I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not entirely fair in my reviews of movies with a strong message. It doesn’t matter how delicately the filmmaker has incorporated their “message” into their film, as soon as I get a whiff of proselytizing I immediately find my opinion of the film is lowered. It is important to keep in mind that I am making the distinction here between the filmmaker showing their view of the world (something every filmmaker should do) as opposed to attempting to change the audience’s view of the world (something I feel should not be overtly attempted).
While discussing this with a friend, the point was made that while the purpose of art should not necessarily be to inform, “the role of art for the artist is self-expression, so objection to their doing so in a political or otherwise partisan way is disingenuous”. Which is a good point, one that I will look into in greater depth here today to find out just what it is about everything from I was a Fugitive from a Chain Gang to The Lost Weekend that immediately turns me off.
I think the key to my feelings on films with a message is the distinction between “self-expression” and “self-imposition”. No one can give one definition of what art is, or what the purpose of art is, but saying “the role of art for the artist is self-expression” is something not many (including myself) could really argue against. But I do feel that when creating art there is a big difference between expressing myself (including any views I might have on politics, religion, or the world in general) and attempting to convince others to think along the same lines that I do (something few who have strong views on politics, religion or the world in general are able to resist doing).
When I watch a movie I don’t want to watch a commercial, no matter how well made or how commendable the subject. In some ways, Plato wasn’t completely wrong when he worried that art appealed too much to our base emotions to be considered safe for the masses without regulation. True, as free thinking individuals with the sense to know when we are being manipulated, I do not think that art should be regulated. However, art is naturally dramatic, and thus naturally biased when it attempts to convince the viewer of a message. If I really want to reevaluate my beliefs, turning to a work of art is about as “fair and unbiased” as listening to Fox News to choose a political affiliation.
Again, I really do feel that every work of art should have something to say (not necessarily in a partisan way, but, in theory there also isn’t any thing wrong with taking a side while you say it either). Thus, many might be quick to ask what makes LeRoy’s condemnation of the chain gang system any different from Fassbinder’s condemnation of marriage, Sirk’s condemnation of contemporary society or Clouzot’s condemnation of everything. This is a tricky question. After all, Douglas Sirk’s All That Heaven Allows, for example, is a devastating critique of 1950’s societal mores, much like I was a Fugitive from a Chain Gang is a devastating critique of 1930’s chain gangs.
I think the difference between the two is the complexity of their ideas and the depth of their raison d’être. Viewing the myriad layers of hypocrisy and self deception (all rooted in very universal human motivations) in All That Heaven Allows is an infinitely more rewarding experience than the “hey, it’s bad to brutalize your fellow man” message of I was a Fugitive from a Chain Gang. A simplistic message like this is then made all the more shallow by the suspicion that that message (and the desire to get all who view the movie to think the same way) was the sole reason for that movie’s existence. Not to mention that if the message is something as painfully obvious as a case for the horror of lynch mobs, the holocaust, alcoholism or humanity’s capacity for brutality I am not only going to have an unpleasant experience being forced to view such awful truths, I will also feel talked down to: “Really? The holocaust was bad? Humanity has something like that in it? Duh!”
I also find it annoying that so many message movies are so blatant about their message. Look at Capra’s Mr Deeds Goes to Town. It has a similar “everyman shows country how to live” message as his later film Meet John Doe, but is thankfully devoid of the heavy handed moralizing and bile inducing religious subtexts that so thoroughly scupper Meet John Doe. Mr Deeds Goes to Town might be a movie with a message, but Meet John Doe is a message that happens to be in a movie.
None of this however takes into account all the movies with very obvious messages that “lay it on thick” that I love nonetheless. After all, almost all Russian silent films, Triumph of the Will, Z, and many more commit many of the above grievances, but you won’t see me writing about them in anything less than glowing terms. So what is the difference? I’m not a communist, fascist or even remotely political, it is not the message that appeals to me. I think it is that in all cases, the film maker, while undoubtedly motivated by the desire to convince the audience of their message, was even more so motivated by the desire to create a great film. Many of these films are such marvels of editing, and full of such breathtaking energy and genuine insight beyond their “message” that the heavy handedness of the subject matter was easily eclipsed.
