[HN Gopher] Chekhov's Gun ___________________________________________________________________ Chekhov's Gun Author : thunderbong Score : 219 points Date : 2021-09-05 08:53 UTC (14 hours ago) (HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org) (TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org) | zorr wrote: | I've seen this principle come up a few times but I don't think I | fully understand it. | | For example, assuming a passage in a story where a protagonist | enters person X's house and a particular room is described in | much detail. The described detail does not necessarily advance | the story but instead does "character building" hinting at the | personality of person X. There literally could be a loaded gun | hanging on the wall because X is a secluded hunter living in a | cabin. Is this then a violation of the principle? | | Edit: I've recognized the principle a few times, mostly in TV | shows with lingering camera shots on seemingly unrelated objects, | and as another commenter mentioned, it can frequently spoil a | surprise twist. There is also a vague line between spoiling the | twist and foreshadowing. | [deleted] | shakna wrote: | The best stories frequently break the principle. There is a ton | of worldbuilding done in even simple-reading stories like the | Hobbit, that are largely irrelevant to the greater whole, but | serve to give the reader a better perspective. | | Mindlessly following Chekhov's Gun, in my opinion, will always | result in pulp fiction. Whether it's TV or novels, or movies. | If you've stripped a story down to the bare basics, all you're | left with is predictability that gives the reader an easy ride. | | Not to say that's always a terrible thing. After a stressful | day, pulp fiction can be the perfect way to relax. Most people | have something mindless that they enjoy. | | But it is incredibly rare that you end up with something truly | great if you religiously follow the principle. | flippyhead wrote: | Also, sometimes entire movies are made about some of these | "inconsequential" details much later. If a gun appears in | scene one, but only goes off in the sequel, are we in | violation of this rule? | snickerer wrote: | Great fanatasy (world-building) literature enhances Chekhov's | Gun. In Tolkien's stories everything has meaning and is used | somewhere and somewhen else. But not necessarily in the same | story. | | In The Lord of the Rings there are hundreds of "guns" hanging | at the wall, which are not directly involved in this three | books' story. But the reader feels that they are not only | decorations. And the reader could do some research on | Tolkien's work to find out about their story and importance | for the characters' backgrounds. That makes the magic I | believe. | pvg wrote: | _If you 've stripped a story down to the bare basics, all | you're left with is predictability that gives the reader an | easy ride._ | | I think you'd have a hard time finding a Chekhov short story | that you can dismiss as an 'easy ride' or 'pulp fiction' and | many of them are very, very short. | barrenko wrote: | _spoiler alert_ | | My personal favorite is how in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, | the "gun" is a dog. | ahartmetz wrote: | I hated The Hobbit for its endless descriptions that, for me, | only evoked boredom, so I wouldn't use it as a good example. | The meadows were very green, the forests wre very dark, and | the spiders were very large, yes! I know! Get on with it | ffs... | | I liked the descriptions of landscapes and cityscapes in | Jonathan Franzen novels. They have the earnest and surreal | feel of a diorama in a museum. I like dioramas for some | reason. | bambax wrote: | Alexandre Dumas did, and his stories are among the best there | are. | watwut wrote: | Did he? Cause his original version does not have only | purposeful things in it. Like detailed descriptions of | evens in tavern that have nothing to do with later | developments whatsoever. | samatman wrote: | The tiny ring of invisibility which Bilbo uses as a plot | devise to escape a few times, turns out in _Lord of the | Rings_ to be the most important artifact in Middle Earth. | | About as Chekhov's Gun as it gets. | | I wouldn't say that leaving frequent references to the depth | and age of the world, and then filling in the Legendaria in | note form for the rest of your life, is much related to this | concept. If a sword hanging on the wall belonged to an | ancient hero, already dead, and known to everyone in the | scene, a paragraph with "Here is hung Such-and-such, the | bright blade of so and so with which he did $mighty-deed" | doesn't have to carry any more weight in the story. There | might be a whole book or chapter about so and so, there might | not be. | watwut wrote: | The tiny ring is not the only detail in that book. Checkov | gun is that everything must have purpose, not that a thing | with purpose exists somewhere inside. | simonh wrote: | If a detail does character building then it's done it's job. | The point is it should have a job to do. | | I think the example of a gun is an extreme one. A gun on the | wall isn't just any old background detail, it's going to grab | the audiences attention, and hold that attention. It's a | serious distraction, far more than most other background | details, an ominous threat of violence hanging over every scene | it's in. Whether you intended that as an author doesn't change | the fact that this is what it's effect is going to be. If your | going to put it there, you'd better have a plan for resolving | the tension it's going to create, whether it gets fired or not. | | I'm not sure I entirely buy Checkhov's point as a hard rule, | sometimes your just doing a bit of world building, but I think | he chose the example fo a gun on the wall as an extreme | example. There's no dodging that one. | bambax wrote: | > _There literally could be a loaded gun hanging on the wall | because X is a secluded hunter living in a cabin. Is this then | a violation of the principle?_ | | Yes. If the gun doesn't appear anywhere after its first | mention, then it should not have been described. This is quite | literally what Chekhov says, and I think he's right. | | It works the other way too. In order for a gun to be used in a | story, it has to have been alluded to before. A character | cannot suddenly find a gun in their hand and use it in any | significant manner. If they do, the audience will feel cheated | and be upset. But avoiding this pitfall is super easy, all one | has to do is just present the gun a few moments before it is | needed. | | It the final scene of "Sea of love" (1989), Pacino's character | overpowers the bad guy with an object he finds under the bed. | This object has been shown to the audience before. If it | hadn't, the scene would not have worked. | | Of course, rules exist to be broken... but do so at your own | risk. | earthbee wrote: | I disagree. Elements in a story should help communicate | character setting or plot, preferably more than one at the | same time, but I think it's perfectly fine to introduce | elements that only communicate setting and/or character | without being part of the plot. Character and setting are | important parts of a story. | | If something communicated neither character setting or plot | then it should be cut. | pvg wrote: | It makes somewhat more concrete sense when you take into | account the startling brevity of some of Chekhov's own work. I | don't think you have to agree with the notion as some universal | literary principle to appreciate he was a consummate and | successful adherent to his own advice. | Igelau wrote: | I think it's kind of strange that people interpret this as a | trope/rule/device. It's really just advice from Chekhov. | dudul wrote: | I remember watching James Bond movies as a kid. There was always | this scene where Q gave 007 a handful of cool gadgets, and would | you know it, by the end of the movie he had used them all! I | always thought "WTF man, he literally gave him exactly what he | needed for the movie, not a single one that went unused! What | were the odds!?" | hellbannedguy wrote: | Yea, but if Bond didn't use a cool gadget we might have left | the theater a bit dissapointed? | dudul wrote: | For sure. It's just this weird balance between "real life | realism" and not disappointing the public. I absolutely would | have been pissed if he had not used the tiny air tank or the | gas bomb in his suit case and all :-) | mikewarot wrote: | In a bit of foreshadowing we saw Chekhov's Gun on the Mantel was | missing. | | We did a hard target search, finding a neologism, but nothing | else. | | It eventually turned out the MacGuffin was just a Red Herring, | and the whole thing was a Shaggy Dog Story. | njharman wrote: | I was disappointed the Wikipedia article didn't have any counter | views or criticism. Article on concepts typically do. | mikewarot wrote: | I thought the reference to Hemingway's mockery of the concept | was a well done hint that not everyone agrees with the | principle. | matheusmoreira wrote: | https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovSGun | | There are articles about the other linked concepts as well: | | https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Foreshadowing | | https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MacGuffin | | https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedHerring | | https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShaggyDogStory | oceliker wrote: | The image in the first link points out that there is a literal | rifle on the wall in Shaun of the Dead. That's a pretty cool | reference to the origin of Chekhov's gun. | Sharlin wrote: | (Edit, sorry. Just an attempt at some dry humor, brought to you | by the SCP infohazard division.) | **************************************************** * | CAUTION: MEMETIC HAZARD DETECTED * | **************************************************** * | * * THE ABOVE COMMENT INCLUDES LINKS TO CONTENT * | * CLASSIFIED AS A CLASS 1.3 WEAK MEMETIC HAZARD. * * | VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED BEFORE PROCEEDING. * * | * **************************************************** | nickthemagicman wrote: | Am I on reddit right now? | matheusmoreira wrote: | Sorry if I ruined anyone's weekend... | Sharlin wrote: | Nah, I just meant it as a humorous reference to the well- | known cognitive blackhole properties of TV Tropes. | matheusmoreira wrote: | https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillR | uin... | epidemian wrote: | Linking to 5 tvtropes pages --5 possibly-very-deep rabbit | holes-- on a generally nonworking day? Truly diabolic :D | post-it wrote: | Not to be confused with | https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustForFun/ChekovsGun | flixic wrote: | One my favorite subversions of this technique is in Mr. Robot, | with a gun hidden in a popcorn machine. Using of the gun is never | shown on screen: the show assumes that the person watching | remembers that a gun was shown and hidden, and allows the | connection to be made "between the lines". Excellent use of | Chekhov's Gun, but it only works because of a certain amount of | TV tropes literacy. | atoav wrote: | I think Chekov's gun should be read more as a "don't give things | a heightened importance if they don't turn out to be important | for the situation". | | What is very bad advice is: "if you show a gun it has to be | used". If every gun ever shown in any film was used wouldn't this | destroy the tension? Also guns can take on different functions | within stories than just a device to kill. They can tell us | something about the protagonist (how do they react to the | presence of a gun), they can underline powerful moments (e.g. | throwing away a gun in a though situation because the character | gives up etc). | | Functionalizing every element of a story is a good way to rob it | of any life. In art a lot of elements work in different, more | complex ways than just a functional causal relationship. Think | about gazes in paintings etc. Things just signifying themselves | and expressing a general mood can be immensly powerful. | 1MachineElf wrote: | Maybe it takes a certain fleeting frame of mind to enjoy DFW's | Infinite Jest, but I enjoyed it, and half of it wouldn't be | possible with Chekhov's Gun applied. | residualmind wrote: | https://archer.fandom.com/wiki/Chekhov_Gun | Vaslo wrote: | One really great example of this is coughing in films. Once | someone coughs for no reason, you know they will croak by the end | of the film. | namelosw wrote: | In most of the best-known classic Chinese novels, like "Journey | to the West", "Water Margin" and "Dream of the Red Chamber", | there is usually a character that feels very important in the | first few chapters, then nowhere to be found in the rest of the | book. | | When people reading these novels, most of them wouldn't think of | those runaway characters because there are many new characters | and exciting plots. But it just strikes when people start to | recall the plots sometimes after reading: one of the most | important characters already foresee all of the conflicts, and | they just run away and live their life rather than participating | in the following conflicts. | | It turns out, most of the novels are written by frustrated | scholar-officials. They got burnt out in reality so they wrote | those novels. Many of them would become hermits and enjoyed their | life happily after. It sounds escapist but there's some Zen in it | in the context of Chinese literature. | | It feels like "The Shawshank Redemption" when it strikes me that | the hammer was in the bible, and the most intensive scene was | presented in a very calm way when people didn't know it. | TooKool4This wrote: | That's actually very interesting! | | I just got done reading the Three-Body problem which is | translated from Chinese and there was a very strong escapist | narrative which felt very strange for a westerner reading it. | | This actually adds a lot of context as I felt the book didn't | live up to the reviews but I felt all along that it was down to | cultural differences and the translation to English. | whakim wrote: | This is a really good insight - the trope of the "frustrated | scholar-official" is