While I understand your complaint, especially when it comes to directors like Wes Anderson who have both style and substance, there are times when the "style over substance" critique is valid. One example that comes to mind is the movie Boy Kills World, which tried so damn hard to be stylish, but was completely empty substance-wise. There are many other films that do similar things, layering elements that seem cool on top of stories ideas that lack anything worthwhile outside of that style.
I suppose the issue here is whether "style over substance" is meant to be a starting point or an ending point for a critique. Critics who make that claim should explore what they mean rather than delivering a pronouncement that is meant to end the conversation. That is, they need to provide some substance of their own and be open to potential conflicting viewpoints rather than deciding that they're the ultimate arbiter of whether a movie has committed the sin of being too stylish to be taken seriously.
It's among the oldest of complaints. Aristotle complained of playwrights who used spectacle to cover up the hollowness of their plays.
Perhaps "surface over substance." Compare to sculpture or painting. It is true that all you will see of a person in a sculpture or painting is their surface, but when the artist neglects the anatomy, the work suffers, and differently than when the surface is neglected.
"Any work of art consists of more than verbal thoughts that can be paraphrased verbally. You can't reduce any novel or poem to an intelligible single meaning." - Ursula K. Le Guin. And I think this applies to films as well.
So, this doesn't refute Kurosawa's point. A big box can be light if there's little in it. Saying that boxes of different shapes can accommodate objects of different shapes doesn't challenge that.
"If we accept that style contains rather than competes with substance, it unlocks far more interesting questions."
Yes!
Or even more: Style IS substance. It may not be what a specific person cares most about, but it's *something important* and it's totally valid for someone to care about it.
Even a minimalist/effortless/natural look is a type of style. anti-style is still style.
Just like bad art is possible and commonly encountered, bad criticism is too. "Style over substance" is surely a shortcut, which became too easy to throw around without genuinely engaging with the piece, but it's just as bad as any other piece of criticism said only to appear well-versed in art. There is a very real trend of big directors using polished visuals to woo audiences instead of employing everything to serve the story. This is the crux of this criticism; it's not about how stylish a film is, how stylised, how expressive. It's an answer to the question: has the director used every tool at his disposal to convey the story better? And sometimes the answer is very clearly: No, the film's style comes off as incoherent and distracting, exactly as style - not necessity, not story, not emotional values which flow with the story and are inseparable.
I don’t understand how “style is substance” isn’t the same discussion-precluding cliche, just in reverse. Take Diva, for instance, a film that has often (I would say fairly) been the target of the “style over substance” critique: the substance of the film, meaning the content, meaning the plot, the characters, and their development, is staggeringly shallow. But the film oozes with style drawn from an emergent commercial tradition, and is what most people remember from the film. Were you to say the film’s style is its substance, you would still be admitting that the film places greater emphasis on its mode of communication (style) than what it communicates (substance). This is saying style over substance again, with more words. Granted, what you may really be saying is “style over substance isn’t always a bad thing,” to which I’d agree. But to conflate the two, when one is demonstrably an element of the other (style is part of a film’s substance), is like bringing a spork to a three-course meal.
Interesting read and while I think I understand your point, it also made me think about photography(alongside films) in which there is definitely a point where many photos are more focused on the processing techniques, photoshop wizardry, or even fancy lighting setups that are mind-blowingly good - yet the photo feels somehow "empty" or "soulless" if that makes sense.
I guess that could be viewed as the style and substance forming their own special something, but it could also be that in their passion for achieving the "look" they ignored the "why" behind their own art.
For me, the films I feel most suffer from this are things like the last couple years of Marvel superhero movies. They've got the amazing looks and special effects down, but the stories being told just fall flat.
As I write this I realize that maybe the issue isn't style OVER substance, it's that the substance doesn't live up to or compliment the style? Akin to a musician adding a ton of flourish via guitar solos, drum fills or overly complicated playing even though it doesn't actually fit or enhance the song - yet they do it because they want to make sure everyone knows they are skilled enough to be able to do it.
Thanks for a great read that is making me think this morning!
Another phenomenal, thought-provoking film essay - thank you, Ed! Satyajit Ray's phrase "emotional integrity of the human relationship" is useful. What I take "style over substance" to mean has everything to do with this. Some filmmakers compromise narrative integrity in the pursuit of stylistic flourishes. For example, characters who are in a fight are suddenly walking in a cool "bad-ass" slow-motion shot at magic hour, abandoning the stakes of the story in favor of a visual that might "pop" in the trailer. Instances such as these, where style clashes with or contradicts the truth of the narrative, cause audiences to disengage with that narrative.
"All movies have something to say." Yes, but not all movies have style. That's the difference. There are films that want to beat their "messages" into your head from the get-go but don't exactly know how or what style they should use to do so. So they copy and steal from others, using cliches and proven methods of visuals thus they never have or develop their own.
Example: Sound of Freedom. That film wants you to think it has style but it's all a front. It never commits to that style but only thinks is the best one available for that particular message it aims to convey. But other than that forced and heavy-handed message, the film has zero identity.
"Style over substance" is overused because once a critic says it, you immediately know the concept. It shouldn't shut down a conversation, though, I agree with you on that. But I don't believe necessarily that it's a harmful way to address something.
