Writing themes into your script

Hard to say. Pros of starting with a theme...your story tends to be more focused (you actually understand what story you are telling) and relevant.

The disadvantages are those that James mentioned and the way you may find yourself twisting events to fit the theme and lose some spontaneity.

Conversely choosing to just write a story you have the freedom to go anywhere, but more often than not (in my experience of reading scripts) they end up without any real point or substance. Just plot and no real story.

I personally tend to start by imagining a strong premise (What if) and then look at possible themes that could work with that story. If I'm not working with an interesting theme to start with, I tend to get bored with writing very quickly.

The type of theme usually dictates the structure as well...for instance if you're interested in examining memory...you might want a looser, non-linear structure, and the characters because the characters reactions to events will illuminate your theme, so once you know your theme you will already know that you need certain characters that represent certain values.

There's no right answer though, and you don't have to select one way. You can just experiment and see what works for you, as James correctly said.

I'm with Rick on this one. If you don't have a theme (a backbone to the story, if you will), then the most you can expect to wring out of a script is entertaining fluff. And there's enough of that already in Hollywood to go around, and then some.

James is right, in that there's a danger of following a theme too closely, and ending up with basically a 2 hour PSA. So you'd best have great characters, and still let the damned thing develop in whatever direction it takes you.

But - IMHO - without a theme, you've just got a big bag of jello.

Quoted from wonkavite

But - IMHO - without a theme, you've just got a big bag of jello.

I am so stealing this:)

Thx, RdHay -

Spread the word! :)

Id say premise first also and let themes and images develop in an organic fashion around the premise. It can be all too obvious when a theme is forced or 'tacked on' as an after thought. It will surface as exposition in a characters dialouge and sound preachy or disrupt the flow of the story if you haven't planned it at the early outlining stage. If you have a strong premise, explore the implied themes at the outlining stage.

I think the most important point is that your screenplay must have a theme. Without it your screenplay will seem hollow. How you arrive at that theme is your business.

No theme - No story.

I am a fan of movies with effective themes. I try to write with a theme in mind. But I think I would also say that one thing that can move a film from decent entertainment into total cheese is when a theme is forced onto it. Some movies are strictly entertainment.

Look at Independence Day. They have the President give his little speech at the end, and that gives voice to the theme of one world united together against a common enemy. Did that really change the movie in any way? If that scene was cut, would anyone really miss it?

Well, it wouldn't have negated the rest of the story.

But I think the film would have been less satisfying without it.  Honestly....

(And I'm ignoring the whole "upload a virus from a Macbook to an alien vessel" issue.  Still fond of the film, regardless...) :)

IMHO: you shouldn't *force* a theme into a story.  That would be preachy, and artificial.  The story needs to grow organically from it.  Even Rambo, Dirty Harry and Rocky had inherent themes...  And those were all bordering on pure entertainment, too....

When in doubt - turn to Aaron Sorkin. This is from a rather funny interview he did with Jeff Goldsmith from Creative Screenwriting Magazine.

"When you're talking about things like themes, you have to be really careful because that's not what's gonna make the car go, it's what's gonna make the car be good and give you a good ride. Me, I have to stick really closely - like it's a life raft - to intention and obstacle, somebody wants something, somebody stands in their way of getting it.

Make sure you have that cemented in place. Themes will then become apparent to you and you can - to torture the metaphor - paint the car and make it look really nice and do the interior. But the car's not gonna start - I won't stop this metaphor - the engine's not gonna turn over unless you see to the basics of drama, and drama is intention and obstacle."

Great Sorkin quote.

Janet, here's the problem, and the Sorkin quote helps identify it too. Victory against the alien invaders was really not due to the one world thing. I mean, in a sense it was, since we lowered the shield and others took advantage, but the main thrust of the story had nothing to do with a unified world. It was the guys we were watching(the Americans) trying to figure it out.

Yes, it made the movie better in this case when they were able to flush out a theme in the end. It just really had only a very marginal impact on the the story itself.

In my recent zombie script, my theme was stated by a character: that there's no difference between us and the zombie if we kill our own heart(in order to protect ourselves from pain). But I don't think that theme had any impact whether people liked or disliked the story.

So I think we're in agreement: theme is great, and in some stories it's essential. But not all stories. I haven't seen any of the Transformers movies, but are they thematic? Is the theme essential to the story? Is that why people see them? Just asking.

Rambo, Dirty Harry, Rocky were very thematic, and the themes were necessary to those stories. I actually did a review of Rambo in my High School paper when it first came out and gave it a glowing report(in the same review I trashed ET).

I kind of have a similar problem with what I'm seeing called for in loglines. It seems to be the consensus among industry types that a log simply must have irony in it. I understand how irony can be very effective at making a great log, like the Jaws example, but now this has evolved into a fundamental law of the screen world. That means not just our logs, but all movies are now going to have to be centered around ironic premise. That's crazy!

Hey Kev -

I'll more intellectually address your post later (interesting points, etc.)

But for now, just want to comment on one thing. I'll agree with you - the Transformer movies don't have themes. But are they really worth watching? Seriously? :))))

Ha! You said it! I watched the first 20 minutes of Transformers, and I couldn't watch anymore!

But, they are huge movies, and I would not knock those people that enjoy them.

One of my favorite movies is A Few Good Men. And that's certainly thematic. One of the things I like about it, though, is that the theme has depth. They spell it out for us in the end, but there is also reason to question it, highlighted by the arguments of Jessup in court. You could leave that movie and immediately debate the merits of the theme, and that debate takes place in the movie itself. I love that.

What about Good Fellas? what is the theme there, and does it have anything to do with why we like the movie? The film is about why people are attracted to the gang life. Does that qualify as a theme? In the end, he explains how frustrating it is to be another nobody in the middle of nowhere. i think that's just another way of emphasizing the appeal of the crime life.

I look forward to your points!

Edit: regarding loglines, and my point on irony, which I think compares to theme. I keep reading that if there's no irony in a log line, it's not professional grade, and many in the industry won't even pick up the first page after that. I just found that odd, since the idea that every single movie should be built around an ironic premise just doesn't seem sensible.

So today I spent some time looking at 2 things: movies playing currently on premium channels, and top movies from the last 2 years listed on IMDB. I looked at descriptions of the movies on both. I don't know how close these descriptions are to actual log lines, but certainly it seems IMDB is close. And if not, what is the damn purpose of a log? What I found was that at best 20% of movies had any irony in the log. And I started avoiding looking at movies that obviously would not, like kids cartoons or action movies.

I am not anti-irony, but its requirement seems to be getting overplayed. I don't think the public requires it, and this is reflected by the fact that it's not in descriptions that are designed to entice people to pick their channel or buy their movie. So it seems to be just an insider thing.

For me theme, STC structure and irony are in the same kind of category. They are fantastic ways to build a story. But if they are made fundamental laws of the movie universe, it stifles creativity and distracts from the purpose of creating good story, which comes in many forms.

Brief article on character arcs in Independence Day

Each of the arcs identified and described in the above article (with, admittedly, varying degrees of success) suggests a very clear theme to be taken from each arc. I assume that there is no need to list the themes (but I could if need be!) as they are very basic. However, as the guy states in the article, I expect the film would not be so satisfying without them. Certainly, the story would be different without the arcs. And certainly, the reason for a character arc is theme.

Do the smaller themes taken from these character arcs contribute to a larger thesis for the film? I can't remember...can anyone else?

"Welcome to Earth!!"

I believe it's best to begin with a defined theme that I remain cognizant of when constructing the story - but - be flexible enough to allow it to ether change as the story evolves as I write and rewrite it or stick to my original plan and bias rewrites to reinforce the original theme.

