I certainly agree this is a major factor, which is to say I think this augments all the things I'm criticizing and maybe makes them better, if not good. But in the interest of common ground we can probably agree that there are a lot of outliers and exceptions to a lot of the "rules" about what makes for a good story. I am definitely speaking very generally and non-specifically.
I'm curious about that last bit, though, about the message overriding "integrity and honesty." What would that look like? To my mind, the "preachy" thing is about a film that cares more about making a point than it does about telling a good story in its own right. If the real question is one of authenticity, it seems to me someone could genuinely/authentically want to be didactic, want to be instructional, and honestly make that their priority. If they do, how would it be possible for that message to override its integrity?
I am delighted you said "sledgehammer," because initially I used the exact same word, but then decided not to elaborate on my reaction as much. It was something about how the news footage is a sledgehammer swung at us just in case we hadn't felt the 2x4s Lee'd been hitting us with the whole movie. To be clear, I'm not suggesting Lee should have been subtle, but we probably agree that even a necessarily and deliberately unsubtle film can eventually lay it on too thick. Obviously I think that was the case with BlacKkKlansman, even accepting (and mostly really liking) all the overt stuff earlier in the film, but to each their own.
I think I very likely will now, thank you.
No worries, just figured I should check. Thanks for clarifying.
I'm curious about that last bit, though, about the message overriding "integrity and honesty." What would that look like? To my mind, the "preachy" thing is about a film that cares more about making a point than it does about telling a good story in its own right. If the real question is one of authenticity, it seems to me someone could genuinely/authentically want to be didactic, want to be instructional, and honestly make that their priority. If they do, how would it be possible for that message to override its integrity?
I am delighted you said "sledgehammer," because initially I used the exact same word, but then decided not to elaborate on my reaction as much. It was something about how the news footage is a sledgehammer swung at us just in case we hadn't felt the 2x4s Lee'd been hitting us with the whole movie. To be clear, I'm not suggesting Lee should have been subtle, but we probably agree that even a necessarily and deliberately unsubtle film can eventually lay it on too thick. Obviously I think that was the case with BlacKkKlansman, even accepting (and mostly really liking) all the overt stuff earlier in the film, but to each their own.
I think I very likely will now, thank you.
No worries, just figured I should check. Thanks for clarifying.
To give examples of what I mean by message overriding authenticity, one need only compare Do the Right Thing with Paul Haggis’ Crash. Both seek to be ensemble films that depict a city struggling with wide spread racial prejudice. Neither are subtle in the least. However, due to the heightened, theatrical tone Lee chooses, he’s afforded greater suspension of disbelief. His depiction of racism is authentic to the film he has set up and ultimately, conveys an authentic message on the subject.
Haggis on the other hand, vacillates between theatrical and “gritty realism,” which ultimately undercut each other. Every speaks on the issue of race with a lack of authenticity and it undermines the heightened dramatic moments that feel mismatched with the rest of the film. Essentially, he violates authenticity because he wants every character to voice his message and it ultimately undercuts his film.
At no point do I think Haggis values his message on racism MORE than Lee, nor do I think Lee is concerned with “a good story” over his messaging. The message of that film dictates the story, the characters, and the execution.
Usually, people will dismiss Crash as preachy (and rightfully so), while it’s usually not used for DTRT. It could be, but it’s usually (and rightly) shielded by Lee’s authenticity.
On that same note, I don’t think there’s anything remotely wrong with a message or theme being the primary driving for of a film. I dislike narrative or character as the go-to paradigm for what movies “should be” (and don’t even get me started on “that’s not realistic!” as a criticism). I think theme, technique, and mood, among others, are just as valid of purposes for exploration through film. Many of my favorite filmmakers would fall under those labels, from Herzog, to Argento, to Malick, to Godard and countless in between.
Don’t get me wrong, I like a strong narrative and complex characters. But I think making them a default demand in films often leads to people making categorical mistakes in their criticism that carry about as much weight as criticizing the lack of car chases in a ballet.
The Assistant is currently on Hulu, I believe. It’s a slow burn but it’s stuck with me far more than most other films released last year.