The term “high concept” never made much sense to me as story terminology. The popularly accepted definition is a story idea that can be encapsulated in a single sentence — preferably one without too many modifiers or commas. You reel it off to a producer and he screams with glee, throws money at you, and sets you up with an office at Paramount. In TV, “‘Wagon Train’ to the stars” was the high-concept core of “Star Trek.”¹ Toss a lemon peel in your martini instead of an olive, and suddenly it’s a whole new drink that still proffers the same comforts.
In a more detailed reading, “high concept”doesn’t so much describe a film or franchise as lay its base. The simplest foundations are often the most elegant. They come across like Zen koans, and plunge a writer’s (or a viewer’s) brain toward contemplation. The nucleus of the entertainment is revealed as not so much a statement as a question, and the answers are for the screenwriter and the audience to ponder, and for successive generations of scribes to build on. The founding idea leaves ground for a scaffold of what-ifs, and pretty soon there’s material for sequels, second seasons, tie-in books, webisodes, slashfic.
Critics accuse science fiction movies of being just wispy motes of story encased in special effects. In the case of Avatar, that’s actually true: James Cameron built a story base so slight and universal that it’s the locus of practically every negative review the film has received.² A career soldier ventures into the territory of an outmatched enemy culture, embraces and masters that culture, and turns on his oppressive former leaders. That story hook leaves the viewer’s mind uncluttered enough to dive wholly inside the 3D prog-rock album cover where the Na’vi reside. Not the medium, but the technology employed in that medium, is the message. The consequences of Jake Sully living out the life his brother should’ve had, the body-horror that drives him out of his own flesh, go unexplored. One hopes for something more when the lights go down for the sequel, but “John Dunbar among the Tharks” does fine as the entry gate for Cameron’s new amusement park, and while we’re there … hey! dragons fighting Black Hawks!³
The best high concepts are better described as “wide platforms”: They can spur good storytelling because of the avenues they leave open for exploration. The pitch for a wide-platform property is easily mocked, especially when it hinges on the “x + y” formula: Hamlet + Bambi = The Lion King. But even that example proves the thesis, as the hybrid story kernel grants structure to spectacle and yields an enduring animated film. (Due credit to the Disney marketing apparatus, of course, but why didn’t their mojo work for Treasure Planet?)
A literary analog is the American minimalism of Hemingway or Raymond Carver (at least Carver as sculpted by Gordon Lish), where simple scenarios and spare language nonetheless grant us a vivid sense of the action, and a chance to sound out the characters’ emotional states for ourselves. Think of The Old Man and the Sea as Snakes on a Plane with a Nobel. In modern television, the wide-platform story approach has given us “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” in which Joss Whedon built long, rewarding arcs on on the simplicity of “cute girl stakes the undead.” Compare that to the underlying platform of “Dollhouse“: “Science-fiction whorehouse raises questions about gender, individuality, identity, and interpersonal relationships.”⁴
Too specific, yet also too airy. A footstool with too many legs. Some of them are made of balsa. The house falls down.
__________
¹… and who remembers “Wagon Train” today? Charged with the reboot and constrained by cinematic SF’s fetish for ship-to-ship space combat, screenwriters Orci and Kurtzman — by all indications Campbellians to the bone — instead bonded Kirk and Spock by having their parents murdered by the same vengeful asshole.
² The plainest story concepts reoccur like viruses, even if nobody’s read them since Elvis was in the Army.
³ It’s unrelated, but I’ve been dying to note that Cameron uses Avatar to pay homage to himself at least twice: the grunts’ “motion detector” encounter in the Pandora undergrowth (itself an homage to Christian Nyby’s/Howard Hawks’ The Thing From Another World), and Sully’s True Lies swing from a chopper-mounted missile. Find here also his latest instance of someone asphyxiating in a dark, claustrophobic, future-industrial space before being rescued by a love interest/gender opposite.
⁴ “Firefly,” Whedon’s “Western in space,” sadly wasn’t given much time to prove its platform’s stability. I suspect as it went on — taking Serenity as Exhibit A — it would’ve been forced to pick a story path for its heroes and hew to it.
Science fiction isn’t taken seriously, in any form. It’s not considered literature, it’s not considered cinema, it’s not considered art. It’s as if, because it deals with arcane and strange ideas, it cannot contain grains of truth or moments of clarity. And I say: who cares? I like it. I enjoy it. I edit it. I write it. It is the most progressive form of fiction, it is exciting and engaging, and if the rest of the world doesn’t like it, screw ‘em.
http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/mama-penguino-2-2-2/ Mama Penguino
@Newt: Not true. 2001: A Space Odyssey = literature, cinema, art.