Sometimes when you're done you find you didn't shoot your arrow exactly where you wanted to, and where it landed may or may not be acceptable.

http://www.hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/engramja/elements.html#THEME
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_(literature)
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/Section/What-exactly-is-a-theme-of-a-story-and-how-can-I-recognize-it-.id-305408,articleId-8034.html

Yeah, theme is important to a story.
- Be careful what you ask for.
- Love is fickle/enduring/impractical/etc.
- Bigger is better
- Trust your instincts.
- The wise seek advice.
- Quitters never win, but the lazy never lose.
- Embrace ma�ana or whatever.

Quoted from leitskev

Regarding irony:

TBH, I can't think of many films without it.

The "irony" in log-line essentially concerns the central conflict taking place. It is the reason why the goal of the protagonist/s can't be achieved immediately.

It is "complications arise when": in another name.

Any film that contains conflict will have it...including children's films.

Logline:

"This is the story of:"

1. Project's Title.....................
2. Hero..................
3. Desired goal of hero...................
4. Situation.....................
5. Dilemma facing hero.....................
6. Villain......................
7. Desired goal of villain..................
8. Complications arise when....................

You just fill in the blanks and you have a standard industry logline.

My own example:

The First Cut Is The Deepest

"A hometown boy dreams of meeting the right girl and starting a family, unfortunately he's also a psychotic serial killer who has the irresistible urge to kill any woman he meets!"

Your logline is a sales tool, it's not really relevant to look on IMDB after the event. Once it's made, they deliberately try to hide the story. The purpose is to be able to express what the story is about and why it is unique at the pitching stage.

It's also there to be a guide to your own writing...keeping you focused on what the story is actually about.

I am curious if ironic premise can be attached to Independence Day, since we discussed it above.

Let me take a stab at figuring this out with another example.

Conflict itself is not irony. Irony involves some kind of essential contradiction.

"Tom Brady wants to win the NFL Championship, but has to overcome his fear of violence." American football is violent, and you need to be tough to win, so that goal of Tom's is ironic.

"Tom Brady wants to win the NFL Championship, but memories of past defeats and the Steelers stand in his way."

I don't see any irony in this premise. Tom is opposed by the Steelers, and also doubts from past failures. A difficult antagonistic force to overcome, and a premise that's just as interesting as the one above. But not ironic.

"Aliens from outer space attack the world and the peoples must unite to defeat them."

No irony.

"Aliens from outer space attack and a cynical former President must unite the peoples of the world to fight them."

That would be ironic.

Does this make sense?

The irony tends to come from the individual.

For instance: Jaws...the main guy has to save everyone from the shark but he's scared of water.

Your second example is very ironic...the irony is that his team would be the best if he didn't have the memories of past defeats. The irony is that it's his fear of defeat that's essentialy causing the defeats.

The irony in Independence day is that the US Government already KNEW about the invasion. They knew Roswell had happened. They had Area 51...but they didn't prepare.

There are also ironic characters...the piss head abductee who nobody believes who turns out to be the hero. The scientist who everyone ignores who turns the tide.

The whole film is largely ironic...it's not really played straight.

Plus the film is more like your second example...the US President is considered a wimp by his electorate and has to prove them wrong.

But I do understand where you're coming from. Irony in this instance only really stems from Babz...it's really just her way of saying what I said above "difficulties arise when...".

It's just that Hollywood films tend to rely on using the exact opposite of what's required to solve the problem..it's the guy who absolutely can't get a girl who has to become the super stud etc.

The important thing though is that there's different types of stories..the more high end you are going, the deeper and stronger the themes need to be.

There's a big difference between Independence Day and 2001 Space Oddssey.

There's a big difference between the Waterboy and Black Swan.

Different types of films require different things to succeed.

It's very important the writer knows what type of story he is trying to tell.

Cool link, Heretic, thanks.

Good points, Rick, and as I said, I am not against irony at all. Contrasting opposites, especially through conflict, is a dynamic way to reveal a higher truth, or to emphasize a simple truth. And I'm sure the longer I study film, the easier it will become to recognize things that maybe some of you, and certainly industry pros, see now more clearly.

I guess my main concern was that things that are generally true have a way of evolving into laws. I used to see this and try to account for it when I was trying to train club security. To teach them to react properly, there are rules you want them to fall back on. At the same time, I did so knowing that there were situations where not only did those rules not apply, but they were harmful. I trained them with the rules, and hoped they had the common sense to know when not to use them.

I look at screen, and see a lot of "though shall not's".

Though shall not write an unfilmable.
Though shall not stray from Three Act.
Though shall create story without theme.
Though shall not write a log without irony.

I do think one should master these concepts before knowing when to stray too far from them. That is sensible.

I just still tend to resist "though shalls". Not just in film, but pretty much anything.

I used to see it in the business world, and the club industry. Certain "truths" become conventional wisdoms. But those that really break out and succeed are those that understand these truths, understand their essence, and knowingly break away, in a purposeful, insightful way. This is also called outside the box thinking.

This is also something evident in history, especially military history. Contrary to general opinion, often it's the generals who are least capable of adapting to the situation and using the necessary tactics. They fight "the last war". In WWI, British generals resisted to the end the use of tanks and mechanized war. It was Churchill, a politician, who pushed their development.

Thanks for your input. Much appreciated.

Everything comes down to what you are trying to achieve.

There's different kinds of films, and there's different ways of getting films funded and made.

There are no rules really.

Truly great films are one of two things (generally speaking)...either ones that break the rules in some way that works, or, more commonly, ones that stick to the rules implicitly but invest their stories with great characters, pacing, story, themes etc.

The problem is a lot of the films that break the so-called rules are Director led..they often deviate massively from the script, or don't even have a script to begin with.

These films are often considered truly great by the critics and maybe even audiences, though they rarely threaten the highest grossing films.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films

There's also the problem that a lot of these big films that don't have particularly strong themes, or even stories...such as Transformers...they are often based on huge franchises. They are kind of irrelevant to pre-pro writers as they are greenlit often before a script even exists.

Writers seem to make life very difficult for themselves from where I stand. The people that pay actual real money, the kind of money that you can actually live off, 99 times out of 100 are attracted to "movie" scripts...simple stories with high concepts and marketable premises based on popuar genres.

http://highest-paid.net/screenwriter/p4

Almost every pre-pro writer is resistant to the rules, and almost every pre-pro goes off and tries to re-invent the wheel...twisting structure for no real reason, mixing genres, not creating particularly marketable stories...and they take themselves out what seems like a very simple game.

I think you are correct on all of this. As I said, you really need to master rules before you break them. The feature I am currently working on is right within the box as far as structure, theme, and yes, even irony. I talk about these matters as an exercise in learning. I majored in history in college, not screenwriting or film. So SS is my college! Folks like you, Jeff, Chris are the professors. Trust me, I do absorb most of the lessons. And thanks.

BTW. I asked a lot of questions in college too!

I don't know about "correct". Ultimately there's always a place for the great script that's completely off the wall.

It might be harder to get into production, but as film fans, let alone wannabe writers, you'd always hope they can come through ( Charlie Kaufman for eg).

In this day and age something like that also has the opportunity to have a life of its own through self-distribution.

Hey Kev -

As promised, wanted to provide a more intellectual response to some of the things being discussed in this thread. (As you know, things've been kind of busy on the home front, between writing, work and well, work.)

I actually can't comment too much on Good Fellas - never saw it.  In that case, the theme could be (taking a stab in the dark here) that crime is attractive for lots of reasons...but will ultimately destroy the individual in the end.

I *do* take great offense (intellectually) to the "Thou shall create story without theme."  (Or is that a typo, and the 'not' is missing?)

