Do great films need to have a deep underlying message or morals?

MelissaD

Hi everyone,

I don't consider myself to be a knowledgeable film lover but a yesterday encounter really questioned what I believed.

When I was having a discussion with an arthouse film critic regarding the criteria that make films "great" I remember him stating that a "great" film needs a deep underlying message or morals and that films which lack such, despite being entertaining and engrossing, are not "great" films.

He mentioned that films such as: Amores Perros (interconnected lives), Apocalypse Now (the atrocities of war), City of God (the cycle of violence), Tokyo Story (family relations), and La Dolce Vita (a satire of excess) were great not only because they're entertaining and engrossing but because of their deep underlying message or morals.

When I mentioned some of my favourite films including: Get Carter, Infernal Affairs, Let the Right One In, Rashomon, and Ringu he asserted that, out of those, only Rashomon can be considered a "great" film because it has a deep underlying message which concerns questioning eyewitness perception and judgement. He also claimed that while the other films are entertaining and engrossing they can't be considered "great" because of their lack of a deep underlying message or morals.

So, according to him, must a film contain a deep underlying message or morals to be considered "great" such as Apocalypse Now and City of God or can a film be considered great because it's simply engrossing and entertaining such as Get Carter and Let the Right One In?

icarus86

Personally speaking i would'nt think a film would need any deep message to be considered great. Surely its a matter of taste? If it is entertaining then thats good enough for me.

Mickeroo

The guy was being pretentious. Story and character are what truly makes a film great imo. the things he mentioned can definitely add to that of course but you can have all the allegory and apparent depth in the world, if the story and the characters suck so will the film.

Besides, Let the Right One In is arguabley just as thematically rich as Rashomon. The guy didn't know what he was on about :pac:

johnny_ultimate

I think your friend is a bit confused with the difference between 'themes' and 'messages/morals'. Sure, the vast majority of stories address something - they have to, otherwise how would we remain interested? But to suggest that a film needs some sort of moral grounding is a misguided one. Sure, some do, but you'll often find the more blunt and forceful the 'message' is the less successful a film it is. I think in the examples your friends cited your dealing more with general themes than messages.

Take The Tree of Life as an example. Let's call it, for argument's sake, a 'great' film. However, from my perspective the Christian morality and underlying message ring hollow, and are easily the least likeable aspects of the film. However, it's a technical marvel, the performances are strong, the music and visuals are beautifully considered, there's a strongly nostalgic tone, it's intimate and auteristic etc... These are all factors that make it a 'great' film over Malick's spiritual musings. In this case, a message is but one factor, and one of the least persuasive aspects of the film.

It's impossible to tie down what makes a great film, after all: The Tree of Life is a film I appreciate for entirely reasons than I appreciate, to take some extreme comparisons, Hausu or I Saw the Devil. So no, a great film does not need an overarching moral to achieve greatness. Basic storytelling rules dictate that themes and 'issues' are a significant part of many great narratives, but moralising is far from necessary.

TheIrishGrover

Also, take for example, "Hero" I loved the film. I loved the acting, cinematography, fight choreography, cast etc. However, the underlying theme that you must surrender your individuality for the greater good was something I did not agree with at all. And it's not like the theme was hidden, it was the whole point of the film.

In general I would never trust someone who considers themselves to be an "art house film critic". In my own opinion there is no such thing as an "art house" film: There are films that appeal to a large audience and those that don't. Fully 1/3 of my DVD collection many would consider "arthouse" (And that's not including my anime collection that others might also consider "arthouse" or "fringe"). But, for every Powaqqatsi or Rashomon I have Animal House or Star Wars. Neither would qualify as "great" films in his narrow criteria. But why do I have these films? Because I find them fun or interesting. I don't go to a film thinking: Well, I've seen three popcorn movies in the last few weeks so it's time for "culture".

