Delight or Challenge: The filmmaker's dilemma

So, after discussing the two sides of the same coin that is film, I started to think about the two purposes that we seem to be presented with; delight or challenge. My rebuttal to those two is, shouldn't a filmmakers' goal be to do both? There are plenty of films out there that achieve one or the other end of the spectrum, and they tend to fall into the same release dates every year (i.e. summer blockbusters; usually the action movies with little going on to think about?). However, there's most definitely a collection of movies that try to achieve an equilibrium. I've thought of some examples of how that mark is hit and/or missed by some of the more prevalent films of recent.

This still is from Upstream Color, a movie by Shane Carruth that focuses on a couple trying to figure out what's happening to them as they feel some sort of control that they can't comprehend. It's hard to summarize this movie, but it definitely looks beautiful; the use of color, the cinematography, and the acting are all well done, but the film spends so much time trying to get across a point that it doesn't really deliver one in the end. It doesn't challenge you because there's nothing there for you to question besides the abstract plot. This film would be my example of how attempting to make a film challenging can backfire and lose the aspect of delight.

This one, Short Term 12, definitely struck that chord for delight but also didn't hit the chord for challenge in all the right ways. It definitely challenged you to feel for the characters, to grow attached and put yourself in their shoes and understand them. Yet, after the movie, there wasn't much to think on. the plot comes full circle, almost showing how these guardians for troubled teens keep going into the same loop. It wraps the plot up nicely and doesn't give you much to ponder on afterwards.

Birdman: Or, The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance, was one of my favorite films of 2014 because it delivered a challenge to the audience in a format and style that was entertaining. You watch Michael Keaton try to put on this stage production for "art's sake," but internally he's fighting that superhero persona he played years ago that wants to feel relevant again. He and all the other characters struggle to find what they're really after, fighting amongst each other to finish their personal searches. The kicker, though, is that Keaton's character is portrayed as having superpowers, as if he really was a superhero. But was he? You can go back and look into this film and analyze it and decide for yourself, having plenty of instances that are open for interpretation. The ending itself even is left ambiguous. I was still thinking about this film days after I saw it, still reflecting on the stuff I enjoyed while watching it. This film definitely hit both chords for me.

So in conclusion, there's always two sides to a film that one can look at and decide it's purpose. However, there's too many films out there that achieve both sides that I think it's more than lazy to only bother with one.