In fact, these films actually demonstrate the relative unimportance of the messages themselves when evaluated as cinema. For example, I find the idea of “faith” to at times have the potential to be one of the most insidious ideas ever dreamed up by the human race, yet Dreyer’s testament to “faith”, Ordet, is an undeniable masterwork resting upon the same lofty peak as Riefenstahl’s hymn to societal manipulation, Triumph of the Will. However, when we come back to I was a Fugitive on a Chain Gang, a film with a genuinely good message (as opposed (in my opinion) to the messages of the first two examples), I find myself with no desire to rewatch it any time soon.
So, what is going on? I have presented a lot of ideas here, and plenty of evidence that I like a lot of movies that seem to share quite a few of the same qualities that I say I despise in other movies. But I think I can still pull a few ground rules as to what it takes to get me to like a movie with a strong partisan message. Speaking in general terms, films whose overall reason for existence is to convey an overly simplistic (of which political (or otherwise partisan) messages are often guilty of being) message and who choose to do so in an overbearingly didactic manner will fall short as films for me. The exceptions to this rule are movies that both have something deeper to say than a quick partisan slogan and are in reality more concerned with the cinematic than their message (though I realize this is a subjective distinction).
Thus, to me it doesn’t matter what the message is, but rather how cinematic the film is and what it really has to say. Because if a movie with a message ceases to be cinema it becomes a commercial, and nobody likes to be told what the proper way to think is. As free thinking human beings we can all do very well on our own deciding what the right thing to think is without someone trying to decide for us. So just because I object to I was a Fugitive on a Chain Gang for personal reasons doesn’t mean you have to. Besides, I was a Fugitive on a Chain Gang was quite cinematic after all, so maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about anyway!
5 Comments
Interesting. I would then ask if your criticism holds for movies with seemingly no message – if the movie is almost completely devoid of any sort of meaningful commentary, is it okay as long as it is made well? Or is part of the craft of a movie (or any work of art) to communicate -something- however apathetic and vacuous it seems? I’m thinking here of movies like the recent 2012, so many 80’s teen movies, the work of Hope and Crosby?
Also, what about comedies? A comedy might have to put its “message” forward for comic effect, such as in Revenge of the Nerds. I will admit, this is not film-making at its highest level, but the “preachiness” of the film (don’t be mean to nerds – they can destroy you) is part of the comedic effect.
Another area is the documentary, and I suppose Triumph falls into this. People have the misguided notion that a documentary is supposed to be neutral (as if this is the difference between a fiction and non-fiction book in elementary school: one is for fun and the other is for “learning something”) People often criticize Moore for actually expressing HIS opinion in his recent string of documentaries, but what he is doing is no different, essentially, than any other sort of storytelling, but instead of telling you about faeries and aliens, he is telling you about some real topic. And his movies are well-made for what he is trying to do, at least IMO.
Also, as I was reading this, I thought of Mr Smith Goes to Washington. I enjoy the film, but I also find it extremely preachy. Maybe I like it for the reasons you gave: it is well-acted and its production is fabulous. I just can’t watch it without feeling that I should have this abiding faith in the goodness of the American political system. Still, so many movies bear important messages that we sometimes overlook:
– Don’t be creepy and look into people’s windows.
– High school sucks but has some comedic/dramatic value.
– Plain-looking people make great friends.
– Self-aware computers always turn on their masters first.
– All social ties must be severed in the zombie apocalypse.
– Your best friend of the opposite gender is almost certainly harboring feelings for you, unless he/she is gay in which case they aren’t and they will always be there for you.
– You can manipulate a hobbit into doing almost anything.
– Babies are a lot smarter than they seem.
– If an alien doesn’t look like you, it probably will want to eat you. Avoid. If it does look like you, it probably won’t eat you but it will be a sanctimonious douchebag.
– Cool guys don’t look at explosions.
Well I think everything has a “message” if you use the term broadly. Even action trash like Vin Diesel’s xXx (which I kind of liked anyway) has the message might makes right, masculinity and machismo are to be commended and individual initiative (represented by a “one man army”) is a laudable quality. Or even beyond trying to find partisan messages in every film, xXx’s reason for existence is to satisfy the viewer’s primal urge for violence and crushing of one’s enemies.
