are film themes and messages overrated?

[Brahman]

when people defend a film, they often want to jump to discussing what theme it covers or message it delivers. "oh no! it's a great film! see, it deals with ______". this is starting to get to me, because it's exactly why undeserving films are always being nominated and winning with the academy. the past two years have been the best example. crash? million dollar baby? !

better-shot, better-directed, better-acted, and better-written films about "lesser" themes and narrower scopes are often overlooked and don't get their due credit, because films dealing with big and lofty social or philosophical issues are given top priority.

i'm not saying that life lessons aren't a good thing to have in movies, and i try not to be too biased against them. however, it's so secondary to the art of filmmaking, imo. it's good to have a message that can move an audience. societally healthy, even. the thing is it's not the only ingredient and definitely not the first that should be addressed in a film's defense.

i was comforted the other day when i read a quote by my geminian air sign brother roger ebert that shared this view of mine. , yeah, i get accused of "using critics too much to support my opinions", but most of the time i'm coming to my opinions before i even see what they say. i would appreciate anyone who voices this, but it helps to have someone of his standing go on record with it.

he once said, "it's not what a film is about but how it is about it"

truer words have never been spoken.

hard to blame people for doing it, though, because we're all guilty. it's the quickest thing to point to but ultimately the weakest in my book. how else do you defend a film really? explaining the power of the "how" is more difficult and has less immediacy than the "what". even so, that is what needs most focus when studying the motion picture art.

i guess the answer is simple and has been visible right in front of me all along. it's been evasive as i've tried to embrace and accept it fully. people feel what they feel, and it's undesirable and virtually impossible to argue someone into feeling something. and, it's why i'm not as eager to debate the quality of individual movies as i used to be. best to let them discover it for themselves if they're ever to like it.

i wish that people would get over this obsession though, because they're missing out on truly appreciating some great aspects of the art when they don't give films that they see as being "unimportant", "about nothing", "immoral", or "socially irresponsible" a fair shake and decide that they dislike them before watching all the way through with an open mind.



list your top 5 film ingredients... the things you look for in determining a "great film".

my list:

1. cinematography/art direction
2. direction
3. acting
4. score
5. screenwriting

it all depends... films of course can be high on the bottom and low on the upper and still end up great.

[teq the decider]

It not that they are overvalued but that they arent infact valued at all, theyre insincerely valued. A substantial measure of critical acclaim can be garnered just by flattering the pretentions of the critics. Heaping praise on a movie which propogates a message largely deemed to be sophisticated/compassionate/courageous is a way to broadcast your sophistication/compassion/courage.

[teq the decider]

Originally Posted by teq the decider

It not that they are overvalued but that they arent infact valued at all, theyre insincerely valued. A substantial measure of critical acclaim can be garnered just by flattering the pretentions of the critics. Heaping praise on a movie which propogates a message largely deemed to be sophisticated/compassionate/courageous is a way to broadcast your sophistication/compassion/courage.

my list:

1.screenwriting
2.score
3.acting
4.direction
5.cinematography/art direction

[Riz]

For me, I could never like a film just for the theme/message... but my favourite films are probably those that have a mixture of both, with the message hidden underneath for those that want to see it.

Raiders of the Lost Ark I love because it's 2 hours of fun with the coolest character in cinema history, IMO. But there is a message underneath. The theme of Braveheart isn't all that interesting to me, but I love it all the same. Magnolia blew me away with it's writing, directing and score. It's only only on later viewings that I saw a very important message. And then you have Buffy. If you want it to be, it's nothing more than a camp horror show about a blonde girl who fights monsters. But really? It's one of the most epic, personal stories you could hope to find.

The message doesn't have to be based on some obscure philosopher to be important to me. I love The Matrix films for their philosophy, but only because it works within in those films. You can argue that they're overrated but the Lord of the Rings films have some pretty big themes running throughout. And yet my absolute favoruite moment from the whole 9 hours? At the end of FOTR, with Sam and Frodo atop a mountain, with their daunting future in the foreground. Frodo turns to Sam and says, "Sam. I'm glad you're with me." They share a look and then the credits role. They're the kinds of "messages" that I love.

