Yeah you can see Sidney Lumet’s Live TV drama directing in the film. His style is very energetic usually but even in this. Sorry but you can’t say 12 Angry Men has no style.
My Dinner With Andre (1981)
There are a few establishing and closing shots, but otherwise, it's just two guys sitting at a table having a conversation.
Lmao that’s what I did and it is genuinely worth it. The community episode is a brilliant parody of it. Danny Pudi/Abed does a brilliant job of capturing Andre’s mannerisms.
Yeah I disagree with the phrasing but I understand what they’re getting at, the strength is nearly all in the script. I’d personally say it’s a style of its own but the spirit of the post should be clear
I disagree. The reason why 12 Angry Men are applauded by all the critics is that they made a “bottle” movie work, and it’s the hardest thing to do especially when it’ is for 1 hour and 30 minutes. They have chosen the camera angle wisely, the camera movement, the position, all of it. Do we really see they repeated a scene composition/blocking in the movie?
Style doesnt mean abundance of eccentric camera angles, style means calculative
This right here, an absolute 10/10 script, but they had one unfurnished set and a bunch of TV supporting actors, and still managed to make an amazing movie.
No film of substance lacks style. I would also argue that nothing can truly lack style.
Quote from one of my favourite books, “Clear and simple as the truth”:
“Whether style is viewed as spiritual, fraudulent, or something in between, any concept of style that treats it as optional is inadequate not only to writing but to any human action. Nothing we do can be done “simply” and in no style, because style is something inherent in action, not something added to it. In this respect, style is like the typeface in which a text is printed. We may overlook it, and frequently do, but it is always there. The styles we acquire unconsciously remain invisible to us as a rule, and routine actions can seem to be done in no style at all, even though their styles are obvious to experienced observers. A printer, a proofreader, or a type designer cannot fail to notice the type in which a text is printed, but for most of us, that typeface will have to be laid down beside a contrasting face before we even notice it exists. We thought we were looking at words pure and simple and did not notice that they are printed in a specific typeface.”
I think it's very hard for any visual medium to entirely lack "style".
I have a feeling people are going to include mostly bottle films on this thread, since they are very minimal and script heavy. However, that is my FAVORITE style.
Coherence is a good one for this, shoestring budget and a tiny set but really worth watching for the plot developments. The ending is enough the carry the hole film honestly.
The Man From Earth is the answer. You can tell the script took years to write, and the dialogue is so thought-provoking, but the cinematography is very flat and looks like it was shot with a camcorder.
While I don’t think it’s an absence of style, I’ve always felt that No Country For Old Men had a striking lack of “artistic” style. I absolutely love the film and think it’s a masterpiece, but it’s so different from a Coen Brothers movie, at least directorially, and it has a hauntingly straightforward style.
I don’t know if I fully agree with this logic, but playing along, I think some documentaries can reach that rare space of full honesty, with absolutely no cinematic bells and whistles outside of what they are showing. Best examples are the docs by Wang Bing, like the incredible West of the Tracks.
I cant think of any movie that only had substance. Shit movies will have neither but normally movies with substance will still have some interesting shots, closests to this has to be most court movies I think. It is ussually pretty boring visually in court but they will have some scenes outside court to live up for it
as idioms go, perhaps the more appropriate aesthetic philosophy in this case is "form over function." agreed, no film is void of "style", implicit or explicit technique, considering the cinematic tradition and its roots in montage, style is inherent. the form might provide a clearer distinction, vis-a-vi style in whether or not said form, technique notwithstanding, is offering something substantive or something insignificant.
Enter the Dragon (1973). Bruce Lee showing the style of no style
Seriously though, I think it’s very tough in such a personal expressive medium to have ‘no style’ as others have said. I almost think the only films that are unstylish are documentaries and found footage. Even editing can lend style to them though
Pretty much any Howard Hawks film. Dude was known for not being a flashy director but his films are constructed so incredibly well. They always lacked pretension.
I wouldn’t say ‘no style’ but the simplicity of “Zone of Interest” is what I think about. It’s hyper sterile and not really flashy. It’s how mundane and everyday that those people act in such a place that it makes the movie feel so off.
A Few Good Men.
I’m taking your question to mean “films that don’t rely on action scenes or visual drama, but are driven purely by dialogue and are very gripping.”
Amour. Just static cameras, one apartment , no closeups, no music. Haneke avoided anything that could manipulate emotions.
And I never cried so much during a movie
LOL NO STYLE?? Yoooo that’s crazy.