extremely prominent in the Chinese | literary tradition. That being said, the ideal of "becom[ing] | hermits and enjoy[ing] their life happily after" was something | of a literary conceit; in most of the actual literature written | by people who tried to do this, there's an extremely strong | tension between the idealized/romanticized apolitical world of | the hermit, and the reality that farming was very hard labor | and not something most literati particularly enjoyed. Probably | the most famous example of this is the poetry of Tao Yuanming. | (Note: I wrote my Master's thesis on depictions of eremitism in | ancient/early medieval China.) | plafl wrote: | Quite dull. That's why I love The Big Lewobski. It's full of | irrelevant details. There is a story too but the movie it's about | the little things. | wander_homer wrote: | Yeah, yesterday I watched Star Trek Beyond and I hated all | those foreshadowing events and almost everything else. | Spoilers: There's a supposedly useless artifact, which gets a | big camera zoom when getting archived and oh surprise, it turns | out to be a weapon of mass destruction. There's a huge space | station, which gets introduced with long camera shots full of | happy people and oh surprise, it's about to get attacked later. | There's some relationship drama and discussion about a stupid | gift, which later gets used as a tracking device to save | everyone. The captain notices a motorcycle on a spaceship, | which later gets used to make a stupid stunt show to save | everyone. The captain, for no apparent reason, plays a video | log showing the crew of an old space ship and oh surprise, | later this video is used to reveal the identity of the villain. | Some alien found some old music tapes from our time and we get | to hear them loudly, and of course this music is later used as | a super weapon to save the day. ... | joko42 wrote: | Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion, man. | doc_gunthrop wrote: | You could say that it's the little things that help to really | tie the film together (even though they don't really have a | significant impact on the main plot). In most cases they aid in | defining the characters. | | Jesus being a pederast doesn't have much of an effect on the | storyline, but it provides context into the background of the | character, so he's not just merely a competing bowler. | | Another example of an even more seemingly irrelevant detail is | when Jackie Treehorn starts sketching something on a pad upon | receiving a phone call. When it's revealed to the audience what | it is, not only is it surprisingly funny, but it hints at who | Jackie Treehorn is. Maybe he's in his line of business because | it means more to him than just a lucrative enterprise. | | These kinds of "irrelevant details" are fairly common in films | by the Coen brothers. When I think of their film _Raising | Arizona_ , I'm pleasantly reminded of how it's revealed that | the evil nemesis just happens to have that same tattoo as HI. | bigdict wrote: | Right but all those things play a role. | plafl wrote: | They play a role in a different sense: if you see a rifle it | may be there because it's going to be fired or maybe because | the character likes rifles. Could you imagine The Big | Lebowski without bowling? And yet bowling has nothing to do | with the story. | dkdbejwi383 wrote: | If The Dude was not otherwise occupied listening to bowling | casettes, Jackie Treenhorn's goons (the rug pissers) might | not have caught The Dude off guard, and the case of | mistaken identity (which drives the whole plot) might never | have occurred. | samatman wrote: | If I were to watch a documentary about _The Big Lebowski_ I | 'd want it to be called _Bowling, Interrupted_. | ineedasername wrote: | It's not a universal requirement of "good" writing. Contrast it | with the shaggy dog style, basically the antithesis of Checkov's | gun. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaggy_dog_story | | IRL is probably more like the shaggy dog. | twelvechairs wrote: | Its a polemic really. The terseness and immediacy of Chekhov's | stories and plays made them 'modern' and set them in contrast | to older art. It was a very powerful shtick at the time. | | Of course today's times are very different. Our lives have so | much content and immediacy now that is beyond Chekov's | experience that people seek out exactly the opposite. | | Still I think the way he carefully and deliberately constructed | things has a lot to teach us. In the software world he'd be a | builder of lean core libraries and a hater of the bloatware | apps that use them. | ineedasername wrote: | Agreed, But: | | Wikipedia cites it as a "dramatic principle", not merely a | style. I've seen it advocated as "the way things should be | done". That's why I think the contrast is important to note: | it's not a principal of good writing, it's merely one style | of telling a story. | manquer wrote: | In art there are no absolutes like in management you can always | find good examples proving the principles wrong. | | The principle is more a guideline for new writers not to ramble | and maintain focus especially if there are word limit | restrictions typical to published short stories of the era, you | cannot afford to waste words on things that don't matter to the | story. | | Established authors like Hemmingway or Asimov can get published | with shaggy dog stories most regular authors cannot. | | Even those authors can get a way once in a while, however most | of the time they too have to follow the principle like everyone | else too. | scrame wrote: | Chekhov Gun discussions always remind me of this Vonnegut | passage: | | "I had no respect whatsoever for the creative works of either the | painter or the novelist. I thought Karabekian with his | meaningless pictures had entered into a conspiracy with | millionaires to make poor people feel stupid. I thought Beatrice | Keedsler had joined hands with other old-fashioned storytellers | to make people believe that life had leading characters, minor | characters, significant details, insignificant details, that it | had lessons to be learned, tests to be passed, and a beginning, a | middle, and an end. | | "As I approached my fiftieth birthday, I had become more and more | enraged and mystified by the idiot decisions made by my | countrymen. And then I had come suddenly to pity them, for I | understood how innocent and natural it was for them to behave so | abominably, and with such abominable results: They were doing | their best to live like people invented in story books. This was | the reason Americans shot each other so often: It was a | convenient literary device for ending short stories and books." | | (from Breakfast of Champions, by an author who often tells you | the end in the beginning and puts the journey in the details) | jonahx wrote: | Vonnegut drawing graphs of famous story plots: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP3c1h8v2ZQ | | I saw him do this bit in person in the early 90s and never | forgot it. | scrollaway wrote: | This is fantastic. Do you have a link to the full talk by any | chance? | sacado2 wrote: | 1889. It's so old I don't think it's very relevant for a modern | fiction author. It's older than 99.99% of popular, genre fiction. | Older than the cinema, than radio, and than pulp magazines. Even | Wells hadn't starting writing yet. Conan Doyle had barely | started. Fiction and storytelling evolved a lot afterwards. | tmountain wrote: | Twin Peaks, season 3 is the antithesis of Chekhov's Gun. So many | false starts and seemingly meaningless dead ends. That said, it | feels like art, and if your willing to take it as such, it's a | fun ride. Tightly focused narrative is a reasonable default but | certainly not a hard and fast rule. | thinkingemote wrote: | They seem like points to a season 4 to me | sdze wrote: | Good rule that applies well to software development. :-) | thrown wrote: | Probably applies well to many things in life | mongol wrote: | In the movie Fargo, there is a substory where Marge Gunderson, | the female police officer, meets with a highschool class mate | Mike Yanagita. They eat dinner and he makes a romantic advance, | and she leaves. This substory never made sense to me within the | general plot of the movie. Should Chekhov's gun have been used, | or did this episode play a part that I have not realized? | namdnay wrote: | When Marge finds out from her friend that nice guy Mike is | actually an unstable liar, she starts to question whether the | "nice" Jerry might have similar secrets | Vaslo wrote: | Never realized and I've probably seen this movie 100 times. I | suspect there may have been a little scene that connected the | two more explicitly but may have been cut. Great information | - I'll go to Pancakes House now. | jwilk wrote: | Another theory is that the scene was included to support the | impression that this is a "true story": | | https://www.indiewire.com/2016/06/fargo-ufo-meaning- | explanat... | | > _the movie says, 'This is a true story.' They put it in | there because it 'happened.'_ | kkielhofner wrote: | There's probably slightly more to this. When I was 10 years | old my family moved from Chicago to a small town in | Wisconsin. My dad commuted to the city four days a week and | we still maintained many connections to Chicago. This town | was about 90 minutes from Chicago (in the Midwest we don't | measure travel in distance units, we use time). To this day I | have friends in this town that literally haven't (ever) | removed their keys from their car and leave it unlocked. | People also leave the doors to their homes unlocked for | extended periods of time. I imagine Brainerd was/is very much | the same. | | Growing up I had many, many interactions with people who were | amazed that not only did my dad travel to Chicago 4x a week, | my entire family visited Chicago at least once a month. The | reaction in this small town was something like "Wow, you went | to CHICAGO last weekend!?!" | | Many of these people had never been to the world-class city | that was 90 minutes away and easily accessible. Especially | now, with the various high profile news stories coming out of | Chicago (two police officers shot in the head in the last | month[0], lots of gun violence, etc) the fear of "the big | city" is pervasive (and somewhat understandably so). Many | people view "the big city" as inherently vicious, wicked, | evil, etc and again, somewhat understandably so (from their | perspective) especially considering other random acts of | violence [1]. That said, having never been there Chicago | seems so distant and otherwordly that it might as well be | Kabul. Many people (quite literally) view Chicago as a war | zone. Needless to say, violence and crime to this level are | (essentially) complete unheard of in small town life. | | I think the trip to Minneapolis to visit an old classmate | reminded Marge of the "wickedness" and "evil" that exists in | the world and caused her to reframe her thinking and approach | to people and what they are capable of even though she had | just seen the bodies of multiple people who had been | murdered. Especially considering that even as a police | officer Mike was able to successfully hide the darker | portions of his life from Marge in their brief interaction | even though most people would know immediately that something | wasn't right with him. Marge likely had a realization that | her "small town" perspective (and resulting approach to | interviews, investigation, etc) needed to be re-framed. This | can be seen in her subsequent interview with Jerry where she | is much more aggressive and skeptical. | | [0] https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-2-officer | s-s... | | [1] https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chase-bank-teller- | stab... | mongol wrote: | Here is the scene of that interview. That is some stellar | acting! | | https://youtu.be/u4Je2WxsqWA | mongol wrote: | Ok, I never realized that. I think I need to see it again ... | bnralt wrote: | I never really liked Chekhov's Gun, as it tends to make the world | feel artificial and barren. Details unrelated to the story at | hand make the world feel much more vibrant and interesting. It | gets worse as a story's length increases - for instance TV shows | that go on for years where the main characters only seem to have | relationships with 5-6 other people in the entire world. | | Of course there's a separate issue where a fictional work will | artificially emphasize the importance of something and then | ignore it. For example, people say something's impossible, then | there's a close up shot of someone's face, he slowly says "It's | not...I know a guy" and loud dramatic music starts playing. | There, the creators are telling the audience that this is | something important, and it will be odd if it's not followed | through (though even then, I've seen some creators not follow | through in interesting ways). | xaedes wrote: | "The Room", by Tommy Wiseau, is a movie where Chekhov's gun isn't | applied. It contains lots of small happenings with no further | relevance. It has lots of other issues, technically speaken. | | But together they make this film not only amateurish, but it also | gives it a certain kind of realism. In real life stuff happens | and still may have no further relevance to the "story" after all. | In real life there is nobody enforcing Chekhov's gun. | | Together with the other charming mistakes and bad acting the film | feels quite authentic. It gives this impression that someone just | wanted to tell his story, despite not being as professional as we | are used to. Like a little child coming home from playing in the | woods that excitetly blabbers out the story of what he just | experienced. | dangerbird2 wrote: | Same with the Big Lebowski, but in a much more deliberate (and | professional) way. The Dude, imagining himself in a film noir | story, thinks that every detail is some clue relevant to | Bunny's disappearance, but turns out to be completely | irrelevant: the guy following the Dude in the VW, the essay in | the Dude's car, Jackie Treehorn's note, etc. Instead, basically | every single event in the movie after exposition is a red | herring when it turns out that the Dude's