About Stories and Their “Messages:” A Response to comments on “The Grey”
The Horror!
I can’t help but notice that, here at PJMedia, it’s easier to elicit political comments from readers than cultural ones. Readers are generally eager to chime in on a discussion about, say, Fast and Furious, but when I review a movie or book… not so much. Which I’m sorry about, because I really like hearing from folks about these things. I have a professional interest in readers’ opinions on the arts, plus I just think it’s healthier for the minds of humans and other featherless bipeds to ponder works of the imagination at least as much as works of the legislature.
For instance, I was very much taken with the responses to my review of The Grey (just below). I admitted in the review that it was my kind of picture — men against the elements, macho bromides galore and so forth — and confessed that, with pictures like this, if it makes internal sense and isn’t PC, I’m pretty much gonna sign on. (My wife, on the other hand, walked out after ten minutes because of the gore. I was going to tease her about being a girly-girl but then I remembered, oh yeah, that’s why I married her!) But for that very reason, I was interested in those who took issue with my praise for the film.
One commenter — religious, I assume due to the monkish moniker Sherab Zangpo — objected to the film’s message, which he read as “fighting is useless.” Now I disagree that that’s the film’s message, which I thought was more along the lines of, “Yikes! Wolves!” or maybe something more Hemingwayan like “A man must stand nobly against Death, even if Death always wins in the end.” But more importantly: Do we have to agree with a story’s outlook on life to enjoy it?
One of my favorite novelists working today is Scott Smith, author of A Simple Plan and The Ruins. (These became a so-so and awful movie respectively, but both books are excellent.) I don’t know Smith but, as far as I can make out, he’s a nihilist who believes that man is corrupt trash and nature is a devouring beast and everything else is illusion. Now I disagree with that point of view — but I also understand you can tell honest stories from that perspective, stories that are recognizably human, pose important questions and harrow the soul. This is untrue of far prettier points of view like “life is a bed of roses,” or “man is inherently good,” or “Oskar Schindler was an important part of the holocaust,” which are pure nonsense and likely to produce sentimental crap no matter how talented the artist at work.
In any case, if a story is truly honest and good, the “message,” if there is one, may turn out to be not at all what the author intended. In the case of The Grey, I suspect the real message was probably, “Stay with the plane, you idiot!” which, like commenter J. Lambie, I only barely refrained from yelling at the screen… though I was thinking it. Wouldn’t have been much of a story if they’d listened to me though. I’m with commenter Tim Powell on this: In the end, it’s only a movie.
You said:
“I can’t help but notice that, here at PJMedia, it’s easier to elicit political comments from readers than cultural ones.”
You also said:
“I’m with commenter Tim Powell on this: In the end, it’s only a movie.”
Perhaps you have inadvertently answered your own question?
Andrew, I didn’t read your column about the Grey because it looked like it was positive and I disagreed with that but I did read today’s column. This was the worst movie I have ever seen. I apologized to my 13 y/o afterward for renting it.(Who, by the way liked your Homelander intro book. It’s the only thing I have managed to get him to read for a book report at his Christian school) I generally like Liam Neeson as an actor but the content of this movie was depressing. He likes happy movies and action movies that end with good over evil. I realize that art doesn’t always have to be this way. (They have to cater to people like you anyways!) I also wanted to yell at them to stay with the plane. Of course the den would be in the woods, Duh! Please keep up the good work with your Klavan on the Culture. Both my boys and my husband and I really look forward to them. Thanks.
I must confess that I find it hard to enjoy a story of any kind, if its viewpoint is visibly one I dislike.
“I can’t help but notice that, here at PJMedia, it’s easier to elicit political comments from readers than cultural ones.”
Maybe your target market for a review of “The Grey” was too small.
I wonder how much of this is the old Breitbart thing, that conservatives don’t engage with the culture. (I always thought that analysis missed the fact that the evangelical community has created its own culture, with literature, bands, festivals, news sources, et cetera. I also think that, to a large extent, popular arts are consumed by the young, while conservatism develops over time.)
I can appreciate works of art that don’t agree with my ideology. I have a problem when they caricature my beliefs or snipe at them. Based on the comments I’ve seen on this site, I think a lot of people have so little trust in Hollywood that they’re just looking for a reason to dismiss a particular work. I also think there’s a broad brush that dismisses certain actors’ entire careers based on one movie or comment. For me, the turning point for Alec Baldwin was when I started to suspect that he wasn’t a guy who was excellent at *acting* like an egotistical jerk. I could forgive his politics.
Thank you for commenting on my comment.
(I like that “monkish” !!!)
Well, I guess that i can only repeat what others have already said: I am old and only thanks to the Internet I have slowly come to understand how much brainwashed I have always been…now I am perhaps an example of the famous proverb “the boy who got burnt by milk blows even on the ricotta”, meaning that I am extremely wary of everything coming out of Hollywood.
