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?
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?