initial hunch that | Bunny kidnapped herself was true all along. | mason55 wrote: | The Coens do it a lot, in fact it's basically the entirety of | Inside Llewyn Davis. | epilys wrote: | Well, he _was_ on a strict drug regiment during the whole | thing. | [deleted] | enkid wrote: | But some of those things that are dropped don't make any sense | to have no impact on the characters, like someone having | cancer. It's just mentioned and never brought up again. | dragontamer wrote: | I think I see the argument for why that's 'charming', but | I've seen far more enjoyable media that does it better. | | Details that build characters is good. X has cancer is fine, | albeit heavyhanded. Certainly enough of a characterization to | work in low-plot action movies for example. | | Not everything needs to be relevant to the plot. But I'm not | convinced that a 2 hour movie has the room for this kind of | storytelling. | dragontamer wrote: | > charming mistakes | | One character being played by three different actors (either | that, or three characters being so similar I confused them as | the same character despite being three different actors) is | hardly charming IMO. | | Longer form stories, such as Game of Thrones (where Azor Ahai, | and other such plotlines are literally killed off) are probably | more entertaining. It sucks to see a fan theory turn out to not | matter at all, but not everything ends up being relevant to the | conclusion. | | I don't think a 2 or 3 hour movie has any room to dwell on | unimportant details. Anime and miniseries do have that time. We | can watch Goku mess around with Princess Snake or Krillen get | his Namekian power up (which doesn't matter for any fight, but | is good development for the character in isolation). | | That's probably the charm of Cowboy Bebop. There's so much | detail and none of it really matters. The interesting story | happened like 10 years ago (in universe time). That's be my | pick for a show / story with very little Chekhov gun going on. | | ----- | | Chekhov gun is probably contrasted with Red Herring, which is | explicitly a detail that not only doesn't matter, but purely | exists to mislead the audience. Any Chekhov gun heavy plot | needs red herrings to balance things out, otherwise it's too | predictable. | germinalphrase wrote: | " Red Herring, which is explicitly a detail that not only | doesn't matter, but purely exists to mislead the audience." | | There is also the McGuffin which _appears_ to matter, but | exists entirely to elicit character action. For instance, in | "Psycho" the plot line about the stolen money is dropped | almost as soon as it is established, but it did its job by | getting Marion on the run and into the motel. | mbreese wrote: | The MacGuffin isn't just there to elicit a response | though... it's a primary motivator for the characters. It's | usually (but not always) a physical object, but that | matters less than the fact that the characters are trying | to obtain it (usually unsuccessfully). It's also rarely | explained -- it is an object that simply exists. | | Hitchcock loved the MacGuffin, but Psycho isn't the example | I'd use. The money in Psycho is a useful plot device, but | is not a MacGuffin. Money is too common ofna motivation. | The briefcase in Pulp Fiction (which is of unexplained | importance, but clearly something they want to obtain) is a | classic example of a MacGuffin. | self_buddliea wrote: | With regards to Pulp Fiction, is the Gold Watch another | MacGuffin? | dragontamer wrote: | The Pulp Fiction briefcase is more of a "pure MacGuffin", | where the film director / scriptwriters are playing with | the concept of MacGuffin more than actually using it as | its intended purpose. | | After all, its a Tarantino film. He basically expects the | audience to be familiar with film theory (or at minimum: | expects the audience to already be familiar with "typical | plotlines"). | | ---------- | | Your typical action movie / popcorn movies: Raiders of | the Lost Arc (The Arc of the Covenant), Mission | Impossible (The Rabbit's Foot), and Men In Black (Orion's | Belt), and pretty much every James Bond movie, has | MacGuffins galore and are better examples of it. | | The scriptwriter doesn't care about the MacGuffin. But a | well written story has the __audience__ care deeply about | it. Otherwise, the escalation and conflict has no | purpose. Pulp Fiction / Tarantino used the briefcase as | an exercise in how to make the audience care for an | object, despite never really explaining why that object | is the center of all this conflict. | | ----------- | | Golden Fleece, Apples of the Hesperides (aka: Heracle's | 11th task), Holy Grail. It doesn't really matter what | these objects do, we just use them as storytelling | devices to get the characters thrust into conflict. | beaconstudios wrote: | the Pulp Fiction briefcase is actually a deconstructed | MacGuffin, stripped of everything except the plot device | itself - no explanation for why it's important, no | inherent meaning, no payoff, just a thing that drives the | plot. A lot of Tarantino's work has this kind of | postmodern element to it. | mbreese wrote: | I don't know if I agree that the audience needs to care | about the MacGuffin for it to be a well written story | though. I think in some circumstances it can help, but | it's not _necessary_ (or sufficient) for a good story. | | I mean, I read that Lucas thought of R2D2 as the | MacGuffin of "A New Hope", and thought that it was | important for the audience to care deeply about him. And | it worked. However, as a film device, I think it's more | important that the audience cares that the protagonist | cares about the MacGuffin. I still don't know why I | should care about the Maltese Falcon, but I know that | Bogart certainly cared. And for me, that was enough to | make the story compelling. | | I do agree though about Pulp Fiction. The briefcase was a | very meta reference where the audience is assumed to know | what is going on. And in that case it helped to provide a | common thread through the different plot lines. But from | a higher level, it was done with a wink and a nod to the | audience. It was basically using the MacGuffin as a foil | to use as the "typical linear storyline" when what | Tarantino was really doing was playing with time lines | and points of view. | vlunkr wrote: | The movie that comes to mind for me is Napoleon Dynamite. My | first impression was that it was just aimless slapstick, but | really it's about a group of misfits becoming friends. The | events that lead there sometimes pay off and are sometimes are | seemingly random. This really makes it feel charming and | realistic. | justsomeuser wrote: | I also think that the rifle can "set the frame" for the | character or scenario. | | E.g. that the character is the kind of person who owns guns. | | It does not go off or get used, but the viewer will use that as | input to make a judgement about the character. | shepherdjerred wrote: | Gun isn't literal here. Gun is a metaphor for details; if the | details don't serve the plot (if the gun doesn't go off) then | the details should be removed (don't