Maybe you are right …
Maybe we should just thank God that finally we can debate in free forums like this.
Thank you for your attention.
I have not seen The Grey and thus would have had scant reason to comment on your review. In this I am, I expect, like most PJMedia’s visitors. While I appreciate your recommendations and reviews, this is an essentially political site and thus essentially draws political comment. There are numerous Culture sites for conservatives where we expect to find greater discussion of the Arts. Threedonia, Big Hollywood, New Criterion, Acculturated, Ricochet and others cater to the Cultural Right and frequently entertain lively discussions in their comments.
As far as viewpoints with which I disagree … if the artist is true to the characters and the story I can overlook politics. One thing I appreciate about Joss Whedon’s works (unlike, say Aaron Sorkin or Ayn Rand) is that I rarely feel the characters or story are being forced to conform to the author’s politics.
“One thing I appreciate about Joss Whedon’s works (unlike, say Aaron Sorkin or Ayn Rand) is that I rarely feel the characters or story are being forced to conform to the author’s politics”.
Good point. From all I’ve read Whedon is a pretty heavy duty lefty but he manages to create stories that are fun and interesting even for folks on the right. Of course, even with Whedon, I am always waiting for the sucker-punch.
Dear Klavan on the Culture:
I have to agree with Sherab Zangpo “thank God that finally we can debate in free forums like this.” For what it’s worth, you are a celebrity. The fact that you don’t reflexively despise the points of view of the folks on the right is something of a novelty. Whether we agree or disagree with your opinion on a particular movie or book is minor compared to the fact that we can even talk about the book or movie in the same language. I think it’s healthy that some of the opinions are dissenting. After all art is the most subjective of human endeavors. So whether I agree with your opinion or strongly object I am kind of grateful that someone with intelligence (and an excellent sense of humor) is out there on my side of the cultural fence providing things to think about.
Regards,
John
This movie was fascinating to me on many levels, beginning with the simple pleasure of watching Neeson do just about anything, through the character development, which somehow managed to give each man in turn his due and was more substantial than I was expecting.
But I found watching them slowly fall sway to Neeson’s natural leadership particularly compelling. And when I watched Andy Garcia’s character unfold in “For Greater Glory,” it reminded me of Neeson’s character in this movie. I guess I could say the same thing for “Courageous,” although to a somewhat lesser, arguably more mundane degree.
We don’t seem to see many movies these days that depict authentic leadership. Lots of terminally-savvy MBA types, but honest-to-God leaders, not so much.
I actually very much like stories written or told by nihilists, of course if they are well done. For example, when one of Woody Allen’s movies is actually good, I appreciate the despair underlying it. He is unwilling to take the leap from an impersonal universe to hope and joy and love. Not that he doesn’t try, it just never works because he knows without God there really is no there, there.
Cherest Andrew,
Not to put too fine a point on it, I LOVE your books and essays and check your site religiously and daily. And the ol’ gustibus cannot be disputed. We like what we like and thus it shall always be. But…. just ’cause we like something doesn’t make it profound. Message hunting is fun but we tend to find what we look for. For me, a film in which men in dire straits do one stupid, macho thing after another and all end up dead has a pretty obvious message; macho stupid kills. And, again…for me, a film in which the protagonists must continue down the stupid trail in order to advance the plot is fatally flawed. Two dimensional cliche-characters in preposterous situations tell us little that is relevant to the reality of the human condition beyond our standards when it comes to our entertainment choices. For example; I enjoyed the film TRUE CRIME as a mildly diverting (if completely predictable) Eastwood epic. Then I read your book and discovered that the central theme had been turned completely on it’s head, trivialized and emasculated. Sorta took the edge off my limited appreciation of Clint’s oeuvre. Whereas I just recently reread the original with complete satisfaction. The plot held no mystery this time but the character development, style and dialogue seemed even better the second time. Substance, you see. That’s the ticket. Style is no substitute.
Unless a movie is conspicuously built from the ground up to be a message film, like Prometheus, I’m usually oblivious to such things and try and buy into the film as artistry.
Most message films end up interfering with the art of the film.
Dear K.O.T.C.
I’ve noticed the same thing- you’ll get 150 comments on something political you’ve, and then about 3 comments on your latest fave ghost story. Here’s the problem: While without a doubt all that artsy-fartsy stuff enriches and deepens one’s experience as a human being, one can spend an entire lifetime, not see The Grey, and still have a pretty good life. Politics, however, touches each of us, and sometimes does so in a rather unpleasant way. Exhibit A being what Garrison Keillor used to call our previous president, the Current Occupant of the White House. Here’s hoping your readers develop that higher sense that rises above political discourse and which you do such a valuable job cultivating in your Constant Readers…but don’t hold your breath.