When I mentioned some of my favourite films including: Get Carter, Infernal Affairs, Let the Right One In, Rashomon, and Ringu he asserted that, out of those, only Rashomon can be considered a "great" film because it has a deep underlying message which concerns questioning eyewitness perception and judgement. He also claimed that while the other films are entertaining and engrossing they can't be considered "great" because of their lack of a deep underlying message or morals.

Oh please. I believe he needs to finish college, abandon all the cliche "hipster" trappings and remove his head from his arse. EVERY SINGLE film can be read to have an underlying meaning: Armageddon: Never to underestimate the ordinary man. That they have the ability to save the world. That for all the advances in science, it still takes a good man to save us; The Hottie and the Nottie: Beauty is only skin deep. Blah blah blah.

To disregard a film because of some extremely vague criteria such as "no underlying moral" is laughable. It's the same mentality as people who think that foreign language films are, somehow, inherently better than films made in English (Unless they were made by a European director in which case they are often given the privilege of being considered "foreign" and, thus, good).

faceman

I think the lines between pretentious and factual are becoming blurred.

Most really good films have great plot and characters, and many of which do have a deeper message. This is inherit of developing a good story.

Most Hollywood blockbusters contain good guy/bad guy plot lines. Characters are often one dimensional. But what does one dimensional mean? It means that characters often have just one trait. Good guys and good with everything they do, bad guys are bad with everything they do. Even when a bad guy goes to the toilet, he does it in a way that only bad guys do. He's 'bad' when he pees.

Reality isnt like that though. I can't identify with with 1 dimensional characters. Even the original Star Wars had characters that were 3 dimensional. Han Solo, a good guy, kills Greedo in cold blood. Luke Skywalker disobeys his aunt and uncle. Darth Vadar shows his good side by killing the Emperor.

Its an excusable to not have more fleshed out characters on screen. Well thought out characters will help the story develop. Especially when characters change. Change in character or in story is what makes stories interesting.

Many Films are riddled with deeper meaning. Even Sci Fi and horror. In fact most horror and sci fi flicks are completely about a deeper meaning. They are rarely about the surface level plot we watch on screen. With Sci Fi, its generally a message about society or humanity. For example, Alien is about homophobia and the male fear of rape. Aliens is about AIDS and again, homophobia.

It summary, I get a bigger kick from a movie that leaves something you. A movie that gives you an experience. A movie that leaves you thinking after or gives you something further to talk about. Any of that is far more rewarding than watching Optimus Prime get into a fight in a forest with Megatron.

Mickeroo

faceman wrote: »

Films are riddled with deeper meaning. Even Sci Fi and horror. In fact most horror and sci fi flicks are completely about a deeper meaning. They are rarely about the surface level plot we watch on screen. With Sci Fi, its generally a message about society or humanity. For example, Alien is about homophobia and the male fear of rape. Aliens is about AIDS and again, homophobia.

I was with you up to that point. Have any of the film makers ever said either of those things? Or are you joking and it just flew over my head?

juan.kerr

faceman wrote: »

Films are riddled with deeper meaning.

Any deeper meaning in The A-Team, faceman?

kellso81

MelissaD wrote: »

He also claimed that while the other films are entertaining and engrossing they can't be considered "great" because of their lack of a deep underlying message or morals.

Let the right one in? A film about loneliness and isolation, what it leads to and what the marginalised in society will excuse and engage in, just to feel a part of something? Certainly an underlying message with a moral overtone, with society's role in allowing these people to become marginalised in the first place, especially in a post 9/11 world. Had your friend even watched the film? Sounds like a pretentious argument to me.

He's obviously never watched Commando either!

krudler

juan.kerr wrote: »

Any deeper meaning in The A-Team, faceman?

don't mess with Liam Neeson, see Taken for expansion on this theme.

Sad Professor

Themes are good and are usually present in any good story. But I'm very wary about attempts to identify some underlying moral, political, social or cultural subtext in a film. Films, particularly horror films, often exploit certain cultural anxieties, but it's a mistake to reduce the film to being about that perceived subtext. Film academics do it all the time and it makes me queasy. I've had to read some truly bizarre articles this year about what such-and-such a film was really about.

