logo Sign In

Interesting article on Summer films

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I thought this was a very interesting article about the current state of the Summer Blockbuster, and in a sense the film industry as a whole. We were discussing this at work recently.  We also touched on it here, in Gaffer's G.I. Joe discussion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/movies/09scot.html?8dpc

 This passage from the article really stood out to me;

...those reliable axioms about the taste and expectations of the mass movie audience are not so much laws of nature as artifacts of corporate strategy. And the lessons derived from them conveniently serve to strengthen a status quo that increasingly marginalizes risk, originality and intelligence.

 To me, reality television falls under this same umbrella strategy.  If the studios (film & TV) serve only crap - then that's what people will watch when they tune in or go the local theater.  The studios created the world they claim we want. The truth is, they seldom offer up alternatives. It's like the owner of a sea food restaurant claiming that his customers only want fish because that's what they always order.

To me, it doesn't feel as though there are any signs of this trend letting up.  We've had multiple discussions on this very board - a board where films are a major theme and the members span several generations - and it doesn't appear to me that being spoon-fed two hours of shiny objects and pretty colors is what movie-goers really want.  Yet, we continue to get it anyway.  No wonder so many people feel disenfranchised these days. We're losing our voice, while the studios continue to say they hear us.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time

Thanks for the link, Anchorhead. That was a well-argued, well-written piece.

I love the idea of a boycott as a form of protest, but there are two problems with that strategy:

1) Boycotts would have to gain traction with the public at large - and that chunk of the populace is least likely to worry about this dumbing down of popular cinema. I really do believe that most moviegoers are just looking for a nice two hour vacation from home and don't care too very much about the quality of the film. Film buffs care, but they are badly outnumbered.

2) When mostly every movie at the local Cinema 12 is a CGI-crapfest shoot-em-up, which one of those features is going to get the business end of the boycott?

The only way to turn this around is slowly and gradually. When you go out to rent (or log on to NetFlix), look for story-driven films. Look for character-driven films. Don't look for "name" actors - in fact, the films might even be better in their absence. And when you find films you do like, recommend them with enthusiasm to friends, co-workers, relatives, etc. Steer clear of anything that remotely resembles a "blockbuster".

That's about the only solution I can offer.

Want to book yourself or a guest on THE VFP Show? PM me!

Author
Time

The other option I see would be a blockbuster that completely shatters the current trend and is so popular (like Star Wars in 1977), that is so popular that it causes a shift towards that type of filmmaking in all the studios.  But it would have to be big.  

Episode II: Shroud of the Dark Side

Emperor Jar-Jar
“Back when we made Star Wars, we just couldn’t make Palpatine as evil as we intended. Now, thanks to the miracles of technology, it is finally possible. Finally, I’ve created the movies that I originally imagined.” -George Lucas on the 2007 Extra Extra Special HD-DVD Edition

Author
Time
Trooperman said:

The other option I see would be a blockbuster that completely shatters the current trend and is so popular (like Star Wars in 1977), that is so popular that it causes a shift towards that type of filmmaking in all the studios.  But it would have to be big.  

 

 Like "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" or "Mama Mia?"

Those both made more money than God. And yet Transformers 2 was still made.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well Ponyo is comming out soon so at least there is an excellent film to look forward to.

Author
Time

And District 9 opens tomorrow - going to see it at midnight tonight!  I'm so fucking excited for that movie ...

Author
Time

Going to see it Sunday with my friends, but I'm now looking at it with a more critical eye.  Ever see Alien Nation?

My outlook on life - we’re all on the Hindenburg anyway…no point fighting over the window seat.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Ziz said:

Going to see it Sunday with my friends, but I'm now looking at it with a more critical eye.  Ever see Alien Nation?

 

Exactly someone told me about seeing the trailer in theaters and explained the premise to me.  And i explained it sounded an awful lot like Alien Nation.

Well except district 9 is not a very well veiled allegory on racism and the treatment of black people in general by whites.  its just easier to make it science fiction.  And all the more relevent as far as marketing goes to put it in theaters when Obama is president.

