The Intention of a Movie

(Chapter 5 of the book Idealism: The Forgotten Principles of American Cinema)

I don't know about you, but I can usually predict whether or not I'm going to like a movie from the first few minutes of the screening, or even before, from the synopsis, the movie poster, the trailer, or perhaps because I'm familiar with the director. Of course, the movie can surprise us along the way, and what counts in the end are the qualities that the movie actually presents. Still, there is something we can grasp even before we get into the story, which defines our initial attitude towards the movie: whether we will watch it willingly, with a skeptical attitude, or in a state of resistance.

What we grasp at that first moment is the basic intention of the movie (or, to be more precise, the basic intention of the author). Regardless of the theme and genre of the film, an artist can approach his work from different attitudes. It's not because a story is tragic that the artist's intention is necessarily negative, and it's not because the movie is a comedy that the artist's intention is necessarily positive. It all depends on how the story is presented. In film, it's usually the director who will define this: the same script filmed by two different directors will ultimately carry the intention of each director, and not necessarily that of the script.

The most positive intention an artist can have, in the context of Idealism, is to entertain, give pleasure, promote happiness, inspire, create a positive experience for the viewer (through the projection of positive values), while at the same time conveying his vision and demonstrating his virtues through the work.

This establishes a relationship of harmony and mutual benefit between artist and spectator, as it implies that the artist did not do the work for inauthentic reasons, just to please the audience and make money, but out of the desire to express his vision, exercise his talents, and provide something that he would like to experience as a member of the audience. And the audience, in turn, doesn't have to sacrifice itself for the sake of the author, spending hours of boredom in a chair out of respect for "art". They go to see the movie for their own pleasure, for their genuine interest in the story, and, of course, part of their pleasure also comes from a sense of admiration for the author and his achievement, so that the pleasure on each side reinforces and feeds the pleasure on the other.

Below I'll list some of the most common intentions in films, separating the positive intentions from the negative ones.

The best intention is the one I've already explained above. But another positive intention is that of the Critical Idealists, who show negative situations, corrupt characters, not to celebrate them, but with the intention of criticizing, condemning them, showing the viewer how things should not be, what they should not do in life, but still with the intention of providing a positive experience, showing talent, esthetic beauty etc.

Now I'm going to list the negative intentions I most often see out there (or at least the insufficient, incomplete intentions, if they appear disconnected from the intentions above):

- Merely distract/entertain the audience (usually in pursuit of money and fame), copying formulas and trends of successful films (without this being an authentic expression of the author, nor with the intention of creating a lasting work of art), resorting to superficial techniques and taking advantage of the naivety and low standards of the average viewer.

- Show off the director's talents - skills that do not relate to the viewer's pleasure. It's the kind of movie that requires the viewer to give up their interests, to watch something they don't really like, just out of respect for the artist, for "culture".

- Educate, inform or raise awareness about historical events, some social issue or contemporary problem.

- Prove a political argument, express the author's political views or convert the audience to some ideology.

- Demonize some individual or social group that the author despises; create caricatures or a persuasive narrative to convince viewers how monstrous certain people are, reaffirming a hatred they already feel.

- Alleviate the viewer's pain or low self-esteem by exposing the flaws behind the heroes, turning successful people into villains, showing unhappy, problematic characters as victims.

- Express the fears and negative feelings of the author, who wants to convince the viewer that life is tragic, that the universe is hostile environment, that man is mediocre, corrupt, that virtues are an illusion, etc.

- Annoy, disturb, depress or bore the viewer, to force them to live through unpleasant experiences, face the negative side of existence, proving the author's "courage" and "maturity" for dealing bravely with such themes.

- Deconstruct the concept of art. Show that the author doesn't care about the audience, doesn't follow any rules, that he's not interested in showing objective virtues, and that he doesn't play the same "game" of established artists.

- Attack Idealism and its values.

Some of these attitudes are absolutely bad and never appropriate (like this last one), but some are acceptable, as long as they appear within the context of the positive intentions I listed at the beginning. It's okay, for example, for a movie to educate/inform the viewer on some subject, or even to express pessimistic opinions, as long as it does so by demonstrating talent, rationality, inspiring and providing esthetic pleasure to the audience, not as an end in itself.

INSPIRATION VS. COMFORT

Just like the two types of viewers I discussed in the chapter "What Is Idealism?", there are two corresponding types of films: films that seek to inspire the viewer vs. films that seek to comfort them. While the first type is motivated by the desire to make life richer, more interesting and enjoyable, the second is made to make it less painful. Whereas one type presupposes that the viewer is in a positive state of consciousness, wanting to enjoy life, the other presupposes that the viewer is in a state of fragility, inadequacy, denial, sadness, seeking some kind of solace, escape or rationalization. While one is like a feast offered to the healthy, the other is like a medicine or painkiller offered to the sickly.

There's nothing wrong with trying to alleviate a negative emotional state when the overall intention is to inspire virtue, happiness and create something positive. But if the main intention of the movie is just to alleviate a negative feeling, it will be incomplete - if not harmful. Incomplete, because if happiness is life's goal, merely alleviating suffering is not enough. And for the viewer who doesn't suffer from that particular frustration, the movie will have no emotional impact whatsoever (a medication has no benefit for those who aren't sick). Furthermore, the film can be harmful when what it seeks to alleviate is not just a common and acceptable human frailty, but frustrations resulting from self-destructive behavior - pain that the viewer should continue to feel if they truly want to get out of the situation.

Of course, it's not enough for a movie to have a positive intention for it to be good. The artist may be well-intentioned, but simply not skilled enough, or make mistakes along the way. But the best films will always be the result of a well-executed positive intention. On the other extreme, a movie with a totally negative attitude, even if it's very well made, cannot provide a good experience. On the contrary: the more well-made a movie with a negative intention is (the more impactful, persuasive, effective, ambitious), the worse the experience will be for the viewer (at least for the Idealist viewer) and the more damage it will do, because all that skill is being used against them. That's why, below a certain point, you can't give credit to a malicious movie even if it has certain esthetic qualities. To say that a movie has absolutely evil intent, but give it a few points for being well photographed, competently directed, would be as absurd as giving the Nazis a few points for the beautiful design of their uniforms and the effectiveness of the gas chambers.