Do you care about back story?

Do you need a back story?


  • Total voters
    13
I just finished a script for my second short film. Unlike my first film which was a short story, my new film is essentially a scene from a larger story. The story involves two boys that have been captured by a terrorist group. The story leads off with the two boys in a room forced to play Russian Ruellet. We find out in the end that each boy had attempted to give thier life for the other(they have not met before). It is a very powerful scene of human emotion.
I had my friend read it and his question was "what was the purpose of the game?"
The purpose of the story was not to create a good back story, but to create a great scene.

My question to you guys is does it bother you to watch a scene and not have a lot of back story, or can you just enjoy the scene?
Think about your favorite scene from your favorite movie, would you like it if the rest of the movie wasn't there?
 
You're sort-of mis-using the word "back-story", but I understand your question.

It's impossible to answer your question, without seeing the scene in question. Maybe it works brilliantly on it's own. Maybe it needs greater context. Context is important. Are you sure it's as powerful as you think it is, without understanding the greater context?

Recently, I showed a 10-minute scene, from my feature film, to a handful of people on Indietalk, asking their opinions on a couple matters. One of the things I asked was for them to describe what took place. Out of more than 10 people, only 1 person got it, and these are educated film-savvy folk, who are accustomed to looking for details.

At the 1st public screening, where the audience was less film-savvy, just your "normal" audience, everyone got it. A ton of people came to speak to me about that scene, and every single one of them got it. That's because they got to see the whole movie, they got the greater context.

So, for your situation, who knows? Only way for me or anyone else to offer a meaningful opinion is to read the script.
 
There's a name for this idea, it's called "Why should I care?" The idea is, you have to give the audience a reason to invest in the story.

A game of Russian Roulette is about as emotionally powerful as they get because the stakes are so high--the stakes are these men's lives.

However, the problem is that an audience may refuse to invest in this story because there is a great risk of being hurt by it. That is, they might find the prospect of investing with a character that is about to die unacceptable.

Having a backstory would help make the audience invest in the scene because they would have already accepted the characters as real, but I don't think it's necessarily required. You just have to give them a reason to care.
 
Watch the Russian Roulette scene in Season 3 of the TV show 24. It's brilliantly conceived and epically tense, but ONLY because of all the external factors. The stakes themselves are what makes the idea work.

I would say that simply having their lives be at risk is the LEAST you can do with a scene like that. Take the idea, twist it, and build it up so that the context of the character's emotions are what provide the tension, rather than the "action" itself.

EDIT: It's Episode 3 of Season 3.
 
I just finished a script for my second short film. Unlike my first film which was a short story, my new film is essentially a scene from a larger story. The story involves two boys that have been captured by a terrorist group. The story leads off with the two boys in a room forced to play Russian Ruellet. We find out in the end that each boy had attempted to give thier life for the other(they have not met before). It is a very powerful scene of human emotion.
I had my friend read it and his question was "what was the purpose of the game?"
The purpose of the story was not to create a good back story, but to create a great scene.

My question to you guys is does it bother you to watch a scene and not have a lot of back story, or can you just enjoy the scene?
Think about your favorite scene from your favorite movie, would you like it if the rest of the movie wasn't there?

It is often hard, but as a writer, we often have the back story in our own head. So we are not naive viewers of our own stories. I would strongly heed your friend's advice as an outside reader. As one of the premiere members noted, "it's market research". :) That does not mean you have to give elaborate explanation up front. You can recall through dialogue or flashback information that the audience can hook into later.

SCENE = CONTEXT + ACTION + DIRECTION
(why are they here) + (what are they doing) + (what happens as a result)

If it's my favorite movie and my favorite scene, again, I know the movie, the characters, and the dynamics. I don't think the scene would has as much meaning if I just jumped into the middle for the first time.

"Luke, I am your father" -- Big deal. Who's Luke? Who's the guy in black? Why not rule as father and son? What's the kid's problem?
"These are not the droids you are looking for." -- Ok. Why is this old guy waving his hand? Secret code?

Especially for emotionally intense scenes, the audience needs to know and be invested in the characters to actually care. At least as deeply as we care since we've created them and mentally lived their back story.
 
All savvy comments.

I personally think that backstory is absolutely essential. Without backstory, the characters come across as flat caricatures instead of round and three dimensional. But this is subjective. Who knows. Your script might have enough tension or conflict to keep us interested.

Also remember that backstory can be given in different ways. You don't always have to use dialogue to establish backstory.

Yesterday I was watching the original The Mechanic from 1972, and there's a scene in which the son leaves early the funeral of his father because he's in intrigued by one of his father's friends. That action/behavior suggests a lot about their past. What kind of son leaves his dad's funeral before the end!?

The film is no masterpiece, but that little scene was quite nice. It is your challenge as a screenwriter and filmmakers is to create scenes like that... Exposition should never be gratuitous or boring.

On my website, www.elementsofcinema.com, I have an article not on backstory but on exposition. Depending on your level of expertise, you could find the article instructive. Click here to read it.

I hope this was helpful.

Best of luck.
 
My question to you guys is does it bother you to watch a scene and not have a lot of back story, or can you just enjoy the scene?

A scene has to be there for a reason.


Think about your favorite scene from your favorite movie, would you like it if the rest of the movie wasn't there?