Basically, I'm saying I can't make a list because it depends. Sometimes a film will work for me because of the directing, sometimes the writing and sometimes the message/theme... and then sometimes you get all of those things at once.

[Riz]

Originally Posted by teq the decider

Heaping praise on a movie which propogates a message largely deemed to be sophisticated/compassionate/courageous is a way to broadcast your sophistication/compassion/courage.

And by the same token, heaping criticism on a movie which propogates a message largely deemed to be sophisticated/compassionate/courageous is a way to broadcast your rejection of accepted sophistication/compassion/courage themes because you're so above them.

[menaz]

In Clerks two, randal put LOTR best.

3 hours of walking, and a ring toss in the volcano.

The rest of LOTR was nothing more than two hobits giving each other homo sexual looks, with an ending that was continuously endless.

Simplistic break down? Maybe. Did I agree beforehand? without a doubt.

I never laughed so hard when randal said...
For fuck sake, Even the trees were walking. LOL!




1.) screenwriting
2.) acting
3.) cinematography/art design
4.) music/flim score
5.) direction (e.g. miami vice, worst vision ever.)

[Lee Van McQueen]

Originally Posted by teq the decider

It not that they are overvalued but that they arent infact valued at all, theyre insincerely valued. A substantial measure of critical acclaim can be garnered just by flattering the pretentions of the critics. Heaping praise on a movie which propogates a message largely deemed to be sophisticated/compassionate/courageous is a way to broadcast your sophistication/compassion/courage.

i'd say this is truer of the academy than the critical community

many films that get praised by the body of critics the academy wouldn't dare touch out of safety for their image


@ your list

[Superman70]

How was Million Dollar Baby undeserving?
It was a great movie.

[Brahman]

, i liked it, but i saw a handful of 2004 films that i felt were better

[Brahman]

Originally Posted by Riz

sometimes the message/theme...

yeah, i can never see a message/theme being a saving grace for a film though

it can add a little more power to the punch leaving you with a lasting feeling of "damn, that was deep", but it ultimately carries little weight for the art

like i said, i used to be very argumentative about this, but i've accepted we're all different. i don't think i'll ever understand why underlying messages/themes get as much credit as they do when they're not really contributing to the quality of the film itself. well, i take that back... i can understand why they would help films get beloved by certain people because to the ability to touch and tug at heartstrings, but it shouldn't factor heavily into the equation of critical analysis. at least not as heavily as it appears to be in the academy's.

[Ignorant]

Brahman, I agree with everything you said... punk ass Oz is guilty of this when judging rap music... he's so concerned with the "what" instead of the "how."

My top 5 in order:

1) acting - point blank, I can't watch any film with bad acting
2) direction- controls how the film is presented, from the score to the acting
3) writing- has to make sense or be compelling
4) cinematography/art design - important superficially, but important nonetheless
5) score - fuck a grand score, sometimes too much music can interfere with the nuances of the acting and direction.

[The Jeus]

Do you find it interesting that you quoted Ebert's famous maxim in support of your argument, yet Ebert himself put Crash as his #1 in 2005, and MDB as his #1 in 04.

Your argument sounds like the classic Samuel Goldwyn line "If you want to send a message, use Western Union"

I think what you'll find as you peruse what passes for film criticism today, that many of the writers are either a) writing for the general audience and they can connect more readily with theme/plot than cinematic grammar or b) the writer is simply not learned enough in regards to the craft of filmmaking that they can't cogently write about it.

I think you've mistaken Ebert a little bit though; he is saying if you are delivering a message, there is a difference between doing it honestly within the context of the story, with respect for the audience's intelligence and tacking it on preachily with obvious grandstanding and what not, in addition to the technical aspects. Because the "art" of filmmaking is an empty exercise if nothing is being communicated. Art is about expression and if a message/idea/emotion/thought isn't being expressed, it is an excercise in futility.