But it is in the true science fiction tradition of star trek and gene roddenberry to talk of such subjects under the guise of science fiction.  Imagine that another sci fi movie talks about something relevent in the same year that star trek was reborn as a dumb action movie for fratboys, and american football watchers.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time

Just got back from District 9 - it was about a hundred different kinds of amazing.  It might just be the high of seeing it for the first time, but I'll go out on a limb and say that it's easily the best action sci-fi film I've ever seen - yes, it's better than Aliens.  And the CG never once stood out to me as being CG, which is extraordinarily rare these days.

I highly recommend it to everyone here.  Amazing.

Author
Time
vote_for_palpatine said:

Don't look for "name" actors - in fact, the films might even be better in their absence.

I disagree. Some name actors are damn good and I want to see their films.

 

Author
Time
vote_for_palpatine said:

Thanks for the link, Anchorhead. That was a well-argued, well-written piece.

I love the idea of a boycott as a form of protest, but there are two problems with that strategy:

1) Boycotts would have to gain traction with the public at large - and that chunk of the populace is least likely to worry about this dumbing down of popular cinema. I really do believe that most moviegoers are just looking for a nice two hour vacation from home and don't care too very much about the quality of the film. Film buffs care, but they are badly outnumbered.

Definitely, the majority of kids going to see these movies want to see Jason Statham getting blown up, Angelina Jolie getting it on will shooting someone and Jet Li using his bad ass kung fu skills to cover up his bad acting.

2) When mostly every movie at the local Cinema 12 is a CGI-crapfest shoot-em-up, which one of those features is going to get the business end of the boycott?

That's what the brainless meat puppets want to see and sadly Brainless Meat Puppets are the majority. THEY ARE THE POWA

The only way to turn this around is slowly and gradually. When you go out to rent (or log on to NetFlix), look for story-driven films. Look for character-driven films. Don't look for "name" actors - in fact, the films might even be better in their absence

Actually all of the actors I look for when I watch movies are starting to go down the deep dark road of crappy films. Even Harrison Ford has to beat the shit out of someone who is on his plane, train, or automobile. Or has his Family.

And when you find films you do like, recommend them with enthusiasm to friends, co-workers, relatives, etc. Steer clear of anything that remotely resembles a "blockbuster".

I tried showing my friend Immortal Beloved and he called me a fag because he said it was a chick flick.

That's about the only solution I can offer

Really my only solution would be for us to all start making our own movies.

 

"The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won’t last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version [of the Special Edition], and you’ll be able to project it on a 20’ by 40’ screen with perfect quality. I think it’s the director’s prerogative, not the studio’s to go back and reinvent a movie." - George Lucas

<span> </span>

Author
Time
Anchorhead said:

I thought this was a very interesting article about the current state of the Summer Blockbuster, and in a sense the film industry as a whole. We were discussing this at work recently.  We also touched on it here, in Gaffer's G.I. Joe discussion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/movies/09scot.html?8dpc

 This passage from the article really stood out to me;

...those reliable axioms about the taste and expectations of the mass movie audience are not so much laws of nature as artifacts of corporate strategy. And the lessons derived from them conveniently serve to strengthen a status quo that increasingly marginalizes risk, originality and intelligence.

 To me, reality television falls under this same umbrella strategy.  If the studios (film & TV) serve only crap - then that's what people will watch when they tune in or go the local theater.  The studios created the world they claim we want. The truth is, they seldom offer up alternatives. It's like the owner of a sea food restaurant claiming that his customers only want fish because that's what they always order.

To me, it doesn't feel as though there are any signs of this trend letting up.  We've had multiple discussions on this very board - a board where films are a major theme and the members span several generations - and it doesn't appear to me that being spoon-fed two hours of shiny objects and pretty colors is what movie-goers really want.  Yet, we continue to get it anyway.  No wonder so many people feel disenfranchised these days. We're losing our voice, while the studios continue to say they hear us.

