What is Substance?

[Tom De]

I know it's a highly subjective question, but I was wondering how some of you define it.

Tony said in another thread,

"I'll state some director "types" that bug me:

--Ones that advocate style with no substance. Style with substance is okay. Even style over substance if the substance is there. But no substance bugs me."

There was an excellent thread about quality not too long ago. There are some great advocates for quality. It seemed to me that the argument about quality fell into more of a discussion about style or craft.

Good substance to one person is not good substance to another, but I think a lot of people would agree that even if they don't agree with the substance in question they still respect ?quality substance?.

In my particular case, I've got an opening that explains the history of something. It's not really needed for the story. I could cut it. I've already trimmed some. It risks being too over-the-top and misleading the reader into thinking an action script is an epic genre (only lasts a page and a half, but it's the first page and a half.)

However, to me, it has substance. It creates a historical backdrop for an American public that is woefully ignorant. (Just look at the test results for adults that were quizzed on geography or history.)

So, what is substance?

- Something that deals with the basic human condition?
- Something that teaches while entertaining?
- Something that brings about a change?
- Something that makes someone dream of something better?
- Something that gives comfort or enjoyment by entertaining?

How much substance do you need to make the entire script have substance? In the competition for space within the script and time on the screen, how do you choose between something with substance over something that provides commercial entertainment. (Strange question, but I hope you catch my drift. Maybe a choice of big explosions versus a more accurate portrayal of an event. Braveheart comes to mind for me. Very entertaining, but with historical inaccuracies and yet it did have substance.)

I would love to hear everyone's thoughts and perhaps a good intellectual debate. Newbies, lurkers, pros, and up-n-comers all have valid opinions.

Tom

[JaneaDahl]

Substance=Standing position typical of one who has gotten fat on oversized sandwiches.

But really...to me, substance is the stuff that moves the heart. The grit that makes us more fully experience the human condition.

And I would much rather see a scene that was true in and of itself, than one in which say, a magician at the dinner table pulls a string of handkerchiefs out of his ass to distract attention away from the cliche dialogue going on over seafood bisque.

Good post Tom!

Janea

[lilybet]

Subjective and certainly influenced by individual tastes. Something I'm interested in and have cried out for discussion here in several topics off and on for a long time. I have tried a variety of techniques to provoke the discussions. Get some good responses and then it frequently gets derailed by a bunch of smart aleck remarks and defensive who cares, just want to sell my next big "whatever."

Off the top of my head here -- but what I desire as an audience member.

A good story that holds together. The story more important than effects or fancy directorial or cinematic flourishes. Or special effects for the sake of special effects. It can be a simple story or an epic.

Want it to illuminate the human condition no matter what century or galaxy it is set.

Something to say but not preachy about anything.

Leaves me with something to think about.

Don't manipulate me with cheap tricks or unsupported emotions.

Come through with the promises.

Never throw me out of the story with anything.

Please, no more film derivative stuff, unless it is a really clever satire.

Witty and/or meaty dialogue and characters.

Don't want cheap, well, it's worked a million times formulas.

A vision, not a by committee work. Which is different than collaboration.

If it's historical, don't want to see inaccuracies or distortions. New, individual stories can be told without doing that. Same with stories based on real events or real people.

If it's silly or fluff, make it clever, not just filled with mugging actors and junk.

Don't like exploitation. Or gratuitous sex and violence.

At the risk of setting the "but that is the genre" folk off, want it to transcend the genre so I don't walk out thinking of it in those terms. Something that expands narrow genre definitions.

The writer, film makers and actors have to believe in the material and care about what they are turning out.

Don't want to constantly know exactly what's coming next, which doesn't mean inserting twists for twists' sake.

Risk taking for a reason. Challenging preconceived notions and stereotypes.

Unfortunately the screenwriter often can't control any of this but that doesn't mean they have to make compromises in their work before the game even starts.

That's a light skim of what I would like to see and what I'm trying to write.

lilybet

[jacinthee]

Hi guys,

You're taking the words out of my mouth and formulate them much better than I ever could :)

To add my grain of salt... Since substance is very subjective and has to do with the viewer's experience, I find it annoying when people quickly dismiss a movie because they refuse to look at its different layers of meaning or references (the I-don't-get-it-so-it-must-be-dumb attitude).

