I read this post with great interest (as a movie buff) and found much that hit home. As for the necessity of a "message" to reach the level of great art, to cause one to feel and think, I tend to agree with Mary and Picasso, who said: "Art washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life."
I'm so glad that you found the post interesting and that much of it "hit home." That's very gratifying to read! Thank you.
Interestingly, I do not see the quote from Picasso, "Art washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life" as contradicting the "necessity of a "message" to reach the level of great art, to cause one to feel and think."
To me, art that washes the dust of everyday life includes thinking about ideas, philosophies, perspectives, and beliefs, which I find are the "messages" found in great movies, and are precisely what elevate these films to the level of "art."
We may just be talking about explicitness or degree, or perhaps something deeper. The idea of “message” for me harks back to my junior high school poetry teacher asking us: “What is the meaning of the rope?” My older self thinks the far better question would have been: “What does this poem mean to you?”
My old teacher also might have asked what is the message of Rodin’s “The Thinker,” or any of Rothko’s panels or Picasso’s cubist drawings. That question is only answerable on an individual level. These great works have caused millions of viewers to think and feel deeply, but differently. There is not "a" message. There is meaning for each person.
I would argue the same for movies. For me, a great movie has writing, cinematography, direction, acting that stays with me and makes me think, even if there is no clear message. In fact, especially because there is no clear message. Everyone in a theater may carry away a message, but there may be as many different messages as there are patrons. The power is that the art makes one think from one’s own experience, not as though receiving word from the pulpit.
I tend to dislike movies that do the latter. One example that comes to mind is “Mudbound.” While reviews were highly favorable, and while I am highly sympathetic to the “message,” I resent being hammered on the head with it. That is preaching, not art. While this may be a somewhat extreme example, I feel the same about movies that more subtly seem to have a point of view that we are supposed to “get.” And everyone gets the same message. Takes me right back to the poem with the rope.
I prefer to feel that great art in any form can reach many people in many different ways. Beauty speaks, in and of itself. That is the sense in which I take Picasso’s description of art that “washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life.”
Thank you for clarifying your perspective! I tried to address in the essay some of the points that you've brought up:
"The ability of the filmmaker to relay the message is a skill in itself, and it may actually be the most essential aspect of fine filmmaking and storytelling, since it requires the ability to deftly deliver a well-integrated and clear message without being preachy, boring, or heavy-handed. But there is room for interpretation. It is somewhat subjective as to what the precise message of a movie is or what audiences want it to be. So the viewer may not hit on exactly what the filmmaker intended, but if something valuable and meaningful was gained, then that is an astounding feat and worth the label “great.”"
I agree that "great art in any form can reach many people in many different ways," and I believe that the highest level of art reaches people not just on an aesthetic level, but also on an intellectual level due to the artist's intention to do so. In other words, the "intention" is the message. Hence I think it is valuable both to look at what the artists possibly intended by studying context/history/symbolism as your earlier teachers did, and also take seriously what the artwork idiosyncratically means to the audience. Why not do both? Of course a heavy-handed "message movie" is obviously not artfully or skillfully made, so it doesn't qualify as great because the message is not enough—that's just propaganda. Skill matters to make something appealing or beautiful.
Trying to understand the artists in historical context etc. in order to discover the intent does not diminish the artwork, nor does it reduce the enjoyment of it for me. In fact, it enhances it. Likewise, trying to decipher the meaning or message in a great movie is very rewarding and enlightening to me. Hunting for meaning is fun; it's like solving a puzzle—and it's not that hard to do because many writers/directors explicitly talk about it as in the examples in the essay. But I'm not saying that there is only one way to look at a movie or a piece of art.
My point is that if there were no message at all intended, then the artwork would be lesser because there would be nothing to interpret, nothing to think about, nothing to learn. The interpretation is how the audience interacts with the artwork. If there is nothing to interpret, then it's not great art because it fails to engage. But the actual message that is received by the audience is of course subjective and individualized.
From the essay, "If we all saw everything the same way there would be no room for art; there would be no room for us."
We were hoping for discussion--and now we have a good start. Let's hope others take the time to read and comment on your point and mine. As I've said to you privately, I think we're close on this issue. Maybe the question is a matter of terms. My worry is idea-driven work that essentially and ultimately "sells direct". My hope is that Del will also comment.
