There seems to be a common misconception with some writers that plot is not always necessary. In fact, some insist that true artistry comes from dispelling the manufactured and artificial concepts such as plot in favour of emulating real life. Only then can a film truly speak to the human condition, right? Poetically evoking the real world without the constraints of structure and Acts and character arcs. As the Charlie Kaufman character (Nic Cage) says in the brilliant film Adaptation;
What if the writer is attempting to create a story where nothing much happens? Where people don't change. They don't have any epiphanies. They struggle and are frustrated and nothing is resolved. More a reflection of the real world.
In the film, his question is directed at Robert McKee, played by Brian Cox. Watch his answer.
For the record, McKee is assured by his family that it is a very accurate portrayal of his rants. Eeek.
But, you say, there are some great examples of films that emulate the random, plotless futility of real life. What about Lost in Translation? Where's the plot in that? Here is a more restrained - and real this time - McKee dispelling the idea of a plot-less film.
You see? You can't escape plot. I suggest lazy writers try to find excuses for avoiding true plot structure because plot structure requires work and implies a right and wrong way to do things. I've talked before on how story structure is inescapable, and it seems the hardest plot structure to produce is the one where the plot seems invisible.