I don't see the business ever changing for the opinions of the movie goers. Come on, they toss out sequels, remakes, and prequels then the go running to the bank with their wheel barrels and shovels then they do the same thing next month. If they are making the cash, they aren't going to change a thing. This article made me happy (because someone agrees with me FINALLY) and sad because it's the truth!!

Now I bitch and moan about the condition of Film,TV, Music, Etc all of the time. Things are so bad that I am thinking of just unhooking my cable and just watching movies I know are good. Because I won't be dissapointed and I won't be wasting my money on seeing one more shootemup movie. The article had another great thing to say about the movie up.

“Up,” the only hugely successful movie of the summer that engages genuinely adult themes. It’s about loss, frustration, disappointment. And it offers one of the season’s most pointed and paradoxical lessons. If you want to make a mature film for mature audiences, make sure it’s a cartoon."

Now I understand the meaning of Metallica's song "Sad But True" even more.

"The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won’t last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version [of the Special Edition], and you’ll be able to project it on a 20’ by 40’ screen with perfect quality. I think it’s the director’s prerogative, not the studio’s to go back and reinvent a movie." - George Lucas

<span> </span>

Author
Time
 (Edited)
TheBoost said:
Trooperman said:

The other option I see would be a blockbuster that completely shatters the current trend and is so popular (like Star Wars in 1977), that is so popular that it causes a shift towards that type of filmmaking in all the studios.  But it would have to be big.  

 

 Like "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" or "Mama Mia?"

Those both made more money than God. And yet Transformers 2 was still made.

Mama Mia was shit.

Author
Time
skyjedi2005 said:

But it is in the true science fiction tradition of star trek and gene roddenberry to talk of such subjects under the guise of science fiction.  Imagine that another sci fi movie talks about something relevent in the same year that star trek was reborn as a dumb action movie for fratboys, and american football watchers.

District 9, judging from what I've heard, is a movie made for sake of sending a message. Art is not about sending messages. That's an abuse of art. It doesn't matter if the message is a worthy one like in District 9, it's still not what art is about. I'm not very impressed with what we get for sf this year -movie for a message (District 9), movie for a shitty little gimmick (Avatar) and movie for dumbing down an old story and shitting on tradition (Star Trek).  

Author
Time

Hmm, I have to disagree about art that tries to convey a message being an abuse of art (though if the message is over bearing and heavy handed, propaganda may be a better word for it than art, but a well thought thesis being argued in a film is perfectly respectable in my book). For example, literature, which by far is my favorite form of art, invariably always has some kind of message behind it whether intentionally or unintentionally placed there by the author. (Though I can imagine that dine-a-dozen mystery and romance and other such novels that are pooped out by authors on a monthly bases may forego any type of intellectual message for the sake of amusing fluff, much like your typical summer blockbuster, but I would hardly consider those kind of books to be art). Skimming my own collection of books, I can't see a single work of fiction that I have read that I cannot immediately associate with some kind of a message.

I don't suppose fiction in the form of film should be any different. I have not seen District 9, so I cannot make any personal comments on it, though I have only heard good things about it. When I first heard about it, my thoughts were that it sounded like complete crap, but now I am actually quite looking forward to seeing it, but unfortunately have yet to have the opportunity. That said, films like Revenge of the Sith including an obvious political message leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Not because of my own political position, but the way in which it painfully dates the film, and by the fact that rather than being well thought out, it takes the popular stance of the public and regurgitates it but hardly in any new or creative way.

Just my thoughts on the subject of films with messages.

As an additional 2 cents, I guess an author or film maker should always be aware of the views he is putting into his work, as good art should be able to speak to anyone, but strong biases alienate a portion of an audience. I am just not sure how it is possible to leave your biases out of a work completely and still have it be an honest work; I can't imagine a film that tries to please everyone not feeling rather fake.

 

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
 (Edited)

"For example, literature, which by far is my favorite form of art, invariably always has some kind of message behind it whether intentionally or unintentionally placed there by the author."