No.



in a room forced to play Russian Ruellet

You need to buy or rent a copy of The Deer Hunter

You should be able to answer a few of your own questions, after viewing.
 
As a viewer I don't care about the back story.

As a writer I never bother with a back story.

In both cases - for me - I care about the story and nothing else.
 
Back story is essential to series and sequels. For one shot deals, it depends on what you are selling to your audience. If you are writing an action story, eye candy is generally weighed as more important than story. A good explosion, enough killing, blood and gore. The best action movies I ever saw have a good story with the action. Art is subjective and not objection. Story can be more obvious to some people and not visible at all to others. I know some people from the video game generation only like killing, explosions, gore, and the bazzarr. Ask people what they remember most about movies. Some like memerable characters and story. Others like the Kung Fu fights, blood and guts, and killing. Writers, directors, and actors will not grow if they cannot become other characters than what we see in everyday life or their favorite movies.
 
What is the proper definition of back story. Seems to me that anything that informs the behavior of the characters is part of the story. If it is not explicit exposition is is back story?
 
What is the proper definition of back story. Seems to me that anything that informs the behavior of the characters is part of the story. If it is not explicit exposition is is back story?

Backstory is anything that happened before the FADE IN. And that not only includes the characters, but anything in the world you've created. Backstory is essential for subtext and overall character depth. While it may not translate to the screen visually all the time, as a writer I do a fairly detailed biography of major characters before I write the script. It not only dictates speech patterns, but also actions and reactions.
 
Last edited:
That's the way I've always understood "back story", VP.

I know many actors find it essential to their performance, and
reading here I see most of you feel it's essential to your own
writing. I've never done it. I find it's a tedious waste of time. And
I must admit that as a director I tolerate actors creating their
own "back story" with a bit of sarcastic amusement.
 
Backstory is anything that happened before the FADE IN. And that not only includes the characters, but anything in the world you've created. Backstory is essential for subtext and overall character depth. While it may not translate to the screen visually all the time, as a writer I do a fairly detailed biography of major characters before I write the script. It not only dictates speech patterns, but also actions and reactions.

Exactly my views.

I do this not only for the aid of the Actors, but primarily for my own benefit. It doesn't seem tedious, as my approach connects with most research for any project. As i choose the when and where, and the research begins, i find the blanks that are currently within the "Back-story" discover their own paths within the subject/date/place. Given what is occuring at the time, politically, socially etc

Alot of people will immediately believe that "Back-story", must be shown as "Flashbacks". Certainly not the case. Everything your character does from the very first moment is dictated by what has come before.

However, a question can easily arise that blows it all out of the water.

Can you decipher when there is, and isn't backstory, given two examples?

I suppose it would depend on the writer. But there's certainly no right or wrong, merely preference and comfort.
 
Alot of people will immediately believe that "Back-story", must be shown as "Flashbacks". Certainly not the case. Everything your character does from the very first moment is dictated by what has come before. ... Can you decipher when there is, and isn't backstory, given two examples?

I suppose it would depend on the writer. But there's certainly no right or wrong, merely preference and comfort.

VP and PaperTwin hit it on the head. Method actors are taught to create back stories to create motivations for their characters. Good actors can carry bad scripts. A good script can also carry a bad actor. And back story is not about exposition but context--stated or unstated.

A woman and man are stacking sandbags to stem a rising flood. She looks over at him and says, "Well, at least we had Paris." He smirks and continues working. As a viewer we suspect there was or may be some relationship between these two. Other things they say or do around each other may hint more about the nature. "Oh no, not you!" That encapsulates a lot of history or back story without a word of exposition. Now the audience has a sense of their past dynamics before the scene. It's not necessary to tell or show what came before (exposition) because a character's actions will suggest it. At a story level, it implies a relationship rather than strangers.

That "why?" or theme is important. Without it, you have a series of scenes, dialogue and actions that can seem unconnected. Once the director and actor have the script, the work is out of the writer's hands (unless s/he happens to be one and/or the other). The script provides a basic blueprint for them to be creative. If you don't have the why in place, the script will likely not make it that far--unless you blow a lot of things up with blood and gore tossed in. ;)
 
VP Turner has the right definition. I have a bad habit of rambling too much where I go off topic. A one time story needs no back story. It is all explained within the context of the one time story from the fade in to the fade out.

A back story is very useful for a sequel of a story to fill in missing time and events between an original and a sequel in a story. Also, it is used a lot with TV series.

Back story may also come from conventions used with public domain characters who are brought into your story. Example: There is a convention that vampires must keep their existence a secret from the public. Otherwise, the other vampires in the community will kill the one who gets careless by exposing their existence to the public. A vampire's greatest weapon is invisibility.

Another example is one I'm using with bringing Ares: God Of War to my story. The less violence, hate, and killing that takes place in the world of the living, the weaker Ares gets. And, who knows this about Ares? His brothers, sisters, mother, and father. Ares is the son of Zeus and Hera who are husband and wife and brother and sister. Artemis is a daughter of Zeus. So, she knows how to beat Ares. This is back story. So, sometimes there is a place for back story even in a short.
 
Last edited:
Back story is very essential for sub text and for the aid of actors. In addition to this, if you have a back story in mind while writing the screenplay, you'll have more authentic actions and dialogues.

But, then again, every writer has a different style of writing. Some prefer it and some don't.
 
Back
Top