"top 5"
1. Is this sound synched with the picture and is it lit properly for the film stock used so I can see what's going on? aka general technical competence
2. directing
3. screenplay
4. staging/editing/acting - largely inseparable
5. production design

I'll come back to this later on, but that's where I'm at right now.

[Brahman]

no, it doesn't surprise me really... for my $$$, ebert's taste can be questionable at times, but his thought process in coming to conclusions is sound. i know he ended up liking those movies more because he felt other things within them that i didn't rather than placing too much value on their messages.

Originally Posted by The Jeus

I think what you'll find as you peruse what passes for film criticism today, that many of the writers are either a) writing for the general audience and they can connect more readily with theme/plot than cinematic grammar or b) the writer is simply not learned enough in regards to the craft of filmmaking that they can't cogently write about it.

good point

Originally Posted by The Jeus

I think you've mistaken Ebert a little bit though; he is saying if you are delivering a message, there is a difference between doing it honestly within the context of the story, with respect for the audience's intelligence and tacking it on preachily with obvious grandstanding and what not, in addition to the technical aspects.

oh okay, thanks for clearing that up

i thought i may have been missing some necessary context

however, do you agree with my own theory that i derived from the quote?

have you detected a trend of films with "more responsible", "positive", "uplifting", etc. messages sometimes being given special treatment and placement over films that are superior but have "less responsible", "immoral", "amoral", etc. messages?

a lot of the time, it's almost as if the rule is "if a film is about _________, it's better than a film about _________" with many other aspects being overlooked or not getting enough consideration

Originally Posted by The Jeus

Because the "art" of filmmaking is an empty exercise if nothing is being communicated. Art is about expression and if a message/idea/emotion/thought isn't being expressed, it is an excercise in futility.

i have to disagree with this

art is expansive enough to where there really isn't such a thing as an "empty exercise"

why? because as long as you fill time and space with colors, shapes, sounds, etc., you are expressing something. on the extreme side, it could be jackson pollockly random and over-the-top abstract with its creator not knowing what it is exactly, but it's still filled with an idea that will be interpreted in some form or fashion... and, it's bound to get adoration from some who find movement and inspiration from it. it may not qualify with everyone or most as being "good", "sensible", or "worthwhile", but it's still a message and evocative nonetheless... even if it's purely a stylistic exhibition. aesop rock comes to mind... i don't get a lot of what he's trying to communicate with his songs, but i dig them because he has a way of connecting words to make the verses "sound cool". would you call a lot of what he does "empty exercises"? what if he says to himself, "fuck it... there's no concept here. i just want to wordplay". would you say that's an "empty exercise"?

i came to learn this from watching and being overwhelmed by mulholland dr., my 1st david lynch film. while it is infused with an overall message, it's given unconventionally and many parts of the film seem to not being saying anything at all. dreamscape visuals splashed on the canvas for the sake of putting something "weird" out there, and it intrigued me.

i'm not anti-tradition and saying all messages should be delivered like this or anything. i have no problem seeing a movie that follows the familiar structure (some of my all-time favorites are traditional), but i'd like to see a movement back to more respect for and attention paid to the craft. the sergio leone's, david lynch's, akira kurosawa's, luchino visconti's, etc. they all had messages in the film, but most of the time it seemed like they didn't think of the message beforehand and then find a way to deliver it through a story. they just whipped up a good story, allowed whatever messages that were embedded to arise naturally, and applied intense focus to the creation of the film itself. whereas i get the sense from a lot of other films that the maker comes with a message already in mind and constructed a story around it, and this often ends up feeling unnatural.

[Ignorant]

^I love watching you two guys talk about film... makes me want to break out the popcorn... I was in full agreement with The Jeus until Brahman came along and made me think in another way... you're a fuckin' genius, man!

[Brahman]

, konscious

eh, i try... if i weren't myself, i'd be listening more to the jeus right now, because i've been borderline psychotic with my mind aswirl for the past month or so. he comes with deeper film knowledge, and i like his grounded and more classical viewpoint.

snap, i reread my reply, realized that i misread something he said and didn't address it properly.

gotta go back and correct it