To me, substance is often in the details that might seem inoccuous at first but are essential to the storytelling experience. A good story will often make you think beyond its boundaries. Tom, that scene you mention as disposable could be what would makes the difference between an original story and a "I've-seen-this-movie-so-many-times-only-the-title-keeps-changing.

Details creating the atmosphere, for instance, can be as important as a character arc, in my opinion, although many find them superfluous. Of course everything has to be dosed, otherwise we end up with an incomprehensible charade (like this post, maybe?). If all these "supposedly meaningless" details that help make the substance of a film are taken out, we end up with a formula. Formula sells, but for how long?

I'm scared of the present Hollywood mindset towards storytelling these days, or at least what is projected. I don't think Tolstoy would ever have made it in LA.

:)

Jacinthe

[PteranoDon]

It's that stuff, that mixture of compounds of elements that haven't been discovered yet, and nobody knows if it's just hot or if it's radioactive.

It's a drink in a tall glass that a stranger hands you and you figure you'll just take a sip but before you know it, you've downed the whole thing. It sends shivers down your spine, and you blurt out loud, "I've never tasted anything like that before!"

It's the whack on the head you got walking downtown last week, and, when you came to, you were frightened by how horribly red the stoplights were until they all turned green. And the sky turned blue.

Got it?

[Strange Mind]

i think substance is the ability to capture, without words, and with a look, an expression, a moment...emotions that take pages to write.

rather than portray cliched and done-to-death versions of typical characters, but instead showing some side of them that you and i as people can relate to. because we've been there. or if we haven't, we can empathize.

i think a handful of moments like that in one flawed movie can make it for me.

unfortunately, it is past midnight for me and i cannot think of one such moment in one such movie.

[lilybet]

Absolutely Strange. But those moments are not created by the writer but by the interpreters. No matter how the writer might try to describe that moment.

Those joys are the delight and illumination of the good side of collaboration. The perception of when they have happened and encouraging and using it is what is important. I used to factitiously say "All art is accident." The real art is recognizing when it happens. But maybe the foundation needs to be in the script, story and characters.

lil

[wannabe]

I strongly believe in films with substance. If the novel was the major form of literary art a hundred years ago, the screenplay/film must be seen as the contemporary version of art. And films with heart and soul are vital to the world and the modern psyche.

But...

Does every film have to have substance? As much as I love movies with soul, what about those of pure escapist entertainment? What about action flicks like Lethal Weapon and Die Hard - did they have substance? Or big budget films like Star Wars and Jurassic Park. Or teen comedies like American Pie - can it really be said that this is a film with substance. I ask because I love these sorts of movies too and sometimes I feel guilty about the fact that I loved a movie which is all surface - something like Charlie's Angels, for example (I use CA as an example, not because I loved it).

So isn't there room for both - just like in the novel form today you have books by Saul Bellow, Cormack McCarthy, James Lee Burke and so on versus Danielle Steel, James Patterson and Robin Cook.

And do I have to feel guilty about writing something that isn't deep and won't change the world and won't do anything more than entertain a few folk for a few hours?

Substance is a tricky thing, for me it's tied up with theme and theme is something I still haven't quite worked out.

Perhaps responses from the more experienced on the board might make this clearer for me...but then again, one person's substance is another person's drug, I suppose?

[Strange Mind]

lil, i disagree. the film-maker DOES create these moments. if not, there would be nothing for the audience to interpret.

whether the film-maker does so effectively or not, is another matter. but your communication is as effective as the message it conveys.

a person may see a movie like passion fish or silkwood and not enjoy it for their own subjective reasons. however, you would be hard-pressed to find someone who would accuse either movie of being shallow or without substance.

wannabe, i don't think every film has to have substance, so we're in agreement here. i've enjoyed the mission impossibles and the jurassic parks and the lethal weapons. i think where they fall short of the glory is when they try to have substance but fail. or if the pretense of substance is there, but it's either gratuitious or insincere or just unbelievable. then that's bad.

i don't think you should feel guilty for writing anything like that. nothing wrong with a damn entertaining austin powers flick.

cheers

[lilybet]

Strange,

By interpreters I meant actors and director and editors, etc. Not the audience.

[Tom De]

I suspected that with such a huge topic full of so many alleys through which the responses could twist and turn would be very interesting. I was correct. Thanks to all who have posted and will post.

