Hi, new Subscriber to the channel. I've been watching a good amount of your content recently (on lunch breaks typically, or as a media respite btw daily activities) and I wanted to share that I really enjoy what you have to say about film in general. It's very thoughtful and stimulating. As a film enthusiast and aspiring scholar, I think that I've found a new favourite channel for film reviews and evaluations :)
If it’s of any interest, I actually published a short piece on Noe’s Love. It may have a few worthwhile things to say, lol I believe there’s a link to it in the comments for your review on Love. It should still be on the homepage for Film Cred too, link in the ol’ gram, etc. Anywho, thanks again, and I look forward to more of your stuff!
Style is substance. Film is a visual medium. Style is a vehicle for emotion to make your film substantial. I think when people say "style over substance" they just mean that it looks "pretty" but they weren't engaged in the story telling. Looking "pretty" is not style. Blade Runner is the farthest thing from style over substance. Before Blade Runner, science fiction in movies was mostly goofy space ships and tinfoil hats. That was one of the foundational science fiction films that took it's material and it's world seriously and used it to tell a massive story about humanity and capitalism and morality, etc. etc. It's quite silly to call it's melancholia "style over substance" when it's melancholia is derived from what human beings are experiencing in the story. Melancholia is a huge part of the substance of that story. I feel quite melancholic some days. Is that me being stylish? Lol no.
Exactly. Style is substance, and above all form is substance. The only valuable substance that a film could have. That's why virtually all recent films are unwatchable.
That's rather odd reasoning, you pose what in your definition "style" is to most people and then you disagree with your own definition. Blade Runner is a bad example of style over substance, I mean, it's Philip K. Dick so the story can't be anything but great and Scott simply brought it to life brilliantly with the neo-noir look and general athmosphere. It's a perfect example where style and substance are wed perfectly, so definitely not style over substance imo. I also do not understand why you mention "melancholia" as an example of "style"? Melancholia is a mood, indeed not a style, but she never said that was part of its style. I believe the style to her was its imagery and world building. To me style is a conglomerate of sensory elements that are meant to support and contextualize the story. I say sensory elements, because style is not just visuals, it can also be music, editing, structure etc. Great examples can for instance be found in German expressionist movies in the silent era of the 20's like the "Cabinett of Dr. Caligari" and even after sound was introduced like in 30's movies by Fritz Lang or indeed the film noir movies of the mid 40's to mid 50's etc. These movies had great substance, but their style contributed so much to the story. I think indeed that the term "substance" is much harder to define, is it just the story, the theme of the movie? As for style being inseperable from substance, I disagree, but I do think that in the best movies they become inseperable, blend in perfectly.
I think George Lucas' criminally underrated THX 1138 is a good example of a style over substance film. Sure, the story and characters are about as cut and dry, stereotypical dystopian sci fi as you can get. But I love the haunting atmosphere it conveys. Plus, the ending when the titular THX escapes and Bach's "Come ye, daughters" plays is just perfect.
Stereotypical? I would beg to differ, as it made a big impact on me. Ideologically: it's amazing. It's a big criticism of where we are, and where it can very well lead. (Also, I would say George Lucas should have gone further into paranoid dystopic visions, and not become Mr. Star Wars.)
The ultimate style-over-substance movie (IMHO) is _Buckaroo Banzai: Across the Eighth Dimension_ (1984). Also, _A Hard Day's Night_ (The Beatles, 1964).
One of my favourite Japanese film directors is Sion Sono, and he could very definitely be accused of style over substance. But the thing with his films is, he can pull you in with his signature style but then sucker punch you with some substance. Like Guilty of Romance, Cold Fish and Antip*rno ... and Suicide Circle, for example. But then you get films like, Why Don't You Play In Hell? or Tokyo Tribe and which are so much fun, but they're definitely all about just having a lot of fun.
As a prop maker, I find most of these films to be a way to hold up the technical and art side of the film industry, and I really really appreciate that. Blade Runner 2049 was an incredible way to give Wētā Workshop, the costume shop, set builders, and the prop crew working with Doug Harlocker a soap box, and it paid off triple fold in my opinion. Letting them tell these small stories through paint chips, stickers, dents, dirt, and scuffs, while letting the script be minimal and having the actors be more reserved really shows how important those parts of film making are to everyone, writers, directors, and especially actors. As someone who builds props and enjoys acting, I can only imagine being on set and experiencing the immersion they probably got, it must have been truly incredible.
To me Blade Runner 2049 indeed was an example of style over substance. Villeneuve obviously respected the hell out of the original and wanted to do it justice and visually he very much succeeded. The problem I have with the movie is indeed that a movie needs an interesting story to tell and that's where the movie completely fell flat for me. It simply didn't have anything significant to say and to me that was deadly and I'm a bit fearful for the future as this director is being given all these fantastic scifi classics and I fear he will ruin material that would be deserving not just a great visual artist but also very much would need a great story teller and to me he just isn't that. So next for him will be doing Clarke's classic Rendevous with Rama wich has always been very high on my list of stories to create a movie for, but I have serious doubts in Villeneuve helming it for the reason I mentioned. Ah well, hopefully he will prove me wrong, but meanwhile we have Dune which for me had the same problem.
@@voiceover2191 I think what you’re saying is more than justified and totally valid criticism, I think you’re right. His storytelling is not nearly as strong as his visual eye and world building techniques. I also have a tricky time as a person who very much cares about world building, score, mood, and the technical side of film making, seeing all of that stuff done so well, I have this feeling to want to completely dismiss that drawback and say “but look at all this incredible stuff!!!” Oh the other hand, I think that he is very good at doing a sort of subtle and more nuanced storytelling, which works great in certain scenes in all his films, but on the whole makes them sometimes feel too undefined or bland. I don’t know if he will ever adapt at all, but for me personally, I just find the draw of the production design, score, props, costumes, and cinematography, too good to pass up. But it would be nice to see the screenwriters have just a little more control on the final product.
