These movies rather than telling a story; tell you what to think about a story. I think it's good to try to get across a message in a film, but when the director is too heavy handed in his or her approach, a movie can be ruined.

Movies in this category for me are:

Any Michael Moore film. Though I agree with many of his criticisms, his lack of objectivity hurts the credibility of his work.

"The Contender" Once again I agree with the message of the film, but the movie took away the possibility to really think about the subject by disguising itself as an action movie and then giving the moral right at the end. I concluded that the story wasn't important; rather it just had to add up to the ending. I hope the film had a positive effect on people that watched it, but I don't like the way it was constructed.

On the other hand there are movies that I think do an excellent job of getting a message across.

The ones I think of now are:

The insanity of war: "Apocalypse Now" is a well told story that allows one to ponder what war does to people.

Give peace a chance: "Ghandi" and "Hotel Rwanda" are both based on true stories and focus on the characters rather than trumpeting their beliefs.

Violence in our society: "Natural Born Killers" Although I didn't like the movie, it unlike Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" lets the viewer consider the reality of violence in the U.S.; rather than telling us exactly what we should think about it.

Those are the few I think of now.

Now I should get back to my paper due in the morning.

Something never fet right with the word preachy in the subject title and now I know why. I stumbled across the word 'pretentious' in one of mark f's posts about a movie and knew that was the word that I should have used for this thread.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nathan25,

Many movies have a purpose, meaning, intention, a message of some sort. Movies with political overtones are some of the more important movies - probably of most importance considering the underlying notion of the First Amendment to the Constitution and freedom of political expression.

Michael Moore's movies are documentary in format and necessarily are more focused on issues and persuasion. Just like a fine comedy or drama, sometimes a strong consistent theme, even a biased one is great for me...I don't really care about even handedness sometimes. Sometimes, I just want a nice inspirational movie to fire me up and make me feel good about my current beliefs. Sometimes I want a movie to bring it on! Bulworth (1998), for example, has that strong one-dimensionality to it.

I'm not saying that these movies shouldn't be made; rather that the power of the films are lost, at least for me, in the lack of objectivity of the work. Michael Moore like Rush Limbaugh is many times just preaching to the choir instead of making people think about where they stand on issues.

Conservatives dismiss Moore, probably the same way that liberals dismiss Limbaugh. On the other hand Moore shouldn't let what people think effect his work, and it obviously hasn't. I'd still like to see more efforts at working together than demonizing and drawing battle lines.

I thought the documentary "Control Room" was a very effective film. It showed a different perspective on the war in Iraq than Americans are used to seeing. How do people in the Middle East perceive what is going on in Iraq and how does that compare to how Americans have perceived the war. And also how are Americans and Arabs influenced by the way the media portrays the war.

Maybe I'm missing the boat in picking on Moore. I'll just say that I don't particularly like his inflammatory style. Perhaps its just a personality difference.

Crash (2005)
This film has way too many plot devices (that don't work) to get the effect the writer/director was going for. When a writer has to rely on coincidences to get a point across, it's hard to take the film seriously.

I liked Crash, but I agree there were a lot of unlikely coincidences. I thought the characters were well developed and that helped me to look past the improbability of the story. The movie has also led to some good discussions about racism.

I should say in my first post I was reflecting on the movie The Interpreter not The Contender.

Nathan25's problems with The Interpreter (2005) is fascinating in that this same movie has been been critized for its avoidance of having a strong political message by selecting a fictitious country instead of the many real countries available in Africa to select from. Sometimes, it the politically correct movies, the movies that avoid a strong bent in order to sell tickets that make movies more bland, mainstream, devoid of real content.

The Interpreter interestingly for me was one film that loved when I first saw it and then became disappointed when I saw it again. The first viewing was deliciously mysterious as a tension packed thriller. The second viewing however was a more unmasked thriller without real content. For me The Interpreter relied on its mystery for its great impact, but because it didn't contain a substantive plot, its initial appeal was lost on me.

If the The Interpreter had a point to make I don't like the way it did it. If the movie wasn't trying to make a point than it's just an average action/mystery film.

