Limited Settings In Movies

Most movies need a gimmick in order to get people to watch them.  The movie could involve lots of big name cast in an ensemble.  There could be 3-D.  There could be someone playing multiple parts.  Then you get into the writing “gimmicks” which include things like real-time, the entire story being in one day, based on real events, or the one I want to take a look at, movies that take place in mainly one specific location.

There is something about a movie set primarily in one location that interests me.  Every time I hear about one, I am automatically interested in watching it.  I’m invested in finding out how well the idea was executed on film or digital or whatever they are recorded on.  I want to see if the writing can bring the story above the obstacles of single location movies or primarily single location movies.  I want to see if the direction can keep me interested in the movie.  I want to see if the acting can get me invested in the characters.

Something I noticed when watching these movies is that in most cases, as the location becomes smaller, it becomes more difficult for the film to be successful.  It only makes sense that it is easier to write when the setting is a house rather than just a kitchen.  As the setting gets narrowed down more and more, the filmmakers close doors on where they can go with the story. 

Many of the movies that are confined to small spaces for most, if not all of the running time, take on a horror or thriller edge.  One writer that has done this multiple times is Chris Sparling who wrote the movie Buried and the movie ATM.  Buried is a movie about a man who has been buried alive and ATM is about three coworkers trapped in an ATM booth.  Both films are about people being confined to small spaces.  What sets them apart in terms of quality is the performance of the star(s).  Other than that, both movies share a large flaw: repetitiveness.

When a movie gets down to people being confined to small spaces, it becomes about the person or people trying to get out of said confined space.  The entire story turns into the screenwriter finding any possible way out and finding a way to stop them from getting out.  It can take the viewer out of the story when that keeps happening.  When the locations become bigger, it becomes less obvious because the characters can get into other situations.  When it is a small space it becomes quite obvious.

The thing it comes down to is the writing.  If the screenwriter can find a way to build the story around something more than a cat and mouse, escape route being blocked style, the movie could be quite a good ride.  The problem comes with a confined space confining what the writer can do in terms of expanding the story.  Without the space in the setting, there isn’t as much space that the story can fill and the movie will most likely turn stale.

There are, of course, exceptions to the rule.  Not every movie follows what I am describing.  I’m simply noting a trend and discussing the trend.  Anything more than that, I would be a liar.  Performances also go a long way in providing a solid movie from a confined space.  Without the performances, there would be nothing for the viewers to attach themselves to.  A good performance could excuse everything I’ve written through this entire thing.  It is the variable that I took out of my theory that could inevitably destroy my entire argument.

I’m not going to stop watching or being interested in movies that have a limited setting or confined spaces.  I will always be interested in a Panic Room, or a The Hole.  Movies like this just intrigue me and I like to see what gets done with the subject matter.  Nothing will change that.