The question of originality always comes up in creative forums and I think it’s something that needs to be understood clearly, as those who create understand the difference because they use this skill, while others who are spectators, simply lick their lips and take swipes at something they know nothing about. To be honest, I had to write about this because it helps me flush out certain truths I need to face as well as dealing with an issue every writer faces with those who don't write, but are simply spectators who love to whine.
Originality is understood as something that hasn’t been done before, that’s how we define it. But what specifically within a story or movie has not been done? Is it the elements, like a killer shark on a holiday weekend, creatures from outer space making contact, or going back in time to affect your own existence? Those elements are compelling and used well to tell successful stories, but they were not the impetus for their success. Those things mask the real elements that make a successful story and those very elements are what create originality, not the concept. (Stop right there, if your panties are in a bind at this point, take a moment to put your hand behind your back and gently remove it from your crevice. Concept is used to sell scripts to studios and is not the sole reason for originality).
How many westerns were told with the same moral values time and time again and people watched them? A lot; and the reason for their success was the simple fact they had different characters interacting in different circumstances, ultimately fulfilling our expectations that the good guy wins in life (our value) and standing up and fighting for what you believe in is part of what it means to be a man as well as to survive in this world. That is the impetus of westerns (I’m sure there are more) but foundationally they worked under these pretenses. Was each western unoriginal? Did they just copycat one another? On some levels they do, but that’s the point that’s missed. There is a difference between being original and fulfilling an audiences’ expectations based on genre and just plainly redoing a successful film with different names. Westerns, for example, have an expectation that you don’t need to mess with. What becomes original is how your characters interact and why, not whether there is a showdown or not. I can write a High Noon script with very similar elements, but choose to make the characters behave differently, to talk differently, to have more complex motives for their desire to stand up with the Sheriff or run away like cowards. Does that make it unoriginal? If the movie failed, you would say yes. However, if the movie was a success, if it struck a nerve, you would say, that’s original (Unforgiven). So what’s the difference then? Unforgiven executed well enough to fulfill the audiences’ expectations of a western by how the characters interacted. But lets face it, Unforgiven was just another western, how original was that? Does it matter?
Part of the problem with this critique about originality, is the critic is asking the writer to define a new genre. Well that could take a lifetime and it’s really not necessary. What creates new genres is progress within society, i.e., computer animation or our own technological advancement (The Matrix).
Now let’s take the film, The Shining. Is the spectator going to actually tell me that movie is original? Its not, it’s a very simple plotline about a man who is facing himself as failure in life, and is going to blame his family, hence his decision to taking an ax and try to chop them into pieces. Not very original, not very intriguing for me, so what made this story so compelling? A lot of things, and without putting Kubrick into the mix. The backstory; about the incident, the child talking to himself, the power of Shining, family violence, visions of children murdered, a child’s experience of these visions and can’t go to a parent to be rescued, how it’s laid out on the page, described, executed, this is what makes it original.
Another aspect that non writers don’t understand in storytelling is the writer’s impetus. As you learn to write you start to face inevitabilities; execution of a script is created by an element of the story which comes from the central core of your being, something you feel so passionate about that you must get it on paper with characters interacting about it sub textually. In addition, a writer discovers the best stories reflect a psychological need within the audience whether it is cathartic or simply a need for stimulation. What the spectator sees in these is unoriginal storytelling, which is misguided.
Originality is really relative. Lets face it, if a movie is successful its perceived as original to some extent, if it bombs, we gang up on it like lions to a deer, breathing heavily, growling, waiting to draw blood. I remember when the rumors came out about Cameron’s Titanic, the budget getting out of control; everyone was just salivating for Cameron to fail at the box office. Then, when it struck a nerve, they complained about authenticity and all the other bullshit that just wasn’t necessary, but simply a way to tell Cameron he wasn’t very original. That’s reality. Since it has a level of relativity, does that make a vague concept? No. It’s simply a minor variable, but as you can see there is more to originality than creating a new genre. Are we supposed to wait for another Pixar before we see originality? If that’s the case, then let me turn off my computer because my efforts are useless as far as originality goes under that definition.
Originality for a writer is the mixture of plot, characterization, pace, drama, emotion and resolve all mixed together with a chemistry that forms a melody that strikes a chord. If it’s done properly its original, if its not, it’s just another western. If Jaws had poor execution it would have been unoriginal, same goes with Back to the Future or Close Encounters. That's the perception of originality, and it's the reality writers must face.
Now you spectators can take your pot shots about what YOU think originality is, while writers sit back and concentrate on the melody, because what's most important to those of us who spend hours upon hours, not getting paid, drinking gallons of our favorite beverage, is that we have a deep seeded desire to interact with something that hasn't been created, and execute it in a way that's satisfying, that fulfills an audiences' expectations as well as ours. And that my dear spectators, is what is defined by a writer’s point of view as originality, and it happens to be the truth.
Get it now?
