Chekhov’s Gun
Definition
Anton Chekhov, a famous Russian writer, argued every element in a story must serve a purpose so readers are not distracted by unnecessary information or wasting their time trying to evaluate the meaning of irrelevant imagery. Every object and detail should advance the plot, develop the characters, or reinforce the themes of the story.
Chekhov’s gun refers to this clear and concise use of language in storytelling, but the term is more commonly used to describe the introduction of an insignificant element that turns out to be important.
If a writer draws the audience’s attention to a gun in a scene, for example, then that gun should become relevant to the progression of the narrative. The image must have function or else it should be left out of the story.
Writers need to make every image count.
Chekhov’s Gun in Aliens
The script for Aliens (1986) is carefully constructed so every scene and line of dialogue engages the audience. The story follows Ellen Ripley and a team of underpaid Marines as they investigate a colony on LV-426 that has been destroyed by the Xenomorphs.
The most obvious example of Chekhov’s gun is the P-5000 Power Loader. When Burke is trying to convince Ripley to return to the planet, he refers to her “running loaders and forklifts” in the “cargo docks”. The comment does not appear to have any significance beyond informing the audience how Ripley has been “keeping busy” on Gateway Station.
The hydraulic machine is introduced several scenes later in the cargo bay of the Sulaco when the Colonial Marines are making their final preparations for the mission. Ripley feels like a “fifth wheel” and volunteers to help. She climbs into the heavy Loader and demonstrates her “Class 2 rating”.
In terms of narrative structure, this semantic code establishes her skill operating the machine and draws the audience’s attention its capabilities. The reaction shot of Sergeant Apone and Corporal Hicks smiling positions the audience to admire Ripley’s resourcefulness and strength.
These moments set up the brilliant climax of the film when Ripley climbs into the Loader and battles the Alien Queen. This scene would not make any sense if the audience were not already family with the machine. It is an incredibly satisfying conclusion to the slow-burning horror and relentless action.
Another Chekhov’s gun worth mentioning is the signifier of the lighter. We see Ripley smoking in her quarters on Gateway Station. The scene begins with a close-up of ash drooping from her cigarette to suggest she cannot move physically or emotionally because she is haunted by her past. Some viewers might also see it as a subtle reference to the villainous android called Ash from the previous film. Her anxiety is reinforced at the end of sequence when she lights another cigarette to calm her nerves.
In the medical lab on LV-426, a scene opens with a shot of Gorman lying unconscious. The camera tilts along Ripley moving her hand and taking a drag of a cigarette. The director is once again highlighting her habit.
Moments later, she is resting with Newt in the operating theatre, two facehuggers have been released from the stasis cylinders, and there is no escape. Fortunately, Ripley is able to use her lighter to trigger the fire alarm and signal for help. If the story had not already established her smoking, then the use of the lighter might feel like a convenient deus ex machina introduced to save the day.
Directors need to make every shot count.
Back to the Future
Back to the Future (1985) follows the adventure of an average teenager, Marty McFly, who is accidentally sent back to 1955 in a time-travelling DeLorean built by his eccentric friend, Doc Brown. Stranded in the past, the protagonist must ensure his parents fall in love to restore his own future before he ceases to exist.
The story relies heavily on small details taking on added significance. For example, Marty’s mother describes how she fell in love with his father after he was hit by a car. However, in 1955, Marty catches his father spying on his mother and his intervention changes the course of history.
The most famous example of Chekhov’s gun in the film is the reference to town’s broken clock. When Marty is telling his girlfriend, Jennifer, that he was was rejected from a battle of the bands competition for being “too damn loud”, the director introduces several fundraisers in the background trying to “save the clock tower”.
Sitting on a bench, the young lovers are interrupted by a member of the Hill Valley Preservation Society ratting her tin. She describes how lightning struck the clock thirty years before and it hasn’t worked since. Importantly, she gives Marty a flyer which Jennifer then uses to write down “I love you” and a phone number. The protagonist makes sure to keep the piece of paper safe in his jacket.
In 1955, Doc Brown realises they do not have enough energy to power the Flux Capacitor and send the DeLorean back to the future. He says, “The only power source capable of generating 1.21 gigawatts of electricity is a bolt of lightning”. Of course, Marty knows lightning will strike the clock tower at precisely 10:04PM! This pay off only works because it is set up effectively earlier in the narrative.