@@willhamilton297 I don't know will, I somehow doubt it's a screenwriter's issue, it is I suspect the way Villeneuve works with the script he ends up with filming, but of course if the screenwriters don't do a good job, it's pretty much a death sentence on that part of the movie and don't get me wrong, I will of course have ass in seat with Villeneuve's next effort, as obviously the man has great talent and if only he could improve on that part, I'd be 100% behind it and I'll always give hime props for taking on these very demanding and risky projects, I mean having the balls to do a sequel on Blade Runner? Wow, I'd be wearing diapers every morning on set, so I do admire him from that and I could see that this project meant the world to him and so that at the very least earns him credit in my book.
Wes Anderson films are another good example of style informing substance I think. Like surface level symmetry, tidiness and holding-it-together characters being painted on the dynamics and emotions held within the characters and stories. Zack Snyder films are where style seems decoupled from substance for me. The style is distracting too much that I can never really get into them. Too glossy, too much saturation, too much bloom and slow motion shots with circling cameras. But then I also know it's a matter of preference. I'd probably be able to engage more and experience some more depth if I was into all that. Similarly there's probably people who will find Wes Anderson films shallow because the style is like an obstruction to them instead of a gateway to something meaningful. I realise it has to do with the emotions evoked by the style as well. Wes Anderson's style will invoke melancholy, nostalgia and sehnsucht, which I can relate to, while Zack Snyder just goes for looking awesome all the time, which cheapens the films as I see it.
That's not style over substance though. It's style is substance. It's that Snyder's style/substance sucks. Drawing your attention to pretty images while the story sucks is not style over substance, it's just bad craftsmanship and bad style.
Interesting to hear the analysis on Refn's takes without one word on his most visually-driven film (and arguably beautiful) to date, The Neon Demon. Although my first theater watch had the feel of a pulpy awestruck fun night out with friends, the second one sent me on a treasure hunt on the following symbols - in no particular order: The Moon Eyes Red (The "demon") Predatory cats Triangles/tri-force Beige/White ("plain-ness" or lack of differentiation during the test scene, prior to....) Gold Blue (narcissism, with Refn himself referencing Caravaggio's Narcissus in interviews; this also is demonstrated via reflections) Binding Strobe lighting (as a warning) Pink (purity) Swastika (seen on the wallpaper toward the end) Green (rebirth after death of a central character)
Killer's Kiss (1955) directed by Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick's second movie is a film noir produced on a shoestring budget. Story is forgettable and the acting is OK but not great. However, it is the stylish, atmospheric on location cinematography, capturing the seedy side of 1950s NYC, that makes this movie so memorable. With Killer's Kiss, one can see the potential that would blossom in future movies (with bigger budgets). For fans of film noir, this movie is essential viewing.
It's pretty good although I just assumed that the simplicity of the movie is due to its relatively tight budget. That being said, Kubrick clearly used the most of his tools on hand to make a good film (Killer's Kiss). Personally, I prefer The Killing. I never imagined to be engaged in a thriller movie from the 50's lol but hey, Kubrick pulled it off
The score from Ennio Morricone is so great and very unique for him at the time. Over here in Australia when the Brownlow Medal is presented every year in the AFL, his famous 'Victorious' score plays everytime the winner is announced which is incredibly fitting in the film it plays every time Ness and his crew get a significant win over Al Capone's gang and their operations.
To me, style **is** substance. One relies on the other. If one doesn't work, neither does the other. In the case of Blade Runner, if it doesn't draw you in, all that pretty art direction is for naught. Yes, Blade Runner is a very influential film, but bad films can be influential too -- most often for doing something first, as opposed to doing it well.
Ebert described "Laura" as "style over sanity". Is that what film noir is about, i.e., suspension of disbelief? Creating a world that may not have a lot to do with reality?
Cool question and many films come to mind. I'd throw out there a movie I champion as a modern classic, Spring Breakers. I could get lost in that film without actually paying attention to any particular "narrative" detail every time I watch it and still be blown away by the experience. I'll always praise that one as a personal favorite despite any criticism it receives. "Spraaang Breeeaaak fo'eva'." 🏝☀
Substance and style aren’t separate entities. Neo formalists believe that if they were separate then you could put the same substance in two different films and the substance remains unchanged. Which is not true. We can’t separate substance because the substance that you are thinking of is very much the result of the language of that film..
No such thing as STYLE over SUBSTANCE. Especially in Nic Refn’s case. The STYLE is the SUBSTANCE with him most if the time. Even someone like TARKOVSKY tells very simple stories that he propped up by a very idiosyncratic style.
Sorry, but that's bs about Tarkovsky. Very simple stories? Tarkovsky doesn't "prop up". Also, I feel you confuse story with plot. I would even deny he has a "style".
This was probably the hardest topic question that you have presented so far that I had think about a lot about. The thing is most great and even phenomenal style over substance films are so well crafted that the style itself essentially evolves into the substance if that makes any sense. So my choice which many no doubt many will find very strange and bizarre is the first Goal! (2005). Its certainly not a good film by any stretch of the imagination and it suffers from having a fairly weak, underdeveloped typical sports film story. But the style of it and the way it presents English football/soccer and its wonderful, passionate, intense atmosphere from a cinematic standpoint is seriously impressive even after over 15 years considering how incredibly difficult it is to translate to Cinema for all sorts of reasons. Even though Bend It Beckham probably has more substance, Goal is way more fun and captures the soul of the beautiful game far better.
The style vs substance paradigm posited here seems to be style = visual and substance = script. Is that how cinema should work? in a great film, the style IS the substance and vice versa. The visual information in every frame of Blade Runner is the substance of the film.
100% agreed with you. The visuals in Blade Runner say a lot more than the words, which is what makes it so great. Clearly, even at a subconcious level it did tell the story in DFL's case
The article "Blade Runner Original vs. 2049: Which Sci-Fi Film Is Better?" concludes: - The original film's greatest flaw, according to some critics, is that Scott prioritized visual style above plot. And while Blade Runner 2049 beats its predecessor by striking the balance between style and substance, the film's style only exists because of the original. That being said, despite Blade Runner's cultural impact, its sequel should be considered the best film in the franchise.
