Had to come over here after reading your post on misinterpreted satires (Archie Bunker) in the Oppenheimer thread. Totally man, the sound of the obvious whooshing over audiences’ heads is deafening.

I’m guessing the toughest part about being a thoughtful, successful filmmaker is knowing how much to dumb your art down for the masses without totally destroying your art.

As with the case here, using fantasy (the absurd) is one way to dumb it down while retaining some integrity. This film plays like a children’s fable, simplistic and fantastical, and works in that context. Its message is obvious enough that the audience in the cheap seats will hear it, because that’s how children’s fables are: written for children to understand.

At the same time, if it’s too childish or fantastic you lull your audience into a state of dull ambivalence because their brains aren’t engaged on a deeper, real-world level. To them Edward scissorhands is a magical creature, and that’s where reality ends. Surely it doesn’t apply to them after the end credits roll.

But again, if Tim Burton had made a realistic, heavy drama about an extraordinary human coming to a sheltered community and being eventually ostracized… well that wouldn’t exactly excite audiences would it?

This is a great topic for anyone who has any creative inclinations (whether filmmaking, music, art or writing), where’s that sweet spot between artistic integrity and mass appeal? It isn’t just about money & selling out, but it gets to the heart of making your message understood by the widest possible audience. I dunno man, as you said in the other thread it seems like you can’t win for trying.

@rooprect said:

But again, if Tim Burton had made a realistic, heavy drama about an extraordinary human coming to a sheltered community and being eventually ostracized… well that wouldn’t exactly excite audiences would it?

Cities have burned and people have died over just the hint/suggestion of white women and Black men giving each other too much attention (one of the first roles spelled out by the KKK was to "protect our women." That motif has been a part of white supremacy and racism since ever — the "Black man raped/whistled at/looked at a white woman" thing precipitated Tulsa OK and Emmett Till and Wilmington NC and...and...and...).

The way those suburban housewives fawned over and fetishized the "exotic" Edward Scissorhands while their husbands were out at work would have caused a riot had the role of Edward been played straight by Idris Elba or Blair Underwood setting up a salon in "our" neighbourhood. The events of Suburbicon didn't even require inappropriate attentions - just the presence of the family moving into the neighbourhood bent people out of shape.

This is a great topic for anyone who has any creative inclinations (whether filmmaking, music, art or writing), where’s that sweet spot between artistic integrity and mass appeal? It isn’t just about money & selling out, but it gets to the heart of making your message understood by the widest possible audience. I dunno man, as you said in the other thread it seems like you can’t win for trying.

Yep, it's like when people peacefully assemble to oppose police brutality and things get heated, critics say "can't you find a way to make your statement without things going sideways?" So Colin Kaepernick sits during the national anthem at a football game, and a military veteran takes him aside and tells him "if you want to be respectful to us veterans, don't sit, kneel." So Kaepernick kneels, and people lose their minds.

It doesn't matter how it's done, those who aren't interested in why it's done will never accept how it's done. Same thing here. Tell a story too plainly (Suburbicon) and folks flat out reject it; tell a story too abstract, too artsy (Edward Scissorhands, Forrest Gump) and folks will just deny any connection to the true message; either way, they just don't want to face the story, literally or figuratively.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

The way those suburban housewives fawned over and fetishized the "exotic" Edward Scissorhands while their husbands were out at work would have caused a riot had the role of Edward been played straight by Idris Elba or Blair Underwood setting up a salon in "our" neighbourhood.

That angle never occurred to me, but you're right! In fact in Edward Scissorhands isn't there a woman who initially throws herself at Edward only to vindictively accuse him of rape when she doesn't get what she wants? The ghost of Emmett Till is doing logrolls in his grave.

It doesn't matter how it's done, those who aren't interested in why it's done will never accept how it's done. Same thing here. Tell a story too plainly (Suburbicon) and folks flat out reject it; tell a story too artsy (Edward Scissorhands, Forrest Gump) and folks can plausibly deny any connection to the true message; either way, they just don't want to face the story, literally or figuratively.

Bingo, it kinda makes you wonder if there's any point to making a statement in a work of art. No matter how subtly or blatantly you do it, people will interpret it & react according to their own prejudices. Or ignore it entirely. Honestly I think the only hope is in younger audiences, before they're branded 'red team' or 'blue team', and they absorb things more open mindedly and with more flexibility than calcified adults. Who's criticizing Disney 'wokeness'? Not the kids, they're just having fun singing along and looking at the pretty colors. It's the grumpy adults who are making a hanging offense of what skin color the little mermaid is this time.

So again maybe Burton was a mastermind for following the template of a fairytale and keeping it child friendly. I haven't seen Suburbicon yet, but I know it's rated R and geared more toward adult/dark humor so that could be a reason why the audience reaction is such a war zone. I do think in general (if your goal is to change minds, not just to incite anger) it's best to play it as subtle as possible, even if your message is lost on many. Those people who missed the message probably wouldn't have listened anyway.

I dunno if you've explored any of the WW2 era & postwar Japanese films by directors like Ozu or even Kurosawa but it's really interesting how these progressive directors skirted the hardline conservative Japanese government as well as the American-installed censors immediately after the war. Talking about the topic of the bomb, of course that was a no fly zone. But clever filmmakers managed to slip their message/allegory into things like samurai battles, silly monster flicks or even romcoms. But of course the enemy there was the censor board, not the audience. In today's America it's the other way around; we don't have censor boards, but the polarized audiences will tar & feather you if you step outta line!