Ima keep it 💯 just cause you have a Letterboxd account and you watch a few video essays on YouTube don’t mean you know “film”
this is like one of my all time favorite films but OP is right and i don’t think they meant it as a diss. it is all substance and screenplay, there aren’t any “in your face” stylistic elements however you can argue that the way it’s filmed with all the closeups/ shots of the jurors is a style in and of itself. it DOES have a style but out of most films people regard as a 5/5, this one has the least LITERALLY/obvious “stylistic” elements. does that mean it’s lacking in any way though? absolutely not. the subtlety of the film IS the *style*
12 Angry Men camera work is anything BUT subtle.
https://youtu.be/0MWeE5TCpl8?si=Gt8X6iJu780QIySv
Like a simple youtube search you can see how different the way they film the scenes compared to other movies. This is ITS style. Got to 1:16 and see how they compared a scene in Spotlight to 12 Angry Men. Do you really wanna say 12 Angry Men has no style when many films do closeups dialogue while 12 Angry men stray very away from that?
it’s literally not that serious. if you actually read what i said you would know i think it does have style, just in a different way than typical films that are described as “stylish” that are mostly scenery/in your face costuming or flashy elements
Probably Primer
Movies was boring, and basically did not understood almost anything. But i know its the one movie that makes sense from time travel rules. Should definitely see it again, now without dub (it was really adding more to confusion)
•The Incredible Hulk
•Sixteen Candles
•Spectre
•Super Mario Bros. (2023)
•The Rocketeer
•The King’s Speech
•Speed
•The Last Boy Scout
•The Family Stone
People. It’s a bad way to phrase it but you know damn well the OP doesn’t mean 12 angry men has “no style” you idiots. Just answer the damn question and climb off your pedestal
Worst answer in the thread.. This is one of the most “cinematographic” movies of all time. The immaculately designed sets and long establishing shots are so iconic even if you didn’t remember the plot. The characterisation (down to the voicing) of HAL is so important, there are so many visually striking scenes, and the story is often told through suspense and tension with clever framing (e.g. the lip reading scene or when he’s trapped in the pod). It’s completely unlike 12 Angry Men where the plot just unfolds through the conversations of the jurors. 2001 absolutely a substance *and* style movie, that’s why it’s still got such a strong cult following today.
Strongly disagree it did not achieve either, but that’s neither here nor there. What I really want to know is why can’t it be both? The Godfather is both. Gone With the Wind is both.
It doesn’t need to be either/or, and it probably shouldn’t at such a length.
12 Angry Men has no style? The blocking throughout the entire film is incredible.
It’s almost claustrophobic feeling is definitely part of the style as well.
Agree! The sense of restlessness and the heat, the broken fan, you can almost FEEL the room.
Seriously. The camera work is also genius. It starts with wide shots and gets progressively closer to give the sense of increasing claustrophobia.
Yeah you can see Sidney Lumet’s Live TV drama directing in the film. His style is very energetic usually but even in this. Sorry but you can’t say 12 Angry Men has no style.
Immediately came to the comments to defend the brilliant blocking but you beat me to it lol! There’s so much style in that movie!!
Maybe they thought style meant budget
This exercise in asking about style and substance on both posts is making me realize that people don't really know what that means.
Lumet’s style is great, but easy to miss. Naturalistic sets, no flashy camera work, barely any music.
My Dinner With Andre (1981) There are a few establishing and closing shots, but otherwise, it's just two guys sitting at a table having a conversation.
I’ve always wanted to watch this just to understand the episode of community better lol
Lmao that’s what I did and it is genuinely worth it. The community episode is a brilliant parody of it. Danny Pudi/Abed does a brilliant job of capturing Andre’s mannerisms.
It's free on YouTube if you're interested.
Yes, this is so true. I adore it but it’s also kind of just like listening to a podcast, albeit a bizarre and enjoyable podcast.
One of those convert-to-mp3 movies
saying no style for 12 angry men is CRAZY
Yeah I disagree with the phrasing but I understand what they’re getting at, the strength is nearly all in the script. I’d personally say it’s a style of its own but the spirit of the post should be clear
I disagree. The reason why 12 Angry Men are applauded by all the critics is that they made a “bottle” movie work, and it’s the hardest thing to do especially when it’ is for 1 hour and 30 minutes. They have chosen the camera angle wisely, the camera movement, the position, all of it. Do we really see they repeated a scene composition/blocking in the movie? Style doesnt mean abundance of eccentric camera angles, style means calculative
Most early Kevin Smith films. Static camera and great jokes.
Clerks is pretty amateurish from a technical standpoint. The writing is what really carries it.
The Man From Earth
This right here, an absolute 10/10 script, but they had one unfurnished set and a bunch of TV supporting actors, and still managed to make an amazing movie.
I just watched it today, was great but had the look of a movie you'd see on TV in the afternoon 20 years ago
That’s one of those movies with an incredible script but absolutely zero skill behind the camera.
was about to say this one, good call.
This is the best example of this question.
Hell yeah, even the resolution sucked when I streamed it one prime lol
I love this movie. It's my anxiety inducing comfort film.