To me The Cell by Tarsim is a good example, actually most of his movies are, at least that's what critics typically blamed it for, style over substance. First of all, what style! There are images in that movie I never saw in any other and left a deep impression, and I'm sorry, I really liked the story as well, even though the style in the end is what lingered in my mind.
Just watched Willie's Wonderland....Come on now... You you've played Five Nights at Freddy's, once saw Evil Dead 2, and love the 80's and Nick Cage, we get it...
Figgin DeFoe's Greeen Goblin scared the shit outta me in that burning building!! I will say I was disappointed in the costuming in Raimi's Spider-Man. Spidey's and Goblin's masks looked like Cheap Halloween designs with no flexibility. Today's Spiderman/Home series gives the Spidey face the expression it deserves.
What I love about that film is how unique it was against the rest of the golden age Disney animated films. Instead of been a typical Disney take on a classic fairytale, it played more naturally as a traditional fairytale right out of a book that had some typical Disney elements to it such as the 3 Fairy Godmothers, when Aurora sings which barely at all by comparison and the famous ending where herself and Prince Philip are dancing in the sky that Damien Chazzelle would use as inspiration for that beautiful planetarium scene with Mia and Sebastian in La La Land. But mostly it had a much darker aesthetic that would later on inspire The Black Cauldron which deserves to be remade more than any other current Disney live film. It also inspire The Hunchback Of Notre Dame which is criminally underrated and even more so underappreciated out of all the Disney Renaissance films.
Movies that have both style and substance are the best, of course. But if I had to choose, I'll take style with no substance. Style is what gets me through a movie. Substance is a cherry on top, and is optional.
Style over substance to me need not be an issue when it is the very thing the movie is interested in. A good example is Tom Tykwer's "Lola rennt" (Run Lola Run) which is all about style and editing and it's a movie that keeps me glued to the seat every second. The story doesn't amount to much, man loses money he owes shady people, he's captured by them and in desperation calls his girlfriend and tells her she has to come up with the money to the last penny, a 100.000 euro, any way she can, within the next 20 minutes, bring it to them or he will be killed. Simple enough, were it not for the fact that Tom Tykwer had a brilliant idea with this in and of itself very basic story: let the movie show various alternatives as to what would happen depending on choices our female hero Lola makes at specific junctures and look at the outcomes. The fact we are talking about a stressfull given that only 20 minutes are alotted to our heroine, decisions and actions have to be made at lightning speed, where of course editing comes in to convey this urgency and nailbiting suspense to us as a viewer, the same way the music is used to enhance this feeling. The way it is shot, edited and musically accompanied, in short its style is a crucial element of the movie and the movie simply would at a minimun be totally different without it, but most likely not work at all. By the way,I'd most recommend this movie as well as other works by Tykwer.
I think an awful lot of Kubrick is style over substance. What is 2001? What exactly is the substance, if not some hazy ill-defined idea of evolution and the cosmos? Which says exactly what? I've never really known and I've been watching it since the 1970s. Great ride though. And The Shining... I think the reason King hated it so much is that Kubrick cuts out the message in order to focus on the images. It didn't get the best of reviews at the time. Again people were a little more in favor of content then. (Something similar happened with Apocalypse Now and Blade Runner.) I had my own reasons for distrusting it. I was working in a hotel that was considered for the exterior. A hotel that was FAR more haunting inside than Kubrick's strange conception of a wooden exterior with an New York City Art Deco interior. So I was pissed that the film was not nearly as scary as the book. Stephen King had obviously worked in a hotel like the one I was worked at in Montana. But as time passed we left the era of filmic content, i.e. the 1970s, and entered a zone of surfaces, and style AS substance. (I'm looking at you Tarantino.) Thus people became frightened of Kubrick's surface level stylistic cues in a way they weren't in 1980. I have slowly warmed to Kubrick's Shining, and Blade Runner, and Apocalypse Now, over time. And I realized that those younger than myself were seeing something very different than I was. And they weren't wrong. They tended to see Kubrick as prophetic. For me content ultimately is still King. And I teach younger folks how to see it in my classes. I think this also explains why show don't tell is treated like a Mosaic law. I belief that telling can be infinitely scarier in the hands of a master. But it takes an audience who can understand the nature of the implications of what's being said. Probably not the same folks who praise Star Wars or the MCU. I think this may go along way to explaining why people didn't get Del Toro's very 40s meets 70s Nightmare Alley. They don't hear the word geek and get frightened. They filter it through the snicker of more current usages of the term. Without comprehending what they are swallowing...
The article "Blade Runner: 10 Things That Make No Sense" says: - It's often full of plotholes and forsakes the logic of its own story for style and impact.
Once upon a time, if pop music audiences could be satisfied with just a spotlight on the singer's face.: ua-cam.com/video/QrHN9tJLaQ0/v-deo.html And when it comes to a live performance, could anything out-spectacle THIS?: ua-cam.com/video/j9jeeHFymvQ/v-deo.html As style takes precedence over substance, doesn't that increase costs?
I tried my best with this one I saw a pattern and that movie is animated and brings rob zombies full library into one film it has comics his whole film library including his Michael Meyers from his Halloween and brought all the worlds together it got nuts but it’s very stylized
Fascinating stuff. How about a sequel getting to some of the movies that were nominated but didn't make it into this video? I'm thinking of two "style over substance" films in particular. I love The Grand Budapest Hotel, I despise The Fifth Element.
The Fifth Element is the first movie that came to my mind. I hate Besson as a person, I hate almost all of his movies but The Fifth Element.... well I like it ! It has a unique taste, nothing wrong with the narration, nice cast, good rythm, surprising editing and score, pulp cinematography, good practical effects and CGI, costumes by Gaultier, designs by Moebius, a good writing in terms of dialogues and punchlines... To me the only issue is the story : there is nothing really wrong with it except that he wrote it as a teenager and it shows ! Why do you despise it ?
Do you think Michael Mann is a style over substance director? Many critics believe he is although I don't as I'm able to pick up on the substance of his films after watching them multiple times.
