Ever wondered why certain films affect you profoundly? Audiences can't necessarily articulate the underbelly of a story but can tell you that it had good action, or loved the snappy dialogue, or even hatred for the villain - I wanted his ass kicked. Usually, these exchanges happen minutes after they've hurried out of the auditorium, like ants.

Ask them in a week's time, or even days later, they'll repeat the statements but with less interest. Ask the same question in a year's time, any enthusiasm is all but a distant memory. Those films didn't strike a chord within them, but there are many films that resonate, many years after its original theatrical runs. What are they responding to? Theme AKA thesis. Some even call it the controlling idea. It's the brains of the story, it's the muscle, the joints, the connective tissue, oh yes, it's a succulent lamb ready for the abattoir.

Not all films have strength in depth; many may start out as a layered story but is mangled beyond recognition once the fiscal fingers puncture the creative pie, but for this piece, I want to concentrate on films that are classics.

Not all films are considered classics when they are released, and for this article, it's not of importance; maybe for another article, we'll see. We're going to explore thesis, antithesis and synthesis in this article. I'll use some examples to simplify its meaning and how it affects story outcome.

Thesis
It's a sided argument - you have something to say. Let's say, you are given an assignment on Western democracy's influence on Third World countries.

Most students might attack the question in a philosophical manner, i.e. how can you force Western Democracy on these countries ruled on ancient religious law, because all it does is divide a nation.

That's not an argument, it's not provocative, and it certainly doesn't take a stance. I've read many assignments where the student lazily weaves through controversy as if its sacrilege to attack them with your viewpoint. You want to stir the examiner, so a better way to attack it would be to grab it by the balls:

Western democracy is incompatible with traditional values because it breeds decadence and seduction; a vacuous society based on status.

This question depends on your world view. You might take a stance with the opposite view.

The thesis in a film is usually the view of the author. There are at least two types of views: One which is based on platitudes, or one which is your belief, an aggravation with the world. A storyteller with something to say is extremely provocative, rather than someone who just mimics current affairs. Great writers/directors always return to familiar themes, Woody Allen studies relationships in all guises and from all angles. Polanski studies psychology and paranoia.

The antithesis
In any thorough argument, an antithesis should attack your sided argument. It essentially tests your question - the opposite view. In film, the antithesis is instilled in character, and it's usually the protagonist. They are fighting your viewpoint, through movement, and cause and effect; Dramaturgy is the best grounds to prove or disprove your theories.

Back to the Democracy topic; the antithesis:
Western democracy frees a nation from traditional, draconian law. Screw their history. Viva La Freedom.

The synthesis
It's the outcome of your arguments, the compounds of the thesis and antithesis. In my case, using history as evidence, I can prove that my thesis is a strong argument. Using examples like conquer and divide - you are not just dividing a nation to suppress its influence in the future, but also dividing people's loyalties; India and Pakistan, for example.

Forcing Western democracy doesn't work because it doesn't consider the needs of the people, their culture, religion and beliefs, and its history.

Again, Iraq is a great example: coalition forces eating Pork in a land where religion forbids it. Screw their beliefs. This is ugly truth of Western democracy in foreign lands.

All great stories have these 3 components, you don't have to agree with the question, but it's the very conundrum that causes great debate and critical discussion. Not all writers, directors and playwrights follow this thought process, but fragments of these ideas are always there, perhaps in pulp rather than a chiseled piece. You test your view through premise, characters and conflicts.

Film examples

Chinatown is considered to be greatest neo-noir picture of all time; I agree. It's exploration of its themes, or thesis is what makes it great. By breaking it down you can kill the magic; audiences won't believe it as soon as you articulate why it worked. This kind of discussion is really geared towards film fans, who want to understand the mechanics of good storytelling.

Chinatown has a penetrating theme, and motifs, visually, metaphorically and sometimes, subversively.

Chinatown, as dramatized in the film, is an anarchic, amoral world. It's a personification - it's in all of us. Chinatown is a dark place which we cannot trust.

The thesis is depressing:
You have good intentions, but all you'll do is cause greater pain.
Don't bother interfering because you don't know which side you're helping.

The antithesis is how Gittes wants it to end. Capture the bad guy behind the city drought, make sure Mrs Mulwray's safe. Yet his actions undo and unravel the very thing she's trying to protect. This comes to blows when Gittes slaps the truth out of her and leads Noah to her. Who is helping?

The synthesis is: You do your best, but there are greater forces at work, that are out of your control.

Although Robert Towne gets credit for Chinatown, it's Polanski who made that film great by rewriting it, like the new ending which delivers on the questions posed. It's played out dramatically; evil sometimes does triumph, because a human beings can be capable of anything, it's something that you can't defend yourself against.

