Films whose messages/meanings are outshined by the gloss
 

Films that try to preach to the non-converted (and their success)....

Fight Club:

So, most would agree Fight Club has more to say than: "why not start a fight club?". Yet many people just walked away with that or one of the more visual ideas. Has this film failed then by only drawing people in on a superficial level and failing to introduce them more forcefully to the themes it was parodying. i.e. is there any point in parodying hero-worship/sheep-behaviour etc if your method of communicating this actually re-inforces these tendancies? (altho of course, to get passed these and other commercially re-inforced varients, you have to be actively looking beoynd the gloss. Heigh ho. Did the makers provide enough access points for even the least inquisitive mind to question the more ironic assertions etc?)

The Matrices:

Most people seem to have come out of the matrix reloaded (which i believe has lots of interesting broad-based things to say, if no real exploration of personal/individual feelings and relationships as such. just an over-view of belief systems etc)...just having had their he-who-kicks-hardest beliefs re-inforced (and a feeling that what they didn't understand was "stupid" - a fascinating way of terming dense dialogue that made no sense to them)

Both films seem to use their structure to force anyone following the plot to come to the writer's/director's own conclusions. Yet most people don't seem to view films that way. They don't seem to pick up on these internal logics of the film, despite their nescesity for the films success/coherence! What has gone wrong then? If they make people walk out of the cinema totally missing the irony - should they have done more to re-direct the viewer away from simplistic/surface conclusions.

I don't know. I'm fascinated by this. I think every film that tries something like this runs a huge risk of only reaching the converted with its message, while placating opposite/opposed views etc thru it's attempts to draw all viewers in. A fundamental tenet of self-exploration is that it can only be prompted, not spoon-fed. Should these films be making sure the less-questioning viewer doesn't settle into a self-satisfied and internally-justified surface explanation of the film? But would this compromise their success? i.e. that type of viewer just wants a low-level lobe-massage. Nothing too stimulating. They don't want to think - just to be told.

Oh to be a euphemistic, evangelical, edifying, easily-edible, entertaining, earth-shifting, ecumenically-unreligious, easy-access editor of directorial delights. That'd be nice. The future beckons....onward....

What thinks y'all?

Not again.....I'm still trying to debate with you about the Matrix movies inner meaning....

Drat. Oh well. There are plenty of films like this.

xactly. I think we're reaching equilibrium point over matrix/DC anyway (i.e. we won't be able to [dis]agree any more ;) - until the last matrix clears up its over-all messages by concluding them - and you tell me i should concentrate on M1 again ;))

What others can you think of? Tho, actually...don't want to over-load you Bealey ;) You've still got convince me on U-571 on a related theme - How-much-do-action/thoughtless-movies-rely-on-implicit-messages/meanings. [and in that case - are those implict meanings/messages highly dubious and liable to actually alter or inforce dubious views and actions. I believe so - as you know ;)]

Happy hours in front of the eye-frazzler ;)

Speaking of Equilibrium....have you seen that?

My movies to recommend to Golgot:

Below
Equilibrium

I'll get to doing U soon. I'm still figuring out whether or not I like it and where it fits in on my rating system.

Thaaaat was it. I'll get on it. That and Battleship Potemkin, and maybe one of the Solarii, and o sugar i got a stack of amazon books piling up with a highlighter by them. What's Below about?

Think a good, accurate, non-stereotyping U-571 and mix in a ghost story, not to mention several cool characters played by everybodys favorite character actors. 100 times better than U-571 and it was a pretty low budget picture. I think you'd love it.

I'd put Equilibrium pretty high on the list (after Battleship P and Solaris or course...). It seems like something right down your alley.

Cool. I'll have a butchers (as we say over here - well, in films anyway ;))

Right, i'll try and think of a few examples of plotty-gloss-loss then:

Well...

Wag the Dog wanted to take the mick out of perceptal spin, but instead got to hung up parodying itself (i.e movies)

Planet of the apes (the original) probably did get a point across i suppose i.e. We should stop acting like monkies all the time (monkey-see-monkey-do?) with the A-bomb etc. But did everyone who needed to get the message sit to the end? ;)

Nah, Fight Club is the best example so far i.e. a great example of people coming away with ironically opposite views to the ones the film intended to propogate.