Michael Mann is very high on style. The style is how basically everything is bathed in darkness, neon lights and very muted colors. A great example would be his debut Thief and his film version of Miami Vice.
Actally I am a sucker for stylised films. But only stylised films that are carefully structured. All other stylized movies are simply slick and empty. But I find on the other side of the coin masterpieces if structured and carefully written and performed usually only come in stylized form.
I love climax. if you have ever had a truly bad experience with drugs, climax will resonate with you. the only thing i dont like is the story with the child, its just so obviously trying to be outrageous and shocking, but hey, thats noe for you.
I thought it all worked and was within reality until *SPOILER*SPOILER*SPOILER* the kid electrocutes himself. But you also need the power to go out and for it to become a dark depraved egoless orgy hellscape
Definitely Dunkirk because it basically brings you into the period through its phemononal sound design, pure suspense and outstanding realistic cinematography which is easily the greatest use of the Imax 65mm camera to date. Even Tarantino and PTA rate this film very highly and consider it to be Christopher Nolan's magnus opus.
1917's single-take conceit was well-executed but misjudged, undermining suspense instead of enhancing it - simple logic made the ending a foregone conclusion, so I felt like I was watching someone else play a video game rather than "immersed" in a real situation. Dunkirk has flaws and limitations - some calculated, others mistakes - but, conceptually and formally, I reckon it's a much stronger film.
Interesting how Only God Forgives gets mentioned, which brings in Drive (which i liked) but somehow The Place Beyond the Pines doesn’t rate? What gives? I thought it was the better film of the three Gosling did if its kind, but it really benefits from Eva Mendes and Ben Mendelssohn
I think of Buffalo 66 when I think style over substance. Stylish as hell but the characters and story don't make sense so it kinda falls flat, it's like a character study of a characters who aren't believable
Edgar Wright, his movies are very stylized but also had substance. I say had, because I feel his more recent work is lacking substance, his movies are still fun but the characters are not that compelling. I'm thinking specifically on Baby Driver and Last Night in Soho. Compare it with The Cornetto trilogy which was fun and stylized but the story was driven by characters, instead of being driven by the mechanics of a script like Last Night in Soho and Baby Driver. I define substance by compelling characters and an intriguing story.
In my opinion: MOST COMMERCIAL ACTION MOVIES SACRIFICE SUBSTANCE FOR STYLE. Including the Marvel cannon. This is very subjective or course. For me, when a movie is jam packed with outrageous and lengthy "action" or "battle" set pieces with massive GRATUITOUS death and destruction, and audacious CGI, with only tenuous connection to character or theme or a coherent storyline, it has opted for Style over Substance. And FOR ME, this is very very boring. But for others, it seems, THIS IS THE SUBSTANCE. I don't get it, but there you are.
I gotta disagree on that. I don't think it's style to have just startle you with loud noise in a horror movie. I don't think it's style to just have some exploding building in the background. I don't think its style to have a car chase after another car. It's not style. It's just trash.
Since Sam Raimi has been mentioned, I'm kicking myself for not shouting out "Evil Dead II". It's an over-the-top gorefest and Ash is the quintessential idiot. But it's WONDERFUL.
My picks 1. Blade runner 2. All Christopher Nolan movies 3. All Tarantino movies 3.La La land 4.Taxi Driver(might be a very unpopular opinion but the movie has no character development at all, the plot is messy and is just very dull to me) 5. The Shining 6. Grand Budapest Hotel 7. Blade Runner 2049 8. Baby Driver 9. Wolf of Wall Street(entertaining but very repetitive) 10. Drive(2011)
Interesting. My impression is the opposite. When I watch films like inception or Reservoir Dogs.. My impression is that it's all about substance over style. There doesn't seem to be much focus on beautiful music, visuals, mood, atmosphere, etc. It seems to be all about the story and that sort of thing. I mean, reservoir dogs doesn't even have a score, doesn't it? It's been awhile since I watched that movie, but. I guess that's partly why these kinds of films are not my cup of tea. I'm a style kind of guy. YouknowI'msayin? I'm drawn to aesthetics. Music, visuals, mood, atmosphere, Etc.
Hi, new Subscriber to the channel.
I've been watching a good amount of your content recently (on lunch breaks typically, or as a media respite btw daily activities) and I wanted to share that I really enjoy what you have to say about film in general. It's very thoughtful and stimulating. As a film enthusiast and aspiring scholar, I think that I've found a new favourite channel for film reviews and evaluations :)
If it’s of any interest, I actually published a short piece on Noe’s Love. It may have a few worthwhile things to say, lol
I believe there’s a link to it in the comments for your review on Love. It should still be on the homepage for Film Cred too, link in the ol’ gram, etc. Anywho, thanks again, and I look forward to more of your stuff!
*Wes Anderson has entered the chat*
Style is substance. Film is a visual medium. Style is a vehicle for emotion to make your film substantial. I think when people say "style over substance" they just mean that it looks "pretty" but they weren't engaged in the story telling. Looking "pretty" is not style. Blade Runner is the farthest thing from style over substance. Before Blade Runner, science fiction in movies was mostly goofy space ships and tinfoil hats. That was one of the foundational science fiction films that took it's material and it's world seriously and used it to tell a massive story about humanity and capitalism and morality, etc. etc. It's quite silly to call it's melancholia "style over substance" when it's melancholia is derived from what human beings are experiencing in the story. Melancholia is a huge part of the substance of that story. I feel quite melancholic some days. Is that me being stylish? Lol no.
Exactly. Style is substance, and above all form is substance. The only valuable substance that a film could have. That's why virtually all recent films are unwatchable.
Well, the problem is when the style is the ONLY substance
@@FSVR54 That's phrasing it wrongly.
@@FSVR54 That misses the entire point of what I just said. Style and substance are inseparable. There is no style without substance.
That's rather odd reasoning, you pose what in your definition "style" is to most people and then you disagree with your own definition.
Blade Runner is a bad example of style over substance, I mean, it's Philip K. Dick so the story can't be anything but great and Scott simply brought it to life brilliantly with the neo-noir look and general athmosphere. It's a perfect example where style and substance are wed perfectly, so definitely not style over substance imo. I also do not understand why you mention "melancholia" as an example of "style"? Melancholia is a mood, indeed not a style, but she never said that was part of its style. I believe the style to her was its imagery and world building.
