Loading ...
I’ve written about the storytelling technique of Chekhov’s Gun in several past blogs, but here, a quick refresher:
“If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it’s not going to be fired, it shouldn’t be hanging there.”
— Anton Chekhov (From S. Shchukin, Memoirs. 1911.)
I remain of mixed feelings about this. For instance in my favorite movie of all time, Jaws, which is also widely acknowledged as a very good film, there is a shot where a frustrated Quint slams his unused machete down into the wood on the side of the Orca and the camera lingers upon it sticking there. In cinematic language it is absolutely a Chekhov’s Gun moment and this machete will figure Extremely Prominently in events to come…
…but it does not. If you look close during Quint’s death scene he has indeed grabbed the machete and is futilely attempting to carve a bit out of the giant shark in the process of eating him, but it might as well not even be there for all the significance it has.
But chances are you wouldn’t even notice it, at least not on your first viewings. It doesn’t ruin the movie or even make any true dent in the rhythm. The oxygen tanks and many other important items are foretold in fine Chekhovian manner and come back later for good or ill and the tale is told.
The machete just ends up a weird afterthought. But does it matter? It seems like it doesn’t, except perhaps to nerds like me who have watched the movie over and over so much and ironically love it so much we end up picking apart little flaws no one else would care about. And then we write blogs where we make excuses.
I suppose this is just incidental, too…