Narrative Theory

In our media classes we have been looking at 4 narrative theories - these come from Tzvetan Todorov, Vladimir Propp, Claude Levi-Struass and Bordwell & Thompson. We have been trying to apply each theory to the 1980 horror film 'The Shining.'

Tzvetan Todorov's theory is probably the simplest. He suggests that stories begin with an Equilibrium of sorts, which are then disrupted by some event, which sets of a further chain reaction of events. The problems are then solved so that order can be restored in the world of the fiction. In other words, Equilibrium set up, Equilibrium disrupted causing disequilibrium, which is resolved into a new equilibrium. It is in fact the simplest in every manner - there isn't much to it, and you don't have to specialise in film theory in any sense at all to understand it, or even work it out yourself - it's just obvious. The vast majority of films start off essentially introducing you to the narrative, then something different has to occur to make the film interesting, and then it is resolved because that's what the audience are waiting to see - as in what will happen about the "problem."

Of course, there are exceptions - for example a film which ends of a cliffhanger - however, the problem will still be resolved within the narrative, just not this film, so the theory still technically applies. In fact, it still mostly applies to The Shining - a film which is very much out of the ordinary and seems to have a very different narrative structure to most films. The only difference with The Shining is possibly the "resolution," since technically the problem which caused the disequilibrium are the Hotel and Jack - Jack dies whilst Wendy and Danny escape the Hotel, so it does appear to fit. But on the other hand, Wendy has lost her Husband and Danny has lost his Dad, so the new Equilibrium within the narrative is not as good as the original Equilibrium with which the film started - but nevertheless it is still a partial resolution.

Vladimir Propp offered an alternative theory. He argued that in all fiction, there were 8 character roles and 31 narrative functions. While this may be a more substantial and specific theory, it simply does not fit with all narratives like it claims to, and certainly does not fit with the Shining. Of course, some bits do fit with the Shining, and some other bits will fit with other films - but if it's all "bits and bobs, some and some" then it makes the theory a little redundant and irrelevant.

However, what Propp does offer with this theory is the way he mentions "Functions." Since his theory, and indeed all these theories, are looking at narrative fiction, this means of course that none of the characters are real - because of this, we should not think of them as real people, but instead as functions which help the narrative to explain itself and progress. This allows us to look a little less critically at characters actions within the film, and instead concentrate on their effect the purpose of the story.

Claude Levi-Strauss provides us with the next theory, that of "Binary Oppositions." This is basically saying that there are sets of opposite values which reveal the structure of media texts. For example, Good and Evil - you can only recognise Evil, by recognising what Good is, and Vice versa. Others could include, Earth and Space, Normal and Strange, Know and Unknown. Again, this is a relatively simple theory which appears to make sense, but like Propp's theory, we don't really learn anything here. This is because this theory doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Do we need Black to see White? No, we only need grey. In terms of the Shining, you could say that we knew Jack was going crazy because he was becoming different, but it took a while until he was actually fully committed to killing his wife and child - so where is the line of the Binary Opposition drawn? It is very unclear, and this is why I say that this theory does not teach or anything, and provide any insight into the Shining in particular.

Bordwell and Thompson suggested a slightly more in depth theory, by defining narrative as "A chain of events in a cause effect relationship, occurring in time and space." This may not be a full theory of narrative, but it certainly sparks some interesting ideas. Essentially, they are saying that a narrative begins with a situation, then a series of changes occur according to a pattern of cause and effect, and then a new situation arises that brings the end of the narrative. In a way, this is a perhaps a more detailed version of Tzvetan Todorov's Theory which was mentioned earlier. And again, like Todorov's, it does seem fairly self explanatory - cause and effect just means that one things happens because of something else - and no matter how stupid and silly the cause, you can always find it when you think of what the "effect" actually is. For example, in The Shining, Jack dies in the Maze because Danny confuses him and it is cold. Jack tries to kill his family because the Hotel is turning him insane and persuades him to. These examples could go on forever, and it is very rare that something happens completely randomly within narrative with no apparent cause or reason, as this would appear to be simply a poorly written plotline.

Bordwell and Thompson's Book: Film Art