Maybe the writer is purposefully leaving stuff out.
-> That's exactly the point that should get all our attention in storywriting:
"Am I a completionist and want to explain everything about my story and self (like what J.R. Rowling did with 'Fantastic Beasts', or do I want to tell a story?"
The holistic approach of explaining everything is a bad idea. It looks to a viewer like the author is still collecting research to write the actual story. Giving tons of unrequired information on a topic just bores a normal viewer and does nothing for the story.
However, if you can't come up with any kind of satisfying explanation (in your mind) after watching a movie that also drags down even the best of stories. We talk of three acts for a reason. The resolution has to be final and we need to be brought to it through the construction done in previous acts. Construction or Structure of a story is most important and the true artform of writing.
Screenwriting schools adhere to certain writing formulas and they lead to desired results. One of the earliest rules that comes to mind would be: if you see a gun somewhere in act 1, you can be sure it will be fired by act 3; things in movies exist for a reason. Everything that is shown is shown due to economy of storytelling.
The other way around it doesn't work, even though directors like J.J Abrams made it their trademark - the voluntary omissal of information, or the non-sensical withdrawal of it from people within the story; i.e. - even if the characters know something they won't talk about it (even though the viewer knows it too everybody else in the story is seemingly blind.) I find this method used very often in movies that are above average, but still nowhere near the top end of the scale; very commonly used in TV-shows to create drama. The problem is they never reach their full potential, because they are based on a construction that has problems fitting the narration/story, but seems necessary to be told to round off the story.
The "aha-effect" of sudden revelations in a story depends upon how well its foundations are build. In "The accountant" I often thought the revelation was more artificial than what made sense. All the stores Affleck's character owns, the very basic tax fraud any accountant (any person really) could have discovered by doing basic maths and so on. They all seem to be there with purpose to progress the story, instead of making the world more believable. It's the same with his brother. I'm sure there could have been actors chosen that didn't look like a brother from another mother, but they chose to make these characters as different as possible to throw us off scent. I don't like it when movies do this, as it diminishes the quality of structure of the story. It's a cheap exit. So despite this being a rather good movie, I could not rate it higher than a 7, because it chose its flaws for the reason of getting through the story and having an ending. The characters are making the story, instead of the story is coining the characters. I think it's worth thinking about what that means.
I compared it to a superhero movie in my prior post, but the big difference to e.g. a Batman movie (where the FBI-man would resemble Inspector Gordon), is that the Batman universe needs much less explanation done to work. Batman is on top of all good, then we have a hierarchy of cops, down to the corrupted ones and then a whole array of street thugs right down to the criminally insane. These groups rarely touch with each other in real life, yet we understand when they come together to fight a common enemy. We get that - light and shadow. The accountant however is much more conflicted, he's a half-beast of shadow and light and for my tastes the daily beating he gives himself doesn't portray that well enough. But it's an action movie, so there is no time for psychology, yet I would have loved to see a more fleshed out version of the accountants persona. Affleck only plays him well, because there is very little turmoil in the character, since he separates his mental illness from the real world and interaction with it. I would have preferred more insight into the character, who we are supposed to think of as a round character by the stories' ending, yet he didn't really change or come to any new insights.
I'm still feeling a bit helpless about describing this screenplay better. You can clearly see the motivation of the author and his joy in writing this screenplay. But I can also see the usual tropes and mechanisms used by inferior authors to write faster and come to an ending that is a sort of compromise. The accountant felt a little oldschool to me, a little bit french-action movie. It had a lot of good things going for it. But to be any better it would have needed more focus on the main character and a better realisation of his mental state. Everything and everyone here was a tool to propel the story forward and that can easily overpower any subtle plotpoints and visual cues a great director manages to put into his movies. Damn, this is getting the longest reply in the world, so I'll stop myself here.
reply
share
ksjazzguitar
7 years ago
Yeah, I don't mind some things being left to the imagination. I don't mind some artful ambiguity. At the end of American Psycho, the ambiguity at the end is effective. At the end of The Day of the Jackal, the revelation that we still don't know who the assassin was is part of the mysteriousness of the character. You mention Abrams - but there the bizarre mystery of the unnatural world he has created is part of the story.
But this is supposed to be a natural world, our world. It is supposed to make sense to us. I don't mind if some details are left to the imagination, but when at first glance they seem improbable, then a thinking person cannot immerse themselves in the that world. When competent people make incompetent decisions just to further the plot, or when there is no probable way the characters could have gotten from point A to point B, then that is bad writing.
reply
share
eljefemartin
7 years ago
Wow, you actually read my looong reply, thx. And you're right, some connections/revelations in "the accountant" felt rather artificial and overtly constructed.
Yet another reason why these forums shouldn't be closed: people actually care about and want to engage in discussion. Of course then there also are the fanboy threads where people just insult each other; and which are the reason why the rest of us will be barred from posting. Not very fair, IMDB. I really liked these forums.
Anyway, since this is probably my last forum post before they close, let me just say it was a pleasure coming here and discussing movies. Bye.
reply
share