When an author does intentionally place a message in their work it becomes an allegory, and and usually there is only one correct way to solve this allegory and the author offers the solution.

The other way the way i prefer and i think is less harmful to a story is applicability, an unintentional metaphor or reading pulled out by the reader.

There is pure allegory like Dante's Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost.

Middle of the road allegory still heavy of an allegorical influence like chronciles of narnia,

Or books that have no topical allegory whatsoever and its left up to the reader like Tolkien's lord of the rings.

 

Subtext in films is not an abuse of art, it is an abuse of art for films to be a puff of air representing nothing other than noise, special effects and ticket sales.  The idea of film is that it is supposed to provoke a response in the viewer, whether of joy, sadness, fear, absolute terror, horror, being uplifted, or being shown the destitute and evil character of man.

Even bad and poorly made films provoke a response.

I think it was Lucas himself who said film as art was a lot of pretentious bullshit, and that he preferred to think himself as a toymaker.

I don't have the direct quote, but i remember that from an article on the making of thx or graffiti.  Though it very well could have been during star wars.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Tolkien is a very good example. He disliked allegory, and would protest when people tried to pull allegory out of Lord of the Rings, as they often did and still do. Yet, his books, Lord of the Rings being no exception, are chock full of messages and lessons.

 

skyjedi2005 said:

Subtext in films is not an abuse of art, it is an abuse of art for films to be a puff of air representing nothing other than noise, special effects and ticket sales.  The idea of film is that it is supposed to provoke a response in the viewer, whether of joy, sadness, fear, absolute terror, horror, being uplifted, or being shown the destitute and evil character of man.

 

Very well put. I think it sums up most of our frustrations rather nicely. I for one am getting very tired of puffs of air representing nothing other than noise, special effects and ticket sales. I think it is that emotional response we are all missing with the typical BS blockbuster these days. When I saw "silly" sci-fi films like Planet of the Apes or Star Wars when I was a kid, they provoked a huge emotional response from me. The trench run at the end of Star Wars was extremely intense to me, even after I had seen it several times, I was still on the edge of my seat. And for some reason, I still feel a bit of excitement and dread everytime Taylor stumbles upon the Statue of Liberty at the end of Planet of the Apes. Perhaps this is due to the age I was when I first saw that film.

Maybe kids these days are so used to seeing stuff like this and that is why so many of them tend to find Star Wars incredibly boring, and much prefer Return of the Jedi and the prequels. I suppose films like Attack of the Clones and G.I. Joe and their high paced action provides young audiences with a bit of a rush, much like the rush of excitement I used to get from watching Sean Connery or Roger Moore as James Bond when I was a kid. So I suppose the modern blockbuster does evoke an emotional response from its core audience, unfortunately, I am unable to tune into that emotion. To me, it comes off as little more than annoyance at the ridiculousness of what I am seeing before me.

Perhaps my grandfather felt this exact same way when he watched James Bond or Star Wars with me and labeled them as "foolishness". And I suppose the way I felt about his "boring" old black and white westerns that he'd play for me with pride, stating that they were "movies worth watching", is very much the same way my best friend's youngest brother (he is thirteen) felt when I tried to convince him that Star Wars (1977) was absolutely the best of the bunch, and that Revenge of the Sith (his favorite) was hardly worth watching.

Damn generation gap! Makes me feel really old... and disappointed that this younger generation will never experience the greatness of the films I love in the way I experienced them or feel the fondness for them I had.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
 (Edited)
C3PX said:

Hmm, I have to disagree about art that tries to convey a message being an abuse of art (though if the message is over bearing and heavy handed, propaganda may be a better word for it than art, but a well thought thesis being argued in a film is perfectly respectable in my book). For example, literature, which by far is my favorite form of art, invariably always has some kind of message behind it whether intentionally or unintentionally placed there by the author. (Though I can imagine that dine-a-dozen mystery and romance and other such novels that are pooped out by authors on a monthly bases may forego any type of intellectual message for the sake of amusing fluff, much like your typical summer blockbuster, but I would hardly consider those kind of books to be art). Skimming my own collection of books, I can't see a single work of fiction that I have read that I cannot immediately associate with some kind of a message.