I will try to respond to some of the elements that truly struck a chord within me. In return, I'll throw out some of my own opinions or things upon which I have inner debate that might prove a spark to your interest.

Lilbit, what is the definition of preachy? Yes, I have my own definition, but I would love to hear others opinions on preachiness. Does that mean blunt forceful statement are preachy? Or is it merely a that preachy is the act of beating an idea or belief into someone's head in an overly repetitive manner? I ask because I like a blunt forceful statement. It's my natural voice. I just don't like beating the blunt and forceful statement into someone to the point they just must believe the same thing as me.
- Thanks for the point on film derivative stuff. I agree.
- Ditto on the historical inaccuracies. I understand the need to shift things due to production costs, limited availability of locations or extras, and the importance of keeping things interesting. Saving Private Ryan was historically inaccurate yet it was one of the more historically true films to the events of WWII that I've seen. (The soldiers were actually trapped behind the sea-wall for four or five hours before they started to make inroads against the Germans. However horrible it was to the men on the beaches, it wouldn't keep an audience interested watching bullets for hours. So, Spielburg had the soldiers charge up the bluff in ?20? minutes of film time. It was inaccurate and yet it kept the same sequence of events and maintained the horrifying feeling.)
- Amen on expanding genre definitions. I think if you really look into most successful films you'll find that they don't lock themselves into just one genre. Lethal Weapon had so many comic elements that it could almost fall into a comedy genre and yet the action elements maintained true to an action genre. Erin Brokovich was a drama, yet it had many comic elements. Face/Off was an action genre and yet it had a lot of psychological thriller elements to it. The list goes on and on. I'm a huge fan of genre expanding films. That said, as a member of the audience, I want to know what genre or genres you are exploring fairly soon in the film.

As an intellectual challenge to you, isn't it arrogant to illuminate the human condition? As a Devil's Advocate, I'd ask the question, "who are you to know my pain, my joy, my failures, my victories?"

(MORE TO FOLLOW)

[Tom De]

Petrodon,
Beautiful post. Very grabbing. Yes, one element of substance is definetly that which makes the sky bluer, the sun warmer, a laugh more funny, and a moment's drab question become an brilliant inspiration. Thanks.

Jacinthe,
In the case of the scene I'm debating about, I see two concepts conflicting. One is the desire to avoid being preachy and the other is an attempt to create a setting that has some substance. BTW Fear not, the scene will remain intact long enough for you to take a gander at it. :)

Strange,
Great point about a handful of moments being able to carry even a flawed movie. I tend to think that developing moments is the writer's primary responsibility along with basic structure. Yes, the other collaborators in film are important to making that moment real on film, but I think the writer is the most important observer of life that captures the germ of that moment. You don't see many actors watching their dogs to catch some deep inner meaning to life or a funny story. You don't see many actors (and definetly few non-creative types) staring at a sunset to really capture the mood of a sunset. Those kinds of strange things are usually left to the wacky writer. Hell, I spent two hours in an airport last week just watching people walk on by so I might possibly catch a few character moments. BTW I found two that are on my list to be used if I can fit them into a script.

(GASP! MORE FOLLOWS)

[CRASH]

Substance is the heart and soul of a work of art.

When we say a movie like "Armegeddon" or "The Cell" is style over substance, we say that because we feel a cold detachment from the film - it has failed to emotionally engage us. Those movies have no heart and soul, hence no substance. It stimulates the eye, but not the mind.

[Tom De]

Wannabe,
I wouldn't bow one bit to an experience writer on this issue. You have as much knowledge as a William Goldman, Shane Black, Randall Wallace, Bill Martell (thought I'd throw our own in there ;) ) , and any other writer out there about substance. They may have more experience skill and craft in showing it, but they don't have more knowledge. Maybe William Goldman, but then he's older and wiser than some of us young pups. However, even age isn't important in the consideration of what is substance. Children often have fascinating observations in what is important and full of substance.