I want to stress - I'm NOT arguing that theme is everything.  Theme without the rest of the good stuff (interesting story, deep characters, etc.) is just boring preaching.

BUT.  For me, the theme must come first.  The story should evolve from that in different ways, based on the basic premises, and motivations of the characters.  Not forced, but develop naturally.  That's the difference.

And the structure - though important - also needs to grow from there.  It needs to flow organically, not be shoe-horned into a specific three part structure, or the Save the Cat mold, etc. etc.  Per what Rick said, I'm not arguing that you don't have to know the "rules".  But you have to go with the story's needs, regardless of what they dictate.  You don't break the rules just to be "a rebel" or "different".  You break them because it's better for your specific story.

Also, I'm not saying the theme has to be earth-rockingly deep.  But it has to touch the human condition honestly, in some way.  Even it's a small, but significant thing.

Could you create a movie without a theme?  Sure.  Would it be satisfying to anyone with a brain?  No.  Good for killing a few hours, sure.  And I guess I'm not knocking that - at least on one level.

But it's the difference between eating a twinky, and a gourmet meal by a master.  They both taste good, and fill you up.  But they're worlds apart.

Hopefully, I'll be able to produce a full gourmet meals in my lifetime as a writer (with luck, experience, and practice).  But frankly, I don't have time in my life to bake any Twinkies.

Hey Janet.

Good points. It's funny to find myself seemingly arguing against theme, when my work all tends to be very thematic, as you know. Even my shorts. And irony usually plays a big part of my stories too. I am certainly not against these things.

The quote someone left earlier in this thread from Sorkin is perfect. Theme is not story. There are other more critical elements, I think intention and obstacle is what he emphasized. Depending on the type of story, theme can be critical, or it can be icing.

Let's look at it this way. I think the purpose of film is stimulation. This stimulation can be emotional or intellectual. Thematic content is critical for an intellectually stimulating movie, much less so for emotional(action, sentimental). Theme is not so much something you feel in your gut as something you ponder. Obviously emotional stimulation is useful for highlighting theme, too.

It was a type O on that though shall, missing the not. My point was that when things move from "theme is something very powerful in film" to "film is theme" then we run the risk of creating...cheese. At the end of Independence Day, when the President talks about the peoples of the world uniting, it works, though it's not needed for the movie. But we've all seen movies where that kind of thing is thrown in there and seems really cheesy.

You never saw Good Fellas? And you live in New York! Good Fellas shows how crime destroyed his life in the end, but he also makes clear that if he had to do it over again, he would still choose that life over being an everyday nobody. I'm not saying Good Fellas is not thematic, and I'm sure plenty of theme can be plucked from it. but in the end, at its heart, I think it's mostly just portrayal of that lifestyle, and I think Scorcese would agree, as I've seen interviews where he discusses that. If he had tried to force a thematic premise, such as "crime doesn't pay", it would have changed the movie, made it less effective. Why? Because he spends half the movie making crime attractive. And that half is the reason people watch that movie over and over. It's escapism, to fantasize about being a gangster and having those perks.

I think another potential problem with over emphasis on theme is this: when you have a theme in mind while you're writing, it effects everything your characters say and do. That really limits the range of your character development. Look at Tarantino. People love his movies for the complicated characters that display depth. I'm not sure if those characters can be created with a central theme in focus.

I think these character sketch movies are some of the most interesting, and they don't require theme, at least not central theme.

Curious to hear what you think, especially on character sketches vs theme.

I ask questions, that's how I learn!

Goodfella's is incredibly thematic. It's what separates it from most gangster flicks.

It was this reason why Roger Ebert loved it so much:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19900902/REVIEWS/9020301

What Goodfella's does is show why and how crime (specifically organized crime) is so attractive, but also show how destructive it can be at the same time. There's all sorts of stuff in there about power, abuse of power, loyalty, betrayal.

You say that Goodfella's doesn't have a central theme and then back that up by saying that the first half of the film deals with why crime is exciting. But of course the second half shows why it's bad and so the whole reveals the central theme. If you look at the film's beginning, you see the seeds of destruction in the second half being shown...Joe Pesci's characters violent behaviour which ultimately condemns them. This is how the top writers do it, every moment is important and every moment connects with the greater whole.

Without that second part you wouldn;t have a story, it would just be a propaganda film for the Mafia.

Tarantino deals with common themes in all his work (most great directors essentially make the same movie in different genres...Lars Van Trier's films are always about a Man who manipulates a woman for instance). The nature and value of loyalty (Sexual loyalty, loyalty to brothers, to the job). Servitude to moral codes which often seem outdated (Mob codes, samurai codes etc) and the meaningless of life and death. Those three things sum up pretty much every scene he's ever written or filmed.

Think about all the famous scenes in Tarantino films and think what they're really about (is foot massage disloyalty, should people tip or not (loyalty to a certain moral code), the watch scene...military and familial loyalty etc etc.)

It's an example of "Thematic Patterning".

I don't think anyone has ever claimed "film is theme". I've certainly never seen it anyway. But it's apparent in all the best films, scripts and stories.

Be careful with identifying theme with what characters say as well...you've mentioned the President's speech in Independence Day a couple of times now...that's not the theme...it's just a tub thumping speech to create an emotional response. Theme is implicity stated, not explicitly stated in a work, more often than not.

You seem to be confusing theme with moral a little bit.

A theme can't be cheesy...it's completely neutral. Only dialogue, situations, story etc can be cheesy.

The very best films, the ones that stick with audiences forever engage on four levels:

The story (the nuts and bolts..pacing, characters, situations, conflict etc.,[This is the fundamental part...you've got NOTHING without this, as Sorkin says] emotionally (they care about the characters and what they are trying to do and receive emotional highs and lows during the story), intellectually (the film raises interesting questions they can mull over...which is heavily linked to theme) and spiritually (the most commonly missed...the film gives people a greater sense of something eg Shawshank Redemption and the nature of Hope, or Star Wars with the Force in another genre...which is again heavily linked to theme).

I usually have my theme in my head but I'm not fully aware of it until I start my rewrites. From there, I begin to see a pattern in characters and plot and then focus on that for additional rewrites.

Reading Rick's post, it occurred to me that perhaps I have the wrong definition of theme, and that could be the sticking point. So I figured I better look it up.

Theme: a unifying or dominant idea, motif, etc., as in a work of art.--dictionaryreference.com

So consider Goodfellas. There may be all kinds of stuff in there about abuse of power, loyalty, betrayal and power. But which one is the unifying or dominant idea?

And that has really been my point all along. My understanding of theme, which seems confirmed by the dictionary definition, is that it's a central, unifying current that runs through the movie. Does that mean there can be only one theme? Yes and no. I think there can be a central theme, and sub-themes, sometimes which even contradict the theme, such as in A Few Good Men.

The issues highlighted in Goodfellas are portrayals, perhaps explorations of concepts. Had there been a unifying current that the director was trying to bring home, it would have inhibited the exploration of these concepts.

The article by Ebert is excellent. And I think it actually confirms what I'm saying. He mentions exploration of themes, but his use of the word is not what we commonly think of film or story theme, that unifying force. Scorcese is exploring themes, but not using one, so his film is not thematic. Big difference.

Goodfellas is about putting someone in the shoes of Henry Hill, as a kid watching gangsters, as a regretful man in the Witness Protection program, and everything in between. Goodfellas is portrayal and exploration of various characters and their motivations, and of various concepts such as indicated. Were one of these concepts to become a unifying element, it would become a theme. That none of them do makes this movie great...but anti-thematic.

I would argue Tarantino does the same thing, though I have not seen all his work. He avoids a unifying theme so he can explore various concepts freely. That's why his characters are so interesting.

As far as claiming film is theme, that was claimed by two people on page one of this thread, and that's where I began discussing.

