ITT: Style over substance

>letterboxd.com/blanchedubois/film/the-neon-demon/1/

How so?

>Le Amiche goes deeper than Sex in the City. (For instance, Rossi Drago laments her ghetto background). Its profundity preserves the era of Schiaparelli, Dior, and Givenchy, never resorting to horror movie vulgarity. Antonioni knew what Hollywood’s butch-styled genius designer Edith Head knew when she remarked “Fashion is character.” But The Neon Demon cheapens fashion and femininity. Remember how Pauline Kael threw shade at Mike Nichols’ Carnal Knowledge: “It’s like a neon sign spelling out the soullessness of neon.”

Reading that review was the moment I realized the letterboxd community is complete cancer.

Is there a point in the review where he makes an argument?

...

It's just a verbose way to say "style without substance".

>Is there a point in the review where he dumbs his argument down enough for me to understand what is being said?
No probably not

So pretentious in addition to being meaningless. A twofer.

The camera loves Jena Malone.

There is not a single argument in that paragraph.The closest he gets is "The Neon Demon cheapens fashion and femininity" and implying that the movie is soulless.

None of these are arguments, they're statements without any argumentation behind them.

You're welcome to point out the part where he makes an argument.

>Movie that is a critic on how hollow the modeling industry
>"style over substance"

thats the whole point, pleb.

out.com/armond-white/2016/6/29/neon-demon-review-antonioni-amiche-lesbian-fashion-movies

>Go in expecting 2 hour movie
>Credits roll after what really felt like one hour
>Same with OGF

Yep, not a single argument in sight and he even calls the film "critique" when that is the last thing this film is trying to be.

Armond is the kind of mongoloid who thinks every film has (or should have) a "message"

Style is what makes art, art. Pure substance is research or academics. Pure style is art.

More like pure shit

this

typical average Cred Forums shitlord who is fucking delusional

directors should have both faggot

>this guy gets it

Watch a documentary if you want substance.

But what does "substance" even mean? Sounds to me like a weasel word for the intellectually lazy.

ITT: Plebs who don't understand what a "mood piece" is.

...

Why?

says who, cucklord? who are you to decide what a movie should have? do you even art, bro? fucking kill yourself

>not understanding that style cannot be separated from substance and vice versa
reddit is that way

are there any good examples of movies that are "substance over style"? Like they may be deep and insightful and whatever, but are just a boring slog to sit through with no visual or narrative pizzazz.

changXD

>kino

>uses archaic vocabulary and an unnecessarily wordy style to make a point
>the point he's making is that style is more important than substance

Film is literally style you stupid fucking twerp, expressing emotion through through direction and cinematography.

Bresson imo

Man From Earth.

This nigga gets it. Everyone that disagrees with this statement should fuck off and read a book or something instead if they hate visuals in a visual medium

Dogville?
I guess the focus on substance is just another style though.

...

Jesus you're right, this looks like the most intensely boring intellectual masturbation ever.

youtube.com/watch?v=9mOIxyRTY5I

>haha gotta have my substance need that substance where's the substance muh substance dude substance lmao we wuz substance and shit

...

this movie is fun tho

Style over substance examples:

>2001: A Space Odyssey
>Any and all Terrence Malick films
>Lost in Translation
>Blade Runner

I sincerely hope this is b8

>A collection of aesthetically-pleasing visual symbols set to neon lighting and an edgy, hypnotic score which are displayed without discernible weight or impact does not automatically convey a powerful message just because they exist within the framework of a perceived narrative. More specifically: I find this film to be entirely shallow and vapid in its writing. It presents the viewer with a series of images (whether they be beautiful, shocking, grotesque, or downright weird) that do not evoke any profound purpose in an efficacious way. The script is pedestrian, slowly shuffling at the start, spouting banal dialogue along the way, then stumbling over itself before sprinting away at full-speed in the third act, leaving me (and many others) with an utterly confused, empty feeling in its wake. “What the fuck did I just watch?” is not a positive reaction for all viewers, even if it is for you.
This almost perfectly describes 2001 and many other films

what is substance supposed to mean

bait/10

it means the characters have actual meat to them and you care about the story

refns characters are shit because its written like a commercial

no
lately, yes
who gives a fuck, it's shit
no

?

Read a book or have your mom read one if you want a story

Style is not everything, it's the only thing.

"Substance" in a visual medium, is meaningless.

>"Substance" in a visual medium, is meaningless.
So wrong, how can anyone say this? Is this the new average Cred Forums denizen? I left about a year ago but at least then people could understand this most basic fucking concept.

Style over substance only works in movies, but a movie that has only style and puts it over any form of substance will be shit compared to one which focuses on substance.

Google the terms if you do not understand them.

Fucking idiot.

>Let's accumulate buzzwords or pedantic descriptions and pretend this accumulation is a valid form of criticism

A cunt actually wrote this, read it and thought it was worth posting.

Spoken like a true pleb, I bet you read books for the stories in them too.

>actual meat to them

More weasel words. The characters are exactly as they are and they talk like they do to set a desired aesthetic mood. This is not a character study into the minds of the characters. The characters are just there to represent ideas. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Well shit, now I just don't know anymore.

It's a word for the intellectually lazy. You don't even know what you mean by it when you say it, that's how lazy you are. Pathetic.

refn fags are this salty because hes a shit director top kek

this looks like htat area in battelfield 3 where the helicopter spawns

>Any and all Terrence Malick films
Only a baiting pleb who hasn't seen his first two films could say this.