To me style is a conglomerate of sensory elements that are meant to support and contextualize the story. I say sensory elements, because style is not just visuals, it can also be music, editing, structure etc.
Great examples can for instance be found in German expressionist movies in the silent era of the 20's like the "Cabinett of Dr. Caligari" and even after sound was introduced like in 30's movies by Fritz Lang or indeed the film noir movies of the mid 40's to mid 50's etc.
These movies had great substance, but their style contributed so much to the story.
I think indeed that the term "substance" is much harder to define, is it just the story, the theme of the movie?
As for style being inseperable from substance, I disagree, but I do think that in the best movies they become inseperable, blend in perfectly.
I think George Lucas' criminally underrated THX 1138 is a good example of a style over substance film. Sure, the story and characters are about as cut and dry, stereotypical dystopian sci fi as you can get. But I love the haunting atmosphere it conveys. Plus, the ending when the titular THX escapes and Bach's "Come ye, daughters" plays is just perfect.
Stereotypical? I would beg to differ, as it made a big impact on me. Ideologically: it's amazing. It's a big criticism of where we are, and where it can very well lead.
(Also, I would say George Lucas should have gone further into paranoid dystopic visions, and not become Mr. Star Wars.)
@@maxstirner8717 yeah, I don't deny the film's themes. I'm just saying that the film wears its' influences on sleaves.
It's not underrated, generally viewed as a classic.
The ultimate style-over-substance movie (IMHO) is _Buckaroo Banzai: Across the Eighth Dimension_ (1984). Also, _A Hard Day's Night_ (The Beatles, 1964).
One of my favourite Japanese film directors is Sion Sono, and he could very definitely be accused of style over substance. But the thing with his films is, he can pull you in with his signature style but then sucker punch you with some substance. Like Guilty of Romance, Cold Fish and Antip*rno ... and Suicide Circle, for example. But then you get films like, Why Don't You Play In Hell? or Tokyo Tribe and which are so much fun, but they're definitely all about just having a lot of fun.
As a prop maker, I find most of these films to be a way to hold up the technical and art side of the film industry, and I really really appreciate that. Blade Runner 2049 was an incredible way to give Wētā Workshop, the costume shop, set builders, and the prop crew working with Doug Harlocker a soap box, and it paid off triple fold in my opinion. Letting them tell these small stories through paint chips, stickers, dents, dirt, and scuffs, while letting the script be minimal and having the actors be more reserved really shows how important those parts of film making are to everyone, writers, directors, and especially actors. As someone who builds props and enjoys acting, I can only imagine being on set and experiencing the immersion they probably got, it must have been truly incredible.
To me Blade Runner 2049 indeed was an example of style over substance. Villeneuve obviously respected the hell out of the original and wanted to do it justice and visually he very much succeeded. The problem I have with the movie is indeed that a movie needs an interesting story to tell and that's where the movie completely fell flat for me. It simply didn't have anything significant to say and to me that was deadly and I'm a bit fearful for the future as this director is being given all these fantastic scifi classics and I fear he will ruin material that would be deserving not just a great visual artist but also very much would need a great story teller and to me he just isn't that. So next for him will be doing Clarke's classic Rendevous with Rama wich has always been very high on my list of stories to create a movie for, but I have serious doubts in Villeneuve helming it for the reason I mentioned. Ah well, hopefully he will prove me wrong, but meanwhile we have Dune which for me had the same problem.
@@voiceover2191 I think what you’re saying is more than justified and totally valid criticism, I think you’re right. His storytelling is not nearly as strong as his visual eye and world building techniques. I also have a tricky time as a person who very much cares about world building, score, mood, and the technical side of film making, seeing all of that stuff done so well, I have this feeling to want to completely dismiss that drawback and say “but look at all this incredible stuff!!!” Oh the other hand, I think that he is very good at doing a sort of subtle and more nuanced storytelling, which works great in certain scenes in all his films, but on the whole makes them sometimes feel too undefined or bland. I don’t know if he will ever adapt at all, but for me personally, I just find the draw of the production design, score, props, costumes, and cinematography, too good to pass up. But it would be nice to see the screenwriters have just a little more control on the final product.
@@willhamilton297 I don't know will, I somehow doubt it's a screenwriter's issue, it is I suspect the way Villeneuve works with the script he ends up with filming, but of course if the screenwriters don't do a good job, it's pretty much a death sentence on that part of the movie and don't get me wrong, I will of course have ass in seat with Villeneuve's next effort, as obviously the man has great talent and if only he could improve on that part, I'd be 100% behind it and I'll always give hime props for taking on these very demanding and risky projects, I mean having the balls to do a sequel on Blade Runner? Wow, I'd be wearing diapers every morning on set, so I do admire him from that and I could see that this project meant the world to him and so that at the very least earns him credit in my book.
Wes Anderson films are another good example of style informing substance I think. Like surface level symmetry, tidiness and holding-it-together characters being painted on the dynamics and emotions held within the characters and stories.
Zack Snyder films are where style seems decoupled from substance for me. The style is distracting too much that I can never really get into them. Too glossy, too much saturation, too much bloom and slow motion shots with circling cameras. But then I also know it's a matter of preference. I'd probably be able to engage more and experience some more depth if I was into all that.
Similarly there's probably people who will find Wes Anderson films shallow because the style is like an obstruction to them instead of a gateway to something meaningful.
I realise it has to do with the emotions evoked by the style as well. Wes Anderson's style will invoke melancholy, nostalgia and sehnsucht, which I can relate to, while Zack Snyder just goes for looking awesome all the time, which cheapens the films as I see it.
That's not style over substance though. It's style is substance. It's that Snyder's style/substance sucks. Drawing your attention to pretty images while the story sucks is not style over substance, it's just bad craftsmanship and bad style.
