More vituperous ribaldry than a stick might be shaken towards.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

More style over substance

I was sick last night, so as part of our evening of doing nothing, my wife and I watched some of the People's Choice awards. It was rather depressing. The entire thing reeks of a lack of substance, from the witless dialogue of the segues, which are so obviously written but still meant to seem like ad-lib, to the films, movies and actors chosen for the awards.

The most upsetting to me was the Best Movie going to Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith. George Lucas's arrogant victory speech spoke about how badly he's done with critics and Hollywood, and how validated he feels knowing his fans and his audience love him, was particularly upsetting. "The reason I make films is for you. The audience rules."

No, it doesn't, George, and no it isn't. You make films to make money, and the audience rules the market, but it shouldn't direct the art. Art, film, music, drama, all play important roles in building culture. Entertainment can be made to harmonize with culture building, or it can be employed in spite of it. In much the same way that western modern artists have abandoned function and form in fields like painting and sculpture, some of our films have abandoned plot and dialogue for special effects and produced works that are visually stunning but entirely unsatisfying; cultural candy that's good for nearly nothing and dangerous when it's heralded as the best we have to offer. Star Wars III was one of these films. It was a triumph of Style over Substance.

Western art doesn't have to be this way. We should encourage filmmakers to make substance stylish - to entertain us with tales that inspire as well as dazzle - and build our culture while we're being entertained. How do we do this? For starters, we can vote next year. Next, we can stop going to theaters and paying for these sorts of films. The industry is already economically burdened, and you can expect them to keep running whatever's selling until they figure out how to deal with the digital world. Lastly, we can promote movies that DO tell good stories and carry inspiring messages. Tell your friends. Email your parents. Load the blogosphere with reviews. The triumph of substance over style is important to maintain a culture that values things that have real value, and every little bit helps.

6 Comments:

At 1:33 PM, Blogger Hans-Georg Gadamer said...

Good points. I have always felt PowerPoint was the culmination of this style over substance mentality. Seriously. Get the over-head projector back out.

Maybe.

 
At 8:31 PM, Blogger E.A.P said...

I'm afraid that saying "substance over style" is not saying what you think it is. I just came from choir practice, so let's think about most hymns. Many of them have quite decent substance but their style leaves a lot to be desired when they're mostly variations on the same formula. Too much (boring and outdated) substance is precisely what annoys us about 50's public service announcement films - I'm thinking of the short film "A Date with Your Family" which was hiliariously snarked upon by MST3K.

I think neither substance nor style should be preeminent. I think they should be held in tension. "Style" as you put it (and I would substitute "art" and "design" for those terms in many of my statements) is a visual/sensual means of bringing substance to light. The two reinforce each other. It shouldn't HAVE to be this way, but often in good hymns the melody will brighten as the words of the tune become victorious and it will become melancholy and minor as trouble brews in the lyrics.

AND, no offense hans, but OH MY GOSH POWERPOINT HAS NO STYLE ITS ALL FLUFFY CRAP. Seriously, PowerPoint slides are meant to be somewhat pleasing to the eye, I think, but since they're generic, they offer NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the way of true design. They also hold 0 information anyhow, making them quite useless compared to charts and graphs and such. If each presentation was tackled as a design project yet contained little to no info then MAYBE we could say style had trumped substance but in true design, they would still be working hand in glove.

I'm sure it's not your perspective, but most of the people I hear calling for a return to "Substance Over Style" are uncomfortable with style and its inherent subjectivity. They find art disconcerting because two people can get something different out of it. Most of the people I know who say this? Christians. Honestly, I think the American Church has grown uncomfortable with the iconoclastic edge of modern art and has written off aesthetics as a result. It's a crime, I think, to write off all visual and sensory arts just because they no longer call the shots on just exactly what constitutes art in the cultural sphere.

There is this feeling that words should triumph images without exception. I'm just not comfortable with that. I mean, if its a philosophical paper and you've got a lot to cover maybe having your graphic design roomie go over it with some type-face and image magic is not the best idea. But if you're making something with visuals, you have to consider stylistic elements. You just have to. You wouldn't be giving it your all if you didn't.

The problem can swing the other way, as you said. I think "The Motorcycle Diaries" was a beautiful film. I mean GORGEOUS. But not all that much was said about the plight of Latin Americans. We didn't get to see Che Guevara's total transformation nor understand why he pursued violent revolution as a means of helping those people whose plight he first encountered on his tour of the continent. It could stand with MORE. I think style might have trumped substance there. But Star Wars? Please.

I guess "style" needs to be redefined before I'll be comfortable writing it off. Anyone got any candidates? Anyone think I've been hitting the Adobe-pipe too much lately?

 
At 12:15 AM, Blogger RJ said...

You're right, EAP - I've accepted a false dichotomy here. I suppose what we want is neither substance over style, nor style over substance - we want stylish substance; style that is substantial. I guess I have seen things that were so beatufully shot or well done that the style composed a certain degree of substance unto itself. Star Wars wasn't like that, but it happens sometimes.

I certainly didn't mean "art" or "design." I guess I more just meant "effects" or "pizaz" or "appearance." I mean, the entire post is about how our art should be good, right?

 
At 12:17 AM, Blogger RJ said...

Redhurt's approved list of stylishly substantial movies:

Fight Club
American History X
Rounders
The Matrix (only the first one)
Braveheart
Maverick
Ocean's 11
Legends of the Fall
Meet Joe Black
Shawshank Redemption

It's too late for me to make this list any longer, but there's a start.

 
At 5:33 AM, Blogger Hans-Georg Gadamer said...

Hey, what about Blade Runner? I heard that won best style and substance movie of the century. Awesome.

 
At 8:13 AM, Blogger CharlesPeirce said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home