The Art of Crafting a Message Film

With every medium, art, or craft, there is a method to doing it well.  A layman may know the basics to a field such as filmmaking or writing, but to do it and do it well is another story entirely.  So today will be a discussion over a rather relevant topic: the method of putting ideas and concepts in entertainment.

There has been a large push in recent years to increase the number of political concepts and norms in pop entertainment.  From press narratives on the importance behind an upcoming film to defenses of entertainment based on the ideas of the piece, there is no denying that Hollywood is pushing to increase the discussions on relevant concepts in our media. And this is always met with backlash, derision, and loss of audience interest.  This is an abnormally common occurrence it seems.

Some may argue that this may be a sign that audiences are opposed to the messages in entertainment, but the truth is most Americans are apathetic to politics as opposed to particularly invested.  So why then is there so much backlash to the politicization of current media?  Well, to answer that, one would need to look at the nature of communication.

There are two important schools of thought on the importance of communication: looking THROUGH communication, and looking AT communication.  The concept of looking through communication is based on the belief that the primary importance of communication is to transmit an independent idea free from the medium that transmit it.  The use of language or other parts of a medium is secondary from the transmission of an idea as that must take priority.  This is why Plato hated rhetoric as he believed that it would obfuscate the actual goal of the speaker or manipulate the audience.

Looking at communication, however, was instead the idea that the medium was a part of, if not equal to, the message itself when communicating.  As brought up by Richard Lanham, the mere choosing of wording or style can change the conveyance or intent of a message.  Every bit that makes up a medium of communication, including the choice of medium itself, is important in how that message is communicated.  Therefore, there is no message without the medium of communication itself.

Just about anyone in communication will say that the medium and method is just as important to reaching people as is the message itself.  For example, many in campaigning have said that billboards and signs do little while phone calls, mailers and door knocking actually connect with people.  So when one seeks to communicate any message, following the rules of the medium are important when seeking to use it to craft a message.

When one makes a film then, the focus on filmmaking must come first before using it to tell a message.  One must follow the rules of the medium, such as “conflict is the heart of the story,” and “you admire a character more for trying than their successes.”  If the message comes at odds with the story, then bending the story to please the message does not better communicate it, it just weakens the film.  This is why message films often fail: because a bad or mediocre film leaves no impression.

A good example of this would be the problem christian films.  Often these movies are very poor in terms of film quality and not well received by critics or general audiences.  There are certainly exceptions, but often they fail specifically because they focus more on the message than actually telling a good story.

For instance, the movie “God’s Not Dead” is a perfect representation of failures of looking through communication.  The christian hero is specifically designed to act absolutely perfect while the atheist villain is as moral as Hannibal Lecter to drive the point that christians are noble, atheists are evil, and that the former will triumph over the alleged threat they impose.  He and the rest of the christians are going to win because they are noble while their enemies, though seemingly more powerful, are evil.

At face value, this can be extremely insulting because the message oversimplifies actual struggle in a cultural war.  In addition, no christian is actually perfect (Romans 3:23), so it is hard to relate to a character that lacks any level of imperfection.  The characters as a result are not real characters like an actual movie would have, but instead lifeless tools designed to represent whatever is needed.  As a result, the film is no longer a film but instead a sermon designed to sell an idea.  Even if one agrees with the message of the film, the sloppy attempts at storytelling will alienate potentially interested individuals or supporters which makes any intent pointless.

Compare that to a decent christian film like “I Still Believe.”  Though the pacing and the dialogue can be clunky, the story is built around a man dealing with the death of his wife and coming to grips with it through his belief in God.  The message flows naturally from the story which is why the message does not feel forced or like it bends the film around it.

So that is the key to producing good content.  It must follow the rules of filmmaking and storytelling while the message must flow naturally from the struggle.  If it fails to do this, it will fail to interest the particularly interested and possibly make the message look bad.  Therefore, one should always keep the rules of filmmaking and storytelling at heart when making a film and never bend it to justify an alleged message.

Crafting a story that can promote a message is a hard process that is rarely commercially successful.  If entertainment truly wants to be entertainment, it must focus on good storytelling and filmmaking first, and all else second.  If it does not, then it will continue to divide and fail to resonate.

Some Random Thoughts on Donald Duck: Goin' Quackers

So, after watching YouTuber Caddicarus, I purchased and played Donald Duck: Goin’ Quackers for the N64.  An unsurprisingly lesser known entry in Ubisoft’s history, I was fascinated by the game and thought I would add my thoughts on the game as well.  I will admit, however, that I will only be parroting a decent number of points he made so instead of doing a review, I’m just going to say whatever came to mind while playing.

For starters, the game really is a ripoff of Crash Bandicoot.  The control scheme, level layout, and goals are representative of what one would expect from a N64 port of Crash Bandicoot.  There are even time trials for those who want a 100% score, something synonymous with Crash 3.  Partner that with running from oncoming objects such as bears and trucks instead of boulders, the game clearly takes inspiration from Crash Bandicoot.

However, the game is clearly aimed at a younger demographic than Crash, so the levels are shorter and there are fewer if you do not want to 100% the game.  The only actual increase in challenge is that the tokens needed to get to the boss battle are at times harder to find than the crystals.  There are cosmetic differences, though few of those are an improvement.

Also, the story does not matter in this game.  Yes, Donald Duck has to go save Daisy who has been kidnapped, but that is as standard a game origin as one can get.  So realistically, the game lives and dies by its gameplay.

Nevertheless, I still found the game surprisingly fun to play.  It does follow the Crash formula pretty well, the gameplay is simple and fun, and there are enough elements like collecting toys or time trials that justify replay if you are a completionist.  So despite those criticisms, it does accomplish exactly what it sets out to do.

The more fascinating realization is that it is actually a better Crash game than some of the following ones.  Crash 4 failed to follow up the original by trying to increase the variety of gameplay  and widening the levels, while after that the series tried to try a new formula that worked for some and not for others but was a departure from the original formula.  So Donald Duck: Goin’ Quackers is a surprisingly better Crash 4 than Wrath of Cortex.

At the end of the day, the game is a pretty decent platformer.  It was fun to go throw and I can see myself playing it again, but will admit that if a Donald Duck rip-off of a beloved platformer does not immediately interest you like it did me (I am weird), then there is not a reason to go out and buy it.  Still, I thought it deserved some attention.

All the same, it is interesting to see what used to exist in far more successful companies used to make earlier on in their careers.  Nowadays Ubisoft makes Assassins Creed, Far Cry, and the Tom Clancy games among others, but they used to make licensed games as well that were pretty decent.  This does show where a company can go when given enough time and effort.