Interesting to hear the analysis on Refn's takes without one word on his most visually-driven film (and arguably beautiful) to date, The Neon Demon. Although my first theater watch had the feel of a pulpy awestruck fun night out with friends, the second one sent me on a treasure hunt on the following symbols - in no particular order:
The Moon
Eyes
Red (The "demon")
Predatory cats
Triangles/tri-force
Beige/White ("plain-ness" or lack of differentiation during the test scene, prior to....)
Gold
Blue (narcissism, with Refn himself referencing Caravaggio's Narcissus in interviews; this also is demonstrated via reflections)
Binding
Strobe lighting (as a warning)
Pink (purity)
Swastika (seen on the wallpaper toward the end)
Green (rebirth after death of a central character)
Killer's Kiss (1955) directed by Stanley Kubrick.
Kubrick's second movie is a film noir produced on a shoestring budget. Story is forgettable and the acting is OK but not great. However, it is the stylish, atmospheric on location cinematography, capturing the seedy side of 1950s NYC, that makes this movie so memorable. With Killer's Kiss, one can see the potential that would blossom in future movies (with bigger budgets).
For fans of film noir, this movie is essential viewing.
It's pretty good although I just assumed that the simplicity of the movie is due to its relatively tight budget. That being said, Kubrick clearly used the most of his tools on hand to make a good film (Killer's Kiss). Personally, I prefer The Killing. I never imagined to be engaged in a thriller movie from the 50's lol but hey, Kubrick pulled it off
Isn't most film noir about style over substance? Didn't Ebert say that "Laura" is about style over sanity--yet somehow it works?
Thanks for choosing my question!
The Untouchables (1987) is one of my favourite Style over substance movie ever. It’s just so fuckin fun to watch.
The score from Ennio Morricone is so great and very unique for him at the time. Over here in Australia when the Brownlow Medal is presented every year in the AFL, his famous 'Victorious' score plays everytime the winner is announced which is incredibly fitting in the film it plays every time Ness and his crew get a significant win over Al Capone's gang and their operations.
The train station scene is VERY good.
Surprised no one mentioned one of my favorite films: Femme Fatale directed by Brian De Palma.
Is the revenant an example of this? I thought the plot was pretty simple. I found myself immersed in the style/ visuals
Yes. The plot of The Revenant is very simple and predictable but the style and visuals are arresting. My only complaint is its too long.
Hmm
Yooooo
To me, style **is** substance. One relies on the other. If one doesn't work, neither does the other. In the case of Blade Runner, if it doesn't draw you in, all that pretty art direction is for naught. Yes, Blade Runner is a very influential film, but bad films can be influential too -- most often for doing something first, as opposed to doing it well.
How much style vs how much substance is obviously a matter of continuous debate but there must always be style over substance if it's going to be art.
Ebert described "Laura" as "style over sanity". Is that what film noir is about, i.e., suspension of disbelief? Creating a world that may not have a lot to do with reality?
Cool question and many films come to mind. I'd throw out there a movie I champion as a modern classic, Spring Breakers. I could get lost in that film without actually paying attention to any particular "narrative" detail every time I watch it and still be blown away by the experience. I'll always praise that one as a personal favorite despite any criticism it receives. "Spraaang Breeeaaak fo'eva'." 🏝☀
Substance and style aren’t separate entities. Neo formalists believe that if they were separate then you could put the same substance in two different films and the substance remains unchanged. Which is not true. We can’t separate substance because the substance that you are thinking of is very much the result of the language of that film..
That's why Kubrick's movies are the best. The perfect blend of style and substance.
No such thing as STYLE over SUBSTANCE. Especially in Nic Refn’s case. The STYLE is the SUBSTANCE with him most if the time.
Even someone like TARKOVSKY tells very simple stories that he propped up by a very idiosyncratic style.
Sorry, but that's bs about Tarkovsky. Very simple stories? Tarkovsky doesn't "prop up". Also, I feel you confuse story with plot. I would even deny he has a "style".
This was probably the hardest topic question that you have presented so far that I had think about a lot about. The thing is most great and even phenomenal style over substance films are so well crafted that the style itself essentially evolves into the substance if that makes any sense.
So my choice which many no doubt many will find very strange and bizarre is the first Goal! (2005). Its certainly not a good film by any stretch of the imagination and it suffers from having a fairly weak, underdeveloped typical sports film story. But the style of it and the way it presents English football/soccer and its wonderful, passionate, intense atmosphere from a cinematic standpoint is seriously impressive even after over 15 years considering how incredibly difficult it is to translate to Cinema for all sorts of reasons. Even though Bend It Beckham probably has more substance, Goal is way more fun and captures the soul of the beautiful game far better.
Just saw "Force of Evil". Has the stage like performance that old films seem to have. Definitely style or substance as the plot is pretty simplistic.
The style vs substance paradigm posited here seems to be style = visual and substance = script. Is that how cinema should work? in a great film, the style IS the substance and vice versa. The visual information in every frame of Blade Runner is the substance of the film.
100% agreed with you. The visuals in Blade Runner say a lot more than the words, which is what makes it so great. Clearly, even at a subconcious level it did tell the story in DFL's case
“i’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe “
The article "Blade Runner Original vs. 2049: Which Sci-Fi Film Is Better?" concludes:
- The original film's greatest flaw, according to some critics, is that Scott prioritized visual style above plot. And while Blade Runner 2049 beats its predecessor by striking the balance between style and substance, the film's style only exists because of the original. That being said, despite Blade Runner's cultural impact, its sequel should be considered the best film in the franchise.
Hard Candy, and The Autopsy of Jane Doe comes to mind.
To me The Cell by Tarsim is a good example, actually most of his movies are, at least that's what critics typically blamed it for, style over substance. First of all, what style! There are images in that movie I never saw in any other and left a deep impression, and I'm sorry, I really liked the story as well, even though the style in the end is what lingered in my mind.
Just watched Willie's Wonderland....Come on now...
You you've played Five Nights at Freddy's, once saw Evil Dead 2, and love the 80's and Nick Cage, we get it...
