Napolean and implications of scope
Using Napoleon as a jumping-off point to explore scope, modularity, and various aspects of complexity across mediums and sciences––
Primary Audience: Production
Site Tags: Filmmaking, Abstract, Mental Models
Napolean an issue of scope
Game of Thrones is known as one of the most expensive TV shows ever produced. On a recent rewatching, I noticed something— Although there's much ado about its budget, a given episode more closely resembles watching a budget-indie movie, rather than a mythic epic. At fifteen million an episode, its production err's became suddenly apparent: the jumpy fight scene editing, the constantly tight cinematography, the crowds that aren't crowds. I couldn't help but think despite the mythic setting, Game of Thrones is no Ridley Scott production.
On a Ridley Scott production, you don't think about production. Background actors are present in the hundreds, there's no fear of shooting wide. The scenery is historical and practical to the texture. Camera movements are astoundingly fluid and unique even in the midst of battle scenes. Nothing ever feels less-than. A Ridley Scott production reeks of breadth. Napoleon (2023) is no different in this regard. Unfortunately its gorgeous production and cinematography is not enough.....
There are no issues of believability in its arena, but it struggles to define where that arena ends. It suffers from its inability to narrow its narrative on any one thing. Scale is only meaningful if we give it something meaningful to crowd around, like Maximus in the gladiator pit. Unfortunately, "Napoleon" lacks such a focal point.
Without diving into the minutia of what Napoleon does achieve or does not. It's worth using Napoleon as a jumping-off point to explore project-based concepts such as scope that parallel themselves in computer science.
In computer science, scope is used to mean program reach. What can a block of code access within a given page? Can it reach other pages, can it access the system, can it access other parts of the page it's on?
Generally speaking a piece of code has limited access to either what else is in its block, or what else is on its page, depending on the language. Occasionally a piece of code needs access to something that is out of scope.
Pathways and segues can be used to access materials or libraries that are out of scope, rather than requiring a single program write every piece of programming that it needs.
Effectively the compartmentalization of code with different scopes amounts to modularization, an aspect of organization mimicked in life and in design.
What happens when scope isn't defined?
It’s similar to the confusion that arises when expectations aren't set in a conversation or a situation—without a clear focal point, attention is scattered, like a river with too many rivulets and no one current.
If you try to include too much within a project, it becomes less coherent, and its priorities are going to be diminished. This is when less becomes more. By removing something, you add clarity.
The model of via negativa - is improving a project by focusing on what it is not.
Solution through subtraction - Improving a system or idea by reduction.
When ne sentence removed translates to a better paragraph, one paragraph removed translates to a better paper. You need to have a scope of what it is you're trying to accomplish.
Kitchen.c
Take this computer program for instance. It's an arbitrary program in C that I wrote. It describes what the user see's when they walk across the kitchen. It's written on the basis of user per input per steps.
At the top it has global directives. These are its EXTERNAL REFERENCES.
In the middle, is the main program. This is where the essence of the program occurs. The main can access variables defined within itself, as well as functions defined outside of itself. But not variables defined outside of itself.
On the bottom of the page are said functions, the organization of them below allows for cleaner execution of them within main.
This program doesn’t necessarily need to be organized like so to achieve the same results. It could be written in the format of un-bridled code. Writing code for what it needs, exactly where it needs it. But such poor design would result in poor user usability.
The challenge of scope
A historical problem
Other directors have faced the same issues as Ridley Scott when trying to cover ambitious far reaching material. Alexander (2004), Joan of Arc (1999), The Alamo (2004), King Arthur (2004) all suffered from issues of scope. What to include, what not to include, and much historical breadth to parlay with.
The scope for Napoleon was certainly too much for its own length. It ambitiously covers extensive French political events, numerous military conquests and the intricate details of Napoleon’s relationship with Josephine. Each of which could individually anchor a story.
