Is it possible to...?

[Hollis]

Good morning all,

I've read, with a great deal of interest, about what message(s) the film maker is trying to get across to the audience when they watch his movie. To be honest, unless the message is almost overtly stated, it seems to be lost on me in a great number of cases. I don't consider my self obtuse or stupid, so I'm left to wonder why I failed to pick up on whatever message was within the movie. Here's my question and hopefully some of the more learned voices here at SSO can answer it for me. Is it at all possible that the film maker (director, screenwriter, what have you) was simply trying to tell a story on film and didn't have in mind a message of morality or ethics or of the intangible elements that exist in relationships between people? As talented as many, if not most, of them are, I doubt that they would think of themselves as philosophers as opposed to artists who merely chose film as their medium. My opinion is that many of the people who watch movies on a level beyond the casual viewer's tend to overly analyze what they're watching and see hidden meanings or messages that may not actually exist except in their own imaginations. Some of the reviews and analysis that I've read make me wonder if we were watching the same movie. By watching a movie from such an analytical perspective, I wonder if the person doing the analysis had time to actually enjoy the movie itself. Sometimes you really can't see the forest for the trees! Enlighten me if you will and tell me I'm not coming out of left field, that there may be something to be said for my theory. Thanks my friends.

As always,

Hollis

[movieman1957]

Was Mayer or Warner that said "If you want to send a message use Western Union?" I don't consider myself all that smart compared to some here but I find I must miss some of the more subtle messages. (Of course I'd also hate to think it takes a 2X4 to get my attention.)

I think a good many directors were out to tell a story as well as they could. Sometimes they may have made "messages" to community, family, government or politics. However, I think if you don't have the story any message is pointless.

I remember high school literature and reading several novels and then listening to the discussions and wondering if we were reading the same thing.

Overanalyze? Sure, sometimes.

[knitwit45]

Thank you!!!!! I never review a movie here, because I just love the movie, I very seldom "get" the subtle messages that others do. I have always felt like the token fool here, because of my lack of discernment. Whew! So others feel the same way! We may be in the minority, Hollis & Chris, but that's ok. I watch movies for the pleasure they bring (shallow, aren't I?) If I tried to analyze them, I'd miss the whole durn thing!

That's why I love this site, it educates me daily. The next time I watch something that has been reviewed or discussed here, it's like watching a whole new film. So I'll keep hangin' around, and maybe someday I'll actually be able to contribute something besides laughter....

[Mr. O'Brady]

I like movies. But the concept of "filmmaking" flies so far over my head that what little hair remains is not disturbed in the least. That's why I seldom post an opinion as well. I'm the board dummy. The same goes for modern art and free verse poetry. I'm stuck somewhere around 1880.

[knitwit45]

Sorry Mr. O'Brady, but age outranks you! Get in line behind me Just don't get too close, I think the dumbness rubs off.......

[movieman1957]

Nancy:

Now remember, you bring more than laughter. Not only grace and style but a gift for keeping the boys in line.

Of course, this is addition to your movie knowledge.

[ChiO]

To quote Alfred Hitchcock (probably the last time I ever will):

It's just a mo-o-o-vie.

I find that if I catch any "meaning", "nuance" or "message" the first time I see a movie and without pre- or post-viewing reading or discussion, then it was all so obvious that it probably wasn't good filmmaking.

For me, nothing beats a fine over-analysis of a movie I like, despite Mr. Hitchcock's admontion (which I doubt that even he believed).

[jdb1]

I love movies because the really good ones are first and foremost telling you a good story. If I find other layers of meaning, that's down to me, not necessarily the makers of the movie.

We generally can tell, right away, if the makers are intending a "message." Sometimes the effect is more of self-importance than of communication of an idea, and such films tend to hit you over the head, repeatedly, with their portentous message. It is possible to convey profound messages and still entertain, and we fortunately have many such films to marvel at. The less nihilistic films of Ingmar Bergman come to mind. They are chock full of ideas about Life, The Universe, and Everything, yet they still have interesting stories, beautiful images, and opportunities for excellent acting. There are lots of other directors, from Hollywood and all over the rest of the world, who have given us such films.

Personally, I like to see movies that I can discuss for more than five minutes, but I also like movies that just make me happy (or even make me cry), but don't give me any reason to dissect them.

I don't think anyone is a "dummy" if they don't see hidden messages in a movie. If it entertains you, or at the least holds your interest, then the movie has done its job, whatever the far-reaching intent of those who put it together.

[moira finnie]

My first criteria for any movie is "Am I enjoying this or am I getting involved in this tale?", "Do I give a rip about any of these characters?"---not, is this filmmaker employing Jungian symbolism, what is the film's ratio, or how interesting that the screenwriter wrote the dialogue in free verse?!!

Though some films, (i.e. John Ford) do bear greater scrutiny and may be more interesting the more you look at them. When movies can be viewed on a couple of different levels I enjoy them too. The themes and qualities of a movie interest me quite a bit.

Films that can be seen as "only a movie" usually have great stories and are really interesting when they reflect the experiences of those who made them. Many times, it's that visual seduction by the dream on screen that gets me. In classic movies, I think that many of the 'behind the scenes" people who contributed to the studio era were phenomenal craftsmen and it's enjoyable for me to keep learning more about their lives, techniques, and careers. I guess there is a subtext to everything, though it's not always necessary (or a good idea) to analyze a work of art that also happens to be an entertainment.

[melwalton]

Couple of things:
I don't think it necessary to have a high IQ to enjoy a movie,
There HAVE been 'Message' movies. I can think of no other reason for making 'Gentlemen's Agreement'.
In the 'Good old days' of film, every actor smoked cigarettes, did the tobacco companies do anything to encourage this? HAH!
I'd say in 99 cases out of a hundred ( probably more ) the movie makers have this attitude Hey, we have a lucrative audience, let's hang on to it by giving them what they want. Do your preaching in church not in the theater. .... mel

[melwalton]

Nancy
Only thing you lack is confidence. Your posts are very intelligent and you have a delightful style and sense of humor, As for analyzing and understanding messages, John M said it well. It's mostly an individual concept. Reminds me of the one about the blind men and their description of an elephant.

[knitwit45]

Aw, shucks......

[klondike]

Nancy:

Now remember, you bring more than laughter. Not only grace and style but a gift for keeping the boys in line.

Of course, this is addition to your movie knowledge.

Wait a minute [!] . . . .

Does this mean Nancy's been a volunteer Den Mother?!!

Man, I thought she was gettin' paid to keep us "boys" in line!!

You know, I don't want to upset anybody, or speak for Hollis or Mel or Ken, but things could get a lot louder out back here in the Treehouse . . .

[mrsl]

Naturally I have a couple of comments to make. I've often said that I usually tape a movie the first time I watch it for exactly this reason - whatever I missed. Some movies, like Casablanca, I see new things with every viewing, others just make me laugh or cry - whatever. Sometimes I go back to see what other people saw, like in Written on the Wind, I tried to find some hidden meaning in the movie, the dialog, or scenery, etc., but all I see is a silly soap opera because the characters are so shallow, but again using Casablanca - the characters are so rich and vibrant, I want to analyze their every move and word, because to me it is one of the greatest movies ever made, and many of John Ford's movies are the same way.

On the other hand, sometimes I think people are seeing too much as they watch which may have been the catalyst for HUAC - hearing double intendoes, or simply reading more into a sentence than was meant.

When I review a movie, I review the actors and how they looked, or if they had any acting talent, and whether the story/plot was funny or sad, etc. I leave the deep analysis to others, and take it from where they leave off.

Anne