Meaning, Technique, or Mood

Most people seem to like movies based on either their philosophical or social message, the skill with which they were made, or how they are affected on an emotional level.

Movies that deal with “deep” or timely issues for the purposes of making a point about the world are generally referred to as Message Movies. Personally, I rarely enjoy movies that have a point to drive home because the issue is usually handled in a simplisctic, heavy-handed or contrived fashion. I don’t watch movies to be learn about social problems, anyway, because I’d rather read a book about such things instead of having them presented to me in a movie where the subject can only be superficially explored.

Movies that are made with exceptional skill may or may not entertaining or worthwhile in any other way, but some people are impressed with virtuosity on its own. There are many who believe that a movie should be given a favorable rating, at least in part, based on how competent it is on a technical level. While I believe that such factors as good acting, proficient direction and a well-crafted screenplay are important, I do not place a great deal of importance on any of those things if the movie is not otherwise enjoyable to me personally.

Movies that create an effective mood or psychological resonance for the viewer offer a more intimate connection. It is difficult to rate a movie objectively based on the feeling an individual viewer gets from it, because everyone is different. I tend to like movies that I can just experience rather than evaluate objectively or that hold some clear meaning.

Most everybody combines each of these in their overall appraisal of a movie, but each person favors them differently. If I had to give a percentage of how strongly I factor each one, I’d say 5% Message 35% Technical and 60% Mood. Style and atmosphere are much more important than what meaning the movie might have.

Are there other factors that people regularly consider? Is one more important than the other?

If there ain’t no point…well…what’s the point? Without a point, technical skills and emotiveness are…well…pointless. Yes beauty is its own reward, but without some sort of objective meaning, it only has meaning for yourself, or to set someone else off on their own introspective nirvana/hell. It isn’t anything you can really share.

Good subject.

When it comes to a movie having a point or meaning that everyone can identify, I don’t really see much value in it. If a movie is about white slavery, and the director wishes to make the point that white slavery is bad, and everyone watching it agrees that white slavery is bad… then what? People can share their opinions about white slavery being bad and the movie may be considered meaningful because it deals with a serious issue, but that’s all the movie really is. The more a movie is obviously about something, the more limited it is, I believe.

I like to watch the movie 3 Women by Robert Altman because it might be about something, but there are no glaring indicators telling the viewer to understand the movie a certain way. The mood that the movie creates is what appeals to me most. I’m sure an anal-retentive viewer could find all sorts of symbolism and assert that the movie is about this or that, but I just don’t care. Even Robert Altman himself said that he doesn’t like to tell viewers what a movie means. Maybe I can’t completely share my personal feeling about the movie with others, because only I may have that particular feeling, but I don’t watch movies to primarily to share.

Movies that are less personally resonant and just generally entertaining are easier to share with others, and so those sorts of motion pictures still offer the opportunity.

Better to be about nothing?

Should books, sculpture, paintings etc, be about nothing as well. (There are definitely some that qualify.) Should anything in the art world be about something?

Did you see The Fall? It was very much about projecting visual moods. But was is about nothing? I like mood movies, and I like movies with a point, but what I like most is when a movie uses moods to emphasize its point–such as the heavy use of visuals and music for instance West Side Story, The Music Man, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Jesus Christ Superstar, Fiddler on the Roof, Tommy, Footloose, Streets of Fire, Crossroada (1987), Moonstruck Evita, Gladiator, Chicago, The Phantom of the Opera, Black Snake Moan.

Did you see Doubt? Just shows a move can have a powerful message without resorting to visuals or music–just great performers delivering great dialogue. Others like that were The Devil’s Advocate, Inherit the Wind, Slumdog Millionaire, etc. etc.

2001 is a good example of a movie that can certainly be debated for its meaning, but it’s so wide open that it doesn’t limit itself at all. Even if the viewer doesn’t want to analyze any of it, they can certainly get lost in what’s happening on screen. Tommy is another one. (Both of these are druggy movies, which probably isn’t a coincidence.)

The Fall… well, I didn’t like that movie at all. The mood and meaning are both pretty shallow, and I was annoyed by the characters. (Most of those other movies you mentioned I don’t care for much either. Footloose , Chicago, Gladiator… Not really philosophical juggernauts as far as meaning goes.)

I did see Doubt, and actually enjoyed it somewhat, but not because it was all that deep. I do like Amy Adams, which certainly helped. Slumdog Millionaire is very, very visual and style heavy, though. (I didn’t like it, because I felt that it too was shallow in meaning and mood.)

Art should be open to interpretation. It should stimulate the person looking at it, but it should not scream “THIS IS WHAT I MEAN!” If an artist just throws some paint on a canvas and claims that it represents nuclear war, I think that’s idiotic. I’d respect the guy (or lady) more if they just said that they have no idea what it means. I’d respect them even more if they actually put some thought into creating the painting and made something stimulating, but still didn’t claim to have a definite idea of what the work is supposed to mean. The more an “artist” claims that their work means something, the less artistically worthwhile their work likely is.

A real artist can create something and inspire with the sheer force of their creativity.

But it’s an example of how a movie, and art in general, can have (and I think is having in this case) real impact. It holds up a mirror to the face of prejudice in the second most populace country in the world. And Doubt lived up to it’s title, showing that we as a species tend to sweep our unavoidable agnosticism under the rug of religion because we can’t face our lack of answers about the meaning of our lives, death, and the evil we bring about when we invest ourselves in blind faith and meaningless traditions. These are monumental issues that deserve our consideration, and I can’t dismiss the impact a movie can provide toward that end, even if it means it can be used to promote that very evil* as well.

In fact what does a movie with pure mood and no meaning do but feed a desire for irrational emotiveness–a spawning ground for evil which thrives on the irrational? (No, I don’t believe its inherently evil, just that it’s wide open to be, and often it, used that way.)

*evil: putting the value of your right to life, liberty and property above those rights of others. (Just thought I should clear that up so you didn’t think I was meaning the Devil, or not tithing, or something.)