Less is More

Is prudence more effective in cinema?

What we can do in movies today is, admittedly, quite amazing. While I've certainly voiced my standpoint on the gratuitous usage of computer effects in modern cinema, it's impressive nonetheless. There's certainly a brand of movie that benefits from that over-the-top style. Evil Dead, which I just gave a positive review a few days back, is a good example. In my mind, we need movies like that. We can't just have one kind of movie, it'd get boring if all we had was dead serious, drama.
That being said, let's ignore drama right now because at this point, you should have my priorities figured out. Let's talk about horror.
Horror is my favorite genre of film and is the one that's generally most affected by what I'm about to put down here. Let's first start with an example. I'll use Saw since it so perfectly illustrates what I'm getting at.

I've gone over this movie more than once. It's a great film. Thrilling, suspenseful, unique and engaging. Unfortunately, there are far too many sequels and no one in their right mind would ever say that any of them come close to topping the first. In fact, most people who praise this movie emphasize that the sequels should be ignored all together (me, for instance).
So what is it about the first film that the succeeding ones never got? Every new movie was desperately trying to top the original by way of increasing the body count, violence, upping the stakes or whatever else to make the new movie seem bigger (or crazier). This is a woefully common trend in horror movie sequels that ultimately leads to the absurd, over-the-top and generally hated conclusions. Of course Saw is far from being a unique case. Other series's that come readily to mind are Scream, Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre (sort of), From Dusk Till Dawn, The Hills Have Eyes, Lake Placid, Friday the 13th, Child's Play, The Fly, Nightmare on Elm Street, Children of the Corn, The Final Destination, Hellraiser and Return of the Living Dead.

(Sigh) I pass.

Yeah. Like I said, not uncommon. There are plenty of other reasons those are bad and that trend is far from being specific to horror but I'm not here to talk about sequels themselves, I've done that before. I'm just using these examples to prove a point. For each of those series's, which installment would you say is the best? Most people (and critics) would agree that it's generally the first that takes the cake.
Why?
Is it because it was the most original with it's story? Partially, yes. But I say the cause of this incongruity of quality is prudence. That's right, the age old saying that less is more.

You following so far?

Many of these series's started out indie and with poor budgets. Because of that, they had to be resourceful and come up with ways to draw the audience in that didn't involve gore or special effects. This often meant creating horror on a less literal and more psychological level. I'm not saying that Lake Placid was ever psychological horror but I think you get my point.
These two are not like oil and water however; they can be mixed, but it's seldom pulled off. Certainly deserving of honorable mention is John Carpenter's, The Thing. That movie has a great plot, relies heavily on suspense and has gore and special effects up the ass. It works almost perfectly too. The special effects make the movie feel a little lopsided just because they're so jaw-droppingly incredible.
Like I said though, that's a rare example. It's so often that those two values are exchanged. This is largely because of the disparity between the kind of writers/directors/producers that make the film. There are some who want to communicate their story and others who just want to make cash. I'm sure you can guess which kind does what.

We meet again.

But it's not always that simple. I'm not talking about just roping an audience in. Remember when I asked about which movies were more memorable? Prudence is far more effective than simply showing off with gratuity. Gratuity is amusing and it's fun to watch with your friends but when it comes down to it, a movie that operates that way will never be remembered or re-watched generations later. A movie that piques your interest with psychological tactics gets in your head and stays there. You think on it long after you've seen it and you watch it again and again to gain even one more iota of it's plot.

While the topic here is different, the message is the same I've already given. Sure, it's harder to come up with a riveting story as opposed to filling that gap with violence or whatever else but in the end, that effort is what should be given to a film. Film is an art that's respect is dwindling. You have to care about what you're creating or no one else will. Sure, you can go and make a movie that thrives off of graphic violence and special effects. It'll be entertaining but that's all it will ever be destined to be: entertaining. Only with thought and care, will a film be great. Less truly is more.