Exposition often reveals a lot about a director’s confidence in his or her audience, as well as in themselves. After I finished reading Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, I have been thinking about exposition more intensely. After comparing it to the film, I realized just how differently the story could have been told on the big screen. The film essentially follows the plot and story of the book but without any narration or characters explaining just what in the world is going on. For someone who saw the movie before reading the book, the last 20 minutes of that film had me completely lost: how was I supposed to interpret what I was seeing? At the same time, however, I remember being intrigued and wanting more. It begged for multiple viewings to decipher what I had just witnessed. My quest to find out what Kubrick was trying to convey occupied me for a number of days. I found myself knee-deep in blogs and YouTube videos hoping to find even a shred of an explanation.
Upon finishing the novel, I was baffled at just how easy it reads. I assumed Kubrick told the story the way he did because the source material was just as vague in its storytelling. This could not be further from the truth. Clarke explains the last 20 minutes of the film, along with many components of 2001, in a way that a 12-year old could understand. This experience begged the question: when is exposition necessary? After all, film is a visual medium. A novel has the job of explaining the world in which we are immersing ourselves in through words. People get different things from a film-going experience. Less exposition allows for a much broader interpretation of the subject matter instead of being told what we are supposed to be watching and the message we are supposed to walk away with. My respect for Kubrick and his decision to shoot 2001 the way he did has only grown over the years. I appreciate Kubrick’s effort to give us a completely different experience watching the story unravel visually, rather than having it explained to us like the novel does.
Christopher Nolan is known for his use of practical effects on his large-scale productions and bringing (mostly) original stories to the big screen. Nolan’s recent sci-fi epic, Interstellar, is a prime example of how a story can suffer with too much exposition. Imagine the directors swapping places when considering these two sci-fi epics. I think we would’ve seen a much more novelized version of 2001, and a deep think piece about love transcending time in Interstellar. I am a big fan of Interstellar. In some ways, it is on the same level as 2001, especially the decision to use practical effects on a large-scale voyage. But when you analyze the storytelling aspect, I think Interstellar suffers due to blatant exposition. Anne Hathaway’s character is essentially there to explain the entire message of the film. When a director needs a character to explain exactly what they are trying to convey, something has gone wrong behind the camera. Nolan floods this visually stunning epic with speeches and exposition, most of which is unnecessary. Imagine the entire scene of the Tesseract without Cooper and T.A.R.S. explaining everything they need to do. I felt insulted with how much exposition was going on. I could watch that scene on mute and would be able to understand and piece together on my own what was happening. So why the exposition? Nolan’s biggest weakness in his storytelling is the fear of leaving the audience without answers or without a stable interpretation of his film. He must have a resolution with a complete understanding of the message and facts laid out for the audience instead of encouraging us to figure it out on our own. (I will say that Memento is an exception). We would experience a much more interesting and thought-provoking film if Nolan had chosen to take the “less is more” route in Interstellar.
This article is not meant as a knock on Nolan. Interstellar is just a prime example of how exposition can hurt a great film. I am also not suggesting that every film needs to be as abstract as Kubrick’s 2001. Exposition is of course a necessary tool to help propel a film’s story and characters. But too much or too little is what can prevent a great film from becoming a masterpiece. Directors will always be faced with the battle to balance their trust in the audience with the fear that their message will get lost in the end. The use of exposition is truly an art that differentiates the great storytellers from the best in the business.