Let's look at STC. Blake says theme should be revealed on page 5, usually as a question posed to the protagonist. I think this is the kind of thing I have in mind when talking about theme. When I look at beat sheets or coverage notes, there's usually a space for theme. And the idea is to express it in one line.

All I am saying is that, while doing that can be great, it can also be limiting. Had Goodfellas or Pulp Fiction done that, they would not be what they are.

The theme is not going to usually be expressed like the tub thumping speech at the end of Independence Day. But it can be. And I do think this was an attempt at theme at the end of this film. The other things we talked about were the character arcs, all of which added up to the need for people to come together, overcome differences and even hostility, to fight the common foe. That, I'm fairly confident, is the unifying theme.

A theme can't be cheesy, but it's forced expression can be. How many people are now trying to find a way to express their theme in dialogue because Blake says you have to on page 5?

To sum up: a film can explore different "themes" without being thematic. A thematic film attempts to create a unifying theme that runs through the story. This can greatly enhance the story(A Few Good Men). Or it can inhibit a story. Some great stories avoid having a unifying theme, and thrive because of that.

I hope this means something, or maybe I'm just rambling!

The unifying theme of Goodfella's is that Mafia life is both empowering and ultimately self destructive.

theme 

1. a subject of discourse, discussion, meditation, or composition; topic: The need for world peace was the theme of the meeting.
2. a unifying or dominant idea, motif, etc., as in a work of art.

Films can be seen as arguments (The Grand Argument Theory).

Events, characters, situations explore a central question. Each character should represent a different aspect of the question.

So in Goodfellas..it might be:

Is Mafia life good or bad?

You then see different sides of the story.

Good: It's gives you power and respect.

Bad, you end up encased in the world, in prison, and any little mistake will mess up your whole life.

The theme is made obvious at the end because the central character's life is ruined, but he still misses the Mafia life.

Anti thematic means that it deliberatley contains no themes.

I'm not sure if that's even possible to do whilst telling a coherent story.

It's an oxymoron to say that a film can explore different themes without being thematic.

Thematic means relating to theme.

I would say anti-thematic means it contains no unifying theme. It can explore many themes, but does not choose one, or even one argument.

I chose the second definition in the dictionary because of "as in a work of art", which seems to apply to film.

Also, as I said, this seems to be the assumed definition by Blake in STC when he tells us to state it on page 5; and seems to be what people are looking for on beat sheets.

Telling a coherent story without exploring themes probably is impossible. That's why, for the idea of thematic stories to be useful, it makes sense to consider it as a unifying force within a story.

Edit: I'll let you have the last word! Thanks for playing.

That's why to me, Goodfellas explores themes, even debates them, but is not thematic. It's portrayal and exploration.

You're missing the "or dominant" part of the theme.

You can have a dominant theme and lots of smaller ones.

Dominant means chief, or major...not the ONLY.

Unifying theme=the overriding theme that unites all the smaller ones. Hence in Goodfellas all the smaller themes are explorations of the whole: Is Mafia life good or bad? We then see the issue from all angles and come to a final conclusion.

Unifying: To make into or become a unit; consolidate

It takes all the little explorations and makes them into a cohesive, understandable whole.

Goodfellas is pretty explicit...even to the point of the Blake Synder beat sheet. It doesn't leave much (any?) room for doubt what the unifying theme was.

It doesn't leap out and muse whether immortality is a good or bad idea. It is extremely confined to one particular theme...all aspects of the film explore issues surrounding that world.

Tarantino's work is less explicit, and a lot more subtle. But there are readily identifiable themes that are in all his works, as I've pointed out. These being loyalty, meaningles life and death and an exploration of moral codes.

Pupl Fiction for instance is about Second chances and the way people can view the same thing in different ways...foot massage, the miracle escape, the watch etc.

Here's a breakdown of just one of the three stories in Pulp Fiction. See how cohesive it is thematically when you look at it in isolation:

http://www.collativelearning.com/pulp%20fiction%20-%20gold%20watch%20story%20analysis.html

Do you see how every little element that on first glance is unrelated is actually constructed with reference to the theme?

What we're really talking about here isn't theme per se...it's about how explicit the theme is in a story/film.

You'e essentially trying to create a whole new lexicon to describe things that have existed for thousands of years by trying to differentiate between thematic and theme but there's no need. Thematic means: relating to theme eg thematic analysis=a study of the themes).

You can have lots of themes, there's just usually a unifying one that over-arches the individual ones to give the film in its entirety a meaning.

Each short story in Pulp Fiction has its own individual theme/s. All the stories together, and all their elements, create the unifying theme.

Literary Analysis...just for a point of comparison.

"Any analysis of a literary work requires that the writer understand the intention (i.e., the theme) of the work and how that theme is revealed in the course of the work.

The Nature of Theme
Remember that the theme of a work of literature is the comment that the author makes about his subject matter, a revelation about the behavior of human beings or the conduct of society; an insight into the human condition.

Remember that the theme is the insight we gain from thinking about what we have read.

To determine the theme of a work of literature, first identify and be able to thoroughly describe the major elements of that work:

plot
characterizations
point of view
setting
patterns, symbols, any recurring images
In the case of science fiction, you must also be able to describe the elements of science and extrapolation from science present in the work and the relationship of the science to the work's plot.

Come to a conclusion about the significance of each of these elements. Be sure you understand why every element in the work exists.

Formulate a possible theme for the work and determine how the plot, characters, setting, science, and images support that theme, that insight into human nature"

I enjoyed the link to the Pulp Fiction analysis. Very interesting. Thanks.

I've been trying so hard to stay out of this discussion, but I feel like I have to comment.

Kevin's earlier post of today, made it clear to me that I had to speak.  He said maybe he didn't understadn completely what we're talking about when we discuss theme, and maybe that's the case for me as well.

So, Rick, here's something you can do to help me(us).  I'll some popular and influential movies, and in no more than 2 sentences, tell me what the theme is and why it's so important.  Cool?  I am actually very interested in understanding where you're you're coming from with the theme angle and want to learn, as I obviously either don't get it, or see it as something different.

I'll respond briefly and in no way will I start an argument or debate.

1)  The Texas Chainsaw Massacre - 1974

2)  The Omen - 1976

3)  The Outlaw Josey Wales - 1976

4)  Friday the 13th - 1980

5)  True Romance - 1993

6)  Scream - 1996

7)  Hostel - 2005

8)  Eden Lake - 2008

Look forward to reading your responses.  Thanks!   ;D ;D

Quoted from Dreamscale

7) Hostel - 2005

Eli Roth seems to think there's a lot of themes to Hostel from American views of the rest of the world to just general greed, exploitation and the jadedness that comes from it all. I don't think the film was as deep as he would've liked it to be but you really only have to look up a couple interviews or if you have the DVD, watch the commentaries/BTS to find out that Roth had a lot of subtext in mind

Quoted from Dreamscale

8) Eden Lake - 2008

I'd say a pretty simple survival horror, for the most part, but the ending puts the film into a different perspective. Whether or not it actually introduces a theme is debatable but there's still enough there for such a debate to take place.

^^^

Just for the sake of discussion. Not trying to argue whether theme or no theme is preferable. Like Rick said, there's so many kinds of films out there, it's hard to say that any film needs or doesn't need something to work. Personally, I prefer to have a theme. It makes writing more interesting.

Okay - I'm only commenting on one of these, Jeff. :)

Friday the 13th. Sex is bad, and it'll get you chopped up.

Yes, that's one of those films that *does not* have a theme...beyond that.

Janet, not to be argumentative at all, and I mean that, but I totally disagree with you.

As far as I can tell, based on all the comments, there is theme in literally everything, if you want to look for it, and associate it with whatever it is your analyzing.