The narrative loosely follows like so:
Riots of the French Revolution -> Marie Antoinette beheaded ->
The Siege of Toulon is repelled -> France political stability stuff -> Napoleon anointed commander -> Josephine and Napoleon 1 -> Royal Sex Parties ->
Napoleon Josephine marriage -> Military Conquest #1 (Egypt?) ->
Josephine love affair -> Napoleon Josephine #2 -> France Coup ->
Napoleon discovers the word emperor -> Napoleon promotion to Emperor ->
Military Conquest #2 (Austira?) -> Napoleon and Tsars ->
Napoleon Josephine #3 -> Napoleon remarries -> Napoleon Josephine #4 ->
Military Conquest #3 (Moscow?) -> Napoleon exile to Elba -> Josephine is sick ->
Napoleon returns from exile -> Napoleon dines with Wellington ->
Battle of Waterloo -> Napoleon’s exile to Saint Helena -> Fin?
If any other director tried to cover the same breadth of material they would have likely come back with a similar return. It's too much to tell. Of course the trick is reframing and telling a controlled partition.
Historical Scope done well
Historical narratives that cover ambitious scopes can be done well, but often scope itself is much more defined than the subject matter itself
Spielberg’s Lincoln (2012) tells the story of Lincoln during the final months of Lincoln's life during the last stretch of the Civil War. The differentiating factor here is, Spielberg's choice to stay within this time frame. Such are constraints. Such is scope. And by extension definition + limitation. In its limitation the viewer is able to take away a firm sense of whom each of these characters are. This is in contrast to an attempt to cover the entirety of their lives.
Spielberg’s The Post (2017) adopts an even more restrictive scope, centering on a single decisive day at The Washington Post. This narrative choice avoids the more iconic stories typically associated with the newspaper, instead spotlighting a less famous yet pivotal incident. Thereby extracting significance in choice of story as well. In brevity there is room for texture
Sidebar: Succession: limited scope
Something of a sidebar, but a great example on how scope can be utilized differently and still done well. TV show Succession centers on the control over the Roy family company. It features a cast of rich characters, and multi tiers of depth and worldbuilding. But despite its alluring complexity, showrunner Jesse Armstrong always keep his eye on the nose of the plane. That is the narrative never veers outside of the Roy family want for control of the company.
Never do we see a lingering moment or devoted arc to those outside of this inner circle, related to the ultimate goal of the show. The roster and pedigree of supporting characters in the show runs deep with nuance, but they exist only on the fringe of our main story. And purposefully so: they are beautiful set dressing.
And through that fringe their nuance becomes more evident when the moments exist to provide them. Be it the various allusions towards Karl the CFO and his propensity for prostitutes, or be it how highly valued former COO Frank is, despite how little he is trusted.
Modularization
What about stories of ambitious scope, that appear to cover said scope well? Scorsese's The Aviator (2004) the story of Howard Hughes comes to mind as a great example. It covers an iconic subject against the background of historical contexts while never feeling like it trying to cover too much.
How is it The Aviator (2004) succeeds critically, but Napoleon (2023) fails?
In part it's because Scorsese employs selective framing to spotlight Hughe's personality, relegating history and romance always into the backdrop. The other part of could be attributed to Scorsese's ability to separate different scenes into distinct elements.
As touched upon earlier, modularization is a concept where programs are broken down into smaller manageable components called modules. Each module is responsible for a specific piece of functionality and communicates to other modules through well-defined interactions. Generally speaking, modularity exists to reduce complexity and to allow a system to be adjusted and recombined in different ways to fit different needs. You know where everything is, you can trace it back to where it was before or where it belongs, you can separate pieces at a glance.
Container
This feeling of modularization is made recognizable by a sense of containerization. The aesthetic that makes the different pieces readily recognizable. In the Aviator an argument is to be made that the purposely different palettes or film stocks that shaped different sections of the picture serve as these containers. There's also something to be said about the legth to which adding a graphical margin to another graphical object will go to distinguish that object from the scene.
Foray into Complexity
Intro
While The Aviator conveys a deceptively large story through manageable and digestible scopes chunked. What about instances where the storyteller actually wants to convey something that is definitively complex, not just illusively complex? Is there an audience tolerance for this? Packaging and parsing the material are a given, but what else does presenting complexity entail?
Presentation: an array of domain diverse ideas
When presenting a diversity of ideas, preview the complexity before diving into it. Eschew detail, favor topic headings. Introductory headlines that allow the audience to form a schema map.
A breadcrumb trail of preface's help to form a map that can be filled in later.