Lovely comment from Rebecca Holden. I would add that, as moviewise says, how the movie is crafted, when well done, gives us art through revelation over the arc of the story. As an example, I recently rewatched with a friend _Fracture_, made in 2007, that stars Anthony Hopkins as Ted Crawford, who shoots his unfaithful wife at the opening, and a much younger Ryan Gosling as Willy Beachum, who plays a district attorney. It's described on Wikipedia as a psychological thriller. My friend, a reporter for a major newspaper, and I, her former creative writing professor, discussed how the screenplay focused on the Gosling character's inability to lie and the Hopkins character's ability to not only lie but tell the truth only as he plotted against that truth. The screenplay is also crafted with layers of the conflict as the battle of wills between these two proceeds. Beachum appears at first to be obsessed with winning, in many ways like his adversary. At the film’s start, Beachum is about to join a well-heeled private law firm and even describes that move as “winning”. Over the arc of the film, Beachum comes up against his inability to lie. He studies intensively the law as the plot thickens and his motivation to win deepens to his desire to ensure that justice will be done. The Hopkins character gets revealed as increasingly manipulative and clever and we get some of his backstory that informs how he became who he is—both successful, perseverant and well-studied. Gosling’s character is also deepened with some backstory. Though the film has a certain slick cleverness, it has stood the test of time because these issues remain so au courant as we watch a manipulative former president’s ability to undermine justice. So, is this film art? On many levels, I would argue that it is, largely, because of the layers of conflict that lead to revelation unstated but instead shown. Brilliant performances also inform: The seasoned actor Hopkins comes up against the much younger and less-seasoned Gosling, whose subtle performance defines his now formidable stardom. Did the writers intend to teach us a lesson or did we learn one from the art of the telling?
Really fascinating post - it’s given me a lot to think about!
‘A movie that makes you feel and think about a subject matter is stimulating you more than a movie that does only one of those things, i.e. only feel or only think.’ Next time I watch a film I’m going to consider exactly what I’m getting out of it and why. :D
Thank you so much Rebecca. The examined life is fun, and the movies that have pearls of wisdom are precious. I've written about some of my favorites here:
I read this post with great interest (as a movie buff) and found much that hit home. As for the necessity of a "message" to reach the level of great art, to cause one to feel and think, I tend to agree with Mary and Picasso, who said: "Art washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life."
I'm so glad that you found the post interesting and that much of it "hit home." That's very gratifying to read! Thank you.
Interestingly, I do not see the quote from Picasso, "Art washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life" as contradicting the "necessity of a "message" to reach the level of great art, to cause one to feel and think."
To me, art that washes the dust of everyday life includes thinking about ideas, philosophies, perspectives, and beliefs, which I find are the "messages" found in great movies, and are precisely what elevate these films to the level of "art."
We may just be talking about explicitness or degree, or perhaps something deeper. The idea of “message” for me harks back to my junior high school poetry teacher asking us: “What is the meaning of the rope?” My older self thinks the far better question would have been: “What does this poem mean to you?”
My old teacher also might have asked what is the message of Rodin’s “The Thinker,” or any of Rothko’s panels or Picasso’s cubist drawings. That question is only answerable on an individual level. These great works have caused millions of viewers to think and feel deeply, but differently. There is not "a" message. There is meaning for each person.
I would argue the same for movies. For me, a great movie has writing, cinematography, direction, acting that stays with me and makes me think, even if there is no clear message. In fact, especially because there is no clear message. Everyone in a theater may carry away a message, but there may be as many different messages as there are patrons. The power is that the art makes one think from one’s own experience, not as though receiving word from the pulpit.
I tend to dislike movies that do the latter. One example that comes to mind is “Mudbound.” While reviews were highly favorable, and while I am highly sympathetic to the “message,” I resent being hammered on the head with it. That is preaching, not art. While this may be a somewhat extreme example, I feel the same about movies that more subtly seem to have a point of view that we are supposed to “get.” And everyone gets the same message. Takes me right back to the poem with the rope.
I prefer to feel that great art in any form can reach many people in many different ways. Beauty speaks, in and of itself. That is the sense in which I take Picasso’s description of art that “washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life.”
Thank you for clarifying your perspective! I tried to address in the essay some of the points that you've brought up:
"The ability of the filmmaker to relay the message is a skill in itself, and it may actually be the most essential aspect of fine filmmaking and storytelling, since it requires the ability to deftly deliver a well-integrated and clear message without being preachy, boring, or heavy-handed. But there is room for interpretation. It is somewhat subjective as to what the precise message of a movie is or what audiences want it to be. So the viewer may not hit on exactly what the filmmaker intended, but if something valuable and meaningful was gained, then that is an astounding feat and worth the label “great.”"