While I understand your complaint, especially when it comes to directors like Wes Anderson who have both style and substance, there are times when the "style over substance" critique is valid. One example that comes to mind is the movie Boy Kills World, which tried so damn hard to be stylish, but was completely empty substance-wise. There are many other films that do similar things, layering elements that seem cool on top of stories ideas that lack anything worthwhile outside of that style.
I suppose the issue here is whether "style over substance" is meant to be a starting point or an ending point for a critique. Critics who make that claim should explore what they mean rather than delivering a pronouncement that is meant to end the conversation. That is, they need to provide some substance of their own and be open to potential conflicting viewpoints rather than deciding that they're the ultimate arbiter of whether a movie has committed the sin of being too stylish to be taken seriously.
It's among the oldest of complaints. Aristotle complained of playwrights who used spectacle to cover up the hollowness of their plays.
Perhaps "surface over substance." Compare to sculpture or painting. It is true that all you will see of a person in a sculpture or painting is their surface, but when the artist neglects the anatomy, the work suffers, and differently than when the surface is neglected.
Exactly.
"Any work of art consists of more than verbal thoughts that can be paraphrased verbally. You can't reduce any novel or poem to an intelligible single meaning." - Ursula K. Le Guin. And I think this applies to films as well.
100%
and we need to remember, for this reason, that AI summaries of books are not the books themselves
So, this doesn't refute Kurosawa's point. A big box can be light if there's little in it. Saying that boxes of different shapes can accommodate objects of different shapes doesn't challenge that.
"If we accept that style contains rather than competes with substance, it unlocks far more interesting questions."
Yes!
Or even more: Style IS substance. It may not be what a specific person cares most about, but it's *something important* and it's totally valid for someone to care about it.
Even a minimalist/effortless/natural look is a type of style. anti-style is still style.
🎯🎯🎯🎯
Just like bad art is possible and commonly encountered, bad criticism is too. "Style over substance" is surely a shortcut, which became too easy to throw around without genuinely engaging with the piece, but it's just as bad as any other piece of criticism said only to appear well-versed in art. There is a very real trend of big directors using polished visuals to woo audiences instead of employing everything to serve the story. This is the crux of this criticism; it's not about how stylish a film is, how stylised, how expressive. It's an answer to the question: has the director used every tool at his disposal to convey the story better? And sometimes the answer is very clearly: No, the film's style comes off as incoherent and distracting, exactly as style - not necessity, not story, not emotional values which flow with the story and are inseparable.
I don’t understand how “style is substance” isn’t the same discussion-precluding cliche, just in reverse. Take Diva, for instance, a film that has often (I would say fairly) been the target of the “style over substance” critique: the substance of the film, meaning the content, meaning the plot, the characters, and their development, is staggeringly shallow. But the film oozes with style drawn from an emergent commercial tradition, and is what most people remember from the film. Were you to say the film’s style is its substance, you would still be admitting that the film places greater emphasis on its mode of communication (style) than what it communicates (substance). This is saying style over substance again, with more words. Granted, what you may really be saying is “style over substance isn’t always a bad thing,” to which I’d agree. But to conflate the two, when one is demonstrably an element of the other (style is part of a film’s substance), is like bringing a spork to a three-course meal.
Interesting read and while I think I understand your point, it also made me think about photography(alongside films) in which there is definitely a point where many photos are more focused on the processing techniques, photoshop wizardry, or even fancy lighting setups that are mind-blowingly good - yet the photo feels somehow "empty" or "soulless" if that makes sense.
I guess that could be viewed as the style and substance forming their own special something, but it could also be that in their passion for achieving the "look" they ignored the "why" behind their own art.
For me, the films I feel most suffer from this are things like the last couple years of Marvel superhero movies. They've got the amazing looks and special effects down, but the stories being told just fall flat.
As I write this I realize that maybe the issue isn't style OVER substance, it's that the substance doesn't live up to or compliment the style? Akin to a musician adding a ton of flourish via guitar solos, drum fills or overly complicated playing even though it doesn't actually fit or enhance the song - yet they do it because they want to make sure everyone knows they are skilled enough to be able to do it.
Thanks for a great read that is making me think this morning!
Another phenomenal, thought-provoking film essay - thank you, Ed! Satyajit Ray's phrase "emotional integrity of the human relationship" is useful. What I take "style over substance" to mean has everything to do with this. Some filmmakers compromise narrative integrity in the pursuit of stylistic flourishes. For example, characters who are in a fight are suddenly walking in a cool "bad-ass" slow-motion shot at magic hour, abandoning the stakes of the story in favor of a visual that might "pop" in the trailer. Instances such as these, where style clashes with or contradicts the truth of the narrative, cause audiences to disengage with that narrative.
Form follows function and in the same breath style should serve the story. Great read!
Thanks, Ivan!
"All movies have something to say." Yes, but not all movies have style. That's the difference. There are films that want to beat their "messages" into your head from the get-go but don't exactly know how or what style they should use to do so. So they copy and steal from others, using cliches and proven methods of visuals thus they never have or develop their own.
Example: Sound of Freedom. That film wants you to think it has style but it's all a front. It never commits to that style but only thinks is the best one available for that particular message it aims to convey. But other than that forced and heavy-handed message, the film has zero identity.
"Style over substance" is overused because once a critic says it, you immediately know the concept. It shouldn't shut down a conversation, though, I agree with you on that. But I don't believe necessarily that it's a harmful way to address something.