Quoted from leitskev I have always gone out of my way to be respectful to your opinion. Rick, and no doubt I've learned a lot from you. When I discuss things, it's with questions and an attempt to learn. You are starting to walk the line of disrespect here, and I am letting you know that. "Using the definition of thematic in its original sense, rather than the one you've created for yourself, ie relating to theme:"--Rick If you are going to make that statement, consider proving evidence. Early in the discussion I went out of my way to use the dictionary definition of theme. I've stuck with that consistently. I have been describing it as "unifying", which was in the definition. I consider Crhis's calling theme an "argument" by the director as being consistent with that as well. Is he creating his own definition? The mailman's story might not be interesting. But the story about Henry Hill is. It was not based on a diary, and the director does choose what he wants to film to show what is interesting in that life. He is trying to portray interesting characters with depth, trying to show them as they were, not as pieces of some larger argument. Through the Joe Pesci character we see how pride and insecurity can lead one to this life, motivate his actions. But that is not used as part of a larger argument by the director. It's just a fascinating portrait.

Joe Pesci's violence is what leads to their downfall as they kill a made man, and then later have to dig him up again.

It was an important part of the argument. How the world gives you great power, but the slightest mistake will ruin you.

Quoted from Dreamscale Well, I sure frickin' hope so!  The best Pro scripts better be light years ahead of every single non Pro script ever written. But, this opens up a new point that's not really relevant.  We're discussing what theme is and why it's important in a script/film. There are easily more than 500 feature movies produced each year.  I bet if we took a look, we'd find 2 things... 1)  If you look for it, there's a theme that can easily be dug out and discussed. 2)  The vast majority of these movies will be shit, and many of them laughably bad. Thus, theme is ever present (as Rick just pointed out in Kevin daily life of a milk man or mail man), but it cannot and does not save the day for a shitty film. I agree that it can enhance a movie, but it can't fix the problems caused by poor writing, poor execution, etc.

Well, the point is that it can help. If you know what story you're trying to tell, you can go back over the script and work out what's not working.

Obviously another point is to look at how well the writer handled the theme he was working with.

Quoted from Dreamscale The point he's making (as fr as I can see), is the point I make over and over about theme...it's there...it always there...it's universal, therefore, it doesn't even need to be worried about. Maybe the difference is that you feel the theme is driving the action, plot, characters, and story, while I feel it's the other way around...that the action, plot, characters, and story drive the theme, create the theme, show the theme, and because of that, the theme plays 4th or 5th fiddle and really doesn't even need to be discussed. 1)  I am far from the Michael Bay Blockbuster movie guy. 2)  Have you guys actually seen Transformers Dark of the Moon?  I personally have not, but there sure is lot of bashing going on to a movie that will most likely end its run as a top 10 WWBO smash, earning over a $1 Billion.

"A theme is an idea about the world, expressed by a literary text, of general importance to people."

Okay.  So the question is: isn't theme always present?  Why does it need to be worried about, since it is inherent in a story?

My answer: No.  Theme -- as I have defined it above -- is not always present.  Topics -- loyalty, redemption, love, sex, etc -- are always present (one could use the term "thematic elements" rather than "topics", here, but I am struggling to keep the word "theme" to one clearly defined use).

No.  Theme, the unifying argument which is a statement about life of general importance to people, is not always present.  It is not always present because in order to exist, it needs to be meticulously planned and conveyed.

Terminator 2 and Transformers 3 are both about robots.  They are both action thrillers.  The difference between them is that one has a unifying theme, and one does not.  Every scene, moment, character in T2 is a part of the argument in its central theme.  This is why it is so streamlined, so tight a film.  The same cannot be said of Transformers 3, and this is why it will not endure -- especially, the way that Clockwork Orange will, but even, the way that Terminator 2 will.  

Yes.  The difference you have identified above is the difference between the way I (and I think Rick) view theme, and the way you do.