But even something like Inland Empire (I think) has a message. I challenge anyone to put into words what it is, but I think it is still there (and like all great art, indescribable). Sure people could make a surreal movie like Inland Empire (and plenty do I’m sure) and fill it full of random surreal shit with no connection (I’m sure a lot of people claim Lynch did this) and then it would be a movie devoid of meaning (message or not) and I would say that would be something of only superficial interest.
As far as I know I pretty much agree with most of Michael Moore’s points. But he pisses me off anyway…it doesn’t matter how well made his documentaries are, I feel like a used car salesman is trying to pull one over on me (see also: Zeitgeist).
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington walks a fine line between overbearing Capra and acceptable Capra. I still like it. Meet John Doe goes too far in ramming its message home in my opinion and it finally pulls me out of enjoying the movie. Mr. Smith is a good example though…it is a very preachy movie.
I guess, bottom line, you can’t really ask about examples that my criticism holds too since I gave plenty in the post itself that my criticism didn’t hold to even though it should. I guess there are a lot of factors that all add up to what I finally think of a movie. I like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I hated hated haaated Crash. I can’t really justify that…but this post was an attempt to at least look at some possible reasons for that.
I didn’t mean to sound like I was criticizing your post since I agree with it, I think I just did a poor job of trying to farm your opinion about comedy. Of course, perhaps you aren’t a student of comedy and have no opinion 🙂 I think comedy interesting because the rules that govern its critical reception can sometimes be the opposite of that for other genres. Of course, I was never a fan of drama so I tend to disregard dramatic movies as hollow, insipid fare that attempts to normalize emotional responses and much of it plays on pathos far too much for my tastes.
So, does having a strong message in comedy help or hurt it? I find that it tends to help, especially if it is of the satirical variety… but maybe you can offer some exceptions?
Heh, I meant you can’t ask me since I don’t seem able to give a non-contradictory answer 🙂
I’m with you on not liking it when things play on Pathos…that’s why I have issues with a lot of Chaplin’s stuff from the 20s.
I don’t know that it would help or hurt comedies more than other movies…I’m tempted to say it would be the same, or hurt them more. I prefer a comedy to be “pure”, ie, make me laugh, not try to push an idea.
But again, there is a big distinction between pushing an idea and making a commentary on the world as a whole (which most comedies take their humor from anyway).
Duck Soup has something to say about wars and dictatorships…and I still like it, but not because of that, but because it is a fine movie full of the Marx Brother’s best work.
But back to Chaplin…I far prefer his earlier shorts where he was a an ass-kicking (literally) asshole who came up with all kinds of crazy gags, to his later full lengths that drew upon pathos to call attention to social injustices. That would be one example of where it hurt comedy.
But Revenge of the Nerds does have a strong “it’s ok to be different” message…but I don’t mind it. Maybe (new idea) I get pissed when movies take themselves so seriously (like Crash). Revenge of the Nerds is good fun, it doesn’t pretend it’s changing the world even with that overwrought final scene. Crash wears its “important movie” badge in full view and it pisses me off.
I haven’t seen Crash (well, either of them), but I agree with the “Hey, I’m an important movie and you should walk out of here feeling like a changed person and become outraged when I don’t win everything at the Oscars!” I guess I just like movies that don’t take themselves too seriously. I mean, I jumped at a chance to see Burn After Reading but I never saw No Country For Old Men. I liked Fargo and Brother, Where Art Thou, but I’ll probably skip A Serious Man. Sometimes the theme of a movie appeals to me like Being John Malkovich, but I didn’t want to see Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind because the idea of it was horrific to me.
I guess you’re right, now that I’m thinking about it, if the comedy is satirical, then a “message” that is really being undermined, is sometimes quite important, but if it is just a message layered in there to make some tiresome point than it is no better.
Amusingly, some of those older movies often can the message in an overblown line (I’m thinking of Russell’s Auntie Mame (though I guess that isn’t quite fair, superficially) and The Wizard of Oz, etc). Maybe this is just a product of the times and we have less tolerance for such things now. Instead, we get “You had me at hello” and “I drink your milkshake”.
Speaking of comedies, have you seen Operation Petticoat?