Lawrence of Arabia is about an idealist, someone who thinks he's doing something for the greater good. As the story unfolds, he thinks he becomes greater than good, greater than God, an immortal, and he becomes dangerous. Idealists who believe their own hype become, more often than not, lost in absolute power.

The first half of the film is about sowing the seeds of his idealistic destruction. The second half is about his downward spiral as he becomes an ordinary man, who, for a short while, led an extraordinary life.

In Se7en, the thesis is depressing, but it's the reason why it resonates with me till today. When I first watched it in 1996, it changed me, and I didn't know why. What was it telling me? The writer of the picture is a pessimist about the world we live in.

In the nameless city it's constantly raining, washing the never-ending filth and villainy down the sewer. It's grim, dank, cloudy and dark. Evil always win, there's no redemption and humankind has no hope at all.

The antithesis is our protagonist, Sommerset. He wants to finish his tenure on a happy note, and at first he's reluctant to get involved externally, but internally, he wants it, and with patience and methodology, we will defeat it. It's his type of case, like a Sherlock Holmes mystery. When the film's finale is played out, in sunny climate I might add, the villain wins.

By the end, Sommerset doesn't quit, he believes the world is worth fighting for, even though there's not much chance of winning. He doesn't believe the world's a fine place (author's viewpoint, remember), so the thesis is the reality. In the end, Sommerset has renewed wisdom, but little faith. What an evocative viewpoint.

SUPERMAN

Tom Mankiewicz did a brilliant job of carving out the thesis in Superman from the previous Newman scripts.

Thesis:
The needs of many outweigh the needs of the one.
You cannot have attachments because you are influenced by a loved one rather than serving the collective populous.

Let's test it out.
"I have all these powers and I couldn't even save him."
It's human nature, wish we could save our loved ones, but nature must take its course.

Superman and Lois fall for each other.
The world needs you, but you are courting with the girl of your dreams.

Screw New Jersey.
Superman to Eve regarding the XK101 rockets, "What about Lois? Jimmy?"
Even though New Jersey is close, he wants to save his friends first, who are on the other side of the continent.

Superman couldn't save Lois.
If Superman was raised by Jor-El, he would not have given into his selfish needs. Jor-El is represented as a cold, didactic, methodical philosopher. Now, contrast that to Pa Kent, an affectionate, humble, guiding father. These characters affect Superman's choices, and just before he decides to turn back time, the conflicted, ethereal fathers echo their points of view.
A loved one died once, and there was nothing I could do about it, but I'm not letting it happen again. He whizzes into the stratosphere and interferes with human history.

Unfortunately, this act doesn't have any repercussions in the sequel's opening, in either Lester or Donner's cut, but the thesis is explored further in their respective films.

In Superman 2, Clark gives up his powers to be the love of his life. Only when he realizes that the world needs him, does he have to finally accept why he was sent here in the first place, and why he cannot have attachments.

The antithesis, in its dramatic interpretation, is that, in Superman 2, the villains destroy Earth whilst he's giving Lois one. He gives up his powers for the one. He needs are for the one, and not for the many.

The synthesis is:
Superman must treat everyone equal; he cannot have attachments. That's a depressing one for Supes, isn't it?

Superman Returns as an interesting thesis:
If the saviour abandons them, the Earth will sink into chaos.

Antithesis: If the saviour abandons Earth, humans must group together and become heroes. Humanity shouldn't rely on the saviour to rid its problems - That's what Superman hopes.

Synthesis: They need a saviour because humans cannot be trusted to look after them selves.

Unfortunately, the film never answers its questions with any conviction. The majority of answers are skirted, or even given a wide berth. The film is about Superman RETURNS, yet he's forgiven immediately. They say, a stupid question deserves a stupid answer, but Superman Returns posed a great question, yet delivered no answer because it never explored the implications of abusing trust through its characters for the duration of the picture.

The prequels present intriguing questions, yet never deliver through to their dramatic conclusions. I have read many arguments waxing lyrical about their virtuous motifs, but that's great for a film scholar or man of letters, but the majority of the audience wants it played out on the screen with satisfying characterisations and conflicts. Sure the Star Wars prequels have tons of conflict but the plotting completely betrays the brains behind it.

The next time someone asks, what's war and piece about, what's hamlet about, what's Heart of Darkness about? They are not talking about plot, they are talking about theme, or thesis, controlling idea, whatever you want to call it, what is the author saying?

Next time, we talk about iconic scenes, and their importance in film.

<<<Special Features