"Situation" vs. "Story"

Should this man instead be
commenting on our consumerist
society?

“Situation” and “story” are two key concepts that will often confuse even experienced writers.  Which is unfortunate, as the terms are relevant to all forms of dramatic writing and most forms of literature.  So what exactly do they mean?

For my purposes, I’ll define the terms as follows:

A “situation” is when the hero finds themself in a particular set of circumstances through no action of their own.  It’s when something happens to them.  The hero is passive.

A “story” begins when the hero decides to do something about their situation, when they make something happen.  The hero is active.

There’s a whole lot more to what makes a story – and how it differs from “plot” – but that’s for another post.  For now, a couple of examples:

• Blues Brothers: The situation is when Jake and Elwood hear the orphanage they grew up in is being foreclosed.  The story begins when they decide to go on their “mission from God”: Save the orphanage by reforming their band.
• Jaws: The situation is when a great white shark starts terrorizing Amity Island.  The story begins when Chief Brody realizes he has to find a way to stop the bloodshed.
• Frozen River: The situation is that Ray Eddy gets robbed and can no longer afford the house she’d saved up for.  The story begins when she decides to make money the only way she can: By smuggling illegal immigrants across the border.

There’s no shortage of examples, because the vast majority of movies and TV shows will follow this pattern: A hero in a situation acts and thereby sets off the story.

I say, “the vast majority”.  Because there’s a subgroup of movies that never get to the story, where the hero remains stuck in the situation.

Imagine what this would do to the movies above:

• The Blues Brothers sit around moping about the loss of their childhood home.
• Chief Brody never goes after the shark, but instead pontificates that the shark’s consumption of tourists is really an ironic reversal of how our capitalist society consumes nature’s resources.
• Ray Eddy doesn’t save her family, but instead hangs around bars, lamenting how the American working classes are doomed to never rise above their station.  (That last one is scary.  A lot of filmmakers would have taken exactly that approach.)

Joking aside, here’s the problem: When a movie stays in its situation, the danger is much greater it’ll have a passive protagonist.

A situation is separate from the character – it happens independently of them.  In many cases, the situation would occur regardless of whether the character even existed.  On the other hand, a story is by definition tied to the hero; it requires the hero to do something, be active.  If that activity doesn't happen when there's a story to set off, there’s a good chance it won’t happen at all.

Now, there are times a writer simply confuses situation and story for being the same.  It happens.  Not much to say about it, except let’s learn from our mistakes and move on.

What’s curious to me are the times when screenwriters leave out story intentionally.  They think, consciously or subconsciously, that a situation is enough in itself.  Sometimes you get the sense there’s even an element of “situation-snobbery”: the writer believes that introducing a story – and a plot to drive it – will somehow sully the purity of the work. 

It could be because the situation they’re working with happens to be… well, really cool!  Or the characters are amazingly interesting and unusual.  Writers fall in love with their creations so much they start believing putting the characters and situations in motion will somehow disturb their brilliance.  And in a way that’s true.  Because a story will of course change the characters and situation.

Another common reason is that the script is based on a book.  But books are different from movies!  Because books have the ability to flesh out a character’s inner life – in ways movies don’t – they can be short on story, and instead focus on the character’s feelings and thoughts.  (… Though a lot of those same books would benefit immensely by having stronger stories.  But I digress.)  When the book is adapted to film, the writer gets caught up in capturing all those wonderful internal moments.  Which is impossible.  And you’re left with passive, meandering characters.

As with anything, there are exceptions to prove the rule.  Sometimes, scripts really do have other merits, so strong they balance out the lack of story.  But those are few and far, far between.

I’ll discuss specific examples in future posts.  In the meantime, please remember:

Stories are not the writer’s enemy.  Stories are good!