So because the demon-possed victim in The Exorcist was a young girl, the film is actually a disturbing anti-feminist statement from its male auteurs about changing gender roles and fear of the independent woman? Eh, no, but I'll give you the breakdown of the home and abortion bit. Oh and Bergman was really a misogynistic pig because his female characters don't comply with feminist theory and because he blames the mother for everything in Autumn Sonata? Eh, yeah, or maybe the guy didn't care about politics and wasn't worried about some crazed feminist academic was going to think about his work.

Deep readings of a film are only so valuable. Sure, it tells you something about the time and place in which the film was made. But you could pick the worst film ever and read all sorts of crazy sh-t into it that was never intended and would say more about you than it would about the film.

Mickeroo

Sad Professor wrote: »

Themes and are good and are usually present in any good story. But I'm very wary about attempts to identify some underlying moral, political, social or cultural subtext in a film. Films, particularly horror films, often exploit certain cultural anxieties, but it's a mistake to reduce the film to being about that perceived subtext. Film academics do it all the time and it makes me queasy. I've had to read some truly bizarre articles this year about what such-and-such a film was really about.

So because the demon-possed victim in The Exorcist was a young girl, the film is actually a disturbing anti-feminist statement from its male auteurs about changing gender roles and fear of the independent woman? Eh, no, but I'll give you the breakdown of the home and abortion bit. Oh and Bergman was really a misogynistic pig because his female characters don't comply with feminist theory and because he blames the mother for everything in Autumn Sonata? Eh, yeah, or maybe the guy didn't care about politics and wasn't worried about some crazed feminist academic was going to think about his work.

Deep readings of a film are only so valuable. Sure, it tells you something about the time and place in which the film was made. But you could pick the worst film ever and read all sorts of crazy sh-t into it that was never intended and would say more about you than it would about the film.

This times 100. I think a lot of people forget, particularly academics, that more often than not a film maker(or any other story teller) just wants to tell a good story.

faceman

Mickeroo wrote: »

I was with you up to that point. Have any of the film makers ever said either of those things? Or are you joking and it just flew over my head?

No not joking at all, although it is slightly tongue in cheek. I wrote a paper on the Alien trilogy in college on the sub theme of homophobia, rape and AIDS. Ditching Alien 3 for a mo, Alien and Aliens are very sexual in their style. The facehuggers method of implanting an egg is by knocking you out and using a very phallic organ to force-ably place an egg in your chest. The alien itself has a very phallic shaped head and to add further insult has a phallic second mouth inside its mouth. In the first film, men are the victims or these attacks, or taking it on its sub theme, sexual assaults. Kane is subjected to giving birth by force, unbeknown to him. This is only scratching the surface.

But to answer your other question, the writer Dan O'Bannon was trying to achieve the effect in Alien. That particular style stuck for the sequels.

juan.kerr wrote: »

Any deeper meaning in The A-Team, faceman?

Typo in my original post, I have updated it now!

Mickeroo

faceman wrote: »

No not joking at all, although it is slightly tongue in cheek. I wrote a paper on the Alien trilogy in college on the sub theme of homophobia, rape and AIDS. Ditching Alien 3 for a mo, Alien and Aliens are very sexual in their style. The facehuggers method of implanting an egg is by knocking you out and using a very phallic organ to force-ably place an egg in your chest. The alien itself has a very phallic shaped head and to add further insult has a phallic second mouth inside its mouth. In the first film, men are the victims or these attacks, or taking it on its sub theme, sexual assaults. Kane is subjected to giving birth by force, unbeknown to him. This is only scratching the surface.

I'd heard stuff about the phallic imagery and all that. The male rape and homophobia is new one on me but I guess it makes sense. If O'Bannon said then I can't really argue with that

bluntyeyedfool

*pppppsfffffffss*, no.