But, if there indeed isn't any theme in Friday the 13th, then maybe we've just hit on a sub genre of film where theme doesn't even come into play, and doesn't need to. How many Friday the 13th clones have there been over the years? 500? More? Probably. What is that saying?

I want to wait for Rick's response before I throw anything out, cause as I said, I'm not even sure I associate theme in the way others do.

Sex is bad? Cool, now I have an excuse for not getting laid. I just don't want to get chopped up!

Friday the 13th's theme deals with the bond between mother and son. How far will a mother go to avenge the death of her son. There's even an urban legend theme that runs through it. Friday the 13th is chock full of themes.

I agree with you, Michael, in principle, but I have a question.

At what point in the film, is it made clear that Mrs. Voorhees is the killer? I'd say within the last 10 minutes or so, I'm pretty sure. So, based on that, can that still be the theme of the film?

And also, since Mrs. Voorhees is obviously very insane, does that Mother/Child theme still hold up, or make sense?

A theme can be made clear in the last line of a film and still be a theme. Many films do not make their central theme clear until near the end. Many even make a specific statement that tells you the theme in the last few minutes. Tootsie is always one of the examples of that type I see mentioned when reading about themes.

Interesting. Thanks.

From Victor Miller, screenwriter of the original Friday the 13th, regarding it's theme or moral value...

"..when we started out to make Friday the 13th, we did not have any social themes in mind, but we were quite obviously creatures of that period and the zeitgeist demanded that the plot come out as it did. Rather than a condemnation of teens, I think it had more to do with what happens when you are consumed by your own delight...that was the first sin. Lust causes others to suffer because it is so thoughtless. And, by the same token, revenge punishes the guilty and the innocent no matter how justifiable.

--------

I like the theme of Friday the 13th, how the entire story begins with one innocent, tragic young boy who drowned senselessly, sending his mother into a schizophrenic rage, driving her to murder not only those who were responsible, but all those who fit the same typology-- the young, attractive and lusty. There is definitely a warning here, a campfire story intended to both terrify and titillate the young and remind them of their own mortality. Perhaps one of the reasons 'Friday the 13th' has been so enduring is that contrary to what Roger Ebert may think, it does have something to say."

From a practical writing angle, Stephen King touches on this brilliantly in On Writing. At some point I'm going to do a thread that distils out all the awesome and really useful things King says on a wide range of wriitng topics, but I'll just quote this one for now.

I know King's focus is on prose, but to me the writing process is the writing process no matter what medium it's in (to that end I've swapped 'novel' for 'film', 'book' for 'script' and 'readers' for 'viewers'):

"Writing and literature classes can be annoyingly preoccupied by (and pretensious about) theme, approaching it as the most sacred of sacred cows, but (don't be shocked) it's really no big deal. If you write a film, spend weeks and then months catching it word by word, you owe it to both the script and to yourself to lean back (or take a long walk) when you've finished and ask yourself why you bothered - why you spent all that time, why it seemed so important. In other words, what's it all about, Alfie?

When you write a script, you spend day after day scanning and identifying the trees. When you're done, you have to step back and look at the forest. Not every script has to be loaded with symbolism, irony or musical language, but it seems to me that every script - at least every one worth reading - is about something. Your job during or just after the first draft is to decide what something or somethings yours is about. Your job in the second draft - one of them, anyway - is to make that something even more clear. This may necessitate some big changes and revisions. The benefits to you and your viewer will be clearer focus and a more unified story. It hardly ever fails.

[long example about The Stand]

I should close this little sermonette with a word of warning - starting with the questions and thematic concerns is a recipe for bad fiction. Good fiction always begins with story and progresses to theme; it almost never begins with theme and progresses to story...but once your basic story is on paper, you need to think about what it means and enrich your following drafts with your conclusions. To do less is to rob your work (and eventually your viewers) of the vision that makes each tale you write uniquely your own."

For me, that's invaluable, practical advice. It's something you can actually utilise - go back to one of your scripts, read it through, and try and work out what you were trying to say. Once you'd found that, whatever it is, just work to tease it out in every scene, on every page, and it'll give you added focus and richness.

That's a fantastic quote, Jon. Thanks for copying that in. A real insight into creative process.

I think it depends largely on the writer whether or not the theme comes before the horse.  I don't think it's a black and white enough sort of thing to say one is better than the other.

I do know that a lot of actual screenwriting jobs are on assignment.  And on assignment you can be given specific themes before you write the script.

An example of this, and maybe not the best example, would be the series Buffy where one of the staff writers states this about the process.  "First, the writers talked about the emotional issues facing Buffy Summers and how she would confront them through her battle against evil supernatural forces."

I know this doesn't say "theme" specifically but deciding what a show is going to be about based upon an emotional issue of one character and projecting that emotional issue onto a supernatural battle is essentially saying that's the theme of the show.

Jeff,

Like James said there are different kinds of films.

To pigeon hole them, there are essentially two polar ends of the scale.

Pure Entertainment...............Pure Art.

Cat having a piss on Youtube..... Bill Viola

Then everything else in between.

Generally speaking, the further it pushes to the right, the more thematic content you would expect.

Again generally speaking, certain genres tend to have less thematic content, and others more.

Less: Horror, Comedy, Action
More: Drama, Historical.

This is one of the reasons why certain genres are often seen as "ghetto" genres and drama tends to be seen as the highest form of Cinema when it comes to critics and award givers.

As regards the films you've picked, many are horror. Horror, perhaps more than any other genre is defined by its reaction to societal norms and fears of the time. So you tend to get a lot of implicit themes in then that reflect the time period (fear of nuclear war, radiation, technology..whatever).

If you look up the psychological reasons people actually watch horror in the first place, you'll also find a lot of recurring themes. For instance it's been shown that people like to watch types of people they don't like suffering...pretty grim and a very strong theme for a horror film in itself. This results in certain characters and themes that tend to be seen often...virgins like to see the slut suffer, geeks like to watch the jock get cut up etc.

Texas Chain Saw Massacre:

Apocalyptic vision of America's future. Technology has replaced the work force, reducing them to savage psychopaths who become cannibals. Everything is crumbled and destroyed..even the graveyard (no respect for even the dead) and thr family is reduced to having Leatherface as a wife, and the lunatic grandfather as a paternal figure.

Importance of theme. It's basically an exploitation piece, and relies more on the unique characters, tone and energy than the theme, but I think it's survival over time owes at least something to the themes....particularly as it's become more critically accliamed as the years have passed by. Speaks to fears about the future.

The Omen:

Parents fear for their children (will they be good,?in particular)..taken to extremes. Also strong themes of morality and faith.

Importance of theme. High. One of the best horror films ever...partly the theme, partly the mix of genres and ideas. Works as horror, mystery thriller and drama. Asks unsettling questions about children and the lenghts we'll go to in the name of faith.

Outlaw Josie Wales

Anti-war, revisionist western. I'll let Clint do the talking:

"As for Josey Wales, I saw the parallels to the modern day at that time. Everybody gets tired of it, but it never ends. A war is a horrible thing, but it's also a unifier of countries. . . . Man becomes his most creative during war. Look at the amount of weaponry that was made in four short years of World War II�the amount of ships and guns and tanks and inventions and planes and P-38s and P-51s, and just the urgency and the camaraderie, and the unifying. But that's kind of a sad statement on mankind, if that's what it takes."

Importance: High.

Friday 13th

Themes are thin. Revenge. Basic exploitation flick.

Importance of theme: minimal. Technically incompetent film, poor on almost every level yet enjoyable in some way that's hard to put your finger on.

True Romance:

Can't remember it too well. Themes weren't particularly strong as I recall. Love and adventure type story. Usual Tarantino themes of loyalty present.

