Verisimilitude

What does it mean?

Well, some have given it an arbitrary meaning, or understand it as meaning realistic. Is Superman realistic? No, it isn't. So what does it mean and what did Donner mean by the word?

Essentially it means the 'STATE OF TRUTH'. You believe what you are seeing, that is, in our case, film treated with reverence and truth. We believe it because the film-makers believe it. They create an illusion of reality, and if done cleverly, we are mesmerized by the experience, get it wrong and we are shaken out of the world.

Ilya Salkind prefers to call it "FICTION REALITY" - it's more specific and to the point, but whichever term you side with, it means the same thing.

The rules

To conjure up the illusion: 'State of Truth', rules need to be established.

Rules in story are vital. It governs what your characters can do, or what they can't do. In other words, they can only do certain things in certain ways. These rules do not just apply to the character but every facet of your story, including the world itself, and in all areas of production. Without rules, your story means nothing. In most stories, rules must be established in the first act. The addition of impulsive rules later in the story violates the 'state of truth' and could be construed as Deus Ex Machina. I think origin stories (character rules) are an exception, for example, Kal-El is discovering who he is, what he can do etc. The first half of the film [Superman] establishes the rules and the second half plays within the confinements that has been set-up by the visionaries. The one thing that must be set-up in the first act of any story is the TONE and GENRE, and you stick to those rules no matter what. Sure, Superman is an uneven film, but the convoluted history of making it is legendary, and in the end we are grateful that we got something that is still hailed as a great comic book picture despite the reservations.

Character rules

Dick Donner expressed his intentions to underplay Superman's powers, and I agree, the guy is virtually invulnerable, so his strength must be cleverly reduced as not to arouse suspicion among the viewers. So throughout the film, Superman just manages to rescue whoever, and why is that? To create palpable tension - will Superman get there on time? Unfortunately, this idea that Superman's powers are underplayed is forgotten at a vital point in the story: Turning back the world. The time travel sequence breaks the rule they set-up. The meat of the film shows that Superman's powers are underplayed. Can he fly so fast that he is able to time travel? They [director, producers and writers] scored an own goal. This sets a dangerous precedent. If the hero can time travel, especially without consequence, the story doesn't matter. Yes, it does relate to the theme, and that's why I think the film gets a free out-of-jail card, but only just! Rules of character are the most important, since that is why we watch films in the first place, to experience their story [protagonists] in the world they inhabit.

In Superman II, new powers are introduced. If Superman has these extraordinary powers, then what are his limitations? Well, if he can fly, why can't he fire beams from his fingers? Well if he can do that, why can't he do this? When does it stop? According to Ilya, levitation powers were featured in the comics (and DC approved) - but fewer powers means more reliance on established character design. My point is that if the hero has only a few powers, then the struggle is more interesting. Now, imagine if the villains could tap into these extra powers but Superman couldn't? Now that would be interesting. How will Superman compete now? Wouldn't it have been cool to have seen Evil Superman, in three, gain these extra powers? Maybe he could've tapped into the darkside, like the villains did in two!

Believe in the world

In Star Wars Episode II, the diner sequence throws us out of Lucas's universe because it resembles an 'American' diner, and not only that, the waitress sounds like she was plucked from American Graffiti. George Lucas plants a zeitgeist moment from the '70s into a galaxy far, far away. Conversely, the Cantina bar in Star Wars is a fine example of how you are immersed in a world, yet being able to relate to that kind of environment. It's alien but there's something familiar about it.

The 'State of Truth' is sown from the beginning in someone's imagination to the final edit on Avid, and anywhere along the conveyor belt, the rules can be broken:

In Hellraiser, the unnecessary dubbing breaks the rules of immersion. Clearly the film is shot in 'England', yet it's made out to be 'America'. This wasn't Clive Barker's fault but the producers, who insisted upon the dubs. In the end, it slightly transmogrified, creating a hybrid world, confusing the audience. Consistency is key.

History

Believing in the world which characters inhabit is important, but how do we make the audience believe it - what can the author do? Give it history, for example, like in Lucas's opus:
In Star Wars, Obi-Wan briefly mentions: 'The Clone Wars'. We don't know what it is (forget the prequels for a moment), but it's significant and gives the world we're in its 3 dimensions. Notice Luke's reaction, he wants to know more about this significant event and so do we. It adds intrigue; it's connected to the overall story, even though it's not attacked head-on. It alludes to an event, and the eventual fall-out, which has affected the universe since.

Inner workings

In Back to the Future (my favourite commercially 'structured' film of all time) a conventional DeLorean is engineered into a 'time machine'. Why do we believe it can travel through time?
The flux-capacitor is given a great importance. We don't know how it works, but it's important that we understand that it's needed for time travel. Doc Brown doesn't spend time spewing needless exposition about the mechanical things under the bonnet. He only tells us what the story needs to function and make us believe that 'Time Travel' is possible.

He also tells us:
The speed at which time travel occurs: 88mph.
That a bountiful of energy is required: Plutonium.
Simply switch on the time circuits and set your destination.

Incidentally, Bob Gale would be an interesting choice for Superman - he has the maturity and experience that Superman desperately needs.

Breaking rules

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade brought back character favourites, including Marcus. In Raiders, Marcus is an older version of Indy who has been on adventures before and witnessed the supernatural. Unlike Indy, who is an agnostic, Marcus is a believer. He warns Indy about the Ark. Indy brushes his mentor off. We are intrigued by Marcus, what wonders has he witnessed? Where have you been in your adventures?

In Last Crusade, one would naturally assume that Marcus's character should be explored to give the audience a glimpse of why he's a serious archaeologist. Instead, he becomes a buffoon who doesn't understand foreign languages and can't ride a horse; the very antithesis of the character in Raiders. I'm an admirer of Jeffrey Boam's* writing talent, I think he brought a sense of fun to the proceedings and was a terrific commercial writer, I love Innerspace and Lethal Weapon 2, but I feel his writing didn't do Last Crusade justice, if the film was suppose to be a sequel to Raiders. But, as Ray Morton pointed out to me, post Raiders, the films are essentially remakes. Indy goes back to being an agnostic at the beginning of Temple of Doom and Last Crusade, so the character, Marcus, is probably not supposed to be the Raiders version anyway. I'm anxious to know how they'll handle Indiana Jones IV.

So those are story rules, and I've covered some of the most important ones, in my opinion.

The author's soul

Verisimilitude isn't an application, it's not applied to the story artificially; it comes from the heart of the author. That person(s) is the key to the approach. If the author is cynically minded, then in most cases, they will infuse that into the story. What makes Donner so attractive to Superman is the fact that he is a romanticist, whilst Lester doesn't believe it. Though both approaches are acceptable, more will side with a Donner vision of Superman than Lester because the audience devours the myth, like no-tomorrow. The audience wants to believe a character like Superman could exist, even though the notion of such a thing is preposterous. I like both approaches: Donner brings affection and confection, Lester brings cynicism and sophistication. Donner immerses himself into the world, whilst Lester lifts the lid off the world and looks inside and commentates on it.

Verisimilitude is important if you want your audience to believe the story, but it doesn't mean that it should be serious, like Superman Returns. It should be a blend of seriousness and fun, and that's a skill very few writers have ever grasped in world of commerical film-making. Early 'Spielberg' films are perfect examples of balancing the serious material with the fun elements.

* Jeffrey Boam passed away on 24th January, 2000.

<<<Special Features