Syferus

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'd heard stuff about the phallic imagery and all that. The male rape and homophobia is new one on me but I guess it makes sense. If O'Bannon said then I can't really argue with that

Well, that's the writer-ownership paradox. Alien is definitely a film driven by the director and not the written words so O'Bannon's opinions can be as un-important or ultimate as you want to make them.

Alien's story just exists, it's left entirely up to us weather we divine meaning or simple escapism from it.

guitarzero

The most important thing is that it makes an impression on you. Anyone or group who put themselves in positions of deciding whats great are idiots, regardless of their title or who they represent.

Mardy Bum

Great films have to strive to be art not just mindless entertainment.

TheIrishGrover

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Great films have to strive to be art not just mindless entertainment.

Why?

Mardy Bum

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Why?

What real value (obviously not speaking commercially) does the work have if it doesn't attempt to illuminate humanity in some sort of fashion. Cinema although a different medium should try to engage with the world like playwrights to a certain extent.

We can watch Die Hard all day but it doesn't force us to reflect on ourselves or humanity in general. Most films that the general populace see are products of a capitalist machine which would rather people remain subservient and blindly follow the constructions of its idyllic world. Art should provoke and interrogate. Cinema should aim for this also.

johnny_ultimate

Mardy Bum wrote: »

What real value (obviously not speaking commercially) does the work have if it doesn't attempt to illuminate humanity in some sort of fashion. Cinema although a different medium should try to engage with the world like playwrights to a certain extent.

We can watch Die Hard all day but it doesn't force us to reflect on ourselves or humanity in general. Most films that the general populace see are products of a capitalist machine which would rather people remain subservient and blindly follow the constructions of its idyllic world. Art should provoke and interrogate. Cinema should aim for this also.

Yes, an awful lot of great cinema is 'illuminating' but there's plenty of great cinema that's entertaining rather than enlightening. I'd be the first to write off 90% of mainstream cinema, but to deny that some films achieve wonders without Bergman or Tarkovsky levels of insight is denying oneself a wealth of truly great cinema. Let's use the random example picker: Evil Dead, Halloween, Superman, The Big Lewbowski, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Serenity... all lacking in terms of deep contemplation, some downright silly: but all vital to a vibrant cinema.

TheIrishGrover

Mardy Bum wrote: »

...... We can watch Die Hard all day but it doesn't force us to reflect on ourselves or humanity in general. Most films that the general populace see are products of a capitalist machine which would rather people remain subservient and blindly follow the constructions of its idyllic world. Art should provoke and interrogate. Cinema should aim for this also.

THIS is EXACTLY what I'm on about. This sense of elitism: Oh, because I am aware of the films of Kar-Wai or Hertzog or Von Trier anyone who watches a popcorn, Hollywood film is immediately, by the literal definition, a pleb and, therefore, unenlightened. I am far more enlightened because I saw these films in my film society. Who is this "General Populace" you speak of? The same "general populace" that made Inception such a hit? Was that also a film designed to keep us all subservient sheep? Only willing or able to "Consume" or "Obey" unless we wear these elite shades you seem to wear? They Live is a scathing satire on the capitalist nature of late 80's consumerist culture but, y'know, it had Rowdy Roddy Piper and a VERY extended fight sequence and was directed by John Carpenter so it must be a Sci-Fi violent movie designed to be one of those films "that the general populace see are products of a capitalist machine"

Films don;t "have" to strive to elevate humanity. NO form of entertainment "has" to strive to elevate humanity. If the film maker wishes to insert their own opinions into the film then so be it. In films of a personal nature to the film maker this is, of course, bound to happen but this is the opinion of the film maker: Triumph Of The Will was a propaganda film and had a very obvious agenda for people to reflect on their position in life as you put it. Stylistically and technically this is a magnificent film but morally abhorrent. Now, obviously these beliefs aren't beliefs you subscribe to so does this qualify as a "great" film? Or is it only films with obvious messages that you believe in are great and others are not? And if others have different beliefs as yourself are they wrong?