Theme DOES NOT drive the action, plot, and characters in the sense that a writer necessarily decides what the theme is and then designs their very first script outline around that.

Theme DOES drive the action, plot, and characters in that every single one of those elements exist to further the theme.

Theme -- an idea about the world, expressed by a literary text, of general importance to people -- IF it is expressed well, WILL most likely stop a film from being poor, yes.  The reason the majority of films are poor is because the majority of films -- even those that do have a central theme/argument -- do not argue their points well.  But, if a film makes an argument, and makes it well, that film will most likely not be one that you call "poor".  You might hate it, because it's telling you something you don't want to hear or don't agree with.  But you won't say that it's an unsuccessful film.

An argument.  If someone argues well, with clear reasoning, makes their points concisely, has supporting evidence, uses logic, you will agree that their argument has merit, whether or not you agree with their conclusion.  This is Terminator 2, for the reasons that Rick has outline above.  It's a good argument.  Whether or not you agree with its argument, it's a well-presented one.  And it's an argument that you can enjoy, because every single scene and moment and character and music cue is part of that argument and you can understand how it fits together.  The same cannot be said of Transformers 3, and it's ultimately an empty and hollow experience, because you are being told nothing.  It's the equivalent of a guy sitting you down and just yelling random things at you for two hours, when you could be next door at Midnight in Paris listening to a clear, concise argument on why we need to learn not to be overly nostalgic and embrace what is good in the present.  It's big and loud and it's just not satisfying.

And yes, I've seen Transformers 3, and yes, it is very poor, and yes, its success is testament to the incredible control that marketers have over the world.

Quoted from leitskev But here's the issue: if you are trying to make an argument you will leave out things that don't support your argument. At least that will be the tendency. This was my point in saying Goodfellas is not thematic, though it explores strong themes. It does not present an argument about the gangster life. It merely tries to accurately portray the gangster life. It does so with unparalleled success BECAUSE it does not make an argument. It explores, it portrays, it does not argue.

Rick has covered some of this, but I just wanted to add a point:

Making an argument does not mean avoiding points that don't support the argument.  To make a solid argument, it is absolutely necessary to bring up points that oppose your thesis and explain why they do not disprove it.  

I'm afraid I haven't seen Goodfellas for a long time, so I'm not confident of my ability accurately discuss it.  But consider Terminator (the first one), because Rick discussed that a bit.  The two main characters -- Sarah and the Terminator -- are the two opposing sides of the argument.  And we spend a bunch of time with the Terminator, alone, seeing how it interacts with our world, seeing how it functions.  The central idea which would disprove the film's theme is explored heavily, because in order to understand why the movie is correct in stating that humans will triumph over machines, we need to understand as much as possible about both the humans and the machines that they face.  We are shown, over and over, the ways in which the Terminator is more effective at many, many things than a human could be.  It's stronger, it's tougher, it kills indiscriminately, and in fact through most of the film it is rewarded for doing so.  We can see the way the Terminator works.  We can see why it is such a formidable force.  We can see how in many ways it is superior to humans.

But in the end, we see how and why humans are ultimately superior, and this is successful and resounding precisely because the main points that don't support the film's argument have been examined so thoroughly.  

I have not seen Transformers 3, nor do I plan to or want to.  Like a few of you, I couldn't get through more than 30 minutes of the first one.

BUT...it's alot more than marketing that will make this a top 10 WWBO success.  It's obviously people filing into theaters to see the movie, most likely because they liked or loved the first one or 2nd one...or both.

You an say all you want about what a bad movie it is, or what a poorly conceived script it is, and how there isn't any theme whatsoever, blah, blah, blah.

But, again, the lack of theme here does not make this a bad movie and it obviously doesn't hurt its success either.

I'll be the first one to say most people are complete idiots, and financial success doesn't measure  how good or bad a film actually is, but I think there are a few things we have to acknowledge and maybe even "give in" to.

1)  A script or film does not need to have some super deep theme for it to be successful.