Breaking complexity down in seminars, or even documentaries is a bit more organic, a bit more of a traversable feat as there is an implicit aspect of audience learning & attentiveness for these genre's. What’s less traversable is making complexity seamless in a medium where entertainment or escapism are the primary value; i.e. narrative.
It can be done, but what kind of complexity, and to what end? Is the goal for the audience to take away a host of ideas, or is it for them to experience a host of sensations? Complexity is delivered at the expense of linearity.
I'm not there
Todd Haynes I'm Not There (2007) is an example of complexity tackled well in narrative. It does well to strike balance between the various iterations presented, without making itself feel too balanced- just the right amount of mess. It does this by adhering to some basic narrative organizational grammar.
The movie contains five main characters, each in which manifest different machinations of Bob Dylan. At the outset of the movie Haynes presents the map of what is to come to the audience. And then in his telling he proceeds to fill it in.
Different types of complexity
The complexity of an intangible medium can be conveyed in a way that is very much like the complexity of a tangible medium. And within the patterns of complexity, entirely new shapes can emerge....
But there are different types of complexity in narrative. Presenting a myriad of ideas, is not the same as presenting an abundance of details, or the negative space of narrative....
Above is a table that captures various forms of complexity from different popular movies. The table itself is parsed, sorted, & presented in a format that allows for ease of skimming.
· Form = Format
· Format ≈ Scope
Below is the same exact information as the above table lacking margin and much format. Graphical or literary.
Depth, Density & Documentation
Food for thought:
Exploratory Warning: reaching the point irreducibility.
Scaling Complexity = Compressing Complexity
Popular Stanford neuro scientist Andrew Huberman hosts a podcast called Huberman Lab. A given episode, which may last as long as 2 hours, consists of Huberman discussing science and science based tools for everyday life. Huberman focuses on a single topic, and explores it at length, citing current studies and exploring modern schools of thought in detail. Huberman's output is somewhat dense, but its comprehendible for the average person.
What's remarkable about Huberman is that he is effectively taking one language, scientific academia which is too esoteric for the average person to understand and he translates it to a new language of general accessibility.
What's even more remarkable is the sheer amount of research Huberman distills in a single session. These are not light sessions. And the topics explored don't consist of shallow information, such as what ylu might find on content farm blogs such as Psychology Today. Comprehensive is the key word here.
Huberman's podcast could be characterized as dense, but not so much that its outside the bounds of its medium. By presenting information in a comprehensive way, all the while appending where schools of thought, opinions or studies specific emerge from, i.e. external references Huberman provides his audience with the means to track back documentation should they want.
This is akin to encapsulation in computer science. Keeping the laborious technical details about how something works stowed away, presenting only the necessary details. Encapsulation allows for user-friendly objects. The analogy is, we know enough to understand the inputs and outputs of a phenomenon, we don't need to be mired in the details of its technicalities, unless we so choose.
Despite Huberman's podcast being an incredibly high value piece of content, value is relative. Just because it is an uncommon piece of super learning, it doesn't mean it's particularly useful to the user. What if the user just wants to know one thing, or two things?
Encapsulation -> Encapsulated
· If you take a Huberman lecture, copy a transcript of it, feed it to Chat GPT.
· Ask Chat GPT to - synthesize it based on section, and bullet point the most important ideas.
· Each bullet point being a kernel of high value information.
You've just encapsulated very high value content into a new form of abbreviated content that's even-easier to traverse, and backdate as needed. It can be visually skimmed in moments, and its density has been effectively reduced, but it still retains high value kernels.
Kernels
What is a kernel in the above context? It's a high value piece of core functionality. Novel or informative in some sense. It's high the value center of something, like the Damn Daniel meme without the surrounding video that was edited out.
Social media especially provides a context for randomization to thrive without supporting architecture. It allows. This organization of randomization allows for a scheme in which kernels can share scope in.
Spots
A good spot, has a good kernel. Whether it be the compelling premise a copywriter has been holding onto since before the campaign, or a memorable line like Starbucks's "streets!" that sticks around for an extra generation. What’s at the high value center of said spot before the architecture of production is applied?
Below is a particular favorite, a 30 second spot with a beginning, a middle, an end. It provides a piece of high value novelty at its core, and amazingly enough it has a sense of structure despite its brevity.