I agree that "great art in any form can reach many people in many different ways," and I believe that the highest level of art reaches people not just on an aesthetic level, but also on an intellectual level due to the artist's intention to do so. In other words, the "intention" is the message. Hence I think it is valuable both to look at what the artists possibly intended by studying context/history/symbolism as your earlier teachers did, and also take seriously what the artwork idiosyncratically means to the audience. Why not do both? Of course a heavy-handed "message movie" is obviously not artfully or skillfully made, so it doesn't qualify as great because the message is not enough—that's just propaganda. Skill matters to make something appealing or beautiful.
Trying to understand the artists in historical context etc. in order to discover the intent does not diminish the artwork, nor does it reduce the enjoyment of it for me. In fact, it enhances it. Likewise, trying to decipher the meaning or message in a great movie is very rewarding and enlightening to me. Hunting for meaning is fun; it's like solving a puzzle—and it's not that hard to do because many writers/directors explicitly talk about it as in the examples in the essay. But I'm not saying that there is only one way to look at a movie or a piece of art.
My point is that if there were no message at all intended, then the artwork would be lesser because there would be nothing to interpret, nothing to think about, nothing to learn. The interpretation is how the audience interacts with the artwork. If there is nothing to interpret, then it's not great art because it fails to engage. But the actual message that is received by the audience is of course subjective and individualized.
From the essay, "If we all saw everything the same way there would be no room for art; there would be no room for us."
What a grand exchange! xo to you both. --Mary
I love this answer. Maybe, Del, you should do a guest post for me! Go, good sir!
We were hoping for discussion--and now we have a good start. Let's hope others take the time to read and comment on your point and mine. As I've said to you privately, I think we're close on this issue. Maybe the question is a matter of terms. My worry is idea-driven work that essentially and ultimately "sells direct". My hope is that Del will also comment.
What a great line from Picasso. I'd not heard of that one. Love it! xo to you and to moviewise!
Lovely comment from Rebecca Holden. I would add that, as moviewise says, how the movie is crafted, when well done, gives us art through revelation over the arc of the story. As an example, I recently rewatched with a friend _Fracture_, made in 2007, that stars Anthony Hopkins as Ted Crawford, who shoots his unfaithful wife at the opening, and a much younger Ryan Gosling as Willy Beachum, who plays a district attorney. It's described on Wikipedia as a psychological thriller. My friend, a reporter for a major newspaper, and I, her former creative writing professor, discussed how the screenplay focused on the Gosling character's inability to lie and the Hopkins character's ability to not only lie but tell the truth only as he plotted against that truth. The screenplay is also crafted with layers of the conflict as the battle of wills between these two proceeds. Beachum appears at first to be obsessed with winning, in many ways like his adversary. At the film’s start, Beachum is about to join a well-heeled private law firm and even describes that move as “winning”. Over the arc of the film, Beachum comes up against his inability to lie. He studies intensively the law as the plot thickens and his motivation to win deepens to his desire to ensure that justice will be done. The Hopkins character gets revealed as increasingly manipulative and clever and we get some of his backstory that informs how he became who he is—both successful, perseverant and well-studied. Gosling’s character is also deepened with some backstory. Though the film has a certain slick cleverness, it has stood the test of time because these issues remain so au courant as we watch a manipulative former president’s ability to undermine justice. So, is this film art? On many levels, I would argue that it is, largely, because of the layers of conflict that lead to revelation unstated but instead shown. Brilliant performances also inform: The seasoned actor Hopkins comes up against the much younger and less-seasoned Gosling, whose subtle performance defines his now formidable stardom. Did the writers intend to teach us a lesson or did we learn one from the art of the telling?
I've seen 'Fracture' - I found it fascinating and deeply complex - I'm going to be watching it again in light of what you've written about it, Mary!
Really fascinating post - it’s given me a lot to think about!
‘A movie that makes you feel and think about a subject matter is stimulating you more than a movie that does only one of those things, i.e. only feel or only think.’ Next time I watch a film I’m going to consider exactly what I’m getting out of it and why. :D
Thank you so much Rebecca. The examined life is fun, and the movies that have pearls of wisdom are precious. I've written about some of my favorites here:
https://moviewise.substack.com/p/the-wisdom-of-ferris-buellers-day
https://moviewise.substack.com/p/the-wisdom-in-dead-poets-society
https://moviewise.substack.com/p/the-wisdom-in-kung-fu-panda
Comments may have been briefly disabled to free subscribers: Something I maybe forgot to click? Oops! and xo Mary