Importance of theme: Minimal. Relies on fast pace, dialogue and interesting characters.

Scream

Self aware parody of horror in general, sending up most of the horror themes I talked about above. Fails to be quite as clever as it tried to be and fell back into the same sort of stuff it parodied.

Importance of theme: Fairly high. Premise is kind of based on theme itself. The name, iconic Scream Mask, humour and action all important as well. It's awareness of horror themes and tropes was its principal selling point.

Hostel has been done. It failed as a film for me because it tried to include some interesting themes but Roth didn't have the talent as a writer or director to deal with them. Its success came down to a strong ppremise, very powerful violence scenes and a strong marketing campaign using the name of Tarantino to give it credibility.

Not seen Eden Lake yet.

Now that I've finished that and looked up the films on Rotten Tomates, I'd say it's interesting that the films that have stronger themes are generally considered a lot better than the ones without by both critics and audiences.

The one exception is True Romance.

The two lowest rated films are Friday the 13th...the thinnest of films in regards theme and Hostel which has themes but which are incoherently presented.

OK, Rick, I appreciate your posts and views.  I hope you know I think you're both a cool guy and a very well read, smart guy, as well.

Maybe I just don't have the level of intellect to be able to have these discussions with someone of your intellect...and I mean that very sincerely.  I'm at a loss with most of what you said...not everything, but definitely most.

My quick take on inherent themes for these movies are as follows...

TCM - Survival horror.  Classic fish out of water theme.  Blind trust gets you in trouble.

The Omen - Evil is real and takes all shapes and forms.  Good vs Evil...good doesn't always win.  Bad shit happens to good people.  Classic God vs Satan age old war.

The Outlaw Josey Wales - War brings out the worst in people.  Revenge.  Birds of a different feather can definitely flock together.  The lines between good and bad are very subjective.  Classic anti hero.  Still waters run deep.  Don't judge a book by it's cover.

Friday the 13th - Revenge.  Insanity.  Everything is not as it seems.  We reap what we sough, and pay the price for those who walked before us.

True Romance - True love can conquer all.  Don't judge a book by it's cover.  Good vs. evil...sometimes the lines are blurred.

Scream - Not really sure...

Hostel - Survival horror.  Classic fish out of water theme.  Be careful what you wish for.  Don't judge a book by it's cover.  Evil is real and comes in all shapes and forms.

Eden Lake - Survival horror.  Evil is real and comes in all shapes and forms.  Don't underestimate your adversary.  Family is everything.

Hope that makes sense, otherwise, as I said earlier, i guess I really don't understand what theme is, even though I'm an English major with a 4.0 in all my Major classes in college...but...yes...that was a long time ago.

Maybe a part of the issue here is definitional clarity.  What exactly is theme to you?

Here is the definition of theme from a textbook on essays about literature.

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

That is essentially the way that I see theme.  A literary text, or a film, is a persuasive argument serving a central thesis that is of general importance.

To the above I would add that the theme should be "strong".  What I mean by this is that it should take a strong stance on the issue it raises.

So, for example, my revised statement of theme for Black Swan would be that spiritual transcendence in art has been bastardized by the imposition of a rigid, corrupt hierarchical structure and that in order to achieve physical transcendence to fame and recognition in today's society, artists must abandon any hope of spiritual transcendence, ultimately dooming themselves to unfulfilled lives.

"Spiritual transcendence", "corrupt hierarchies", "fame and recognition", and so on, are not themes in themselves.  A theme is a thesis.  A theme is an argument.

That's the way I see things.  How does this fit, or differ, with everyone else's views?

I think you're right, Chris, in that the definition is what's creating so many problems.

I see theme as a universal "thing" that is brought about by plot, story, action, and dialogue. It is universal, always there, and open to interpretation. It can vary, based on how deep or how hard one tries to find it associate it with whatever is being analyzed.
I don't see it how it influences one's like, dislike, or whatever feelings one has, for a certain work of art, literature, or film.

I just don't and I feel inadequate because of it. I really do, but all these different viewpoints aren't really helping me "see it"...or more importantly "care about it".

Maybe because most of the films I enjoy are what you call "lesser" pictures, dealing with pure visual entertainment.

I don't know and I apologize for being stupid.

I think what's confusing in this discussion is that there's more than one type of theme being talked about here. Theme can mean a varying degree of things to a screen-writer or film-maker.

There is a single theme, your central theme which is sort of what the movie is about, why it exists.  You kind of need this theme so that the audience feels your movie means something.   The success of a movie usually is proportional to how strongly you present your central theme, how clear it comes through, how relatable it is to the audience (in a perfect world).  The Exorcist: Good vs Evil.

Then there's supporting themes.  They shouldn't overshadow your central theme, remember you want your central theme to be clear. There can be many of these supporting themes in a film.  The Exorcist: Dealing with Guilt.  Science vs spirituality.

Then there can be stylistic themes in a movie as well.   This is setting your movie at Christmas or on Halloween.  Using the colour blue often. They might or might not be related to what the movie is about but they are themes.   No one has really mentioned them yet but I figured I would bring them up anyway.

Hey Jeff,

What do you think about the definition of theme I have stated above? If you were to define theme that way, would it encompass something you care about?

Chris, for me, the theme, so to speak, is unimportant. It's the execution, the production value, the writing, the actions, reactions, dialogue, and characters that either make or break a film.  It's the attention to detail that separates the cream from the crap.

For instance, let's say there has been at least 500 different TCM based movies, 500 Alien based movies, 250 Scream based movies, and another 250 Hostel based movies.

The themes are all the same. The plots are nearly all the same.

It's what differs that either makes or breaks each film.

I watch a lot of low budget, DTV type stuff, and most of them are God awful, and it comes down to the writing...the plotting...the setup, the characters...the dialogue...and of course the action and reactions of the characters.  Budget comes into play in terms of production value and execution, but there are many very low budget flicks that totally work, based on the above.

It doesn't have to be horror either.  The same is true with all genres.

You know, when something is "good" and also has a "good" theme involved, more power to it, but IMO, it doesn't really matter and is far down the list of what makes a good film or script.

I think everyone's not talking about the same sort of movies.

Dreamscale is talking about Michael Bay.

Heretic is talking about Kubrick.

And I don't mean they are literally talking about those people.

While films do exists for pure entertainment purposes (Dreamscale), they only truly impact their audience or leave a lasting impression if they have a strong theme (Heretic).

The former is more likely to make money, the latter more likely to get acclaim.

But if you want to write a film that's going to last forever, it needs a strong theme, it needs to affect people.

How many people are going to be watching Transformers 100 years from now?  Probably a great deal fewer than those who are going to be watching Clockwork Orange with it's strong theme about free-will?  More people will probably still be watching City Lights, even though it's a silent film, but it's has a strong effective theme about what we'll do for love.  City Lights was made in the 1930s and it's still cited today as one of the best examples of screenwriting.  Do you think they'll be saying that about Transformers? No it will be forgotten.

As will most of the other movies mentioned in the list above.

But I have to admit if money is your only measure of success then a theme is not important.  Even Tim Burton said as much when he made his first Batman movie.

There are only five elements to a story:

Character, setting, conflict, plot and theme. Lose any of them and you don't have much of a story.

Character: Who is in it.
Setting: Where it takes place
Conflict: A struggle between two people or things
Plot: What happens
Theme: What the point is. What is the underlying message of the work as a whole? What are you trying to say?

The message may be about life, society, or human nature. Themes often explore timeless and universal ideas and are almost always implied rather than stated explicitly.

Let's take a popular film that's not particularly high brow but with a strong theme:

Ghost.