@Mama Penguino: Not according to “those who know.” Even in the science fiction community, there was much grousing about 2001 being “overrated.” The book, which was written in parallel to the movie (and is much better in some regards because of its depth), has never garnered acclaim as literature (my high school English teacher was in the majority when she said science fiction did not require good writing skills). About the only thing most people agree on is it was a fine example of Stanley Kubrick’s ego, and that the visuals were stunning.
@gerbilsinlove: L. Ron Hubbard and his followers can kiss my fat, hairy ass. You can tell L. Ron Hubbard created Scientology because it sucks just as much as most of his science fiction. Before Battlefield Earth was a horrible movie, it was horrible book.
http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/mama-penguino-2-2-2/ Mama Penguino
@Newt: I disagree. And so does whoever put this into Wikipedia:
Despite receiving mixed reviews upon release, 2001: A Space Odyssey is today recognized by many critics and audiences as one of the greatest films ever made; the 2002 Sight & Sound poll of critics ranked it among the top ten films of all time.[4] It was nominated for four Academy Awards, and received one for visual effects. In 1991, it was deemed “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” by the United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in The National Film Registry.
Newt: L. Ron Hubbard is a creature of the lowest form who preys on people of low self-esteem or compromised intelligence. I don’t know his work, don’t care to, but obviously, he is taken seriously by a scary number of humans. I wasn’t implying in any way that I find him credible or anything but a hack and charlatan.
@Mama: 2001 is boring sci-fi garbage, but many questionable films get added to the National Film Registry. You can thank the participation of Stanley Kubrick, a couple of catch phrases, and good look special effects for its time as reasons for its inclusion. By the way, Kubrick and Robert Altman are in heaven arm wrestling for the title of “Most Overrated Movie Director in History.” The contest should take about 45 minutes longer than it should and will lose track of its own purpose while the combatants focus on making themselves engaging characters instead.
@Newt: When the final “Lord of the Rings” movie won Best Picture, you could almost hear members of the Academy muttering, “There, that should shut up those %$@#~! geeks for another decade or two.”
@Sproing: I agree with your wide platform assessment. In science fiction, creating an interesting “universe” is the foundation for extensive storytelling, then filling it with compelling characters. Or, in the case of George Lucas, milking a good idea to death in every manner imaginable, from bad prequels to a toy empire that makes Santa’s elves look like slackers.
@Mama Penguino: I do not recognize Wikipedia as a credible source. And while the Library of Congress is in the business of saving things that are culturally relevant, and 2001 definitely is, that doesn’t sway most critics. I’m not trying to start an argument; I love the film. I just know that a lot of people don’t, and most of those people are not movie critics.
@gerbilsinlove: Sorry, but I get worked up whenever his name is mentioned. He was a two-bit hack, who was a drunkard and a womanizer, and wrote pitiful science fiction, and somehow turned all that into Scientology, to feed his lust for power and glory. He represents one of the black stains on the reputation of science fiction.
@perverseus: I might agree with you that in the modern era we live in, 2001 does not have as much cachet, especially given its title, and how inaccurate the portrayal of the near future was. For its time, in 1968, it was very influential, in trying to show what was next after mankind became established in space. What Stanley Kubrick failed to realize is that the public is fickle, and the heady days of the race to the Moon were unable to sustain people’s interest in space.
Also, while the Lord of the Rings win was probably an attempt to quiet the science fiction audience, the fact remains that one such shout out isn’t enough. The Academy is going to have to get over itself.
As to George Lucas, it is interesting to note that he even admits that once Star Wars became a blockbuster, he was totally out of his element, because now everyone wanted a piece of the pie, whereas before, they pooh-poohed the idea behind the movie. Which shows just how out of touch Hollywood is with what the audience really wants. I suspect he basically sold his soul to retain his new-found power in Hollywood, and as a result, sold his original vision down the river.
http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/mama-penguino-2-2-2/ Mama Penguino
I don’t care if you recognize Wikipedia or if 2001 is sci-fi garbage, I love it – I’ve seen it 100 times – and you both are numbskulls.
@Mama Penguino: It was the first science fiction movie I ever saw not produced during the 1930′s or 40′s or 50′s and I was captivated by it because I honestly thought it was my future. Little did I know, NASA was going to ruin my dream of turning wheels in space and lunar bases. I love the movie, and have never understood why people are so vehemently against it, other than Kubrick could be a dick.
http://wordsmoker.com/help/members-3/mama-penguino-2-2-2/ Mama Penguino
@Newt: Thank you for loving the movie. Excuse me while I poke Perv’s eyeballs with my sharp stick.