These days Clockwork Orange can't even backfire coz no one finds the violence exciting/attractive or even disturbing, or the dialogue interesting it seems (seeing the odd view here anyway)

I found Alex's adventures to be exciting in a Goodfellas sense, and yet horrible toward the end of the film (what they were doing to him.....strange huh?)

damn - found out ;)
 

unfortunately i've never seen it :blush:

we just used to read the first chapter constantly in different english classes. And i've read commentaries etc. It's on my list!

Its very good. Check it out!

Have you seen Minority Report? Blade Runner? Total Recall?

Oh yeah, for sure. They're all PK Dick ones aren't they? I suppose we could say blade runner didn't get it's point across coz (a) it was hacked into a new form by the studio first (b) and after it's still too esoteric for everyone to pick up on everything (especially the first time round ;))

Minority Report hasn't made people suspicious of predictive crime (or terrorist attack) prevention either ;)

I wasn't suggesting those films for your message...although come to think of it...it would work. I was wanting to know how you felt about these films.

I love BR and MR. Two of my very favorite films (maybe even on my top ten)

yeah, i know. Just trying to b coherent ;)

Yeah they're both classy. I thought spielberg managed to control his smulchy side in MR (that was him wasn't it?). I've still gotta read "do androids dream..." etc to see his original vision for the BR world. The film is just visually engrossing all the way thru tho.

I always found TR an enjoyable watch too. Another nice mix of action to engage with a bit of an agenda behind it (if a fairly convoluted and unclear one on some levels - and fairly simplistic on others: bad guy get greedy and make life worse - but don't worry, alien technology can save us :rolleyes: )

I would think you of all people would be able to read into that better. (Subconcious desires, etc.)

TR was awesome. A great movie. Not quite as high up there as BR and MR though...

Yeah, that's it. I don't think it's got quite as much to say on the perception front. The tricks it plays are more about plotline twists (the bit with the doc and sharon stone turning up is class tho). The unbconscious/conscious reality/dream divides are played with - but they're not actually used to develop an idea about these themes or their part in daily life etc. i.e. the conclusion is more this theme of: our-technology-has-caused-advances-but-horrors-and-deprivations-too but not to worry, here comes the alien technology and the mystical mutant. It's cool, but the solutions are a bit to dreamy and far removed for me to find a satisfying central theme to it. But your right, it does have lots of cool perceptual playfulness.

Thats all I was going for. (I think the Matrix falls under this category under most cases as well)

we'll see. We'll see.

Welly welly welly well my little droog brother....

Visit my Nature of Evil thread.

You're imagining that people who go to movies, not all people, but a lot of them, actually think about what they're watching. My favorite case in point: Three Kings. A really savage satire on the gulf war (the first one) which points out the fact that we didn't win anything, and actually made things worse, yet everyone I know in the army LOVES this film for it's combat action sequences. The director's point is completely lost through no fault of his own. The same goes for Fight Club, really. I think it was Michael Moore, Republican enemy #1 and all around trouble maker, who said that America doesn't understand satire. It needs things to be spelled out: This Is Bad.

What about Brian De Palma's Scarface? I imagine that the message here is basically: Violence and drugs are destructive. But how come every single gang member (at least in Sweden, and especially the latinos) has a big poster of Al Pacino as Tony Montana on the wall and knows all the lines by heart? I don't love this film but I don't exactly hate it either. My reasons for not loving it have not much to do with the film's violence or the drugs but with other things that is typical De Palma, but that's a different story. But it's interesting that the ones who would benefit the most of this anti-violence/anti-drugs message (young guys) actually consider Tony Montana as the number one role model in their lives.