show the gun) | wutwutwutwut wrote: | Maybe the rifle/gun is just a bad example today? I watch | movies all the time where there are guns or rifles which does | not gow off. And I sure don't feel like some promise was | broken. | pavlov wrote: | Chekhov used this example of a rifle on the wall in 1889, | years before the invention of the movie camera. | | It shouldn't be taken as advice on movie production design. | goto11 wrote: | In good writing, details serve multiple purposes. Just | showing a gun because it will be used later will seem ham- | fisted to an audience. A good writer will introduce the gun | as a character moment _and_ as setup. | chris_j wrote: | One of the things that made Quentin Tarantino's early films, | particularly Pulp Fiction, such a breath of fresh air is that | they did this with abandon. John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson | would chat away about McDonald's in France or whether or not | they were prepared to eat pork and it was of no consequence | whatsoever to subsequent events, other than to give characters | a bit more depth. Too many films and novels have things happen | for no other reason than that the plot is going to require it | in the next act and it's great when a writer takes a different | approach. | codetrotter wrote: | Speaking of that movie, I can recommend anyone who is familiar | with The Room, but who hasn't seen The Room, to watch the movie | The Disaster Artist (2017) instead. I've only watched the | latter and not The Room itself but watching the latter instead | was a nice experience. | | https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3521126/ | | The Disaster Artist is based on the book "The Disaster Artist: | My Life Inside The Room, the Greatest Bad Movie Ever Made" by | Greg Sestero, and it's got James Franco portraying Tommy. | ackbar03 wrote: | I had high expectations for that movie but it didn't turn out | as good as I expected. | newacct583 wrote: | > In real life there is nobody enforcing Chekhov's gun. | | Of course not. Which is sort of the point. We already have real | life. Stories are something different. Checkov's gun isn't a | statement of some kind of platonic ideal of fiction | construction, it's a _convention_. We like stories with | "tight" framing because it's easier to watch and keeps our | attention on the things that matter. And that's all it means. | | You can tell other kinds of stories. Art is art. But if you | want people to _like_ your stories (or whatever other artwork | you 're producing) you'll probably be better served y adhering | to convention and violating it in small, targetted ways than | you will be throwing out long-held standard assumptions. | | (Note that the fact that these conventions exist is itself | ammunition for creativity, btw. A "realist" story where nothing | necessarily matters is going to have a very hard time | delivering a creative twist at the end. A conventional plot, | though, can leverage the fact that the audience is conditioned | to expect things based on rules like Chekhov's, and subvert | those in interesting ways.) | watwut wrote: | I don't think that rule expresses universal truth. These | rules come and go. You have great writers who wrote famous | books which don't follow these Storytelling that follows then | becomes boring and predictable when they are widely used. | | The junk adventure/vampire what not literature tend to follow | all the structural rules and is as forgettable as it gets. | | The argument with real life matter. Because when your | storytelling rules make it impossible to tell real stories, | then there is something wrong with them. | antattack wrote: | Chekhov's gun treatment can remove an element of surprise, or | worse, reveal whole plot-line. It's a convention that is an | art in itself, too much and too little can ruin the | experience. | nicbou wrote: | Properly blending it in is a form of art, and a surprise in | itself. For example, [spoilers] the rock hammer in The | Shawshank Redemption, or more literally, the rifle on the | wall in Shaun Of The Dead. A good gun makes you go | "oooooh!" | | On the other hand, building up readers' expectations with | details that turn out to be irrelevant is just deception. | See the last season of Game of Thrones, for instance. All | those characters that were carefully built over the last | seasons get discarded without any explanation. | | There's sometimes stuff like that in Tarantino movie, like | the outlaw lady in Django. | mmaunder wrote: | It's also celebrated as the worst film ever made. | poetaster wrote: | Probably suicidal to say so, but I thought I made the most | awful films. https://poetaster.de/vendetta | morganvachon wrote: | I've never seen _The Room_ so my opinion may change if I ever | do, but there is another movie that I have seen (though only | by proxy of MST3K) called _Manos: The Hands of Fate_ that | also has been referred to as the worst movie ever made, and I | wholeheartedly agree. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manos:_The_Hands_of_Fate | fuzzythinker wrote: | Not to be confused with "Room", which I recommend. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_(2015_film) | mrec wrote: | The one that always gets me is Luke's lightsaber in the | original _Star Wars_. It 's introduced as a connection to the | father he never knew, making it hugely significant. There's a | whole scene on the _Falcon_ of Ben training him to use it. And | then he never takes it out again for the remainder of the | movie. | LanceH wrote: | He has blinders on and is learning to use the force, which he | does use again. _his_ lightsaber isn 't used again, but they | are used again in a master's fight. | shepherdjerred wrote: | Wow I never realized that. Did they already intend to film a | sequel and call back to his lightsaber, or was that just a | random detail they worked in later? | mrec wrote: | Lucas definitely had sequels in mind, but it was very much | in doubt whether the movie would succeed. There was an | official sequel novel by Alan Dean Foster called _Splinter | of the Mind 's Eye_ released in '78, which was explicitly | designed to be filmable on a very low budget if the | original didn't do too well. That does feature Luke | duelling Vader with his saber. | jhbadger wrote: | It also (rather uncomfortably in light of later | revelations) features Luke & Leia as a romantic couple! | Apparently Lucas signed off on Foster's manuscript, so he | hadn't had the idea that they were siblings yet. | GauntletWizard wrote: | Luke and Leia were teased as a romantic couple in Empire, | she kissed him on the lips to draw Han's ire, and then | it's hinted that she's his sister in the final scene of | Dagobah/when he calls out to her via the force. The | incest thing is something that Lucas was deliberately | playing with, whether Splinter took that into account or | not. | iainmerrick wrote: | How do you get "deliberately" from that? | | The comment you're replying to is correct; there's plenty | of evidence that Lucas made up both the plots and crucial | details of all the Star Wars films as he went along, | rather than plotting