I don't suppose fiction in the form of film should be any different. I have not seen District 9, so I cannot make any personal comments on it, though I have only heard good things about it. When I first heard about it, my thoughts were that it sounded like complete crap, but now I am actually quite looking forward to seeing it, but unfortunately have yet to have the opportunity. That said, films like Revenge of the Sith including an obvious political message leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Not because of my own political position, but the way in which it painfully dates the film, and by the fact that rather than being well thought out, it takes the popular stance of the public and regurgitates it but hardly in any new or creative way.

Just my thoughts on the subject of films with messages.

As an additional 2 cents, I guess an author or film maker should always be aware of the views he is putting into his work, as good art should be able to speak to anyone, but strong biases alienate a portion of an audience. I am just not sure how it is possible to leave your biases out of a work completely and still have it be an honest work; I can't imagine a film that tries to please everyone not feeling rather fake.

 

There's messages and there's messages. I'm not talking about subconsciously-included messages or messages that are not what the work is all about. When a work just happens to contain some sort of message (or something that can loosely be called a message) than that's one thing, but when a work gets up on a soap box and beats you over the head with A Message then it's an abuse of art. Unintentionally-included messages are a far cry from when a work of art is made just to beat out a particular message. And you can have plenty works that have an intentionally-included message without the whole work being created just to beat you over the head in an unsubtle way with a message. When a work is all about the message then there's a problem. Because that's NOT what art is for. Art is for human nature and feeling and imagination and letting the deeper recesses of the mind express themselves, not for "Look at me, I'm making a point!!" A work of art is NOT supposed to be a political pamphlet.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
skyjedi2005 said:

"For example, literature, which by far is my favorite form of art, invariably always has some kind of message behind it whether intentionally or unintentionally placed there by the author."

When an author does intentionally place a message in their work it becomes an allegory, and and usually there is only one correct way to solve this allegory and the author offers the solution.

The other way the way i prefer and i think is less harmful to a story is applicability, an unintentional metaphor or reading pulled out by the reader.

There is pure allegory like Dante's Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost.

Middle of the road allegory still heavy of an allegorical influence like chronciles of narnia,

Or books that have no topical allegory whatsoever and its left up to the reader like Tolkien's lord of the rings.

 

Subtext in films is not an abuse of art, it is an abuse of art for films to be a puff of air representing nothing other than noise, special effects and ticket sales.  The idea of film is that it is supposed to provoke a response in the viewer, whether of joy, sadness, fear, absolute terror, horror, being uplifted, or being shown the destitute and evil character of man.

Even bad and poorly made films provoke a response.

I think it was Lucas himself who said film as art was a lot of pretentious bullshit, and that he preferred to think himself as a toymaker.

I don't have the direct quote, but i remember that from an article on the making of thx or graffiti.  Though it very well could have been during star wars.

I wasn't talking about mere subtext. I was talking about a whole work of "art" being made for the sole purpose of beating a particular message into the audience's head. You can have plenty subtext without doing that.

Nor was I talking about messages being put into things unintentionally.

Not all works with an intentional message are allegories. As for allegories, that's where it gets more dangerous. Sometimes an allegory can be done so it doesn't feel like the art is being abused, but allegories are often a pain, because they're just using their fiction to sell a message rather than respecting their fiction more than that and being thoroughly into it. I've always had mixed feelings about CS Lewis's Narnia books. There are works that go way farther than that. Like Zardoz, which has absolutely no depth of feeling because it's all about the message and the allegory and doesn't believe in its imaginary world and just uses it to say something. 

As for films provoking a response, that is nothing to do with messages. Films don't have to be made for the sake of a message to have the ability to provoke a response.

