Coincidence has no place in twenty first century writing. It's actually a worse device for solving plot problems than the supernatural and I hate the supernatural in fiction. Magic explains and excuses everything but coincidence is still a higher category of crime because it only works if the audience or reader is not deeply engaged: coincidence assumes that you, the paying punter, are really really stupid....
Ridley Scott and his screenwriter Brian Helgeland used coincidence not once, not twice but three times to get out of difficulties they had painted themselves into with their re-imagined version of Robin Hood. Each coincidence acted like a magic feather to solve a plot problem which could have been solved in a better way if the writing had been crisper and less indolent. These are the three occasions:
...
1. When Robin and his men are making their way cross country through the forest (i.e. not using a trail) in France they - by coincidence - come across the ambushed Robert of Loxley and his men who are taking the news of the King's death back to England. The forest was frickin enormous, they set off hours before Loxley, yet the two parties (three if you include the French) all bumped into each other in the woods.
2. Robin agrees to take Robert Loxley's sword back to his father for reasons I'm still not clear about. When he arrives at Loxley's series of man sheds (definitely not a castle) outside Nottingham William Loxley (Max Von Sydow) realises that Robin is in fact the son of the man who wrote the Magna Carta and who he (William) had executed years before. Can you imagine what an extraordinary coincidence this is? In a bloody wood in the middle of France Robin promises to return the sword of a dying man to his da and by an amazing goddamn stroke of luck the returnee is the only person in the world who can tell Robin about his mysterious origins. The sword incidentally has a cryptic motto carved on it about sheep which is also part of the same ridiculous coincidence.
3. The barons rebel against King John and King John decides to meet them in battle. Where? Why at Barnstaple of course which by coincidence is the very place where Robin's father was killed at some kind of pseudo Celtic cross. When Robin gets there he has a flashback, digs into the cross and finds his father's motto about the sheep - the same one that's on the sword. All the plot problems about Robin's origins are sorted out in an utterly shameless and truly insultingly stupid manner.
...
Yes, Ridley Scott did a decent good job directing this film but good directing doesnt excuse lousy story. If we allow them to get away with this kind of shite we deserve nothing but Avatars and Robin Hoods from now on which for some of you (I'm looking at thee Empire Magazine) would, I suppose, be just fine.
...
Friday morning update: John McFetridge pointed me in the direction of this interesting blog post by William Martell about what went wrong with the original script: How Nottingham became Robin Hood.
38 comments:
Oh dear, the sword thing sounds utterly ridiculous. The other two instances I could overlook, maybe, but that...
When you consider how many people are involved in making a film, you can't help but wonder how it is one person didn't stand up and say, "Hang on, this bit is pants." Then again, if they did they'd probably never work in this town again.
I was on holiday in England, waiting outside a shop for my wife, and browsing through the second hand books, when I flicked open the first page of one and the word "Carrickfergus" caught my eye. That was how I discovered Adrian McKinty who had grown up a stone's throw away from me without ever knowing. That was a co-incidence which, if written as fiction, would sound just about as daft as those about Robin Hood in tight situations
Mike
Its completely bonkers. And the motto about the sheep was just daft. And yes it solved their plot problems but at what cost? At the cost of making the story a total bollocks.
I dont know the actual history of the script but it wouldnt surprise me if this was the sixth or seventh rewrite.
The strange cameo role for the Sheriff of Nottingham seems like a late addition.
23 Year Old Producer: "Ridley I love it, LOVE it, but we cant do a Robin Hood movie without a Sheriff of Nottingham."
Sir Ridley Scott: "You shall have the fishie on the little dishie, you shall have the fishie on the little dishie when the boat comes in."
23 Year Old: "What?"
Sir Russell of Crowe: "It means he'll do it."
Philip
You had to say SECOND HAND BOOKS section didnt you? You couldnt have said it was on a display stand at Waterstones or in the window of Foyles or something. No, it had to be the crappy second hand books dept of the Truro Oxfam Shop.