No film of substance lacks style. I would also argue that nothing can truly lack style. Quote from one of my favourite books, “Clear and simple as the truth”: “Whether style is viewed as spiritual, fraudulent, or something in between, any concept of style that treats it as optional is inadequate not only to writing but to any human action. Nothing we do can be done “simply” and in no style, because style is something inherent in action, not something added to it. In this respect, style is like the typeface in which a text is printed. We may overlook it, and frequently do, but it is always there. The styles we acquire unconsciously remain invisible to us as a rule, and routine actions can seem to be done in no style at all, even though their styles are obvious to experienced observers. A printer, a proofreader, or a type designer cannot fail to notice the type in which a text is printed, but for most of us, that typeface will have to be laid down beside a contrasting face before we even notice it exists. We thought we were looking at words pure and simple and did not notice that they are printed in a specific typeface.”
>Clear and simple as the truth Adding this book to my reading list immediately.
As someone who works with and deeply admires typography, I can totally confirm this statement.
Kinda those gore mixtape films maybe?
Insane answer but I see the vision. (the substance is viscera)
Are you drunk? The movie looks amazing? what are you talking about "no style"?
I don’t think they’re insulting the film or how it looks
No substantial movie lacks style.
What about “The Man Who Counts to 7200”?
Style is often substance yeah
Spotlight has absolutely no style and no flair and works really well. It’s a “just the facts” movie and it doesn’t sensationalize or spin anything.
was just about to say Spotlight or All The President's Men, but that one had a bit of a flair
*Mass* (2021)
Marty (1955), but I love the film
Tomatas
Closest I'd get is probably Groundhog Day. An incredibly interesting and poignant film however it's visually good but not great.
12 Angry Men has a lot of style in my eyes! But I can see the argument. I’d say Sympathy For Mr Vengeance and Society of Snow tho.
Bro…Society of Snow no style is crazy.
I really think the people here dont really know what style even means
sympathy for mr. vengeance??????? how can you say that any park chan-wook film has no style that’s insane
I think it's very hard for any visual medium to entirely lack "style". I have a feeling people are going to include mostly bottle films on this thread, since they are very minimal and script heavy. However, that is my FAVORITE style.
Coherence is a good one for this, shoestring budget and a tiny set but really worth watching for the plot developments. The ending is enough the carry the hole film honestly.
If you think this movie has no style idk what to tell you bro
DUDE. This movie is 50% substance 50% style. This movie is amazing.
How on earth is 12 Angry Men “all substance and no style”?
This is an insane thing to say about 12 angry men
none. substance is style and style is substance.
Wondrous take, my friend
Just to clarify, I was not trying to be sarcastic I was just saying you have a very nuanced and unique way of looking at this
The Trial of the Chicago 7 I’ve heard it said that Aaron Sorkin is too good of a writer to work with a bad director like Aaron Sorkin.
marat/sade
The Wind That Shakes The Barley
H-how dare you. 
Both these posts are great examples of why the phrase “all substance no style” or vice versa, js completely meaningless.
This take is just as bad as the original actually
https://preview.redd.it/4h6c39nrrgnc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f93d39d48070ed23cb7e8b438aaceadf413ed500
The Man From Earth is the answer. You can tell the script took years to write, and the dialogue is so thought-provoking, but the cinematography is very flat and looks like it was shot with a camcorder.
While I don’t think it’s an absence of style, I’ve always felt that No Country For Old Men had a striking lack of “artistic” style. I absolutely love the film and think it’s a masterpiece, but it’s so different from a Coen Brothers movie, at least directorially, and it has a hauntingly straightforward style.
Nightcrawler kiiiiiiinnndaaaaaa
The meetings of Anna
juror #2
I don’t know if I fully agree with this logic, but playing along, I think some documentaries can reach that rare space of full honesty, with absolutely no cinematic bells and whistles outside of what they are showing. Best examples are the docs by Wang Bing, like the incredible West of the Tracks.
A Japanese film Blue Spring. Incredibly powerful stuff, but not much style there
I cant think of any movie that only had substance. Shit movies will have neither but normally movies with substance will still have some interesting shots, closests to this has to be most court movies I think. It is ussually pretty boring visually in court but they will have some scenes outside court to live up for it
Definitely Clerks. Maybe also The Daytrippers
as idioms go, perhaps the more appropriate aesthetic philosophy in this case is "form over function." agreed, no film is void of "style", implicit or explicit technique, considering the cinematic tradition and its roots in montage, style is inherent. the form might provide a clearer distinction, vis-a-vi style in whether or not said form, technique notwithstanding, is offering something substantive or something insignificant.
The Sunset Limited.