In short, I believe a film can only be described as "great" by an individual. And that "Greatness" is only valid for those people who believe in it's "greatness". Others who don't believe in it's "greatness" are just as valid, in themselves as those who do. Neither is right and neither is wrong. When people try to bestow "greatness" on a film to others they are attempting to bestow their own opinions on what they see as "the general populace" and this is the height of egotism.

Mardy Bum

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

THIS is EXACTLY what I'm on about. This sense of elitism: Oh, because I am aware of the films of Kar-Wai or Hertzog or Von Trier anyone who watches a popcorn, Hollywood film is immediately, by the literal definition, a pleb and, therefore, unenlightened. I am far more enlightened because I saw these films in my film society. Who is this "General Populace" you speak of? The same "general populace" that made Inception such a hit? Was that also a film designed to keep us all subservient sheep? Only willing or able to "Consume" or "Obey" unless we wear these elite shades you seem to wear?They Life is a scathing satire on the capitalist nature of late 80's consumerist culture but, y'know, it had Rowdy Roddy Piper and a VERY extended fight sequence and was directed by John Carpenter so it must be a Sci-Fi violent movie designed to be one of those films "that the general populace see are products of a capitalist machine"

Films don;t "have" to strive to elevate humanity. NO form of entertainment "has" to strive to elevate humanity. If the film maker wishes to insert their own opinions into the film then so be it. In films of a personal nature to the film maker this is, of course, bound to happen but this is the opinion of the film maker: Triumph Of The Will was a propaganda film and had a very obvious agenda for people to reflect on their position in life as you put it. Stylistically and technically this is a magnificent film but morally abhorrent. Now, obviously these beliefs aren't beliefs you subscribe to so does this qualify as a "great" film? Or is it only films with obvious messages that you believe in are great and others are not? And if others have different beliefs as yourself are they wrong?

In short, I believe a film can only be described as "great" by an individual. And that "Greatness" is only valid for those people who believe in it's "greatness". Others who don't believe in it's "greatness" are just as valid, in themselves as those who do. Neither is right and neither is wrong. When people try to bestow "greatness" on a film to others they are attempting to bestow their own opinions on what they see as "the general populace" and this is the height of egotism.

I did not say all Hollywood big budget films are crap, obviously there will be men like Christopher Nolan who strive for something better in cinema and who also can reach a mass audience a la David Simon, David Chase.

I think most great film producers would like to consider themselves artists. Is there any better compliment? Obviously they want to entertain but they will also want to create something that will be remembered for something more than mere escapism.

I said nothing about elevating humanity, I said illuminating. Of course any film that pushes conventions and boundaries successfully in different genres are excellent pieces of work.

"Great" is a very ambiguous word which allows for interpretation. Cinema is only in its infancy compared with other forms of art. Give it a few hundred years and there will be many stand out pieces of art from the medium which will be agreed upon and so become the canon. These will not be personal choices by select individuals but will be the result of many years debate and critique like every other art form. A lot of great drama and literature took years to be considered works of importance as a result of sustained debate and critique and a general consensus forming on the work and no doubt cinema will follow suit.

Mickeroo

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I did not say all Hollywood big budget films are crap, obviously there will be men like Christopher Nolan who strive for something better in cinema and who also can reach a mass audience a la David Simon, David Chase.

I think most great film producers would like to consider themselves artists. Is there any better compliment? Obviously they want to entertain but they will also want to create something that will be remembered for something more than mere escapism.

I said nothing about elevating humanity, I said illuminating. Of course any film that pushes conventions and boundaries successfully in different genres are excellent pieces of work.

