By: Keaton Marcus

PREFACE:

The paradox of how to make a distinction between style and substance in cinema has been around far before I was born, but why not give it a shot with an essay? On a general side, I will be covering the two respective definitions for these two concepts, proving which one is more appealing, and explaining how to combine them satisfyingly.

STYLE:

First, there’s style. Where to start? Well, in film, it principally means bombarding audiences with as many cool visual features as possible, such as cinematography, framing, and editing. If done right, it gives the viewer a truly visceral and memorable experience and perhaps makes it more accessible for a re-watch. If done wrong, however, it can end in a void of mindless pretentiousness, but there are some people who get a kick out of movies that many people slap the word pretentious on. Although I will elaborate more on this later, I, for one, can appreciate stylistically memorable movies as long as they have some sort of a story or plot driving it forward. Directors who tend to lean more on this side include Wes Anderson with his symmetrical, perfectionistic tendencies, Nicolas Winding Refn with surrealist visual nightmares bereft of a full grip on reality, Edgar Wright with bombastic and wickedly sharp editing, and perhaps Baz Luhrmann who always attempts to immerse viewers into the world with a distinct style that’s quite hit-or-miss for me. Additionally, Zack Snyder, Guy Ritchie, and maybe even Christopher Nolan are all directors who tend to pack more visual punch than a narrative one.

SUBSTANCE:

Ah, substance, the thinking man (or woman’s) concept. The one that the Oscars fall down and bow towards.. Known for its in-depth screenwriting, themes and an occasionally straightforward meaning for everything, this is quite the opposite of ambiguity. At least for films that lean heavily on this side of the spectrum. For some people, this is the perfect thing, usually consisting of a very simple, easy-to-follow plot that generally tells a story of some importance, perhaps even a true one, generic color palettes and long, heavy dialogues. For others, typically the people who prefer stylistically impressive movies, feel bored and detached, without much investment. They can appreciate and acknowledge the fact that it may be a highly-respected movie that maybe even won Best Picture, but without something truly mesmerizing to look at, it ultimately falls flat. For example, Thomas Alfredson’s Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy or maybe Tom McCarthy’s Spotlight would fall under this section. They both tell important, interesting stories, but lack aesthetically, which can be extremely hit-or-miss depending on the type of person watching. This could either make an informative or dull experience, and depending on which one it was, it influences the possibility of a re-watch.

WHICH IS BETTER (MY OPINION):

It’s difficult to get a definitive answer on which concept is truly better, but I can confidently say that I prefer a movie that is more memorable to look at than to listen to. With movies that masterfully combine both style and substance, such as Drive, The Tree of Life, or Blade Runner 2049, it’s the perfect thing to me. I’m entertained by everything I’m seeing on-screen, but I also understand some hidden or deeper meanings or perhaps some interesting philosophical questions. Again, without elaborating any more, I’d have to say that style is just a more important thing in cinema historically. Movies with actual dialogue didn’t come till far after motion pictures were actually invented. Film has always been a visual experience, and although ones that lean too heavily on style don’t always make the cut, it will ultimately be a more appealing experience. For movies such as Only God Forgives, Atomic Blonde or The Neon Demon (the latter is far better than the first two), the storytelling may not be as strong, but in terms of the score, cinematography, editing or action, it keeps me invested enough to watch. For films like The King’s Speech or Green Book, they both tell intriguing stories, but looking at it, I’m bored out of my mind.

cOMBINING BOTH:

I’m no expert in film studies or anything, so my explanation on how to combine style and substance is inherently flawed, but I’ll try my best. Theoretically, satisfyingly meshing these two is to effortlessly weave both cool aesthetics with potent themes or a story that tackles an important subject (it doesn’t always, however). The examples that I gave above are absolutely visual and thematic perfection in my opinion. The neon aesthetic combined with the complex romance in Drive, the philosophy about searching for the distinctively human together with the groundbreaking visual effects in Blade Runner 2049, and The Tree of Life with its exploration in nature and grace with some of the most beautiful cinematography I’ve ever seen. They all keep me entertained both visually and thematically, both gorgeous on the surface and on the inside. While I tend to lean more on the style side, this is truly how you make a flawless film (or close to one) in my eyes. A juxtaposition of style and substance. Another movie I’d like to mention would be Paul Schrader’s Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters. The production design and camera work may be extraordinarily pleasing to the eye, but through each chapter of this movie, Schrader opens a new door for the viewer to take a deep dive in on the substance side. Disagree with me if you wish, but that’s what I really want when heading into the theater or turning on the TV. A special case that defies this part of the essay would be the filmography of Christopher Nolan. Yes, I already mentioned that his films tend to be more impressive in a visual sense, with pulse-pounding, mind-bending action, and consistently epic set pieces, but a few also have a solid amount of substance. It can be tough to find a distinction with a few directors, and Nolan checks the boxes with this one.

IN CONCLUSION:

What else is there to write about? Style is the art of giving audiences a pleasing visual experience through editing, cinematography, action, or a score, and substance is the art of giving viewers an informative and real experience with a worthy subject matter or complex themes. Combining both, in my opinion, is the ideal perfect film if done correctly, and although very few have achieved this, I can still appreciate movies that lean more on the style side than ones that choose substance heavily.