>It's a word for the intellectually lazy.
Kek, no. Unless you think Kubrick and all cinematographers are "intellectually lazy". You're a fucking idiot too.

>Unless you think Kubrick and all cinematographers are "intellectually lazy"

What are you even talking about? You really think a 3 word phrase without any explanation is a good argument with which to dismiss a film? That's basically what you're saying with this "lel google it dude". Are you retarded?

Do you actually have an argument or are you just going to make unsubstantiated claims?

For what substantial reason is "substance" inherently important to the medium of film?

Who cares Refn's work sucks

I fucking hate you

Watch a Seijun Suzuki film and then tell me that style isn't "substance" you dirty fucking plebs

what does "substance" to you even mean?

Are you actually trying to argue out of pure ignorance from not understanding these terms? Holy shit man, literally google it. I ain't gonna spoon feed you.

Because movies are more than just flickering images? Substance is how you invoke raw human emotion capable in films, are you an ACTUAL idiot? I was only using the word idiot before as hyperbole, no need to prove me correct bro.

How is it not important? Holy shit.

>retard can only respond with memes and buzzwords
Typical

I don't like so it doesn't have substance

i l-liked only god forgives

pls no bully

>Holy shit man, literally google it

How the fuck does googling the definition of "substance" help? We both speak English, we both know what the dictionary definition of is. But that doesn't help because in this context it could mean a great variety of things. It could be referring to the characters or the dialogue, it could be referring to the symbolism, the metaphors, the philosophical/political points a film is trying to make.

This is what I mean when I call you intellectually lazy, you refuse to put in even the slightest intellectual effort to articulate what the fuck you're actually trying to say. You haven't put forth any arguments yet.

what is "meat to them" supposed to mean

>Substance is how you invoke raw human emotion capable in films
Does a symphonic piece have substance because it invokes raw human emotions? How does it do that when it doesn't have a story or any characters?

>Ctrl+F
>Tarantino
>No results
???

What? Story, characters and STYLE all work in tandem in order to invoke emotion. How can you not understand this most basic thing? You can place style over substance, meaning, all your movie does is look nice.

It's an extremely valid argument, and because you don't get it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, you will one day.

Pic related is an example of style over substance, still a good movie though.

Films have the capability to have more than flickering images, but what is it about "substance" that makes it intrinsic to what makes something a film or not?

Are you implying sound or images can't evoke emotion without substance? Can photography or music be emotionally moving without substance?

What is it about films that make it different than photography or music?

>Story, characters and STYLE all work in tandem in order to invoke emotion.
Then explain how something by Beethoven can invoke far greater emotions without resorting to story or characters.

>It’s commendable that NWR employed two women screenwriters, as well as a female cinematographer and a mostly female cast (albeit, a whitewashed one)
t. white woman
>, to assist in the creation of this film; but this act only makes it feminist in its production—not in its themes, execution, or the all-encompassing message that is conveyed and digested by audiences. At the end of the day, NWR is The Boss, he is in charge, and the final decisions regarding the film are in his hands. He is called the director for a reason—he directs everyone to do what He Wants and ultimately, what serves His Vision.
It's not enough to employ females, they should also be boss, men shouldn't be employed at all!
>Another point I want to make: in my initial review, I wrote how much of my criticism for The Neon Demon has been discussed on letterboxd already (as well as by a myriad of professional film critics)
I'm very important, people are talking about me.

It has neither style or substance; the neverending neon lights and cinematic tirades are just an attempt to elevate the trite material. OGF and pic related are also clear examples of this.

Why are you thinking about substance so literally? Why do you think stories and characters are the only examples of substance?
>implying when listening to Beethoven you are not the character in his created world.

>Why do you think stories and characters are the only examples of substance?
Because you just said so.

>implying when watching a Refn film you are not the character in his created world
That was easy.

this

>Because you just said so.
Okay?

>That was easy.
Okay?

If you don't want to actually read replies and formulate an actual argument why are you replying?

If you don't want to actually read replies and formulate an actual argument why are you replying?

>blade runner
>style over substance
kys, faggot. you must not understand the genre at all.

Shit, now I just don't know anymore.

Shit.

...

The thing is people who love reading books would agree that the style of writing is far more important than the story. I have no idea why audience and critics alike complain about narrative when all the great artworks are appreciated due to the great style of the artist.

...

Probably great style creates a great narrative.

If you aren't creating a great narrative, it's because you are lacking in style. It's why the great books aren't just a thesaurus worth of adjectives, it's great than the sum of its parts

Stick to your capeshit please.

Fucking Birdemic has style over substance.

come watch it with us actually
swimelodeon.com

Film is a great medium because it works on several different levels. The script is part of the movie, it's impossible to ignore. It's possible to say "It looked beautiful and I loved the soundtrack, but the script was pretty weak" and that's exactly how I felt about this movie.

I agree that the style and imagery are more important than the narrative, especially in a film like this. But he did still write a script, he attempted character development and an engaging story, and those aspects of the film are open to criticism as well

I disagree, I think a very simple narrative that doesn't amount to much is okay if the style of the filmmaking is an enjoyable experience or unique experience.
This is fair enough.

The Dollars Trilogy
Any Western made by someone with an Italian surname.

youtube.com/watch?v=G6gSkeoRGJs

If he edited it like a normal film, instead of running every shot 5 extra seconds before/after each line, it would've been like 20 minutes long