as,
the aspects concerning it, and how they are or are not applied meaningfully to
film, using examples such as the Star
Wars saga, the Fast and the Furious
franchise, and other movies and television shows as is appropriate.
To begin, the definition of
a tragedy as Aristotle saw it must needs be laid out for the purpose of a
common knowledge-base background to start from.
Ultimately, Aristotle states that “tragedy is an imitation of an action
that is serious, complete, and possessing magnitude; in embellished language,
each kind of which is used separately in the different parts; in the mode of
action and not narrated; and effecting through pity and fear [what we call] the
catharsis of such emotions.”[2] This is his base, or primary definition of a
tragedy, but what does it mean in modern-day lay terms? When broken down, Aristotle is saying that a
tragedy is just replicating actions and events that are of a serious nature,
but that also carry with them a scope of significance for the person or persons
involved. In other words, it is a major,
life-altering type event with a large emotional component. It is a device that is used in most genres of
film, from drama to suspense, action to sci-fi, and even the romantic comedy to
some extent. Aristotle broke down his
definition further into many parts and aspects in order to showcase what he
thought the best and most desirable qualities were for a tragedy in his day,
and these will now be used both to further define what Aristotle was saying, as
well as to show how these aspects could or could not be applied to film.
The constituent parts of a
tragedy are the spectacle, melody, language, character, thought, and plot. Some of these apply to the actual story
itself and others to the actors that are portraying the story, and some to the
characters of the story. According to
Aristotle, all of these things must come together properly in order to make a
‘good’ tragedy.[3] This is much the same when thinking of a good
movie or television show in the current day; if these aspects are not all well
done and correct, the film in question will be missing something, and the
discerning public will notice. They
might not know what it is that is
missing, wrong, or not just quite developed all the time, but they will notice
that something is lacking.
Plot is the primary and most
important part of tragedy, according to Aristotle, and as such he devoted much
of his writing concerning tragedy to the plot and how it should be constructed.[4] The plot is one of the items that tragedy is
imitating, or the events that happened.
The plot needs to be long enough that a change in circumstances for the
main character can happen logically and naturally, but not so long that the
audience forgets the story and can no longer follow what is happening or
why. Therefore, a good plotline will
tend toward the longer end of the spectrum, but still be in the ‘Goldilocks’
zone of not too short and not too long.[5] When adapting this to film, it appears that
Hollywood’s rule-of-thumb that they follow is that a movie should be between one
and a half to two and a half hours long, generally speaking. However, there are exceptions to that
practice. Examples would be movies like Giant, Gone With the Wind, and the Lord
of the Rings trilogy as done recently by Peter Jackson. These movies do not adhere to the
stereotypical hour and a half to two hour films that Hollywood usually
produces, but go much longer. However,
in keeping with what Aristotle said about good plot, the writers and directors
opted to go on the longer side in order to keep the storyline believable and
not have events just spontaneously happen in order to keep the time down, which
would have resulted in a disjointed plot line, and an unpleasant viewing
experience for the audience.
The disjointing of plotlines
is also something that Aristotle talked about and warned against. He stated that plot lines need to be unified,
but that not every single thing that happens to a character needs to be in the
plot or portrayed, just the things that are relevant to the plots main topic.[6] He went on to cite Homer’s Odyssey and Illiad as good examples of not including everything that happened
to Odysseus on his journey, but just the things that were relevant to the
journey itself. The rule that Aristotle
laid out here is that if the inclusion or absence of something doesn’t make a
difference in any way, then it is not part of the plot, and shouldn’t be
there. Prometheus by Ridley Scott is a prime example of a non-unified
plot. From the very opening scene until
the rolling of the credits, the only thing that remains a constant is the
confusion of wondering what is actually going on. The confusion isn’t the good type that comes
from suspense and mystery and trying to figure out the secret that is driving
and motivating a character, it’s the confusion of having either too much or too
little information provided to make the story coherent; it’s the confusion from
major plot devices being absent from the story-telling process, and resulting
in the storyline making no sense and being unenjoyable to watch. This is what Aristotle was saying to avoid,
because it makes for bad tragedy.
There are examples of films
that have done this well, though. The
television show, Game of Thrones,
masterfully conveys just the right amount of information at the right
time. It runs the storyline in a manner
that it is easy to follow, yet shows a depth of complexity and intrigue that
keeps the audience actively captivated and wanting more. One of the ways that Game of Thrones does this is by using reversal and recognition; two
of the key elements of the tragic plot.[7] One of the best deliverances of this method
was when, in the ninth episode of season one, the petulant, newly crowned boy
king, Joffrey, beheads Ned Stark for treason.
