The Term 'Heavy Handed'

Tools    





The Mad Prophet of the Movie Forums
I've never been a big fan of the term, and now, I'm starting to really hate it. Originally a somewhat useful as a critical term, it has since fallen and is a term of pretension.

MANY movies openly present the moral of their movies, and as long as its done artfully, there's no reason to demean the movie by deeming it heavy-handed.

I find this term to be far too anally retentive in nature, and, as such, I despise it. Anyone have thoughts?
__________________
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" - Howard Beale



Not really, except I hate it when people say a movie is manipulative. All movies are manipulative.
__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."



Awaiting True Love
Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
Not really, except I hate it when people say a movie is manipulative. All movies are manipulative.
True! But some movies are more manipulative than others. Forrest Gump, being a perfect example of what I would call a manipulative movie. I call these kind of movies "button-pushers." All movies are teleological. But how we get there makes all the difference.



The Mad Prophet of the Movie Forums
Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
Not really, except I hate it when people say a movie is manipulative. All movies are manipulative.
I guess that goes for me as well. Heavy handed (when trying to make the audience feel or think something) is just a pretentious term for manipulative.

Originally Posted by Minotaur
True! But some movies are more manipulative than others. Forrest Gump, being a perfect example of what I would call a manipulative movie. I call these kind of movies "button-pushers." All movies are teleological. But how we get there makes all the difference.
Not really. Every movie takes you to a different place a different way, and that's why I love film. So what if Forest Gump uses imagery or sound (or whatever the device for 'manipulating'). It still stikes up genuine emotion and/or response from the audience which is a wonderful thing. All movies are manipulative and/or heavy handed. To call one, (or several), either term and use said term against them is beyond cheap and silly. But that's just my opinion.



I agree with Beale. The most recent, obvious example is Signs. If you don't like a movie's message, but it's made with undeniable skill (as Signs was), the "heavy-handed" label is, in my mind, a film critic escape hatch to avoid showering praise on a movie whose moral they might not agree with.

Think of classic literature, though; were their messages really all that subtle? From massive epics like The Lord of the Rings to the short narratives in Aesop's Fables, the stories that stand the test of time are often the ones who speak loudly and clearly. There's plenty to be said for tact, sure, but it's a bit puzzling that a definitive message is almost unanimously treated as a flaw among critics.



Awaiting True Love
Not really. Every movie takes you to a different place a different way, and that's why I love film. - Beale the Rippe

-Of course they do. What I meant was that the movie is going one place, the end, even if we don't know where that might be. But the director and the screenwriter do. It might actually be better to say that directors and screenwriters are manipulative not movies.


So what if Forest Gump uses imagery or sound (or whatever the device for 'manipulating'). It still stikes up genuine emotion and/or response from the audience which is a wonderful thing. All movies are manipulative and/or heavy handed. To call one, (or several), either term and use said term against them is beyond cheap and silly. But that's just my opinion. -
Beale the Rippe

-Cheap, what? Silly, no! Did Forrest Gump really bring up genuine emotions. Well, it didn't in me. And it didn't in most people I know. Any filmaker who feels they have to take you by the hand and walk you down the primrose path is heavy-handed and manipulative.



Awaiting True Love
Originally Posted by Yoda
I agree with Beale. The most recent, obvious example is Signs. If you don't like a movie's message, but it's made with undeniable skill (as Signs was), the "heavy-handed" label is, in my mind, a film critic escape hatch to avoid showering praise on a movie whose moral they might not agree with.

Think of classic literature, though; were their messages really all that subtle? From massive epics like The Lord of the Rings to the short narratives in Aesop's Fables, the stories that stand the test of time are often the ones who speak loudly and clearly. There's plenty to be said for tact, sure, but it's a bit puzzling that a definitive message is almost unanimously treated as a flaw among critics.

I have no problem with a non-subtle message per say. And if a filmmaker cannot tell a good story I don't care how pretty it looks. I might want to remember who the cinematographer was though.

I always think classic literature. A definitive message? Your own argument voids what you are trying to say. Both Lord of the Rings and Aesop's Fables are highly touted.



Originally Posted by Minotaur
I always think classic literature. A definitive message? Your own argument voids what you are trying to say. Both Lord of the Rings and Aesop's Fables are highly touted.
I think you've misunderstood me: I was pointing out a contradiction between judgements of modern stories, and judgement of older ones. There seems to be a blind spot among critics here...they praise films which routinely contain the same kind of deficit of tact that many decry in modern films.

I don't know why this is, really. Maybe, because it's their job, a critic must find things to criticize. Maybe they feel that heavy-handed messages had a place, but have worn out their welcome, and are no longer original. Frankly, I think it often comes down to the message itself: if you don't like what a film has to say, you're far more likely to try to find something else wrong with it to rationalize that disapproval so that it appears more objective. And if the film is made with great skill, pointing to the moral's lack of subtly becomes the most appealing option.

This is all just speculative, of course.