2)  There are those (probably MANY) who do not care what themes are present or not present.

3)  There are wildly successful and talented Pro writers who do not give a shit about writing theme into their scripts...which therefor means that one should not continually say that the difference in Pro and Pre-Pro writers and scripts has to do with theme.

4)  People like things for all different reasons and we all should try and understand that, and not attempt to force feed people who aren't dying of starvation.

I see Rick showing up as a guest user all of a sudden.  I sure hope he hasn't left over this little disagreement or misunderstanding on semantics.

If he's really gone, that makes me both sad and mad.  Rick is such an important piece of SS.  He has so many unique, intelligent, and interesting insights into all things involving film making.

If I said something that upset you, Rick, I sure didn't mean to.

Quoted from Dreamscale I see Rick showing up as a guest user all of a sudden.  I sure hope he hasn't left over this little disagreement or misunderstanding on semantics. If he's really gone, that makes me both sad and mad.  Rick is such an important piece of SS.  He has so many unique, intelligent, and interesting insights into all things involving film making. If I said something that upset you, Rick, I sure didn't mean to.

Don't worry Jeff - Rick's said he's just taking a sabbatical to concentrate on other projects. I'm sure he'll be back.

As I've said, I've learned a great deal from Rick, and even enjoy his political opinion. Hopefully he will return, I wish him the best of luck with his projects.

Hah!  He puts a lot of effort into these discussions, and I can imagine that Simply is often time-consuming for him.  I'm sure he'll be around when he's not doing something more important.

Quoted from Dreamscale 1)  A script or film does not need to have some super deep theme for it to be successful. 2)  There are those (probably MANY) who do not care what themes are present or not present. 3)  There are wildly successful and talented Pro writers who do not give a s*** about writing theme into their scripts...which therefor means that one should not continually say that the difference in Pro and Pre-Pro writers and scripts has to do with theme. 4)  People like things for all different reasons and we all should try and understand that, and not attempt to force feed people who aren't dying of starvation.

Regarding 1 - 3; Rick basically made the point I am about to make, but I will restate it as his post is gone.

One could easily substitute the terms "good character," "good plot," or "good story" into all three of the above points listed.  This seems to indicate -- which is in keeping with my feelings on the topic -- that being successful has nothing to do with being good.

1.  Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Twilight: New Moon, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides do not have good characters, a good plot, a good story, or a good theme (you may disagree with one of these, but I highly doubt anyone would argue the point on most of them).

2.  The movies mentioned are some of the highest-grossing films of all time.

--->  Therefore, financial success is currently neither sufficient nor necessary in indicating what is in any way good writing.

Right?

---

Regarding your fourth point, I simply disagree.  This is the same argument that people use to justify being part of the fast food industry.  "If they wanna eat s***, who am I to say they shouldn't?"  Well, you're a fellow human being, that's who.  You have a responsibility to inspire those around you to be the best that they can be.  And not just a human -- a writer, an artist!  You are here to -- yes, entertain -- but to entertain by inspiring, by challenging, by evoking thought, by -- dare I say it? -- demanding change.  These film executives who cheerfully restrict creative vision, dumb down, perpetuate a system that produces recycled garbage and shoves it down the throat of each increasingly moronic generation of viewers, are the enemy, the absolute enemy, of humankind.  It's them and people like them that keep Plato's prisoners faced firmly towards the wall and gosh darnit, if the writer doesn't rail against this, if he or she writes Transformers because he or she "needs to make a living," then they have betrayed themselves and their society and failed in the role of the artist.

We are writers!  What we do is important.  And if the person in the suit tells you different because the person in the suit is jealous, because the only the way the person in the suit can triumph over you is to make you resemble them, you tell the person in the suit to get the f*** outta the way.