I haven't been following the Matrix discussions on this board since I haven't seen Reloaded yet. But I can tell you this. I loved Matrix the first time I saw it, and I told myself it was because I was surprised by the fact that it actually had an interesting story/background. Then I saw it again and once again I was surprised, but this time because I didn't like it as much as the first time. I realized that it was the magnificent action scenes that had caught my attention the first time and even though I still think the background story is cool it is obvious that the action scenes dominate the film and once the element of surprise is gone, the film actually loses power to engage. Again, I haven't seen the sequel but I think it is kind of sad that they have turned the series into this Star Wars lookalike. It is a concept and a product drenched in commercialism which, just like the arguments I had against Fight Club, works against the by now pretty plastic ideology of the film. Fight the system! What system? Capitalism? Well, not this film anyway.

yeah, cool point on scarface, and on the M too. It's the ultimate dilemma isn't it tho: how to reach a broad audience without going popularist? I'm still hedging on brave intent - even if i suspect dismal failure on the bros part - trying to communicate these ideals. I'm still holding out hope that the third film will force some gung-ho viewers to re-appraise the first films and their approach. We'll see. The second film actually sacrifices some of the standard hollywood rules of engagement for action movies (i.e. dumb everything right down - and so it may not get the big audiences in the third enstallment. The monologues frighten people ;))

So yes - it has embraced the thing it theorhetically it'd like to smash. And yes there's ****ty spin offs (Games etc. Mind you - i haven't seen any Neo-dolls aimed at 4 years olds - that's vaguely promising ;))
But....how else do you reach the people who are being varnished into mental imovability by all the gloss they absorb? How do you actually touch these people? Thru an art-house film? I don't think so... ;)

The bros were brave - i'd still maintain. Yes, they made that assassin film, so they have the worst potentials within them - let's hope they found their best for the last installment

(ever hopeful) Gg

Ohhh my god
 

Monkey - missed this b4.

You're joking!!! I watched it with foreign students and even they got it - tho they couldn't understand most of it!

Sh*te! I thought that was such a brave effort to trick people into getting the real picture instead of the fairytale one most actually believe!!! Argh!!!!

So, it seems obvious this doesn't really work! There's no way to preach to a non-converted brain-dead-afficionado! Bugger!

Oh well, for things to change people have to want it. And I want people to change :furious:

*waves wand and clicks ruby slippers*

hey, don't i look fetching now ;)

First of all, I haven't seen the second one so I can't really comment on anything else than the marketing of it. I will try and see it the upcoming week though.

My crticism of the first film had not much to do with how the filmmakers tried to reach the audience. That was reserved for the marketing of "Reloaded". I have nothing against how the first one was marketed and since the expectations and the hype surrounding "Reloaded" were about to burst any second, I can't see any other reason to the media and commercial sell out than making as much money as possible and then some. And I just think the trilogy and the filmmakers lost a lot of credibility by doing that. Big fat posters and some tv trailers would have been enough to create hysteria.

When it comes to the first film I am not really criticizing its strategy or theme (i.e. "the passive people needs an elitist messiah individual rather than collective uprising" - I will come back to this after having seen "Reloaded")or anything like that. All I am saying or asking is: what has been most influential on the film afterworld? The "revolutionary" theme or the acrobatic action scenes?

EDIT: Oh, and I saw Carlito's Way again the other day. It is almost like De Palma is setting things straight after Scarface. Has anyone read anything about the reason to why he chose to make this film? It is pretty obvious that it is a "phantom sequel" to Scarface having Al Pacino, a former drugdealer (Tony Montana) doing 30 years but coming out after five as a new man, playing Carlito. I think this is probably the best De Palma film in my opinion, a lot thanks to wonderful acting by Pacino and - oh my god! - Sean Penn! But the story which is impossible to read without Scarface in mind is excellent too. Your life always catches up with you no matter how fast you run... It's De Palma directing at its best too. Or, dare I say it, De Palma directing when it's actually good.

Well, that was just a side note... Back to the topic. I love this kind of topics!!! :love: :love: :love:

argh - did this once but d connection went down...
 

I think the producers etc freaked out at how wordy and slow in places Reloaded was. They knew word of mouth wouldn't be good amongst the special-effects-only crew, so they tried to totally over-ride that by making people decide to see it no matter what.

Well, loads of people refer to things (deceptive/corporate) things as a "matrix" now - and i think the simple but powerful visual messages sunks in i.e. people as batteries - the giant pod pickers - neo's (convincing) struggles and trials he must undergo to gain access to a truer perception.