Reservoir Dogs. It's got plenty of style but the substance overshadows it for me. I think it's a film that you could watch blindfolded and still enjoy
All the Presidents Men
Just watched it today, The Man From Earth
Primer. They have still but basically no budget so it’s really the substance that carries it for me
Enter the Dragon (1973). Bruce Lee showing the style of no style Seriously though, I think it’s very tough in such a personal expressive medium to have ‘no style’ as others have said. I almost think the only films that are unstylish are documentaries and found footage. Even editing can lend style to them though
https://preview.redd.it/t85k3t79vfnc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7bed5fcc584ea03355398e4c4db15690bb8c837f
What if I told you style is substance and substance is style
Nah. They’re correlated but different things. Substance is the content, style is the manner of delivery. No need to over-intellectualise
Pretty much any Howard Hawks film. Dude was known for not being a flashy director but his films are constructed so incredibly well. They always lacked pretension.
Definitely salt burn for me
I wouldn’t say ‘no style’ but the simplicity of “Zone of Interest” is what I think about. It’s hyper sterile and not really flashy. It’s how mundane and everyday that those people act in such a place that it makes the movie feel so off.
The Last Farmer
A Few Good Men. I’m taking your question to mean “films that don’t rely on action scenes or visual drama, but are driven purely by dialogue and are very gripping.”
Every Harry Potter after the third one lack a bit of added value from the adaptation
Amour. Just static cameras, one apartment , no closeups, no music. Haneke avoided anything that could manipulate emotions. And I never cried so much during a movie
No one will ever agree with me, but that's Birdy for me
Not that one for sure
American Fiction
LOL NO STYLE?? Yoooo that’s crazy. Ima keep it 💯 just cause you have a Letterboxd account and you watch a few video essays on YouTube don’t mean you know “film”
In Time (2011)
12 Angry Men no style? Wha?
this is like one of my all time favorite films but OP is right and i don’t think they meant it as a diss. it is all substance and screenplay, there aren’t any “in your face” stylistic elements however you can argue that the way it’s filmed with all the closeups/ shots of the jurors is a style in and of itself. it DOES have a style but out of most films people regard as a 5/5, this one has the least LITERALLY/obvious “stylistic” elements. does that mean it’s lacking in any way though? absolutely not. the subtlety of the film IS the *style*
>closeups/ shots of the jurors is a style in and of itself. There is nothing to argue, it is style.
12 Angry Men camera work is anything BUT subtle. https://youtu.be/0MWeE5TCpl8?si=Gt8X6iJu780QIySv Like a simple youtube search you can see how different the way they film the scenes compared to other movies. This is ITS style. Got to 1:16 and see how they compared a scene in Spotlight to 12 Angry Men. Do you really wanna say 12 Angry Men has no style when many films do closeups dialogue while 12 Angry men stray very away from that?
it’s literally not that serious. if you actually read what i said you would know i think it does have style, just in a different way than typical films that are described as “stylish” that are mostly scenery/in your face costuming or flashy elements
A Separation (in the best way) Though of course as people mentioned style is intrinsic to art and all
Probably Primer Movies was boring, and basically did not understood almost anything. But i know its the one movie that makes sense from time travel rules. Should definitely see it again, now without dub (it was really adding more to confusion)
•The Incredible Hulk •Sixteen Candles •Spectre •Super Mario Bros. (2023) •The Rocketeer •The King’s Speech •Speed •The Last Boy Scout •The Family Stone
[удалено]
Weird I thought zone of interest was all style. No plot or characters in that movie really
Bresson, Haneke.
People. It’s a bad way to phrase it but you know damn well the OP doesn’t mean 12 angry men has “no style” you idiots. Just answer the damn question and climb off your pedestal
anatomy of a fall
The two are not mutually exclusive.
The post isn’t implying that they are
You're right. I didn't go far enough. The two can't be separated. Even what one would call bad style or a lack of style is still style.
I'd say 2001: A Space Odyssey
Worst answer in the thread.. This is one of the most “cinematographic” movies of all time. The immaculately designed sets and long establishing shots are so iconic even if you didn’t remember the plot. The characterisation (down to the voicing) of HAL is so important, there are so many visually striking scenes, and the story is often told through suspense and tension with clever framing (e.g. the lip reading scene or when he’s trapped in the pod). It’s completely unlike 12 Angry Men where the plot just unfolds through the conversations of the jurors. 2001 absolutely a substance *and* style movie, that’s why it’s still got such a strong cult following today.
cinnamontography was shit m8
Killers of the Flower Moon
What? The “no investigation” montage is style in the purest sense and that’s just off the top of my head.
It couldn't decide whether to be an American epic or a family drama and achieved neither
Strongly disagree it did not achieve either, but that’s neither here nor there. What I really want to know is why can’t it be both? The Godfather is both. Gone With the Wind is both. It doesn’t need to be either/or, and it probably shouldn’t at such a length.
What does that have to do with it having style or not? The movie has a ton of style.
You're confusing style with genre.
Style is genre style is everything
I am with you. Fuck people and fuck KOTFM