I'd say a good film has to have substance. Strange said that a few "moments" that made a flawed film... (my own words) bareable. I'd say "moments" are a part of substance, because they draw attention to the human condition or other element of substance. Urban Legend, a flawed film that was mostly just mindless entertainment, had a few "moments" that captured the audience and made them think, "Hey, I heard that story, too." The more mindless the entertainment the deeper you have to dig to find those "moments" or elements of substance, but they are usually there. I'd also say it's okay to write something that is considered mindless entertainment. We all have a need to veg out from time to time. Someone has to write those stories that allow us to veg out. They serve a purpose and should not be mocked. (At least, if they are entertaining mindlessness)

I'd argue with a few of your examples of mindlessness. Lethal Weapon wouldn't be the same without the insanity of Riggs and crazy homelife of Murtaugh. Remember, Lethal Weapon was done a decade ago and was revolutionary for action genre at the time. Since then, things have been muddied by repetition. The substance of Lethal Weapon for me was Riggs' desire to die being overcome by being accepted into Murtaugh's family. "Moments" included a trash filled home that made me think of my own often wrecked apartment. To each their own, but I saw more substance in Lethal Weapon than a lot of other action genre films. I feel that is the reason that Lethal Weapon was so successful. Now, Die Hard is another example. It was new at the time in that the hero got banged up and was just a normal guy in an abnormal situation. It was able to capture the audience and make them believe that, "Hey, that could be me." That touches on substance in that it touches on an element of the basic human condition. The basic desire of everyone to be a hero.

American Pie had a good bit of substance in it. It caught one facet of the human condition by using moments that people could relate to. Ever been caught doing something bad by your parents? Ever lusted after the hot girl and had her get interested in you? Ever wanted to get laid and your partner didn't? It went into those basic elements and did it in a creative entertaining manner. It didn't have substance in that it elevated the human condition. It focused more on the more depraved side of the human condition ;) (ummm... apple pie anyone?) Still, it did have substance. A porn covers the same depraved side of humanity, but usually fails to grasp the substance of the human condition. Most people watching a porn don't go, "Hey I can relate to that." (well... ummm... ahhh... not all of it anyway)

Star Wars used a lot of religious elements to create a substance. Jurrasic Park... hmmm... I'm at a loss there. However, I do see your point. Some films focus more on the substance while other films focus more on the entertaining. I'd just say that the more successful films are ones that can do both. Gone in 60 Seconds had a lot of cool explosions and neat cars which would be entertaining, but it didn't build any "substance" (at least for me) and that is why it didn't do better.

I'm done blabbing for now. I welcome all thoughts and arguments. This has been a good thread so far.

Best to all,
Tom

[Tom De]

Good post, Crash. What you said.

Tom

[RatWriter]

Substance is something you take with you.

What is substance to one person may be BS to another. I think most writers, producers, and directors attempt to include something of substance in their work. It only becomes substance to those who are infuenced by it or already believe in it.

How and what makes the story enternaining, with or without substance, is style.

[lilybet]

Tom,

You answered both your own question and your "intellectual challenge."

I have to challenge your assumption about actors. Maybe not some Hollywood bimbos and beefcakes. But good actors, au contrare, they are trained to do the very things you were talking about added to the natural instincts required. Don't ever underestimate their contributions. Without them and the rest of a good team, as a screenwriter, you have no way to bring your story to life. They are not robots and can bring brilliance and things you never even knew were there to your work.

Who but a extreme movie buff, student or another writer is going to sit around reading screenplays?

Thanks for starting the thread. I will step out now and make room for others.

lil

[Tom De]

Lil,
I almost edited that part of the post. I just knew someone was going to jump on that one :lol

I agree. I was thinking of beefcakes and bimbos at the time of my post. You're quite right that actors and actresses can bring a lot to a character. However, I still think us wacky writers make more of the weird observations on life than the average actor.

Yes, I need to step down too. I've spent my 2 cents and then some. I'd like to hear what others have to say.

Tom

[Nemesis Unbound]

Hey! Without Bimbos or Beefcake there would be no "B" movies! Get it? "B" like in bimbos and beefcake!? :rollin

That joke was NOT an example of substance.

[TonyRob]

Wow, I'm flattered that such an interesting topic started out with Tom quoting one of my previous posts. :)

Now, I'd like to weigh in on this a little, though most of what I would say has already been written:

First off... Tom, I'm glad you explored some of the substance of Lethal Weapon, Die Hard and American Pie. One of the reasons those films were so good, so well received (by audiences and critics) and DID transcend their genre is because they all had a degree of substance that many of their knock-offs don't. The same can be said for Pulp Fiction. One of the reasons the Pulp Fiction wannabees don't quite cut it (for me at least) is because the filmmakers who have copied its "style" fail to realize that the title Pulp Fiction itself was a bit of a misnomer, considering that the story explored the deeper themes of redemption and loyalty and was really anything but "pulp".