I thought the point/moral of the movie was that we don't have to respond with violence even when we feel justified. I think that is a very good point to make, but I don't like that the film tried to mimic other action flicks to do that. I didn't feel like the characters had much depth as they were just filling space until the grand finale.

I guess I'm hard on it, because of the importance of its message. I thought it was condescending like a sunday school teacher that tries to make Bible stories fun for kids by using puppets.

O.K. maybe I totally misread the film, but that's the way I see it now.

My point in bringing up The Interpreter is that I didn't find this movie to really qualify as a preachy movie to be used as an example on this thread. The movie really was more focused on the mystery/action plot rather than any message. The plot was more a vehicle for the movie to be produced as well as shot at the United Nations (a theatrical first).

If there were to be any message or preaching, it could be derived as being something like it's difficult to know who in any particular country who is good or bad and that even the good guys can easily become bad guys. I still feel that all this message stuff was backdrop for the movie and wasn't really intended to be the main point of the movie.

I think you're right. It is in a different category than Michael Moore's films. I guess I just have a pet peeve with the movie and was looking for a good place to rant on it.

I still have a question as to the motives behind it.

Oh well... I can't think of anymore preachy movies right now.

I thought "The Phantom of Liberty" by Luis Bunuel was a bit of a preachy film. If it is not preachy then it is definitely annoying.

There were a few really well done scenes. The one that comes to mind is the monks at the hotel opening and closing doors frequently.

Most of the film however, in my opinion, is a poorly done critique of something, probably democracy in Europe and the U.S. I admit that a lot of the film went over my head, but the script of the movie seemed to be one spoof after another.

Ebert explained that he doesn't think comedy is a person wearing a funny hat; instead comedy is the reason why the person is wearing the funny hat. This movie I think many times went for the "what" instead of the more in depth "why" and that is why I didn't like it so much.

I guess the film was supposed to be an intelligent film where the people who watch it already know the "why" can heartily laugh at the "what". Well I rarely heartily laughed in the movie so I felt that I was being preached at by a director telling me what I should laugh at. All I ask is for Bunuel to first tell me why I should laugh.

quote:

Ebert explained that he doesn't think comedy is a person wearing a funny hat; instead comedy is the reason why the person is wearing the funny hat. This movie I think many times went for the "what" instead of the more in depth "why" and that is why I didn't like it so much.

Good quote, and I think it speaks to the criticisms of say, people like Michael Moore. The people who like Michael Moore's work already "get it," in other words, they already know the "why"--it's the "what" that's so entertaining. People that don't know the "why" and, by nature, probably aren't even capable of exploring it are watching Fox News.

Amistad was very preachy, and kinda pathetic too because it neglects the fact that the slave who was defended went on to own slaves in Africa himself.

The Constant Gardener is over 2 and a half hours of preaching about the evil, greedy billion dollar pharmaceutacal companies killing dispensible Africans with untested drugs to drum up large profits. VERY BORING, funny how the critcs liked it so much.May be the critics have been payed off by the anti pharmacuetacal brigade! Now there's a conspiracy movie for you!

I haven't seen The Constant Gardener yet. However, I heard good things about it till your post. It's based on a novel by John Le Carre and the director of the movie also directed City of God a few years back. I don't specifically know about the pharmaceutical industry, but I do know that big business has taken advantage of poorer nations where they can hold political sway.

As for Amistad, if the message was slavery is a sick, sick thing, then it doesn't matter what happens after the movie ends.

I agree with Spike Lee that the movie was more a courtroom drama focusing on white men than on the plight of the slaves. The climax had John Quincy Adams as the hero and the movie was directed by a white man (Spielberg). So there was sort of a story of white people having sympathy on Africans; rather than a story about Africans and African-Americans from their perspective. That's one reason why I think that Spike Lee's "Malcolm X" is such a powerful movie. It is much more authentic to the African-American perspective.

The political slant of a movie makes no difference to me to whether a movie is preachy or not. A preachy movie for me is one that gives one option of truth and no consideration for people with differing opinions. I admit that Michael Moore's ability to shame companies has led to good change. Where there isn't justice it is important for someone to work for social change. Maybe if he was more laid back companies wouldn't have changed their policies.