Me? Bitter? No. You must have mistaken me for someone else, mate.
Sorry what was that you were saying about coincidences?
Haven't seen RH, and most likely won't.
I hate Deus ex Machina and dream sequences that kick the reader in the...
Along those lines, (hold on let me finish) when I was near the end of Fifty Grand, back at the lake, I was so into it, I read a single word "ON" as "IN". I thought, "you bastard McKinty,how could you?" After I read a few more pages, something wasn't making sense, and I re-read that sentence. All was well, and an internal apology was made.
Was that intentional? If so, completely brilliant. If not, it was an added bonus, and added to the many time's I was duped as I read it.
I haven't read your examples because I haven't seen Robin Hood yet, and may go, but I don't totally agree that coincidence has no place in 21st century writing. I think Philip's example is the kind of thing that does have to be included in writing, because it happens all the time. That doesn't mean I know how you'd go about making it credible, though.
This blog is worth reading.
Ridley Scott may have had a lot more to do with the story than any of the credited writrs.
Sean
Dream sequences are fine in my book. I dont mind mixing the dream world and the real world. Dreams are interesting. Agree though, maybe one per book, tops.
Seana
Its fine in nineteenth century writing. Completely fine because they had different views about Providence, but it has no place in our century. None. Its cheap and unpleasant.
John
Yes thats an excellent post and everyone who was disappointed in RH should go there. Nottingham sounds like it would have been aweseome.
Two things: if Helgeland isnt proud of what he turned in he should have taken his name off the script, I know I would have. Second what about Crowe. On Radio 5 Crowe was talking about how he had a conversation with Billy Bragg (!!) about the script and it was Billy Bragg who suggested they include the Magna Carta and the Forest Charter which was one of the most rubbish elements of the film.
Russell Crowe and Billy Bragg - Jesus.
John
I'm going to link to that piece in the main post. Very interesting.
John
Everything they say in The Player is true. Screenwriters are the real whipping boys.
Adrian, there's a good book about the Hollywood blacklist called The Inquisition in Hollywood that does a great job of showing the history if the screenwriter in Hollywood.
The book claims that the movie business, and its heirarchy, was well-established by the time it needed writers for the "talkies."
By then directors were already in charge and there was conflict from the start as most of the writers who arrived were already well-established in their own right and not interested in playing second fiddle.
It's no surprise that of the Hollywood Ten who went to prison nine were writers and Hollywood didn't exactly back them up.
As I saw another bad review on Robin Hood today and realized I probably wouldn't see it, I read your comments and I see what you're saying. You shouldn't manipulate coincidence just get where you want to go in a story. But I still think there is room for coincidence in a story just as there is in life. I think we still experience a little frisson when they happen, even though we don't think they're a sign of divine providence or purpose. We still wonder about them when they happen. I guess I would like the kind of randomness of odd experience to be allowed more. So what if it strains belief? Why does everything have to be believable?
Seana
In a work of art you should be careful about solving your problems with coincidence. Most of the time it feels cheap. Especially if it fixes big problems. Coincidences in real life are usually over very small things that have no bearing on anything else.
It would have relatively easy to eliminate all three coincidences in Robin Hood if they had thought about it a little.
For instance #2 could have been solved if Robin and Loxley had known each other. One line of dialogue would have done it: King Richard is touring the camp with loxley and loxley encounters Robin "This is Robin Longstride one of my finest bowmen." There you go. The audience can fill in the rest - does Loxley know Robin's history - perhaps, perhaps not. Doesnt matter. We establish with that one line that there's a connection between them.
The other two could have been fixed in similar ways but they werent because the film makers dont care about the logic of the story. Avatar taught them logic and storytelling count very little. What the public wants - or so they believe - is spectacle.
John
Barton Fink looks more like a documentary than ever.
