The Subtext of the World posted by kza

In his book, The Culture Code, Clotaire Rapaille tells us that things and concepts, such as cheese, alcohol, love, and America, have a hidden code word that reveals their true meaning.

By subjecting a group of people to a series of increasingly personal interviews (usually at the behest of corporations trying to sell something), he can, he claims, find the word or phrase that serves as a metaphor that communicates something about the culture. For Rapaille, the world is full of subtext, and through careful observation, critical thinking, and copious research, that subtext can be revealed and dealt with consciously.

While quite a few of Rapaille’s code words are a bit obvious and uninteresting (the Germans see Americans as cowboys!), a few border on poetry — the American code word for alcohol is “gun”, and the French code word for America is “space travelers”. And of course, the same word has completely different meanings, depending on the culture. For example, in France, the code for cheese is “life” (their cheese is alive, it’s kept room temperature, etc.), while the code for cheese in America is “death” (ours are kept refrigerated, like, as Rapaille says, in a morgue).

Clearly this is more art than science, assuming you don’t think it’s a bunch of phony-baloney to begin with. It doesn’t help that Rapaille only provides a few quotes to demonstrate his research — presumably, each code word involves hundreds of hours of interviews and other work, but we only see a tiny sample of that, and thus his insights seem easy and unearned.

Still, my brief overview doesn’t do justice to Rapaille’s book — his explanations and examinations of the various code words are incredibly entertaining, even as bullshit detectors occasionally go off. Read it and decide for yourself. (Preferably, check it out from the library — it’s one of those books, like The Tipping Point, you can read in a day.)

But let’s tie this in with our ostensible subject, screenwriting and movies. As I read the book, I tried to guess the code for each word that came up. Although I was close on some, I only nailed one, which, as I was drawing upon my own biases, gave credibility to Rapaille’s ideas. The word was “seduction”. Any guesses on its American code word?

….

The American code word for “seduction” is “manipulation”. Americans see seduction as something inherently dishonest, manipulating someone’s perception of you — and hence, their feelings — as opposed to being “truthful” and “authentic”. This, by the way, is completely different from the French code word (which I don’t remember, unfortunately), which posited it as something more like performance — it’s not about hiding, but about presenting oneself as is.

Does that jibe with you? It does for me. And it explains certain American genres. How many noirs have we seen where the protagonist is seduced into murdering someone or something equally foolish? (A: Likely all of them.) Hell, if the code word for seduction is manipulation, I’d say that the code word for noir is seduction. They’re so intertwined as to be inseparable. And have you ever seen a romantic comedy that involved intentional seduction? I can’t think of one off-hand. Instead of seduction, we get the “meet cute” — a moment when the young man and the young woman first meet that reveals their inherent attractive qualities to each other. While there may be some kind of misunderstanding present at the meeting (perhaps over their social class or some kind of role), there is never any dishonesty about their personalities — what they see at that first meeting is what they get.

Ultimately, though, whether or not Rapaille is correct about the various cultural biases he writes about is not that interesting to me. What is interesting about it is how, as a screenwriter, it provides me with a different way of thinking about subtext.

Subtext, of course, is what is meant but not overtly said. In screenplays, it usually refers to dialogue. (In fact, Grymz and I were discussing this the other day. We’ve noticed that, too often, we use subtext not only in the dialogue, but also in the action text as well — meaning, rather than coming out and saying something, like “The tower is surrounded by scientists”, we’ll say “The tower is surrounded by men in white coats”. I can’t speak for Grymz, but I know I end up doing this because it was drilled into me that screenplays should only contain what can be filmed, and over the years I’ve twisted this into meaning that everything should be described by what is literally seen, not what it is. This kinda deserves its own post, so I’ll end this anecdote with our new Spitball! slogan: Subtext In Dialogue, Not Action!)

Anyway, subtext is about dialogue. What did he really mean when he said, “I’m so glad you’re here”? What did she really mean when she said, “Oh, I don’t mind, really”? And so on. But Rapaille’s book sparked the idea that there can be more to subtext than just dialogue. People, objects, ideas, even stories can have a hidden meaning. (It should be noted that Rapaille gets his research not just by interviewing people, but having them talk about their memories — stories — about their past associations with the word in question.) This strikes me as a powerful tool in the screenwriting process, particularly during rewriting. If a scene is flat, it’s likely there is some kind of conflict missing. But conflict delivered into the script from on high is always a poor choice — it needs to come from somewhere, preferably the characters. But if it just isn’t working, why not look deeper into the characters, past their wants and needs and surface characteristics, and into the code word that holds them together?

Ask yourself: What is the code word for your story or screenplay you’re working on? What is the code word for your protagonist? Your antagonist? What is the code word for the various places or important props in the story? Do the various code words have any commonality? If so, what is it? If not, does it work as is, or does it reveal the story as being scattershot or unfocused?

I haven’t yet fully explored the ramifications of using this tool, but it seems promising. As the Spitball! Tourney of Story Ideas continues, you will likely see me bring some of these ideas to the table. Don’t know if any of it will work, but them’s the breaks.

(Confidential to Grymz: You know our Italian character, from that one script? If The Culture Code is correct, then, as an Italian, he is, as Rapaille would say, off-code. That is, he doesn’t quite share the attitudes and biases that might be expected of an Italian. In fact, he seems to be — surprise, surprise — more American than Italian. I’m not saying this character should change to dovetail with some kind of stereotype — characters are individuals, after all (what an American thing to say!) — but that simply it might be something to be aware of.)

Comments (0) — Category: inspiration