Another clever detail is the name of the mall where Doc Brown conducts his time-travelling experiment. In the first act, the scientist mentions the farmland was owned by Old Man Peabody who had a “crazy idea about breeding pine trees”. The Two Pines Ranch made way for Twin Pines Mall.
However, Marty crashes through one of the young pine trees in 1955 and the area becomes Lone Pine Mall in the final act. The change of name suggests our hero has subtly altered the timeline.
I Am Legend
Making a film is a tremendous challenge and good ideas do not always work. The butterfly motif in I Am Legend (2007) is an interesting example of Chekhov’s gun because the climax of the theatrical release is not properly established earlier in the narrative.
The story is set in 2012 after a “miracle cure for cancer” had mutated into a pathogen and wiped out most of the human population on Earth. Only 1% were immune to the disease but they are hunted by mutants called Darkseekers who are vulnerable to sunlight.
The last act introduces Anna and Ethan – two survivors who are on their way to a camp where they will be safe. Anna expresses her belief that we can “hear God’s plan” now everything is “quieter”. She claims “something” told her to “turn on the radio” and, fortunately, rescued the protagonist form the mutants “just in time”. Everything happens “for a reason”.
Despite his strong rejection of Anna’s faith, Neville becomes a believer in the final moments of the film when he imagines the Darkseeker as a butterfly in the glass and sees a butterfly tattoo on Anna’s neck. Before he detonates a grenade to kill the monsters and enable his companions to escape, Neville gives her a vial of blood which he thinks will cure the disease and save the world: “I think this is why you are here”.
Close analysis of the mise-en-scène does reveal images of butterflies in the film. One fluttered away from the dog in the corn field, Neville’s daughter had drawn one on a picture, and there are butterflies sown on her pillow. Butterflies are a traditional signifier of metamorphosis, but the motif does not explain Neville’s sudden reversal in a way that feels satisfactory to the audience.
However, the theatrical release of I Am Legend had a different ending to the one in the original script and presented to audiences in the earlier test screenings. The reference to butterflies makes more sense in the director’s cut because Neville realises the Darkseekers are intelligent creatures rather than mindless mutants.
You can watch both versions in this YouTube video:
Perhaps the test audiences did not like idea of the protagonist being the monster who has killed innocent “butterflies” or the blurring of good versus evil. Their negative reaction forced the filmmakers to reshoot the ending and find another way to complete Neville’s character arc. Unfortunately, the new butterfly revelation did not quite work because the necessary connotations were not firmly established earlier in the narrative.
The Origin of Chekhov’s Gun
When his older brother, Alexander, was working on a novel called The City of the Future, Anton Chekhov was worried his sibling was “lazy” and argued the story could only be “a work of artistic merit” if six conditions were met:
- the absence of long passages of politico-socio-economic nature;
- objectivity throughout;
- authenticity in the description of characters and settings;
- extreme brevity;
- audacity and originality: avoid cliches at all cost;
- warmth.1
Chekhov felt there was no need to offer elaborate descriptions of nature or the mental state of the characters. This “extreme brevity” is central to the concept of Chekhov’s gun.
In correspondence with Sergei Shchukin, a leading art collector in Russia, Chekhov compared the work of a writer to a sculptor: “To make a face out of marble means to remove from that piece of marble everything that is not a face. Remove everything that has no relevance to the story”.2 In other words, writers need to focus the reader’s attention on the objects and details necessary to the narrative. Everything else should be chipped away.
Chekhov went on to argue: “If in the first chapter you mention a rifle hanging on a wall, in the second or third chapter a shot must be fired with that rifle. Otherwise do not mention it”.3
An aspiring author, Ilia Gurliand, recalled a conversation he had with Chekhov in 1889 when the famous writer said, “If in the first act you hang a pistol on the wall, then in the last act it must be shot off. Otherwise you do not hang it there”.4
Chekhov offered similar advice in a letter to Alexander S. Lazarev-Grozinsky in the same year. After reading the playwright’s script, Chekhov criticised its “unbearably bad” structure. He appreciated the quality of writing, but he felt the Dasha (country house) monologue would make more sense if it “had some relation to the rest of the play”. Chekhov warned his friend: “One must never place a loaded rifle on the stage if it isn’t going to go off. It’s wrong to make promises you don’t mean to keep”.5
Chekhov voiced his opinion so freely, it is no surprise critics began calling the narrative principle Chekhov’s gun.