You're right. It's not the way to solve problems. I'm just saying that as a representation of life, they should sometimes be included. I'm not saying that I know how they should be represented. I think it's the kind of thing that people shy away from though, when writing, because they've been instructed in that way, but I think you could use it metaphorically, just as you do dreams. One thing I think they do in reality is give people a heightened sense of life, however briefly. A sense of being more tuned in.
I'm not arguing with you about your points about Robin Hood, which seem perfectly fair. It sounds very sloppy. I am just taking issue with your opening statement that coincidence has no place in twenty first century writing. I think there may be a bit of room for it somewhere.
We're going to have to agree to disagree. The only place I think its permissable is if you're doing a pastiche of Victorian fiction.
I figured as much. It's okay, it's not really to the point you're making here anyway. I think this really comes on my side from my recent dissatisfaction with some contemporary fiction and trying to figure out what it is lacking.
Using coincidence to make a story work is timeless bad art - and so it was in the 19th century. It is the essential ingredient of banal stories for (and written by) children, and the Robin Hood examples bear that stamp. My mother (now 94) would dismiss a book or film on similar but less sophisticated grounds: "Na, it's too far-fetched".
Providence is another matter. The whole point about that (which I may be alone in believing in) is that 'luck' and 'coincidence' play no part in it.
Philip
You make an excellent point. Providence, the will of God, permeates much Victoriana and is quite different from cheap coincidence. I wouldnt want to stretch it though: you could even say that the coming together of two lovers in a Rom Com is not a coincidence because their alignment was "written in the stars" or something. That would be wrong.
I think Seana is hinting at the notion that the world is teleological or that there is a "wider truth" to be known. I'll be honest I have a soft spot for this kind of mystery. I think the Matrix may have been the best of those until they ruined the mythology with parts 2 and 3.
Coincidence is a part of life, therefore good fiction should find ways to incorporate it seamlessly, without making it seem a cheap plot-advancing trick on the author's part.
But mostly what I wanted to say is that I'm fascinated by the lagomorphic image.
My 2 cents, for what it's worth..
I like to be able to try to figure out where things are leading, to put the puzzle together so to say. For instance, in Dead I well May be, since I'm thinking most of us know the story, (and I haven't seen RH so I have no clue about the examples given), there is a scene where Michael gets Bridget in his apartment and notices a car outside, (at least, in my memory that's how I remember it). From that scene I guessed that later Darky was going to find out what Michael was doing, (I remember thinking how stupid he was for that). So, when he was sent to Mexico I wondered and guessed that Darky could be behind it..even more so when Bob wasn't sent to the prison with them. However, if that small part had been left out, and we'd not known that Michael was being followed, It wouldn't have been quite the same. To just later happen to have it reveled that by "coincidence" Darky somehow found out and set it all up would have been disappointing I think. However, little things of coincidence do at sometimes make things happy at times.
Oh, and again, for what it's worth Adrian, I can't find your books at Half Price Books for anything, (our major second hand book store here)...and considering it's pretty much the only book store I go to... ;)
Marco
It hasnt been part of my life. At least not yet.
Hedging your bets with the lagomorph comment? To me it looks like a hare.
Miss Snob
Lets cut them a break, maybe you're allowed to cheat a little, especially in a screenplay, but the RH examples were gross and clumsy. And they could have been avoided so easily. From what I understand the original script that RH was based upon "Nottingham" was intelligent, carefully put together and logical. It was only when Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe got to work on it that it ended up such a ghastly mess.
Yeah, you're probably right. I just had that scene in my head since my husband was listening to the audio version of Dead I Well May Be, and when he walked in the other day after listening on the way home and I asked him how Michael was today, his reply was "he's eating crickets". I had to laugh and stop myself from commenting about he should have been more careful not have been caught with Bridget. He really hates it when I tell him what's coming...(can't say I blame him)
It hasnt been part of my life. At least not yet.
Maybe you live in a simulation. A clumsy one.
Hedging your bets with the lagomorph comment? To me it looks like a hare.