All those things sunk in as much as the bullet time i think - which was a great acheivement (which the second almost certainly fails to repeat - tho i loved it - there's plenty of wordy-wierdness to get your teeth into - all the speeches except Morpheus's bombast feel-good speech have something to say. [and even that is saying something, i think ;)] )


Right on Piddzi! This is a top notch anti-glamourising job. I'm sure you're right, tho it never occured to me that's why he did it. It definitely sucks a lot of the attractiveness out of it i.e. the struggle to break free, your family being totally tied up, and Sean Penn showing how "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" can be one ****ty way to live with friends like that.

Unfortunately - most mafia/gangsta-flick fans i know aren't as impressed with this one - for this very reason - no glamour :rolleyes:

Really? From reviews and friends who've seen it I've gotten the impression that "Reloaded" is less words and more action compared to the first one. But again, I need to see this film before judging it.

People also said "I'll be baak!" and "Hasta la vista. Baby." after T2. That people refer to The Matrix is no sign of change in thinking (and I am not demanding that an entertaining action movie must do that to succeed). I would say that it lies on the same level as Fight Club - it is a good foundation for debating but not necessarily a good or true film. Even if I think it is above the average sci-fi flick, i.e. I'm not say that The Matrix is a bad film.

And the theme is not new either really, even if the shape was innovative. It's really the same old "lonesome silent hero in black saves the little village/the world from the big bad bandits/corporations". It's been done a thousand times before, especially in the western genre, and especially in spagetti westerns a la Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood.

Furthermore, why is it that every film that sets out to be critical of the technological age always ends up celebrating technology? It really doesn't make me upset or anything, but you have to admit that it really takes the power out of the ideology of the film - if there is any ideology to start with.


Yeah, that's too bad. I think it is a marvelous film.

But you have to admit that the two films are connected in an explicit way, right?

Some criticisms on the reloaded review threads are hilarious i.e. "this was a film about who could float the longest and who could talk the longest". Many people titled the speeches "stupid" despite admittign they couldn't understand them :) :rolleyes:

Yeah, i'm categorising it as more a debate-inspirer than a direct mind-changer (but nobody's yet come up with a conclusive mind-altering film as such - i'm sure they do exist - but perhaps when more concerned with specific issues and giving people insights into them - this whole 'suck people in by giving 'em what they want as well as what they "need" ' thing doesn't seem to be effective i.e. people don't look past what they want to see )

I think matrix did an intriguing thing with it's structure by proposing the whole of reality is an aritifical construct (which it is - a construct created/filtered by our consciousness and more automatic/less-personal unconscious simplifying processes - and these processes in turn are understood by many big-movers in the world, who manipulate via them. i.e. politicians, advertisers etc etc) Therefore it leaves us free to "extrapolate" a little bit more than normal. It's got superhero elements tied up with aspirations for technology etc.....


In what sense exactly does matrix glorify technology do you think? In the actual style of presentation? i.e agree there's lots of ironies in their messages versus their practices.

However, i'm convinced one of the over-all messages is going to be: searching for the BEST human and technological potentials and "applications" is vital - coz the negative sides of both things can be "horrific". I believe this to be the case in life . i.e. some dubious human traits (greed, jealosy, desire to control, potential for blinkard worship of simplifying mental themes etc etc etc ) plus some negative technological practices (quick-fixes that ignore undetectable repurcussions, getting what you want not what you need etc, overly economic-focused practices that ignores vital human/world contexts and elements etc)

I really hope the film some pack some neat punches in those areas for the final of the trilogy. That's what i'm really hoping to see in their holistic spread of ideas reduced to conclusions. I think that would allow people to go back and view the first two in a new light too. And i think they really need to do it - as the second left people with too many ambiguous potential resolutions (which in itself is quite fun for discussion - if you think i'm wordy normally you should see my input on the review threads for this - go see it pidz, i'd love to talk with you about it)



Oh your spot on. I've got to admit scarface blurs with all the other glorifying ones for me to some extent - coz i've only seen it when drunk with others who love those films -where as Carlito's Way always stood out to me for exactly the reasons you mentioned. But i'm sure you're right that it follows on...i.e. Pacino just out of jail - change of heart shows how this new potential chapter of his life goes etc ...and damningly criticizes his previous incarnation etc.

Top notch film