I would argue that, in general, films follow a particular narrative structure.
In no way do I speak as a lover of the cinema, but my theory applies to most works of fiction - including but not limited to books, films, and plays.
The narrive structure I hypothesise is this, very briefly: calm and 'normality,' followed by a crisis or crises, and when these are resolved, normality is assumed once again.
During an instant messenger conversation earlier tonight, the very perceptive 'A' claimed that her life is akin to a film. I wondered at this point if it might be the case that the 'calm, crisis, calm' hypothesis is relevant and pertinent for A.
That is to say: if the 'calm, crisis, calm' model does not occur naturally, is it the case that 'A' unconsciously invents some sort of crisis which needs to be resolved in order for the narrative to follow its structure?
Is it the case that people with a literary or cinematic bent experience the tenets of the theory more frequently than those without? I intend to ask 'A' some more questions over the coming days (she is aware that I'm likely to blog her responses) and perhaps between us we might tease out 'A's' theory of cinematic externalisation.
It won't be particularly scientific, but I'd heuristically imagine that, if it's at all valid, she is far from the only one to formulate it, even as she is unaware of formulating it.