And it is a mistake to think that a film that doesn't flog a message is nothing but "a puff of air representing nothing other than noise, special effects and ticket sales".  There is so much more of substance you can put into a work of art than messages. Human nature, human feeling, imagination, letting the deeper recesses of the mind express themselves. That stuff goes a lot deeper, comes from a deeper place than flogging messages. That stuff is what art is about. Flogging messages is shallower and more cynical.

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)
C3PX said:

Tolkien is a very good example. He disliked allegory, and would protest when people tried to pull allegory out of Lord of the Rings, as they often did and still do. Yet, his books, Lord of the Rings being no exception, are chock full of messages and lessons.

 

skyjedi2005 said:

Subtext in films is not an abuse of art, it is an abuse of art for films to be a puff of air representing nothing other than noise, special effects and ticket sales.  The idea of film is that it is supposed to provoke a response in the viewer, whether of joy, sadness, fear, absolute terror, horror, being uplifted, or being shown the destitute and evil character of man.

 

Very well put. I think it sums up most of our frustrations rather nicely. I for one am getting very tired of puffs of air representing nothing other than noise, special effects and ticket sales. I think it is that emotional response we are all missing with the typical BS blockbuster these days. When I saw "silly" sci-fi films like Planet of the Apes or Star Wars when I was a kid, they provoked a huge emotional response from me. The trench run at the end of Star Wars was extremely intense to me, even after I had seen it several times, I was still on the edge of my seat. And for some reason, I still feel a bit of excitement and dread everytime Taylor stumbles upon the Statue of Liberty at the end of Planet of the Apes. Perhaps this is due to the age I was when I first saw that film.

Maybe kids these days are so used to seeing stuff like this and that is why so many of them tend to find Star Wars incredibly boring, and much prefer Return of the Jedi and the prequels. I suppose films like Attack of the Clones and G.I. Joe and their high paced action provides young audiences with a bit of a rush, much like the rush of excitement I used to get from watching Sean Connery or Roger Moore as James Bond when I was a kid. So I suppose the modern blockbuster does evoke an emotional response from its core audience, unfortunately, I am unable to tune into that emotion. To me, it comes off as little more than annoyance at the ridiculousness of what I am seeing before me.

Perhaps my grandfather felt this exact same way when he watched James Bond or Star Wars with me and labeled them as "foolishness". And I suppose the way I felt about his "boring" old black and white westerns that he'd play for me with pride, stating that they were "movies worth watching", is very much the same way my best friend's youngest brother (he is thirteen) felt when I tried to convince him that Star Wars (1977) was absolutely the best of the bunch, and that Revenge of the Sith (his favorite) was hardly worth watching.

Damn generation gap! Makes me feel really old... and disappointed that this younger generation will never experience the greatness of the films I love in the way I experienced them or feel the fondness for them I had.

 

There's a difference between something being made just to communicate a particular message and something having content capable of evoking an emotional response. A work doesn't have to exist solely to flog a message to get deep into your feelings and evoke a deep emotional response. There is so much more that can evoke emotional responses than just political messages and suchlike. Something that isn't all about a message is by no means necessarily something that can't evoke an emotional response or have depth. I rather think a work that concentrates on human nature and human feeling and imagination and puts that first has more depth (and more sincerity in its art) than one that has shouting a message as its number one priority. 

You mention the original Star Wars film, but while Lucas had some political subtext in mind, the movie wasn't all about flogging a heavy-handed message. That film wasn't there just for the message.

Maybe kids these days are so used to seeing stuff like this and that is why so many of them tend to find Star Wars incredibly boring, and much prefer Return of the Jedi and the prequels.

I don't think ROTJ deserves to be lumped with the prequels like that. The prequels do not evoke emotional responses of depth (except TPM in some places, such as various parts involving Qui Gon), but ROTJ evokes an emotional response easily. The Luke-Emperor-Vader sequence down to Vader's death and funeral pyre has great feeling, more than the vast majority of stuff in the OT. The Jabba's palace section is intensely imagined and has plenty capacity to evoke an emotional response. This stuff is a far cry from the feelingless action sequences and numb romance scenes that make up so much of the prequels. ROTJ is nothing like the prequels or like the shallower of modern blockbusters. ROTJ has some of the most emotionally intense parts of the OT. It's full of good honest sincere feeling. I don't know why it keeps getting crap lobbed at it.

