Drama is the most intimate of all fiction forms. That gives it the ability to affect an audience deeply. But that same quality creates special problems for the storyteller. I've Loved You So Long is one of the best dramas of the year, and writer Philippe Claudel has used some excellent strategies to surmount the special challenges of the drama form.
Good drama is always built on a moral issue. But you can't argue the issue directly or your story will sound like a sermon or an essay. You have to explore the issue structurally, under the surface, which means tracking the hero's slow development as she works through the plot. And that leads to another problem: drama is extremely personal and real, something the audience can immediately recognize as potentially part of their own day-to-day lives. But quotidian life doesn't lend itself to big plot.
It's a bit of a Catch 22. You have to hide the moral issue in the plot, but you don't have a lot of plot to hide it with. Claudel solves this dilemma in a number of ways. First he hides the big moral issue in the story by emphasizing from the beginning the day-to-day. An attractive, refined middle-aged woman, Juliette, goes to stay for a while at the house of her younger sister, Lea. There's little emphasis on the fact that's she's just come from spending 15 years in prison, or the fact that she was guilty of killing her child, which comes out quite early in conversation. No, the story is about this woman readjusting to daily life, and living with her sister's family.
Claudel highlights the everyday by using short scenes, and by starting scenes late or ending them early. There's little of the carefully argued scene that we normally see in drama. Instead it's as if the audience is catching glimpses of this woman living a normal life again.
This scene technique is risky in drama - which is why it's not normally used - because it can kill the plot and give the overall story an episodic feel. Which is why Claudel uses another technique to pop the plot: he gives the story a lot of small reversals and reveals. Reveals are one of the keys to plot (I go into great detail about how to create reveals in the 22 Step Great Screenwriting Class). Genres like thriller and detective have the benefit of big plot, because the reveals are big and sensational: "She's my sister. She's my daughter. She's my sister. She's my daughter."
Drama has to rely on small reveals, which is one reason many writers avoid this form. They're simply not good at finding the tiny, but potentially life-changing, reveals of everyday life. Claudel excels at this way of seeing and telling a story. For example, Juliette is called into the office of the head of the hospital. But instead of getting fired she gets a permanent position. One or two of these little reveals are insufficient to drive the story. But Claudel peppers them throughout the script, giving the subtle effect that this little drama of the everyday is chock full of plot.
This technique solves another common problem of the drama form: the over-dependence on the ghost. Those familiar with my Great Screenwriting class know that ghost is one of the 22 steps. It refers to the event from the past still haunting the hero in the present. To increase the plot, drama writers often give the hero a huge ghost. But they hide it until the very end when the hero finally exposes it to the audience. For the drama writer, this seems like a terrific technique, because you know you have at least one huge reveal in your back pocket that you can spring at the most dramatic moment.
But the cost is much bigger than the benefit. The audience quickly senses that the story is all about what really happened way back when. So, in the back of their minds, they simply wait for the rest of the story to play out until the big reveal. Notice this is like driving your car with the brakes on. If you want to kill narrative drive in a story, this is a great way to do it.
The hero in I've Loved You So Long does have a strong ghost. But the story isn't about learning the big secret at the end. We find out right up front that this woman murdered her child. Instead of focusing the audience's attention on the past, Claudel focuses it on the present, on the ongoing conflicts and trials of remaking a life in the real world.
One of these moments occurs during a brilliant scene where Juliette joins her family and some of their friends at a house in the country. Claudel uses a technique I talk about in the Advanced Screenwriting Class called the "buzzing household." The buzzing household is a form of utopia, but on the micro level, the level of the house. In this technique, the house is full of people, alone or in small groups, each wonderfully involved in their own activity. Often the characters in the house are quirky, even bizarre, each one a total individual. And yet they form a community of invisible but unbreakable bonds.
We've seen this technique in countless movies, such as You Can't Take It with You and Steel Magnolias, because film is a medium that excels in showing utopias and dystopias. The country house in I've Loved You So Long is just such a buzzing household. But for Juliette, this house is also a dystopia, because it is filled with playing children. Every moment she is reminded of what it means for your child to be dead.
Claudel then extends the nightmare at dinner. The head of the table, who's had too much to drink, playfully questions Lea about where she's been keeping her lovely sister all this time. Lea and her husband nervously exchange glances. They try to make the man stop, but he keeps pushing. Finally, Juliette calmly states that she's been in prison for murder. Everyone at the table cracks up. The witty, beautiful sister has provided a sensational story to solve the mystery. Only a kindly professor figures out that she's telling the truth.
As is fitting for a small intimate drama about a woman slowly rebuilding her life, there is no single self-revelation moment to show character change. There is instead a collection of little changes, and none is complete. By the end of the film, Juliette has begun to get close to the professor, but she hasn't kissed him. Her brother-in-law, once frightened of leaving his children alone with her, suggests to his wife that Juliette baby-sit their kids.
Drama is a form fraught with all sorts of hidden dangers for the writer. If this is the voice by which you speak, study I've Loved You So Long carefully and you can learn many valuable techniques. Master them and your ability to touch the heart of an audience will be unmatched.
Comments
Lesley
25 May 2010, 07:56
My problem with this movie was that I felt that the director did not have
the courage of his convictions. I thought it was going to be an
interesting and thought-provoking analysis of women who kill their own
children. This is a taboo subject that is rarely discussed in literature or
cinema, and I was so disappointed that, ultimately, the film did not really
explore those issues at all but fell back on the stereotypical device of a
caring mother and a suffering child, hardly ground-breaking subject matter.
As soon as it is revealed that Juliette was a doctor, I though, "oh, here
we go. So, the child is going to have some incurable disease then", and so
it turned out. It was obvious from that second on and so the later
revelation came as no surprise at all. I wondered if the director simply
could not imagine a mother killing her child and remaining sympathetic to
the audience and so fell back on a cliched character. And, I simply can't
understand why she did not reveal this information earlier, even if only to
her own family. What did she gain, who did she protect, by not revealing
the boy's condition after he was dead? As for the dinner party scene in the
house: I found cringingly contrived and the worst scene of the whole film.
Benoit Landais
28 Jul 2009, 10:45
Sorry, Mr Truby, but I strongly disagree. Granted, the writing has an
impressionist feeling. It has its qualities. But, from the very beginning,
there is a huge emphasis on the older sister's problem. Obviously, she does
not feel well. Obviously the writer-director wants us to notice. So the
spectator wonders what's wrong with her. The first 20 to 25 minutes work on
the mechanism of mystery (as opposed to surprise or dramatic irony). Then
we learn that she murdered her boy. Fine. Except that we don't know why, we
don't know under what circumstances. Claudel does not present one ghost to
the audience but two : i- she has killed her boy, ii- her boy was doomed.
One ghost is revealed after 25 minutes, the other stays on. Soon, one of
the social workers (Catherine Hosmalin) asks her why she did not defend
herself at the trial. Then her brother in law (Serge Hazanavicius) wants to
know why she killed her boy. We, the audience, want to know why too. In
short, it is obviously a big issue. And it is no wonder that the
clarification of this second ghost comes with the would-be climax at the
end. The story would have been on conflicts and trials of remaking one's
life had Claudel reveal the second ghost head on. But he did not.
Furthermore the story is also about the younger sister's acceptance of her
elder's situation. Claudel does not make a clear choice on who is his
protagonist.