Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chekhov's Gun

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 181 posts

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#21

Post by barrenko »

shakna wrote: post #8
zorr wrote: post #4

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…

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'…

spoiler alert

My personal favorite is how in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, the "gun" is a dog.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#22

Post by earthbee »

bambax wrote: post #11
zorr wrote: post #4

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…

> 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 allud…

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.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#23

Post by pvg »

croes wrote: post #3

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.

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.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#24

Post by quietbritishjim »

bambax wrote: post #15
croes wrote: post #3

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.

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 befo…

I don't but that one is better than the other: you surely need both for a good story.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#26

Post by ahartmetz »

shakna wrote: post #8
zorr wrote: post #4

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…

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'…

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.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#27

Post by xaedes »

"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.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#29

Post by mlang23 »

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.

Re: Chekhov's Gun

#30

Post by croes »

bambax wrote: post #15
croes wrote: post #3

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.

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 befo…

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.

Post reply on HN