Tolkien is a very good example. He disliked allegory, and would protest when people tried to pull allegory out of Lord of the Rings, as they often did and still do. Yet, his books, Lord of the Rings being no exception, are chock full of messages and lessons.

Well, Tolkien is a good example of what I WASN'T talking about. You can find messages in his work, but it wasn't made to shout a big message at the audience and wag a finger at them from up on a soap box. It's that latter form of message that's the problem. Nor does that include all films that or works of art that intentionally convey a message. It involves the ones in which everything in the work just exists to flog a message. Some films are about a message but are about other things too. But some films and works of art are just about the message and everything else is just window-dressing. Those latter works don't respect their fiction. They just use it to push the message. Ultimately, by not respecting their fiction they're not respecting the audience. They're a cheap sham.

And too often people get idea that flogging a message makes a work "clever" or  deep (they should try real feeling instead), so films like that can get acclaim. And it's because some people think a film is not "relevant" unless it's flogging a message that you get filmmakers trying to make their work look "clever" by including political stuff like ROTS did. What bewilders me is what the hell is not relevant enough about human nature and human feeling and human imagination. 

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Vaderisnothayden said:

Art is not about sending messages.

Art is almost always about sending some type of message.  By it's very definition, art is visceral. It is a creator's way of expressing thoughts or emotions so that others might also experience or understand them.  You may not dig the message, and in fact a person may even be offended by it, but it's not an abuse of some higher, pure medium. 

Even the most base or serene paintings are the artists' way of saying something about whatever it was that inspired them.  Just because a piece isn't a Basquiat, that doesn't mean it's not sending a message.  The same goes for any form - sculpture, music, writing, film, etc.

Artists don't go to the trouble because they have nothing better to do that day.  They create because something moved them emotionally and they either want to share it, warn against it, or preserve it. Whatever their reasons, it's a message.

 

Forum Moderator
Author
Time
skyjedi2005 said:

books that have no topical allegory whatsoever....like Tolkien's lord of the rings.

Lord Of The Rings is one of the most famous pieces of allegorical fiction there is.

I've read before where Tolkien claimed to hate allegory - he was either deluded, or a hypocrite.  Lord Of The Rings is a thinly-veiled allegorical piece about how the industrial revolution destroyed bucolic England.  It's almost nothing but allegory.  Arguably, it's know as much for it's message as it is for it's story.

Funny that you brought it up here.  Star Wars is nothing more than Lord Of The Rings in space. Innocent farm boy, at the urging of his old man wizard friend, is drawn into fight against giant evil power threatening the simple life of the good people. Both have a sort of religious David & Goliath under current as well.

 

Forum Moderator
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Anchorhead said:
skyjedi2005 said:

books that have no topical allegory whatsoever....like Tolkien's lord of the rings.

Lord Of The Rings is one of the most famous pieces of allegorical fiction there is.

I've read before where Tolkien claimed to hate allegory - he was either deluded, or a hypocrite.  Lord Of The Rings is a thinly-veiled allegorical piece about how the industrial revolution destroyed bucolic England.  It's almost nothing but allegory.  Arguably, it's know as much for it's message as it is for it's story.

 

But are you sure that is what it is really about, or just something many people have read into it that just happens to make sense, despite the author's claims to the contrary (i.e. is that being read into it rather than being read out of it?) I could be way off here, but I have never had any problem believing that Tolkien really did write Lord of the Rings allegory free (as he claims he did). Obviously every writer writes personal experiences and views into his works, it is unavoidable, you can only really write about what you know and from your own perspective. I just don't see how it is even possible for a writer to delude himself out of truly understanding what he himself actually wrote about.