Figgin DeFoe's Greeen Goblin scared the shit outta me in that burning building!! I will say I was disappointed in the costuming in Raimi's Spider-Man. Spidey's and Goblin's masks looked like Cheap Halloween designs with no flexibility. Today's Spiderman/Home series gives the Spidey face the expression it deserves.
Sleeping Beauty (1959) still the best thing to come out of the studio & one of the most visually stunning films ever made.
Thank you! I agree with you. It doesn't get enough credit.
What I love about that film is how unique it was against the rest of the golden age Disney animated films. Instead of been a typical Disney take on a classic fairytale, it played more naturally as a traditional fairytale right out of a book that had some typical Disney elements to it such as the 3 Fairy Godmothers, when Aurora sings which barely at all by comparison and the famous ending where herself and Prince Philip are dancing in the sky that Damien Chazzelle would use as inspiration for that beautiful planetarium scene with Mia and Sebastian in La La Land. But mostly it had a much darker aesthetic that would later on inspire The Black Cauldron which deserves to be remade more than any other current Disney live film. It also inspire The Hunchback Of Notre Dame which is criminally underrated and even more so underappreciated out of all the Disney Renaissance films.
Movies that have both style and substance are the best, of course. But if I had to choose, I'll take style with no substance. Style is what gets me through a movie. Substance is a cherry on top, and is optional.
Aren't Busby Berkeley's musicals about style over substance?
Style over substance to me need not be an issue when it is the very thing the movie is interested in. A good example is Tom Tykwer's "Lola rennt" (Run Lola Run) which is all about style and editing and it's a movie that keeps me glued to the seat every second. The story doesn't amount to much, man loses money he owes shady people, he's captured by them and in desperation calls his girlfriend and tells her she has to come up with the money to the last penny, a 100.000 euro, any way she can, within the next 20 minutes, bring it to them or he will be killed. Simple enough, were it not for the fact that Tom Tykwer had a brilliant idea with this in and of itself very basic story: let the movie show various alternatives as to what would happen depending on choices our female hero Lola makes at specific junctures and look at the outcomes.
The fact we are talking about a stressfull given that only 20 minutes are alotted to our heroine, decisions and actions have to be made at lightning speed, where of course editing comes in to convey this urgency and nailbiting suspense to us as a viewer, the same way the music is used to enhance this feeling. The way it is shot, edited and musically accompanied, in short its style is a crucial element of the movie and the movie simply would at a minimun be totally different without it, but most likely not work at all.
By the way,I'd most recommend this movie as well as other works by Tykwer.
Satoshi Kon, William Friedkin, Altman
I think an awful lot of Kubrick is style over substance. What is 2001? What exactly is the substance, if not some hazy ill-defined idea of evolution and the cosmos? Which says exactly what? I've never really known and I've been watching it since the 1970s. Great ride though. And The Shining... I think the reason King hated it so much is that Kubrick cuts out the message in order to focus on the images. It didn't get the best of reviews at the time. Again people were a little more in favor of content then. (Something similar happened with Apocalypse Now and Blade Runner.) I had my own reasons for distrusting it. I was working in a hotel that was considered for the exterior. A hotel that was FAR more haunting inside than Kubrick's strange conception of a wooden exterior with an New York City Art Deco interior. So I was pissed that the film was not nearly as scary as the book. Stephen King had obviously worked in a hotel like the one I was worked at in Montana.
But as time passed we left the era of filmic content, i.e. the 1970s, and entered a zone of surfaces, and style AS substance. (I'm looking at you Tarantino.) Thus people became frightened of Kubrick's surface level stylistic cues in a way they weren't in 1980. I have slowly warmed to Kubrick's Shining, and Blade Runner, and Apocalypse Now, over time. And I realized that those younger than myself were seeing something very different than I was. And they weren't wrong. They tended to see Kubrick as prophetic. For me content ultimately is still King. And I teach younger folks how to see it in my classes.
I think this also explains why show don't tell is treated like a Mosaic law. I belief that telling can be infinitely scarier in the hands of a master. But it takes an audience who can understand the nature of the implications of what's being said. Probably not the same folks who praise Star Wars or the MCU. I think this may go along way to explaining why people didn't get Del Toro's very 40s meets 70s Nightmare Alley. They don't hear the word geek and get frightened. They filter it through the snicker of more current usages of the term. Without comprehending what they are swallowing...
Could you review the Passion of the Christ? I'd love to hear your take on it.
What is your favorite superhero movie?
I'll make it easy
Good style over substance: Tim Burton in the 80's and 90's
Bad: Tim Burton for the last 20 years.
You should watch "Drive my car." Great movie, and I'd love to see you review it.
The article "Blade Runner: 10 Things That Make No Sense" says:
- It's often full of plotholes and forsakes the logic of its own story for style and impact.
Doesn't style eventually evolve into spectacle?
Once upon a time, if pop music audiences could be satisfied with just a spotlight on the singer's face.:
ua-cam.com/video/QrHN9tJLaQ0/v-deo.html
And when it comes to a live performance, could anything out-spectacle THIS?:
ua-cam.com/video/j9jeeHFymvQ/v-deo.html
As style takes precedence over substance, doesn't that increase costs?
The 1st movie I thought of when I saw the title was last night in soho
I tried my best with this one I saw a pattern and that movie is animated and brings rob zombies full library into one film it has comics his whole film library including his Michael Meyers from his Halloween and brought all the worlds together it got nuts but it’s very stylized
Fascinating stuff. How about a sequel getting to some of the movies that were nominated but didn't make it into this video? I'm thinking of two "style over substance" films in particular. I love The Grand Budapest Hotel, I despise The Fifth Element.
The Fifth Element is the first movie that came to my mind. I hate Besson as a person, I hate almost all of his movies but The Fifth Element.... well I like it ! It has a unique taste, nothing wrong with the narration, nice cast, good rythm, surprising editing and score, pulp cinematography, good practical effects and CGI, costumes by Gaultier, designs by Moebius, a good writing in terms of dialogues and punchlines... To me the only issue is the story : there is nothing really wrong with it except that he wrote it as a teenager and it shows ! Why do you despise it ?