"Great" is a very ambiguous word which allows for interpretation. Cinema is only in its infancy compared with other forms of art. Give it a few hundred years and there will be many stand out pieces of art from the medium which will be agreed upon and so become the canon. These will not be personal choices by select individuals but will be the result of many years debate and critique like every other art form. A lot of great drama and literature took years to be considered works of importance as a result of sustained debate and critique and a general consensus forming on the work and no doubt cinema will follow suit.

But you dissed Die Hard in your other post.

Mardy Bum

Mickeroo wrote: »

But you dissed Die Hard in your other post.

I dissed it in respect of its overall contribution to cinema. Yes its a stand out in its genre, made a bucket load of money and highly entertaining* to watch for a bit of mindless entertainment much like Twilight series novels*.






I do not like Twilight :P

Mickeroo

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I dissed it in respect of its overall contribution to cinema. Yes its a stand out in its genre, made a bucket load of money and highly entertaining* to watch for a bit of mindless entertainment much like Twilight series novels*.






I do not like Twilight :P

I was being a bit tongue in cheek But you dissed it again! :eek: Its a true classic, respected by the majority of film lovers the world over, unlike Twilight which is universally hated outside of its fan base!!:)

krudler

Mardy Bum wrote: »

What real value (obviously not speaking commercially) does the work have if it doesn't attempt to illuminate humanity in some sort of fashion. Cinema although a different medium should try to engage with the world like playwrights to a certain extent.

We can watch Die Hard all day but it doesn't force us to reflect on ourselves or humanity in general. Most films that the general populace see are products of a capitalist machine which would rather people remain subservient and blindly follow the constructions of its idyllic world. Art should provoke and interrogate. Cinema should aim for this also.

Die Hard is a study of the expansion of Japanese business into American homegrown industries in the 1980's, and the subsequent arrival of European parties wishing to take a slice of this for themselves.

thebostoncrab

Die Hard is a art piece on how the "every man" can overcome impossible odds when faced with them, displaying that while we may face strong obstacles in our lives that seem both beyond us and stronger than us, human will can overcome this.


You can apply the "Moral/artistic message" to ANY film, it's all subjective, just like any art form. It doesn't make a film any more creddie though.

Case point, the Matrix sequels. Just look at the thread dedicated to them, it's blooming obvious that they are laced with deep thought, philosophical views on religion and humanity and subtext. But they are still awful! Subtext and a message is all well and good, but you need a good story and interesting characters in order to make a good movie.

OldeCinemaSoz

great, just like beauty, is indeed in the eye of the beholder.

i used to pick up occasionally a little 'zine called necromonicon
way back when for a while.

but i found it so heavy going.

because of it's dissection and reading into
films from the likes of jean rolin and the early ealing comedies
i just gave up.

critique is one thing but pretentiousness is another...

:rolleyes:

fryup

it can't be a movie about morality if it doesn't have the Duke...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AejZxaYkekM

Zubeneschamali

faceman wrote: »

Well thought out characters will help the story develop. Especially when characters change. Change in character or in story is what makes stories interesting.

This is often true, but then it gets made into a rule, and scriptwriters have to fake up some little journey, some arc for every character to make them grow, even when it's obviously grafted on to the story. Annoying.

Agricola

I wouldnt say so, no. Im no amateur philosopher and Ive probably watched many many films where a film makers underlying messages flew right over my head. Im sure if a film contains these it can make it 'great' on whole new levels for those people who are interested in hidden meaning. But the fundamental requirement for a film to be 'great' for me is an engaging, well told story and multi layered characters who we make an emotional investment in.

Ant

Great is, of course, a subjective term but after reading Melissa's original post, I'd be of the opinion that her arthouse film critic acquaintance is being arbitrarily elitist. His list of "great films" isn't any better than Melissa's even by his own criteria. I'd say it's more a case that the themes / messages of the films in Melissa's list simply didn't resonate with him.

My own rule of thumb – which, like every rule, has its exceptions – is that I consider a work of art (not just film) to be good if it provokes a strong intellectual or emotional response in the viewer, listener or reader.