We all know what a B-story is even if we never really pay any attention to them. It's usually a love arc that develops between the main character and his attractor around the 25-30 minute mark of the movie and keeps them driving toward their goal in the third act when the A and B plot lines will converge. For example Billy Madison meets Veronica when he hits the 3rd grade mark around a half hour in... blah blah... and they break up... and they are back together when he wins the big competition. Boom. B-story.
While watching Man on Fire last night for the first time I couldn't help but thinking where is the b-story? Is he going to hook up with the Mom eventually? Is there another plotline that I am not following here? Nope. No B-story. Why is this?
One of the benefits of working at a production company is that I get to meet and converse with some of the industries best writers while they wait for their meetings. They have no idea who I am or that I am an aspiring writer, but the majority of writers are genuinely happy to be recognized for their work. Writers never get any love from regular people not in the business or trying to write. Anyway, I was fortunate enough to have a 15 minute long conversation with Robert Mark Kamen (Taken, Karate Kid) about his film Taken. Which was fucking amazing because he was such a nice guy and wanted to hear all about my journey to Hollywood as well. But one thing really stuck out to me during our conversation... and I quote... "What made Taken special is that there is truly no B-story, and we did that on purpose". I even fired back with, "what about that former operative he was friends with and came to find out he was working with the kidnappers?". Shut down. He explained there is not enough for a b-story. That is merely two scenes, when they meet and when Liam punishes him for what he has done. Mr. Kamen said that he wanted Taken to be squarely a revenge film. A father seeking his daughter and his journey to find her. That's it. No more no less.
Now take that theory and apply it to other revenge films you have seen. Kill Bill for example, She wants to kill Bill and the other Deadly Vipers that beat her to the point of losing her baby. There is the possibility of a b-story when she finds out BB is still alive, but since this does not happen until the third act reveal it is getting filed under "twist". How about Last House on the Left? A father sees his child near death floating in the lake by his home. She manages to point out who did this, and just like that it is on...
I think my theory falls into the pretenses that these Revenge films do not NEED a B-story because the goal of the protagonist is that important the audience would be distracted and/or upset if our protagonist did anything else BUT strive for revenge. If Liam Neeson met a beautiful stranger while hunting the bad french guys, wouldn't you be upset? Liam what the fuck are you doing with this lady, your daughter is about to get sold to some fat muslim tycoon? Know what I mean?
Anyway I just thought I would like to point out this little tidbit I noticed and the fact that it came straight from an A-list writer as well. If you can prove me wrong, please do.
-Cjevy
Oh yeah and click that little ad underneath this post. I get a freaking dollar every time someone clicks it!!
While watching Man on Fire last night for the first time I couldn't help but thinking where is the b-story? Is he going to hook up with the Mom eventually? Is there another plotline that I am not following here? Nope. No B-story. Why is this?
One of the benefits of working at a production company is that I get to meet and converse with some of the industries best writers while they wait for their meetings. They have no idea who I am or that I am an aspiring writer, but the majority of writers are genuinely happy to be recognized for their work. Writers never get any love from regular people not in the business or trying to write. Anyway, I was fortunate enough to have a 15 minute long conversation with Robert Mark Kamen (Taken, Karate Kid) about his film Taken. Which was fucking amazing because he was such a nice guy and wanted to hear all about my journey to Hollywood as well. But one thing really stuck out to me during our conversation... and I quote... "What made Taken special is that there is truly no B-story, and we did that on purpose". I even fired back with, "what about that former operative he was friends with and came to find out he was working with the kidnappers?". Shut down. He explained there is not enough for a b-story. That is merely two scenes, when they meet and when Liam punishes him for what he has done. Mr. Kamen said that he wanted Taken to be squarely a revenge film. A father seeking his daughter and his journey to find her. That's it. No more no less.
Now take that theory and apply it to other revenge films you have seen. Kill Bill for example, She wants to kill Bill and the other Deadly Vipers that beat her to the point of losing her baby. There is the possibility of a b-story when she finds out BB is still alive, but since this does not happen until the third act reveal it is getting filed under "twist". How about Last House on the Left? A father sees his child near death floating in the lake by his home. She manages to point out who did this, and just like that it is on...
I think my theory falls into the pretenses that these Revenge films do not NEED a B-story because the goal of the protagonist is that important the audience would be distracted and/or upset if our protagonist did anything else BUT strive for revenge. If Liam Neeson met a beautiful stranger while hunting the bad french guys, wouldn't you be upset? Liam what the fuck are you doing with this lady, your daughter is about to get sold to some fat muslim tycoon? Know what I mean?
Anyway I just thought I would like to point out this little tidbit I noticed and the fact that it came straight from an A-list writer as well. If you can prove me wrong, please do.
-Cjevy
Oh yeah and click that little ad underneath this post. I get a freaking dollar every time someone clicks it!!
Clicked. In regards to Man On Fire (my all time favorite movie, regardless of B-story or not), could the b-story be either Creasey's background in the CIA, maybe Christopher Walken's friendship with Creasy, or what about the swim story for Pita? I think that the divergence of the kidnapper couldn't be classified as B-story because it ties in with the main story, the kidnappers family and all. Or is there a specific definition for something to be classified as a B-story which none of these fall into?
ReplyDeleteFrom your example above
The B-story should really be a seperate entity that ties in with the main plot that brings the story into its climax. Man on Fire has a really long first act, I was timing it as I watched, almost 42 mins, which ends at the kidnapping. The second act would be his determination and revenge, with the third being that he learns she is still alive. The first act is so long that it forces a quick third act, finds the voice, makes the switch bing bang boom. It just felt like to me that something was missing. But still a great freaking movie, I LOVE revenge movies, Kill Bill being my favorite of all time. With KB there are subplots, Bill and Bud, Bud and Elle, Uma and Elle etc. but none of these are a B-story. But with Man on Fire I felt like the closest B story would have been the reporter and the Mexican FBI agent and how they hook up and help him on his quest. Walken is the mentor, and Im surprised wasnt more involved at the conclusion. But yeah, good movie lol
ReplyDelete