Since I was a teenager it has been my hobby to write short stories, most of them totally suck I am sure, but I would continuously crank them out anyway; they have always been my emotional outlet. Sometimes my stories are pretty vague that I feel I cannot even definitively pin down what they are about. A few years ago I let my wife read a few of my old stories and found it very interesting to hear her interpretations of the things I wrote; many of the conclusions she came to were nowhere near my line of thinking during the time I wrote them, yet her interpretations always fit my stories like a glove. Why? Because while rummaging through a chest filled with gloves she just happened to find the one pair that fit? No, because her mind wove the glove around my story, ultimately resulting in an interpretation that seems perfectly plausable, but yet had absolutely nothing to do with what I was writing about.

Despite being a literary fanatic, I have always disliked my high school and university literature courses. The professor stand before the class and explains to us the meaning of the things we have read. Sometimes the writers intentions are very clear, and you can definitively pin down exactly what they wrote about, but more often than not things are pretty open. Yet in every literature class I have been party to, the instructor will tell you exactly what was being written about with 100% certainty, regardless of the fact that the author has been dead for one hundred years and never left a personal commentary on their work. A little bit of historical and social research of the author's time, and they feel they have definitively unlocked the meaning of that author's every word.

I certainly agree every author has a message of some sort or the other in his writing, and I feel those messages can be gleamed by anyone who picks up their work and reads it, I just don't feel it is always possible to know exactly what the author wrote about unless he specifically explained it himself.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
C3PX said:

I could be way off here, but I have never had any problem believing that Tolkien really did write Lord of the Rings allegory free (as he claims he did).

 

I believe the term he used to describe his work was applicable, as opposed to allegorical. He was certainly free to use whatever term he wanted, but they are very similar - in this case, a story being used to explain or demonstrate something that at first may appear unrelated.

 

I just don't see how it is even possible for a writer to delude himself out of truly understanding what he himself actually wrote about.

I don't think he was deluded about what he wrote at all.  I think he may not have wanted to appear as a political writer, so he chose to sometimes deny a connection. He said his work was more of a religious-based story about good vs evil - again, allegory or applicable.  He was a devout catholic and very outspoken on the evils of industrialization.  To think or state that those core beliefs aren't present - and at times a major theme -  seems like quite a stretch.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Anchorhead said:
Vaderisnothayden said:

Art is not about sending messages.

Art is almost always about sending some type of message.  By it's very definition, art is visceral. It is a creator's way of expressing thoughts or emotions so that others might also experience or understand them.  You may not dig the message, and in fact you may even be offended by it, but it's not an abuse of some higher, pure medium. 

Even the most base or serene paintings are the artists' way of saying something about whatever it was that inspired them.  Just because a piece isn't a Basquiat, that doesn't mean it's not sending a message.  The same goes for any form - sculpture, music, writing, film, etc.

Artists don't go to the trouble because they have nothing better to do that day.  They create because something moved them emotionally and they either want to share it, warn against it, or preserve it. Whatever their reasons, it's a message.

 

I've already made it very clear that I'm not talking about that kind of sending a message. I spelled it out repeatedly in three posts. Art is about communication but that doesn't mean art should be made into a political pamphlet in which everything in the work is subordinated to getting up on a soapbox and beating a message into the audience's head. You can have unintentional messages, intentional messages and plenty subtext without doing that. Art is about human nature, human feeling, imagination and the deeper recesses of our minds. To absolutely subordinate that stuff to beating out a political message is to abuse art. Art can communicate so much without everything in the work being subordinated to the purpose of a political message. And even some works that by and large subordinate themselves to a political message can manage to work as art, but it is very easy for a work that's all about the Message to be a debased work in which everything that's art about it is undermined by preaching. Preaching is not what art is about.

(A note: I keep going on about a political message, but it can sometimes be other types of messages that fuck up art that way.)

Also note, getting offended by a supposed work of art being turned into a preachy political pamphlet is not about whether you're offended by the message itself, it's about being offended by that being done to a would-be work of art with any sort of message.