it all out in advance. Telling | people he had, or at least allowing them to believe so, | was just another inspired marketing trick. | zuminator wrote: | Even though _Luke_ never uses his saber again, its | introduction and exposition gives some heft to the later | fight between Kenobi and Vader. | [deleted] | xattt wrote: | You see this in lots of long-play shows/properties. Adventure | Time comes to mind. A number of seemingly irrelevant details | become central to the main plot in much later episodes | (years/seasons later). | | I am wondering, however, whether there is some sort of plot | bible that lives with the "keepers" of the storyline, or | whether some details are just randomly sprinkled here and | there as hooks with the hope that writers will weave them | into the future plot. | | Either way, this type of writing is extremely rewarding to | long-time fans of a show. | JadeNB wrote: | _Archer_ is also known for this sort of thing. | | https://www.engadget.com/2015-03-21-massive-archer-easter- | eg... | dcow wrote: | As someone who constructs imagery in their head while reading for | leisure, these details help maintain immersion and are anything | but irrelevant. Imagine a Redwall novel without the craving | inducing feasts! Are there any e.g. fantasy novels where | Chekhov's gun is applied? | SergeAx wrote: | How many Trekkies were clickbaited here? | DanielBMarkham wrote: | Obligatory Star Trek trivia: in "Spectre of the Gun", from the | original series, Chekov finds a six-shooter pistol at the | beginning of the show, making it a literal Checkhov's Gun. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectre_of_the_Gun (Warning: this | was not one of the better ST-TOS shows) | jsilence wrote: | Good luck applying this to the "Lost" series! | odiroot wrote: | Or last two seasons of Game of Thrones. | blago wrote: | They were serial offenders. | avindroth wrote: | I wonder how much this principle holds with respect to real life | stories, which is filled with irrelevant details. Of course you | can render true stories to have a dramatic version. | neals wrote: | Real life stories are never really done, any small detail can | still eventually come back as a main feature. | mlang23 wrote: | As a rough guide for new woke hollywoold this might be useful. | For as a general principle applied to everything? Nah. I can | imagine pretty dull movies where everything that happens can | already been projected into the future. Remember these movies | where you can say after 10 minutes: "She is going to get in | trouble, and he is going to rescue her and get her at the end." | Those are fucking dull. | goto11 wrote: | The principle is older that Hollywood itself, so I don't know | what it has to do with "new woke"? | umvi wrote: | Huh? Chekhov's Gun has been around for decades, not sure what | "new woke Hollywood" has anything to do with it. | | Camera zooms in on a pistol that someone pockets. Therefore, | that pistol will be used later. | | It happens in nearly every movie made since the 60s. | Borrible wrote: | "One must never place a loaded rifle on the stage if it isn't | going to go off. It's wrong to make promises you don't mean to | keep." Anton Chekhov | | Reality is full of false promises. So why not in fiction as well, | Mr. Chekhov? | | Why does an author owe his readers consistency or coherence? Make | it Lynchian. People love to puzzle over mysteries. | | Just sell it as one.As a mystery. They'll build in the wrong and | unnecessary parts themselves. | goto11 wrote: | _Especially_ mysteries need to be coherent and consistent, | otherwise the audience will just feel cheated. In a mystery | every detail matter. | | > Reality is full of false promises. So why not in fiction as | well, Mr. Chekhov? | | Well, as Mark Twain said: _It 's no wonder that truth is | stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense._ | | Of course a false promise is fine, as long as you subvert the | expectations with something more interesting. But just adding | details with no purpose is bad writing. | UncleOxidant wrote: | George Saunders' _A Swim in a Pond in the Rain: In which Four | Russians Give a Master Class on Writing, Reading, and Life_ [1] | is highly recommended. I thought I had a good idea of how to read | a short story before reading this book. I was wrong. Saunders | (with the help of Chekhov, Turgenev, Tolstoy and Gogol) show how | it's done - and in so doing also show how to write a short story. | | [1] https://www.georgesaundersbooks.com/books/a-swim-in-a- | pond-i... | iddan wrote: | At least in Israeli media. This principle has become a cliche | quoted in countless works | lovemenot wrote: | Israel needs stricter Chekhov's gun control. | watwut wrote: | How to make stories predictable, part 12. Every time I read these | rules, I get closer to understanding why professional | storytelling is so often boring and predictable these days. | Razengan wrote: | This seems like the antithesis of worldbuilding. | ape4 wrote: | In a movie this doesn't work. If only the gun is important a | living room would have no furniture, carpet, curtains, etc. | umvi wrote: | I think it's more like "if the camera zooms in on it or | otherwise draws attention to it". | | If everyone leaves the room and the camera zooms in on a piece | of furniture then you would expect that piece of furniture to | have some sort of importance or role to play later. If, as a | character is leaving a room, a piece of trash falls out of | their pocket and the camera focuses on that piece of trash then | you expect that detail to be important to the plot later. | croes wrote: | This principle kills surprises because a soon you see the rifle | you know what will happen. A little bit of misleading is not a | bad thing. | watt wrote: | A cough means blood in the napkin. Blood means cancer. If a | character coughs, they die. | quietbritishjim wrote: | This is thoroughly ridiculed in A Series of Unfortunate | Events (the Netflix TV series and presumably also the books | that they're based on). (Mild spoiler alert) The bank manager | has a noticeable cough the whole way through. If anything it | gets worse and other characters comment on it, and it seems | for sure that it will be a plot point. Of course, it | ultimately comes to nothing. | 1986 wrote: | Mitchell & Webb did this even quicker with "A Man who has a | Cough and it's just a Cough and he's Fine": > A woman, | called Kylie, repeatedly exits a train, as a man greets | her, who has a cough. The cough gets worse, until one time | Kylie leaves the train to find no-one there. She believes | he has died of TB, but he walks up behind her, stating "No, | it was just a cough." | amelius wrote: | Also, this makes stories different from real-life. The famous | quote "a reader lives a thousand lives" is thus not true. | ben_w wrote: | I attended a talk from _Digger_ webcomic author and artist | Ursula Vernon, and she seemed to have a different approach. If | I remember right, she said that instead of planning the whole | thing in advance and placing specific Chekhov's Guns as needed, | she put in a lot of small detailed world building everywhere, | allowing