Innovation vs Gimmickery

[children with angels]

It seems to me that a lot of movie arguments end up with one person saying "how can you not like this film? It's so original and innovotative..." and another countering with "how can you like this film? It's just one big gimmick..."

It occurred to me when discussing Timecode. The four split screen thing: gimmick or innovation. I mean: it's true, many people will go to see the movie because of its interesting "gimmick", but then there's another school of thought that says that we should have people who are pushing and testing the medium in that way...

Or Donnie Darko, you know - attention-grabbing weirdness for its own sake or genius? Or Magnolia for that matter, I guess... (although you know where I stand on that matter).

So anyway: One man's innovation is another man's gimmick. Discuss...

[Ghostboy]

Innnovation, according to Webster's, is the introduction of something as new.

It's a tough call. I mean, split screens have been around for decades, but Timecode definitely used them in a way they've never been used before. It's a two sided card. I'd say it's definitely innovative, but the innovation is also the gimmick that gets people to go see it.

Donnie Darko and Magnolia aren't really innovative, because they follow traditional narrative/technical paths. Those narratives are highly original in content, however.

P.S. I love your avatar.

[Gold Trumpet]

Well, in the specific example of Timecode, the split screens for the entire movie didn't really help the movie that much. There may have been moments of excellence through its use, but the overall effect really wasn't as good as it could have been to get it out of gimmick mode. For me, the biggest thing dealing with identifying gimmickry is looking at a movie's given structure and seeing how helpful it is to the rest of the movie. Sometimes a structure or form won't really identify itself in the entire movie, but only at small parts of it. Do those parts help the rest of the movie? Memento has such a structure defined for its entire movie, and in my mind, it exist to conceal the average story it is telling. The effect is cute at first but really does not hold because Memento is going for a serious effect, aka dramatic movie, and when the story itself cannot hold, then the structure surely won't last either. I think the main point about the use of a certain structure is to make sure it does not intrude in the story you are telling and is not for the significance of making it overtly cute on first viewing, because if you aim to please too much on that faithful viewing, the second and third viewings will be dissapointing. So I think gimmicks can work but on disciplined use that will hold up in making the movie pleasureful after many viewings.

~rougerum

[Ghostboy]

That's an excellent point. I know I had no desire to see Timecode a second time, and Memento grew a bit tiresome for me after the second viewing.

[children with angels]

So do you think that a "gimmick" needs to be used well, and be justified by the movie's content, in order to pass into "innovation"? I mean, it could certainly be argued that the structure of Memento entirely reflects the constant confusion, finding ones self momentarily lost, then working it out, that the main character is feeling - and therefore could be said to be justified... But I'm with you on my general opinion on the film: it isn't great, but I think perhaps "gimmick" is justified, so maybe it could in fact be called "innovation"... (although hadn't it actually been done before, I think I remember hearing somewhere...?)

I guess in order for a film to be worthwhile it needs to be able to go beyond its innovation: and that happens in content. I mean: I could make a film made up of shot lengths ascending in numbers of seconds, one by one, each shot - that might never have been done before, and could be intriguing - but it's also an empty gimmick if its unjustified and I can't write a decent scene. However, technically, it is also innovation...

So are we saying: innovation for its own sake = gimmick
                          innovation justified by content = true innovation...?

But then I suppose it comes down to personal opinion on whether its justified or not again... It is, as Ghostboy said, a tough call.

[Gold Trumpet]

I think we are generally saying that for a gimmick to work in the first place, it must have content behind it and must be well thought out in actually being helpful for the movie.

There is one movie that I love, and at the end, used a gimmick of sorts that propelled the movie into a great one for me. It was De Palma's Body Double and at the end *spoiler* when he is in the grave and stricken with his fears to get out and stop the guy above from burying him alive, the scene goes back to the man being scared of playing a scene in a movie in a grave and feeling his fears but then overcoming them in the scene in the movie and then the scene jumps right back to the action in the grave where he is fighting the man. It is a perfect use of a gimmick to just raise a scene completely. I think that understanding has to be known, that for a gimmick to really pay off in a movie, it has to be thought out in that way where it makes perfect sense to use. Also, I find gimmicks are being used way too much in good movies where they should be used sparingly so the content of the movie can make their use even more satisfactory.

~rougerum

[Duck Sauce]

Sometimes things that I consider to be innovative slowly slide into gimmicky when I see others using that idea. Like I thought Requiems montages were fucking great, but then you see student films on the net and other places that use it and it kind of discredits it a bit. Like the Matrix special effects.

[©brad]

That's a problem the Wachowski Brothers had in planning the Matrix sequels. They said that since the stuff that was done in the matrix was so overdone and parodied afterwards that they would really have to come up with some really off the wall shit for the next ones. Guess that means we're all in for a good treat.

[chainsmoking insomniac]

First off, I think this is a terrific discussion.  This is a vital issue that all aspiring filmmakers need to grapple with.

Second, that pic of PTA wearing a P.T. Anderson cap....wow, if there never was another example of ego, that pic would suffice....

Thirdly: Originality, in it's purest form, is dead.  All artwork, in some form or another, is derivative.  Innovation is in the material, how using elements that have been done before brings the entire picture together (as a whole).  Harkening back to the mention of Magnolia, the way the story was told isn't original or innovative; we see the same scope or breath in alot of Altman films (i.e. Short Cuts); but the characters and situations he (PTA) used was what made the film innovative....
So to conclude my pointless rambling, it's all about the material (characters, setting, and predicaments)....

I hope that made sense.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Second, that pic of PTA wearing a P.T. Anderson cap....wow, if there never was another example of ego, that pic would suffice....

I believe Moment of Zen spoke of that hat before it existed... ....

[SoNowThen]

As I've mentioned before, people have told me they thought the frogs in Magnolia were "gimmicky", whereas I thought it was a great narrative device to signal the climax of the picture. One man's gimmick is another man's gold, I guess. Hmmm.....


Oh, here's something interesting Godard once said (to do with this discussion of innovation vs what's already been done): "I want to tell old stories in new ways". I like that.

[MrBurgerKing]

innovation - Vanilla Coke
gimmicky - Vanilla Pepsi

[SoNowThen]

Ha! Yes! Perfect.

[atticus jones]

innovation is the masturbation and gimmicky is the sticky

in:old board members
gim:new board members

in:me
gim:you

[sphinx]

i'll bet he wouldn't be able to bear watching this shit if he even managed to buy a computer, or an internet connection for that matter