A love story/thriller about a guy who has been murdered and is trying to save his wife who is still alive from the advances of the murderer.

The overriding theme may be something like: True Love can conquer even death.

This kind of story is timeless. It impacts emotionally with the love story, it has the conflict with the murderer giving it good pacing and interest, then it has the spiritual theme on top...answering questions about life and death. People leave the cinema feeling great...all is right with the world.

"Another approach to literature stresses that idea, message, and moral are abstractions and that fiction makes the idea concrete through action. In this view many themes exist in any given story but that what gives a story unity is one action of the human condition that is rendered through the various actions of the characters in the story."

In other words, in almost all professional stories, the characters represent certain aspects of a question.

For instance in the Terminator the central question is: Will technology make humans obsolete? Will the robots destroy humanity?

The Terminator character is the argument that it will. It's faster, stronger, more intelligent. It doesn't sleep, it never stops, it has no emotion, it can't be reasoned with.

The other side is that no, it won't...Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese (however you spell it). They offer the argument that humans have something that can overcome machines...love and self-sacrifice.

The film ends with the humans winning.

The overriding message (ie the theme) of the Terminator is that technology will not make humans obsolete because of the strength of the human spirit. Our capacity to love will prove stronger than emotionless machines, no matter how powerful they are.

Terminator 2 changes that:

The theme is explicity stated: "If a Terminator, a machine built for killing, can learn the value of human life....then maybe we can too".

The film is about the value of human life. Sarah Connor has to learn it...she has to be stopped from killing the inventor. She's spent so long preparing for war, she's lost her humanity and has to relearn it.

John Connor spends the whole film teaching Arnie how to be "human" and stops him killing. "You can't just kill people!"..."Why?. At the end the Terminator tells him that he now knows why humans cry. He has become human, he understands the value of human life.

Every character, every scene, every piece of plot builds to that point. Even the minor ones like the inventor...he agrees to destroy his life's work to save human life...even when he's been shot by the cops..he holds on to the detonator to give them time to leave.

All roads lead to the same point: The theme: The value of human life.

The importance of it is that it creates a story out of plot. Imagine you took all the thematic elements away...John no longer teaches Arnie to be human. No-one tries to stop Sarah killing people. Arnie doesn't say his emotional words at the end. All the story disappears and you just have plot.

It just becomes a film about two robots trying to kill each other for no real reason. Everything that made it a great film disappears.

And that...as I frequently say...is the single biggest difference between pro writers and non-pro writers. Pros construct focused scripts that have themes, pre-pro ones seem like everything is happening at random. There's no unifying meaning..which renders them meaningless...and usually incomprehensible.

When I was in high school(early 80s) the elite crowd, the jocks and the beautiful people, and the rich kids, listened to what was called Top 40. These hits included all the dance music at the time, and this was right before MTV.

Me and my friends listened to rock: Led Zep, Springsteen, the Doors. We told ourselves our music had more depth, more meaning, and the other music was fluff, valueless.

I now understand much better what was going on. Whether the music we listened to actually had depth or meaning was irrelevant, because we weren't musicians and were not the least bit capable of understanding it anyway. We needed that music for other reasons. We needed to be able to say to ourselves that our music was superior, and therefore the elites were shallow.

If I had my mailman transcribe the key moments in his day for a week, and I filmed it, there would be thematic elements. Maybe a woman on his route flirts with him, tempting him to cheat on his wife. Maybe he knows of another mailman who sleeps in his truck: duty vs loyalty. Maybe he fudges his overtime hours: integrity. Maybe there's a house with a nasty dog: courage, perseverance.

Would my film be thematic?

If my neighbor is a cop, and I do the same, I might end up with even more thematic elements, certainly more interesting ones. But is my movie thematic?

In 1917, Winston Churchill left his position as head of the Admiralty in England in disgrace and joined the war in the trenches in France. If I took his diaries concerning the first week of this experience, we would meet many fascinating characters, and encounter abundant themes. Would it be thematic even though it's just a recreation of his diaries?

I don't have the answer to these questions. Whatever working definition you want to go with, I would say that if it applies to pretty much any movie, it's really not any use. Chris, your definition works when you describe theme as an argument, though I'm not saying that's the only way of looking at it. But yes, that works. The director has a main point, an argument, he wants to make, and the purpose of this film is to shape that argument. And it's ok that the theme is revealed at the end, as long as the rest of the film is designed to help make that argument.

It seems it should also be fair to call a movie thematic if it is carefully and deliberately, and powerfully, exploring various themes. Perhaps it is waging an argument.

A final question: is a movie thematic if the director is not consciously dealing with theme, whether as an overriding argument or as an exploration? Considering the Stephen King quote above, and the Sorkin one, that's a fair question.

Look at the movie JFK. The movie is extremely thematic. Stone is trying to hammer home a point for the whole movie, not just about who, but about what forces in our society killed the President. He could have dealt with the same subject, and also drawn the same conclusion about Oswald, but made the film without the thematic argument. It still would have been filled with the same thematic elements, but would not have been thematic without the argument.

The example I gave above about creating a film about my cop neighbor could be similar. Maybe he deals with corruption and organized crime, and a bunch of other issues. Perhaps there are some really unique, interesting characters in his life. And maybe I do I great job simply recreating all of that in film. Is my movie thematic, even though there was no intent on my part for it to be so? If when I'm almost done the film, I start to see what could be a theme, and I add a few more details to the film to flesh it out, does it now become thematic?

Just questions. Thanks!

You've chosen certain elements of their lives to present to people. Why did you choose those certain elements? Why have you presented them in that order? What is it that you're trying to say about the human condition, the nature of society?

In your milkman example, without realising it perhaps, you are investigating issues of loyalty. To the wife, to the friend, to the company he works for. All the episodes are related. You are testing the limits of loyalty to different things.

The Churchill example...you have to start it and end it somewhere. You say he left in disgrace..that's the starting point. You already seem to be building to a story of redemption. We know who Churchill is, and what he did. However you present him will reveal a theme.

As for the Director part...it's almost impossible to direct a film without having an overriding vision. That's pretty much the point of a director...to direct people's creative energies to a vision.

That vision is heavily influenced by theme. The colour scheme, the set design, the costumes, the performances, lens choice, shot choice....they are all influenced by what the film is ultimately about...what you are trying to say.

You choose to shoot wide for the whole film...you are distancing yourself emotionally from the action. Themes of isolation, the meaninglessness of man..etc

My main question remains, let me rephrase it: Is it even possible for a movie to not be thematic? It seems to me that is the position you are taking.

It's not that this position is wrong, the question is whether it's helpful. And that was really the gist of my point. One is going to explore themes, accidentally, unconsciously, no matter what in a film. It's unavoidable. Even a surveillance camera does that.

In the mailman example, they were not all related. There was the issue of the dangerous dog. And loyalty and duty are not the same thing. Plus, these are things that happen daily in people's lives. Doesn't make those lives thematic. Of course, with a wide definition of thematic, every life is, but what's the point of that definition? It does not further discussion if it applies to everything.

Churchill left in disgrace, but his service in the trenches had nothing to do with redemption. The disgrace was largely unfair and political. Redemption would not come until WW II. But again, not really the issue. You are tying those things together, not the director.

One can read patterns into anything. That's human nature. It's how we understand the world. Sometimes those patterns are not really there, like when we imagine a face on Mars.

In the mailman example, I chose examples that might be seen as thematic. But in the film, I would be shooting every entry in his diary. So it's what he found important enough to enter. If he listed what he had for breakfast, I'll shoot that too. The point was that even if I just robotically recreate his week, as listed in his diary, I will create thematic content.