This in and of itself doesn’t sound like that much of a tragedy, but the
manner in which the story got to that point was through a system of constant,
but logical catharsis. Ned’s learning of
one secret lead to him asking a different question, that lead to another
question, and another secret, and so on until he found that his good friend
King Robert was not the father Joffrey as all believes him to be, but that
Robert’s wife, the queen, has had an affair with her own brother and that he is
the father. Before Ned is able to tell
Robert, however, the queen has him drugged and he is killed in a ‘hunting
accident’, thus making Joffrey the new king.
Ned however, being of good honourable character, tried to do the right
thing and give the queen a chance to take her children and leave the castle
before he exposes them. However, the
queen instead convinces her son that Ned is trying to take the throne from him,
and this results in Ned being killed and a civil war breaking out.
It is not only the reversal
and the recognition that the preceding sequence of events from Game of Thrones exemplifies, but also
the opinion that Aristotle held that the best tragedies were complex, and show
a man (or woman) falling due to a mistake rather than through misfortune, vice,
or depravity.[8] This is exactly what happened with Ned Stark;
he made the mistake of accepting King Robert’s offer of becoming his right
hand, and from there began to learn the pieces of information that ultimately
lead to his own death and the start of a civil war. Another example of this type of tragedy can
be seen in the Star Wars saga with
the story of Anakin Skywalker. Anakin
grows up as a slave, but is found to have a great talent and ability in the
Force, and as such is taken to be trained as a Jedi. However, the dark lord Palpatine, in his
guise as a public servant, begins to convince Anakin that he can use his powers
differently than he is being taught, and to grey the lines between right and
wrong. This ultimately leads to Anakin
turning on and murdering his friends, and leads to him becoming Darth Vader,
all because of a mistake and a bad choice.
There is an aspect of
tragedy that Aristotle derided that both Game
of Thrones and Star Wars proves
incorrect, and that concerns episodic plots.
Aristotle said that episodic plots were the worst sort as they generally
followed one another in no particular or inevitable sequence.[9] With films such as the Star Wars saga, the Lord of
the Rings trilogy, and television shows like Game of Thrones and Dexter,
this viewpoint is not applicable, as these stories rely upon continuity to
continually tell the ever emerging story over a protracted time. Unfortunately, there are also filmmakers who
clearly exemplify the bad plot lines that Aristotle was talking about. One such example of the bad episodic
plotlines that follows no congruency would be the Fast and the Furious movie franchise. When viewed in succession, these movies have
very little, if any, involvement with each other’s storylines and plots to make
them fit together. There are the same
characters through most of the movies, and there is a similar plot line, but
that is it for congruency. Even the same
characters being in the movies presents a problem when going from the third to
the fourth movie in the series. In The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift[10], there is a main
character introduced named Han, who towards the end of the movie is killed in
an explosion. When the next movie, Fast and Furious begins, Han is somehow
alive and well with the rest of his friend in South America. This is a gaping plot hole, and showcases
what Aristotle was talking about.
Further, it is also evidence of what Aristotle meant when he said that
bad poets stretch the plot beyond what it can bear and are often compelled to
dislocate the natural order.[11] The
Fast and the Furious franchise, while being light, fun, and mildly
entertaining, clearly only applies what Aristotle said not to do to their
filmmaking.
Moving on from plot,
Aristotle also talks about character.
This is not to mean the characters of the actual film, but more of the
type of person, or quality of person that is portrayed. As Aristotle said, “it is not for the purpose
of presenting their characters that the agents engage in action, but rather it
is for the sake of their actions that they take on the characters they
have. Thus what happens is the end for
which a tragedy exists.”[12] Aristotle believed also that the characters
(or at least the main ones) must meet four criteria. First, they must be good rather than evil, regardless
of if they were a slave, a king, a priest, or a commoner. Second, they must be appropriate. Aristotle here is meaning that a woman should
not be more ‘manly’ than a male warrior, and that a male warrior should not be
more emotional or week than a woman.
Third, they must be lifelike.