That’s what I love about Klavan’s column. One week he’ll have 15 comments, the next week, 150. And he’ll seem more excited about the 15 comments…
Klavan’s thoughts on THE GREY reminded me of Victor Davis Hanson’s brief ventures into movie reviewing. He’ll catch George Stevens’ SHANE, or Michael Mann’s HEAT at 3AM on AMC and include a few lines of appreciation in his blog…
I don’t want PJM to turn into aintitcool, but I do enjoy the occasional off-beat discussion of worthy television, movies, cult novels or even video games.
Write a piece about the essential difference between science fiction literature and film and it’ll be 300 comments.
Okay I’ll bite. What’s the essential difference between print and cinema science fiction? Since print science fiction stopped being interesting for me when nihilism came into vogue I guess I’m probably more up to date with the movies side of the equation. Luckily for me the movies still seem to mine the works of authors from back in the golden age (for better or worse). Would you say that the essential difference between film and print science fiction is about the same as the difference between film and print versions of any other genera stories?
Regards,
John
“one can spend an entire lifetime, not see The Grey, and still have a pretty good life. Politics, however, touches each of us, and sometimes does so in a rather unpleasant way.”
I think it’s a little different than that. A person can have a fully-developed artistic life and never see The Grey. A person can’t have a fully-developed political life in the current era and not have an opinion on, say, terrorism or the budget. Talking about specific movies is like talking about specific House races or pieces of legislation. It’s impossible to keep up with all of them. I appreciate Klavan’s reviews, and it’s always interesting to see how a writer approaches various works, but I don’t have any meaningful comments unless it happens to be a work I’ve read/seen.
Dear Klavan on the Culture:
I have been pondering your comments for the last day or so. I think I have a solution on how to increase the mileage on articles relating to books and movies. Poll your rabid fan-base (and I include my humble self amongst that discerning demographic) for the specific (or general) topics that really excite their artistic imaginations and then throw them this red meat. Give the crowd what it wants and then just stand back and avoid the stampede. For instance, I would want to argue the relative merits of Jayne Cobb versus John Casey as the best Adam Baldwin character on television. But that’s just me. You should go where the numbers lead. You can’t fight science and also vox populi vox Dei (that’s right I brought out the latin!!!).
“I can’t help but notice that, here at PJMedia, it’s easier to elicit political comments from readers than cultural ones.”
The next line of my comment, which the website somehow ate, was supposed to be:
Challenge accepted.
I recently listened to a radio program featuring a Christian (actually Catholic) film maker who spoke in typical Hollywood metaphors about what constitutes good film; good “art”, what qualifies as worthwhile “craft”.. she had negative things to say about the bald-faced blunt “Christian media” that is offered up as an alternative to mainstream Hollywood product..
..and I realized that I was getting uncomfortable. Took me quite some time to understand the source of my discomfort; particularly as I agreed with almost everything she had to say.
Then it came to me: I READ. I have never seen a movie which even approached the depth and richness of an excellent novel. Five minutes in the theater gets you five minutes of sounds and images and people pretending.. but five minutes with a good novel engages you in a way that puts you in contact with something from the writer’s soul.
Now, as to why the commentary response to the review of an adventure film was thin? I propose that the readership senses some of this “at a remove” nature to film and just didn’t see it as important.
In the spirit of full disclosure – I live nowhere near Hollywood – I am not a waiter, and I have no script in my hip pocket just waiting for the right person to read it.
Why, I found myself having a literary ponderation just the other day!
Chewing over the question of just how did the Worlds Greatest Writer, know to pen a very thinly concealed biography of President Obama, 400+ bloody years ago? He may have tried to hide it under the title of ‘Richard III’ but that’s the ‘Big O’ anyway ya slice it! “Now is the summer of our discontent… “etc. etc. etc..
Granted Shakespeare was a genius. But a tale of a corrupt, slimy, sleazy, lying, double crossing, back stabbing, vicious, paranoid pol who steals a whole country and is willing to sacrifice every living soul to hold onto power. HOW DID HE KNOW?
Interesting the author said ‘The Ruins’ was a good book. All of Stephen Kings early book are , to me, just wonderful. Filled with real people. It turns out from what I read that Stephen King somehow actually liked ‘Carrie’ and the other movies made from his books. He contributed to smashing all the characters flat.
No Comment
The theme seemed to be: a man overcome by melancholy finds reason to live in a fallen world. If you have ever suffered that thing, now prosaically called “depression”, or known someone who has, you understand the world never quite seems “right” to that person, even when the darkness passes; you need to find a way to live in a world permently hollowed out by that experience. The Grey expresses this beautifully.
As for the implication of the protagonist’s death, I have only this to say: as Aristotle said, a work of art must have a begining, a middle, and an end, and the end for every man is tragic death; what happens after, whether good, ill or nothing at all, cannot be known and so must be passed over in silence.