her to choose from whatever seemed appropriate at the | time. | | Chekhov's Guns are important for short stories (which is what | Chekhov was famous for), but short stories are not the only | type of fiction and they don't fit everywhere. | goto11 wrote: | Chekhov wrote short stories and plays. It is harder to apply | the same principle to serialized narratives like tv-shows and | comics, since you don't know how everything pans out and you | cant go back and edit. | pvg wrote: | _On the day they were going to kill him, Santiago Nasar got up | at five-thirty in the morning to wait for the boat the bishop | was coming on. He 'd dreamed he was going through a grove of | timber trees where a gentle drizzle was falling, and for an | instant he was happy in his dream, but when he awoke he felt | completely spattered with bird shit_ | | 'knowing what will happen' is not in itself a limit on good | literature. You know what's going to happen in every | Shakespeare play long before you've seen or read it. | mcphage wrote: | "Chronicle of a Death Foretold", by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, | for people unfamiliar. It's a very good short book. | [deleted] | bambax wrote: | Surprise is overrated. Suspense is superior. The best | explanation of the difference is given by Hitchcock in an | interview with Truffaut. | | We see two characters talking for 45 seconds. Then a bomb goes | off, that was under the table. The audience didn't know there | was a bomb: big surprise; but the dialogue between the | characters is completely irrelevant and eclipsed by the | explosion. | | Now imagine the same scene, but before, we see a terrorist | placing the bomb under the table. Now the scene is totally | different, and every word that comes out of one of the | characters' mouth is fascinating. Does either one of them know | about the bomb? Will they find out in time? Will they survive? | Etc. | | Suspense > surprise. | Grimm665 wrote: | Inglorious Basterds does this very well, its opening scene is | very close to what you describe, as well as a number of other | scenes in the film. | adamcharnock wrote: | That is interesting, I hadn't thought of that before. | | I think a recent series which bucked this trend was For All | Mankind. Rather than building suspense, bad stuff just | happened with no warning. And it wasn't a jump scare, it just | happened. The entertainment for me then came from the | characters reactions and how the plot then unfolded. | | I actually class it as one of the best shows I've seen. I | feel it managed to be very wholesome while also having some | major emotional highs and lows. In particular, it didn't | build drama just for the sake of keeping the audience | engaged. | | I could talk about that show for ages. | quietbritishjim wrote: | I don't but that one is better than the other: you surely | need both for a good story. | croes wrote: | You see a man putting a bag under a table. Two man arrive, | sitting at the table, you wait for the bomb to explode | because the bag must have a meaning. The meeting ends, the | men stand up, one is killed by headshot. | | And your scene depends on the characters. Is one the main | character? Highly unlikely he get killed. | | It's even worse if it's a TV series. Main character is | strapped to a bomb? No problem. Guest star is strapped to a | bomb? Might get killed. Unknown supporting role strapped to a | bomb? Sure death. I think that was part of GoT's success. | Surprise deaths. And nudity of course. | | If everything has a meaning even the chosen actor is | important. Known actor in a minor role? Surely gets | important. | lotsofpulp wrote: | >I think that was part of GoT's success. | | At the beginning of the show. A few seasons in, lots of | people developed plot armor. | co2benzoate wrote: | By that point the show was popular enough for them not to | need a compelling story or nudity; fans would watch | either way. | krsdcbl wrote: | yet in OPs example, the "surprise" consists of a threat not | being enactioned, therefore it is an instrument of suspense | krsdcbl wrote: | I'd argue that if the gun is shown to lead the audience on, but | it not beeing fired is a twist to the plot or a relevant | conclusion, then in the sense of the metaphor it still "has | gone off" | goto11 wrote: | No, it just tells you that _somebody_ will fire the rifle at | some point. This increases tension but does not really tell you | much about what is going to happen except it is going to get | dangerous and violent. | zaat wrote: | Salman Rushdie is an example of a master writer who will eat | this cake and still have it. He often states preety early in | the book something like "this was Y, X's wife, who will later | kill him in his sleep, in his room, with a bread knife", and | when the time of killing comes he will still manage to surprise | you. | Igelau wrote: | This reminded me of a particularly grisly character | introduction in Cormac McCarthy's _Blood Meridian_. It 's | played to the opposite effect where it's not going to be a | surprise at all. It's hardly even suspenseful, but hangs | another helping of dread over the story. | | > Toadvine glanced at the man's forehead but the man's hat | was pushed down almost to his eyes. The man smiled and forked | the hat back slightly with his thumb. The print of the | hatband lay on his forehead like a scar but there was no mark | other. Only on the inside of his lower arm was there tattooed | a number which Toadvine would see in a Chihuahua bathhouse | and again when he would cut down the man's torso where it | hung skewered by its heels from a treelimb in the wastes of | Pimeria Alta in the fall of that year. | | It's not really the gun on the wall, the bread knife, or the | tattoo. It's the narrator revealing a kind of untrustworthy | omniscience by spoiling future details of the story. | michalbugno wrote: | Also in "Russian guns" category: | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alekhine%27s_gun | vinceguidry wrote: | I recall an instance when I was doing improv classes where we | were doing freeform scenes with a partner with a given input. | When the scene began, I tried to engage with my scene partner, | but she kept saying 'leave me' in response to anything I said. | After giving it three chances, I exited stage left, end scene. | | Our instructor then explained the scene with, "anytime something | is talked about three times in a scene or play, it pretty much is | immediately invoked into being." | | Nothing was better for me in helping me understand the art of | storytelling than the 6 months or so I spent there. You hear | about the 'rules of stories' and whatnot, but it's not until I | was up on stage, grappling with it, that that whole world started | opening up. I don't know anything better other than actually | studying it in school. | | Ignoring the rules just makes for harder-to-watch scenes, you | just can't make sense of the why. | Ariez wrote: | Has anyone read Infinite Jest? | | The whole book feels like Chekhovs gun but it is fun to read! | | (I haven't finished it) ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-09-05 23:00 UTC)