Good vid dude
maybe you should do a video on short films you're impressed with, maybe even follows these "rules" in the video here
"9 1/2 Weeks" and "the Hunger".
Do you think Michael Mann is a style over substance director? Many critics believe he is although I don't as I'm able to pick up on the substance of his films after watching them multiple times.
Michael Mann is very high on style. The style is how basically everything is bathed in darkness, neon lights and very muted colors. A great example would be his debut Thief and his film version of Miami Vice.
Actally I am a sucker for stylised films. But only stylised films that are carefully structured.
All other stylized movies are simply slick and empty.
But I find on the other side of the coin masterpieces if structured and carefully written and performed usually only come in stylized form.
If style over substance means the end of dialogue, what about HIS GIRL FRIDAY?
Blade Runner 2049 is the most visually impressive film I've ever seen.
I love climax.
if you have ever had a truly bad experience with drugs, climax will resonate with you.
the only thing i dont like is the story with the child, its just so obviously trying to be outrageous and shocking, but hey, thats noe for you.
I thought it all worked and was within reality until *SPOILER*SPOILER*SPOILER* the kid electrocutes himself. But you also need the power to go out and for it to become a dark depraved egoless orgy hellscape
Have you seen Zardoz?
I suppose substance for me means coherent, logical writing as opposed to films that know they are ridiculous but approach deliberate hilarioucity.
Now which is better:
Nolan’s Dunkirk
or
Sam Mendes’ 1917
Definitely Dunkirk because it basically brings you into the period through its phemononal sound design, pure suspense and outstanding realistic cinematography which is easily the greatest use of the Imax 65mm camera to date. Even Tarantino and PTA rate this film very highly and consider it to be Christopher Nolan's magnus opus.
1917
I respect all opinions on this one because I want the discourse, I’ll probably be working it out myself for years.
1917's single-take conceit was well-executed but misjudged, undermining suspense instead of enhancing it - simple logic made the ending a foregone conclusion, so I felt like I was watching someone else play a video game rather than "immersed" in a real situation. Dunkirk has flaws and limitations - some calculated, others mistakes - but, conceptually and formally, I reckon it's a much stronger film.
Interesting as usual. How about mediocre movies that are saved by their star's performance?
Smokin Ace's
for me style is substance
Interesting how Only God Forgives gets mentioned, which brings in Drive (which i liked) but somehow The Place Beyond the Pines doesn’t rate? What gives?
I thought it was the better film of the three Gosling did if its kind, but it really benefits from Eva Mendes and Ben Mendelssohn
Yeah Pines is the best gosling flick
I think of Buffalo 66 when I think style over substance. Stylish as hell but the characters and story don't make sense so it kinda falls flat, it's like a character study of a characters who aren't believable
2017 Upload on this topic: ua-cam.com/video/iAgqBmbgbVc/v-deo.html
Keep in mind, there was no such thing as an MCU when Spiderman was released
Edgar Wright, his movies are very stylized but also had substance. I say had, because I feel his more recent work is lacking substance, his movies are still fun but the characters are not that compelling. I'm thinking specifically on Baby Driver and Last Night in Soho. Compare it with The Cornetto trilogy which was fun and stylized but the story was driven by characters, instead of being driven by the mechanics of a script like Last Night in Soho and Baby Driver.
I define substance by compelling characters and an intriguing story.
LET THE CORPSES TAN.
BERBERIAN SOUND STUDIO.
Gosh I agreed with everything here, nice.
What's worse: style, or substance abuse?
Judgements
Assassination Nation comes to mind. Killer style unfortunately backed by a terrible script/shallow story. I don’t care though because it’s fun
Streets of Fire-completely ruined by Pares terrible lead performance but the aesthetics and scale are pure magic
Style o sub few. Or botn Style & sub are good
Matrix 1 is 98% style and 2% about whether one can distinguish realities.
In my opinion: MOST COMMERCIAL ACTION MOVIES SACRIFICE SUBSTANCE FOR STYLE. Including the Marvel cannon. This is very subjective or course. For me, when a movie is jam packed with outrageous and lengthy "action" or "battle" set pieces with massive GRATUITOUS death and destruction, and audacious CGI, with only tenuous connection to character or theme or a coherent storyline, it has opted for Style over Substance. And FOR ME, this is very very boring. But for others, it seems, THIS IS THE SUBSTANCE. I don't get it, but there you are.
I gotta disagree on that. I don't think it's style to have just startle you with loud noise in a horror movie. I don't think it's style to just have some exploding building in the background. I don't think its style to have a car chase after another car.
It's not style. It's just trash.
Since Sam Raimi has been mentioned, I'm kicking myself for not shouting out "Evil Dead II". It's an over-the-top gorefest and Ash is the quintessential idiot. But it's WONDERFUL.
What about me? :D
My picks
1. Blade runner
2. All Christopher Nolan movies
3. All Tarantino movies
3.La La land
4.Taxi Driver(might be a very unpopular opinion but the movie has no character development at all, the plot is messy and is just very dull to me)
5. The Shining
6. Grand Budapest Hotel
7. Blade Runner 2049
8. Baby Driver
9. Wolf of Wall Street(entertaining but very repetitive)
10. Drive(2011)
Interesting. My impression is the opposite. When I watch films like inception or Reservoir Dogs.. My impression is that it's all about substance over style. There doesn't seem to be much focus on beautiful music, visuals, mood, atmosphere, etc. It seems to be all about the story and that sort of thing. I mean, reservoir dogs doesn't even have a score, doesn't it? It's been awhile since I watched that movie, but.
I guess that's partly why these kinds of films are not my cup of tea. I'm a style kind of guy. YouknowI'msayin? I'm drawn to aesthetics. Music, visuals, mood, atmosphere, Etc.
😐😐😐
Spiderman no substance? yeah right.
The first one and certainly 3 don't have much substance. Its really only 2 that has a lot of it in that trilogy.
@@taliamason7986 Not at all, the other two films are equal in the character department imo.
@@taliamason7986 it's the hero's journey, extremely deep and powerful.
Dunkirk sucks.
It has no real characters ...
style is substance