This means that they need to be believable so that people can associate
with them and become invested in the character so that when the tragedy
happens, they can feel it. Fourth,
characters need to be consistent. They
need to be true to who they are, not change partway through the story for no
reason and do something completely ‘out of character’.[13]
A good example of these four
traits being employed in a film can once again be seen in the Star Wars saga. The main characters in the Star Wars movies are all good, including
Darth Vader. The main tragedy, as stated
before, in the overall storyline for Star
Wars is that Anakin Skywalker is misled and makes a mistake in judgement
that takes him down the path of evil, but in the end his good wins out and he
returns to the light side to save his children, and as such, he can be classed
as inherently good. The second trait of
appropriateness holds true as well.
While there are very strong female characters in the movies, they never
overstep or go beyond what is appropriate for the character or the setting of
the film. This also helps with the third
and fourth traits alike. The characters
all ‘feel’ as though they could be real people, and they remain consistent to
their ideals throughout the film. This
was helped by George Lucas in both the manner in which he wrote the films, as
well as in the setting that he created.
Even though the movies consist of spaceships and aliens and lasers, it
feels as though it is used and lived in and old, rather than new and shiny and
perfect. This helps with the characters
and in turn, with the connection of the audience, so that when the spectacle of
the inevitable tragedies happen, the fear and pity are felt.
Lastly, Aristotle believed
that when a brother killed a brother, or a mother her son, or a father his
daughter, this was a very powerful plotline and one of his favourites,
especially if the killer did not know the relationship of the person that they
killed, but found out later. Further, he
also believed that if someone is about to commit and act of this nature, but
then finds out the truth and stops before it is done, that this was the worst
of the plotlines, and that it did not convey any feelings with it. While
it is true that if someone commits a murder of their immediate family
unknowingly it does invoke a response, it can also be shown that stopping in
the middle of the act by finding out the truth can be very powerful as well,
especially when the audience did not know the information either until it was
revealed. The perfect example of this is
again in the Star Wars saga, but
specifically in the movie The Empire Strikes
Back. Luke Skywalker is fighting
Darth Vader, trying to kill him for all the crimes that he has committed. Of these crimes, Luke believes that Darth
Vader killed his father, Anakin. As they
fight, Vader lands a blow that takes the hand off of Luke, and Luke falls
backwards, hanging onto a pylon so as not to fall over the edge. Instead of finishing him, Vader tries to
convince Luke to come with him and tells Luke that Obi Wan never told him what
happened to his father. Luke then says
that Obi Wan told him enough and that Vader had killed his father. Then, in one of the most famous events in
cinema, Vader says “No. I am your
father.” This moment shows that
Aristotle was wrong, and that finding out a secret in the middle of a killing
act can work extremely well.
In conclusion, Aristotles
views on tragedy can be used and applied to film very well. It appears that, whether knowingly or not,
filmmakers are mostly doing what Aristotle recommended to do in order to both
tell a good story and to convey tragedy appropriately. However, it has also shown that there were
some opinions that Aristotle had that don’t translate effectively to film in
the modern day, such as his opinions on episodic plots, and on interrupting a
tragedy before it happens with an unexpected secret. For the most part, though, this definition of
tragedy has been applied in a meaningful way.
Bibliography
Aristotle. The
Poetics. Extracts in Aristotle’s Poetics trans. Hutton, J.
(1982). Cornell University. Pp. 49-61.
The Fast and the Furious. Cohen, R.
(2001). Universal.
The Fast and the Furious:
Tokyo Drift. Lin,
J. (2006). Universal.
Fast & Furious. Lin, J.
(2009). Universal.
Game of Thrones. Patten, T.
(2011). HBO.
Giant. Stevens, G.
(1956). Warner Brothers.
Gone with the Wind. Fleming, V.
(1939). Warner Brothers.
Prometheus. Scott, R.
(2012). 20th Century
Fox.
Star Wars: Episode I – The
Phantom Menace. Lucas,
G. (1999). 20th Century Fox.
Star Wars: Episode II –
Attack of the Clones. Lucas,
G. (2002). 20th Century Fox.
Star Wars: Episode III –
Revenge of the Sith. Lucas,
G. (2005). 20th Century Fox.
Star Wars: Episode IV – A
New Hope. Lucas, G. (1977).
20th Century Fox.
Star Wars: Episode V – The
Empire Strikes Back.
Kershner, I. (1980). 20th Century Fox.
Star
Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi. Marquand, R.
(1983). 20th Century
Fox.
No comments:
Post a Comment