Personally, I think substance is tied in pretty closely with theme... HOWEVER, there's much more to it than that. Someone (Strange Mind?) mentioned "moments" in a film. Those moments may be quiet moments of reflection or moments of realization or revelation, but they're always recognizable as bringing something a little deeper than the "surface" to the experience of watching the film. This is actually very striking in the original Rocky. That film is built on those "moments". Moments of doubt, moments or reflection, moments of agony, moments of triumph (just think of Rocky at the top of the steps). Human moments. Those moments seem to contain something that is more valuable than all the cgi and all the camera tricks (though many great moments in films are also beautifully shot as well) in the world. Especially if all you have in a film are cgi and camera tricks. I agree with Crash here... The Cell could have been SO much more than it was. Same with Cast Away (oh, what they COULD have explored...).

Tom, you asked a question about how to get your theme across without being preachy. Personally, I think the answer is to explore those very human moments that are UNIVERSAL. All human beings have hopes, dreams, fears, foibles, neurosis, pet projects, passions, addictions, loves, hates, etc., etc... Explore those aspects of the human experience that we can all identify with. Don't be too anxious to try to get a point across. This is one of the reasons, I think, that movies like Pay it Forward and (perhaps) Family Man fail. Because the message in films like that seems to be "if we all acted like THIS (whatever this may be) we'd all be better off". Phooey!! I act like myself. No one else. Explore human drama, but don't try to get across too many "conclusions" or "solutions" in your work. Otherwise you invite the inevitable human stubborness to surface (another VERY human trait). If you explore the inevitable consequences of greed in your film (a la Treasure of the Sierra Madre or A Simple Plan)... fine. Greed is something we all experience, and the consequences are usually some variation of a disaster. However, don't come out and tell me "you're way too greedy. You shouldn't be so greedy. In fact, you should be altruistic and philanthropic and give away more than you receive"... because my immediate reaction is to respond with a "F uck you!!! Who do YOU think you are, buster". That's the difference between exploring a very human trait and being preachy. That's my take anyway. I hope it gives ya something to think about.

[Tom De]

I would've replied sooner, but I was waiting to see if anyone else was going to jump on this thread and I didn't want to go into debt. I only have so many pennies, y'know.

Tony,
Your quote off another thread was great. It got me thinking which is why it kicked off this thread. Good writing makes you think. Hmmm. Maybe that goes along with substance?

Rocky is a great example of "moments." Erin Brokovich has a lot of "moments". The entire tone of Erin's character was set right at the start with her swearing about breaking a nail and getting a parking ticket. People can relate to being pissed about getting parking tickets and I know women don't like to break a nail (my girlfriend made that very clear to me a week ago).

I'd also raise the spectre of is the substance good? The message of the substance may be of a content or viewpoint that makes the substance bad. I'd bring up "Fight Club." A great film with lots of substance. The first time I watched it, I wanted to boycott the studio for making it. The substance all focused on, are Americans sheep? If you don't believe me, listen to the beginning Voiceover. Really hear what the writer is saying (BTW It's an example of a truly powerful writer's voice that made it to the screen). I was offended. I thought the substance was bad. I told friend's that were thinking about watching it to avoid it like zits before a date. (Sidenote: Since then, I've been having second doubts about the validity of the writer's statement. He may have really been onto something there based on my observation of a group of guys that tried to reenact Fight Club immediately after seeing it. Real scary! Americans are sheep? Hmmm. Sad. I'm starting to think that many of them are.)

"Explore human drama, but don't try to get across too many "conclusions" or "solutions" in your work. Otherwise you invite the inevitable human stubborness to surface (another VERY human trait). " by Tony

Great quote. It relates to my own opinions and solidifies them.

Tom

[GirlinGray]

Well "substance" is one of those abstract terms applied to art that just to use, someone has to define and explain in order to convey what they are saying. I think does a work have meaning, does it contribute to or explore or illuminate the human condition and if so how and why?, well that maybe means more.
Mileage may vary.