I think perhaps there is a role for considering how a director could be subconsciously creating theme in a film. That's evident in King's quote, when he refers to the theme emerging after the initial phase of story creation. Nevertheless, I don't think it's particularly useful to pluck random bits of information and combine them into a pattern and call it thematic. In the end, unless we are going to just say all movies are thematic, just like all movies are visual, we need a more refined definition of what thematic means.

I think Rick answers your question above with his discussion of Terminator, Kev.

The reason that theme is important is because it tells us what should be in a film and what shouldn't.  Terminator 2 is one of the all-time great sci-fi action films, and it's for the reasons Rick describes above.  Transformers is not, and it's because it doesn't work the same way as Terminator 2 does; the characters don't mean anything, the plot does whatever it wants, and so on, with nothing to guide it.  It meanders.  It's formless.  It sucks.

That is why theme is not just helpful but entirely necessary.  Of course, I'm using my definition of theme.

Is it possible for a film to not be thematic?  Yes.  Transformers: Dark of the Moon is not thematic.  Individual scenes might have random themes in them, but there is nothing cohesive; the film is aimed at nothing.  That is the main reason that it is such an uninteresting film, and T2 is such an interesting one.  Even though they're both silly Hollywood blockbusters.

...I need your clothes, your boots, and your motorcycle.

We continue to skirt around various questions and issues, regarding this all important theme.

Kevin's point is very clear in my mind and very relevant...and needs to be addressed exactly as it's being asked, not skirted around and not by using other examples.

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.

The examples (for the most part) that you guys keep throwing out, are all plot and story  based examples of what a theme is and why it's there in that particular film or script.

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.

BTW, 2 things I need to bring up...

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.

My definition of a thematic movie is actually much closer to yours, Chris, than Rick's is. Where you and I differ is not on the definition but whether theme is critical for a great movie.

My definition, pulled from the dictionary, looks at a unifying premise or current within the various thematic elements within the story. You have defined it as an argument by the director which the force of the narrative, the sum of the thematic elements, adds up to. I think ours is similar perhaps even the same.

It seems to me Rick would say a story that has strong thematic elements is thematic. It doesn't matter if the director ties them together into an argument, or even whether the director was conscious of them. I'm not saying Rick's wrong, but it's not what you have been saying at all.

I agree with what you just said: "The reason that theme is important is because it tells us what should be in a film and what shouldn't."

Or at least I agree that's what theme does. It guides the director in order to create the argument you have referred to.

Fantastic.

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.

Older gangster films always tended to make an argument. So they never really capture the appeal of the gangster life along with the pitfalls. And the characters have less depth, because they are pieces to an argument.

Do you see what I am saying?

To be honest, if Rick's position is that Goodfellas is thematic because it so strongly explores certain themes, I can embrace it. I really can. But understand that that is not consistent with your definition of theme being about an argument the director is trying to make. It is also not consistent with my conception of theme being a unifying element.

And as I said, when producers are looking for a beat sheet, and they look for a theme, they are looking at theme in a way that is more similar to how you and I are seeing it. As a unifying element or argument.

So where you and I differ, Chris, is that I think sometimes if a movie makes an argument, that inhibits other aspects of the movie. Sometimes. And sometimes it makes the movie stronger. Goodfellas and Pulp Fiction, to me, are movies that don't make an argument, and are better for them. The result is richer characters, deeper explorations into human nature.

Using the definition of thematic in its original sense, rather than the one you've created for yourself, ie relating to theme:

Almost everything but the simplest of plots will have some thematic element.

The difference is the lack of an overriding, unifying theme that brings meaning to all those thematic elements and gives the work a point and a purpose.

We're essentially back to square one.

Like Heretic says..the Terminator 2 example is very clear to me. You work out what the story you are tryng to tell is about, then you get rid of the stuff that contradicts or deviates from it.

With your milkman example...you are going to film the diary of his week.

Why?

What attracts you to the story? What is it in this diary that interests you so much that you feel you need to present that story to the world? What does it say about the human condition that you feel needs to be communicated to others?

Going back to what I said before about Entertainment and Art...this Week in a Milkman's Life is hardly high concept, blockbuster stuff...the crowds aren't likely to be lining up round the block based on the premise.

It's an abstract, arty type piece. The ONLY thing that will save it is if it has very strong themes and you can shine a light on some part of the human condition in a very interesting way.

"If I had my mailman transcribe the key moments in his day for a week, and I filmed it, there would be thematic elements. Maybe a woman on his route flirts with him, tempting him to cheat on his wife. Maybe he knows of another mailman who sleeps in his truck: duty vs loyalty. Maybe he fudges his overtime hours: integrity. Maybe there's a house with a nasty dog: courage, perseverance." - Kevin

"In your (mailman) example, without realising it perhaps, you are investigating issues of loyalty. To the wife, to the friend, to the company he works for. All the episodes are related. You are testing the limits of loyalty to different things."--Rick

See how easy it is? Rick left out from my narrative the example of the fudging overtime and the dog, and was able to tie this all together as having a common "theme" of loyalty. But there was no attempt on part to create such a "theme".
There's a natural tendency for us to want to connect dots, but sometimes the pattern is not really there, but is in the eye of the observer.

Of course, sometimes the pattern is there, and it takes a more practiced eye, as Rick's eye is, to see them. No doubt he will see many things in a film I can't. And I am always interested to hear these observations. I am fascinated by theme, how it's used. At the same time, I think it's value is weighed more heavily by those who are looking really hard for it.

Mine and Heretic's definition is the same.

Goodfella's absolutely DOES present an argument about gangster life.

The title alone says it all:

Goodfellas

Goodfellas?

Is the mafia life, good or bad?

The unifying theme is that it is both attractive AND destructive at the same time.

That's his conclusion. It's an honest one, which is why the film is probably the best of its kind.

Quoted from Dreamscale

Theme is obviously created by plot etc...it is one of the five integral parts of a story.

Theme also helps you to create the plot and characters.

Look at what Stephen King says. You write it...work out what it was you were actually trying to say (ie work out the theme) then go back and change your script so it fits in with the theme better.

That's why the best pro scripts are so far removed from pre-pro ones...because they are focused and the writers go back through their work and change things to tell a cohesive story with a unified theme.

Quoted from leitskev

I didn't leave anything out.

Loyalty:

To the company...he will risk his personal safety to deliver the milk. Loyalty to company over self.

He will ignore his friend breaking the rules of the company. Loyalty to friend over company.

He will ignore the flirting and stay loyal to his wife.

He will steal from the company. Disloyal regarding money towards the company.

So we know that this guy takes personal loyalty very highly.

He prioritises his loyalty to the company over his own health.

Despite this he will steal from the company.

What does all this say about him..and about the human condition? That's the theme.

Actually..what we can tell about him is that he needs money. He'll risk his health for money, and will risk his integrity for money, but he's loyal on a personal level.

Is that the story we are trying to tell? If so, great, we just tighten it up...if that's not what we're trying to get across we change some of the situations, thematic elements around to make it more clear.

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.

You left out the dog, twice now. And the issue with fudging his overtime hours is one of integrity. It could be stretched to include loyalty, like a lot of things, but I mentioned integrity in my original post, so I assume that's what I had in mind.

Evidence: Top of page three.

I'm not being disrespectful in any way...you just tried to come up with your own definition of thematic films and anti-thematic films.

Concepts that are your own creation. Does the word anti-thematic even exist?

You're trying to argue that something can have themes, but not be thematic.

It's an oxymoron. It makes no sense.

The word thematic means relating to theme.

Quoted from leitskev

I've not left out the dog once, Kev.

It's the thing that's going to cause him potential harm.....

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films

That's why the best pro scripts are so far removed from pre-pro ones...

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.

Quoted from leitskev

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, 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

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   ;D ;D ;D).  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.

Print Topic