The animal may be a hare, but the trunk only resembles its form (=morph). Therefore, the image is lagomorphic.
V-word:vista
Marco
Yeah, this Sim sucks.
Great article on the making of R.H. What a screw up. I might have parted with the cash to see it if it was Nottingham. Sounded pretty cool to me. That website is also neat as well. Think I'll follow it.
Cracks me up, 250 Mil to make RH, when some of the best movies I have ever seen are indies, with tiny budgets. The same can be said for the literary world as well, I suppose.
They should have let Guy Ritchie direct Nottingham.
I think the tree looks like the rabbit, that is about as deep as I can take it.
You've never had a single moment of coincidence ever in your whole life?
I think that coincidence is like any other tool that a writer has. It must be used well. I'm not too sure I believe in absolutes when it comes to the writing of fiction. For every supposed rule there is an example of the same thing being done well. Why would you want to emphatically say no to something instead of keeping it in you tool book just in case. Just because you have a tool doesn't mean you have to use it.
With that said I largely agree with you. It's an occurrence that mostly bugs me when I come across it.
But like anything else it has to be placed on the scale at the end of a story (regardless of medium) before rendering judgment. One recent example is the movie Training Day. Sandra hadn't seen it so we queued it up in Netflix. Over all its a damn strong movie. But. It hinges on coincidence. It happens only once but it still happens. But the strengths of the movie outweigh the coincidence.
I don't think coincidence points to a larger truth, I think it points to a larger mystery.I also think it's hard to convey to disinterested parties when it happens. But usually, if it happens between two people, they both recognize it with some degree of surprise and astonishment.
Once, I took the train across the country and back again. On the way back I went straight through. I walked through the dining car somewhere in the middle of Great Plains. As I walked through the dining car, a woman who had been crashed out with her head on a table suddenly woke up and sat up and as I passed her, I realized that she was wearing a sweatshirt from Bookshop Santa Cruz. It was a shirt they made with a Vincent Van Gogh quote to give hope after the earthquake about the store coming back, and as the earthquake had happened only a few months before, it made an impression on me. I looked at the woman--she was one of my former coworkers who had since left town. We sat and chatted for a few moments, but very soon she had to get off at some town on the route. If I hadn't walked by at that moment and if she hadn't been wearing that shirt, we would never have known we had been traveling together. Whether it matters in the grand scheme of things, I don't know. But in the moment, it struck us both a good deal.
Also, Adrian, your sim doesn't suck. You are looking at it through the wrong lens. Anyone who looks at the photo you've chosen here knows that you are badly mistaken on that score.
v word=frowl, which to my mind is brilliant.
Sean
Yeah Nottingham is never going to happen. They ruined it already. I agree though, its a crying shame. Maybe they can turn it into a comic book or something.
Brian
It would have to be bloody brilliantly done. I mean, completely amazing if its going to keep me in the narrative. Otherwise I'm outta there.
I dont recall any amazing or even impressive coincidences in my life. Maybe I'm immune.
Seana
Yes, only aspects of my sim sucks. Mostly it doesnt. Today has been very pleasant.
Yeah, point taken about the wider narrative. But if you're going to use the coincidence as part of a larger mystery I feel you should explain that. Even on Murder She Wrote they'd never allow what they tried to do on Robin Hood.
Does this count as a coincidence: I was wikipediaing the guys who wrote the Illuminatus trilogy and I found out that one of them had his ashes scattered on the Santa Cruz boardwalk.
Marco
Maybe its a bunyip
Yes, it's a coincidence but it would have been better if just today, I had happened to walk on the Boardwalk and felt a little piece of grit in my eye and wondered what it was.
Unfortunately, I don't live down that way anymore.
So Illuminati Trilogy--thumbs up, or thumbs down? It's kind of a cult classic around here, but of course I'm wary of such things...
Seana
I like the idea of it - especially including all the crazy conspiracies that readers sent in to Playboy - but I havent actually read the books.
Post a Comment