I just know that he is pretty much either hated or loved and those who hate him probably aren't going to consider anything he says worthwhile. I think of myself as a liberal, but I don't confine myself to standing up for everything with a liberal badge on it.

The Constant Gardener has got good reviews from the critics ,they scored it 8.2 in Metacritic but it only got 6.4 by the viewers.
That's one of the highest margins I've seen on Metacritic in terms of the viewers scoring it much lower than the critics.
Some viewers liked it but a large number thought
like I did it, pretty boring, and it left you
emotionally detached and indifferent to the political message of the film.My full review has not appeared yet on Metacritic, hopefully it will appear in a few days, but in it I point out that any average TV documentary could do a better job of getting you emotionally involved.
It's definitley overated, don't believe the hype!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: The Editor,

Sometimes the value of a movie is its contents not its popularity. Perhaps it is the audience who doesn't like the message of a preachy movie that is at fault, but that doesn't make the movie bad. This says more about the viewer than it does the director or producer of the movie. Good Night, and Good Luck (2005) can be seen as a preachy movie that is politically correct nowadays unless one began to find analogies to today's Bush Administration and the war in Iraq and then perhaps this preachy movie could be considered something one would begin to dislike and rate as bad. It's important to distinquish between the process and content of a movie, between preachy and just plain bad. A preachy movies doesn't necessarily mean bad movie, but it raises the stakes that more people will have problems with it than a movie designed just to entertain.

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
Sometimes the value of a movie is its contents not its popularity. Perhaps it is the audience who doesn't like the message of a preachy movie that is at fault, but that doesn't make the movie bad. This says more about the viewer than it does the director or producer of the movie.

I hear what your saying tabuno, but in the case
of The Constant Gardener as well as trying to preach it a is also a bad movie!
Without the preaching you are still left with a film that wallows in it's own self importance but is based around a thin plot that has so many
improbabilities that you really can't take the message seriously. Allied to a film full of typical stereotypes, slow pacing and lack of screen chemistry between Fiennes and Weisz and emotionally unengaging. A good film should draw you in so that you feel the emotions of the characters, this one fails spectacularly.
I challenge anyone to go and see this film without yawning at some point!

quote:

The Editor posted:

I hear what your saying tabuno, but in the case
of The Constant Gardener as well as trying to preach it a is also a bad movie!
Without the preaching you are still left with a film that wallows in it's own self importance but is based around a thin plot that has so many
improbabilities that you really can't take the message seriously. Allied to a film full of typical stereotypes, slow pacing and lack of screen chemistry between Fiennes and Weisz and emotionally unengaging. A good film should draw you in so that you feel the emotions of the characters, this one fails spectacularly.
I challenge anyone to go and see this film without yawning at some point!

I have to admit that your commentary is excellent and tightly descriptive and you have made a good argument. Ironically, it was just because The Constant Gardener was billed as so preachy that I decided not to go see it even though I believe there is some truth to the basic premise of the the movie. I didn't want to get any more depressed than I already am with the state of affairs in this country and around the world.

quote:

Originally posted by Nathan25:
I liked Crash, but I agree there were a lot of unlikely coincidences. I thought the characters were well developed and that helped me to look past the improbability of the story. The movie has also led to some good discussions about racism.

I should say in my first post I was reflecting on the movie The Interpreter not The Contender.

My favorite movie of last year, "I <3 Huckabees" was labeled in my friends group as "preachy". Although I agree, I felt the "preachiness" added to the humor. As for "Crash"-- I was really hoping for a fantastic movie, but it was only 10 minutes in when I was met wth a half dozen dumb, broad, obvious storylines. For me, it was the epitome of "preachiness". Fortunately, I sat through it, and was won over by some of its less contrived storylines, but I missed the almost-religious experience that so many people experienced. I think if Haggis had toned down the beginning with less "YOURE BLACK! AND IM RACIST" type dialogue and created characters that transcended archetypes (the misunderstood black man; the misunderstood black youth) the emotional payoff would be greater and it wouldnt have any of the "Preach-factor".