Jeff, I agree that there's plenty of good films without themes and sadly, that there's plenty of moviegoers who don't care about themes but, as I've said before, it's worthless to argue that writers shouldn't concern themselves with themes. Maybe that's not what you're doing. Maybe you're "just saying..." But if you are "just saying...," why so fervent? If you wanted to argue themes actually make films worse, it'd make a little more sense but generally speaking, that's just not true. Themes can either make a film better or... not make a difference.

Picture a film stylistically themed as a human body, it could be any mammal's body but for my purposes human suits me.

Its brain the direction, its circulatory system the plot, its nerves the actors and it's bones the themes. The spinal cord being the central theme because everything hangs on it.

All of these things work together to make the human.  If you pull any one of them out, something won't quite be right, you may not even see it but you'll know.

However, pull out the spinal cord and you have a quivering mess of flesh on the floor.   And while there are some people that might enjoy seeing that, most people will turn their eyes away.

A movie without a strong central theme is spineless.

OK guys...listen...

First of all, if you know anything about me, you know that i do not do anything because I'm supposed to.  I do everything because of what I feel is right, what makes the most sense to me, based on what I know, and then, what I like, based on my experiences.

The reason I got into screenwriting was because I was appalled at what I was being force fed.  I thought (and still think) the quality of movies was incredibly weak.  I wanted to make a difference (and I still do!). I wanted to usher in change and make people realize that you can think and act outside the box and still be successful, and even set trends.

I am not a blockbuster movie lover.  I am a movie lover but I dislike most movies I see.  I see more some 250 movies every year.  When times were good for me, I'd see at least 50 at the theater, now it's mostly DVD or streaming.  I am a critic at heart as well as a perfectionist.  When something doesn't make sense or is just poorly done, it stands out for me and I can't help but call BULLSHIT on it.

But I watch movies for entertainment.  I like the genres I like and I've always been that way.  I highly doubt I'll ever change my opinion.  I have no problem watching a movie that's not my cup of tea and I have no problem saying it was a good movie (if it truly was), but that doesn't mean that given the choice, I'd watch it again or similar movies.

I do not like or eat any fast food.  I actually dislike it quite intensely (well, I do like In 'n' Out hamburgers   ).  I'm actually a pretty good cook myself and make most things I eat from scratch.  That doesn't mean I don't like pizza, or hamburgers, or even hot dogs.  All can be done very nicely...very gourmet-like.  If it tastes great, I like it!

Same with film and scripts.  Nothing has to be high brow or brand new to work.  The Devil is in the details and there are always ways to reinvent something and make it come off as fresh...and good.

Theme is a tough concept for me to wrap my big old head around, because to me, it's inherent and is based on the plot, actions, characters, and dialogue.  They all go hand in hand for me and I don't need to think or worry about it, cause it doesn't matter to me.

You know, taking the fast food comparison, I'm sure many people (who can afford to) would much rather eat organic or farm raised meat and produce.  But, if you didn't know, would it matter?  Does the organic or farm raised really taste better?  And if it actually does to the point where you could pick it out, doesn't it matter more how it's prepared?  What other ingredients are included/infused?  Doesn't it really come down to taste and appearance?

I think it does and that's basically what I'm continually saying.

Theme can be as important as you want to make it, but it'll never over-ride strong writing, attention to details, actions and plot that makes sense, characters who act like real people...and movies that make your jaw drop or your skin crawl.

Every movie has a theme. "Period". To argue otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a film/script is about. Maybe Rick has gone into a hiatus 'cos he's realised debating such fundamentals is a waste of time. Lengthy exchanges that progress understanding is good - lengthy exchanges debating nothing is bad. I can't speak for him, but assume that's the case.

Whether one chooses to pay attention or care about themes is the issue at hand. And that's pretty unimportant. Let's be fair. You don't like to study film, its metaphors and emotional connections, etc, then that's fair enough but don't label those who do as [insert here] 'cos it's just as easy to label those who don't as [insert here].

Andrew, that's pretty much my point in a nutshell, so for a change, I'm in agreement with you.

Thank you for the great discussion and points everybody!