Aw, heck, and I was so looking forward to a rant (though George Clooney did just recently offer up a pretty awesome diatribe against hedge fund profiteers interested only in making money and not genuinely interested in/informed about film culture and film making, and so try to intimidate studios into being afraid to make anything but tentpoles). . . So by Above-The-Line/Below-The-Line, do you think Aristotle already was dividing the whole idea of cultural entertainment into high (thought-provoking, and often aimed at/intended for the elites) vs. low (purely spectacle, and meant to entertain/placate the rabble)? I have to admit, the first thing I thought of when I read this next section of Aristotle was not so much the ancient Greek as the ancient Roman versions of Spectacle, such as when they flooded the Colosseum, the better to re-enact legendary naval battles, along with all the many better-known variants of the Imperial bread-and-circuses political pandering that masqueraded as entertainment. I also thought of this very cool interview with Shane Black http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdKap1z_9L4 that someone shared with me recently, in which he mentions, at 25:56, that he believes the Platonic ideals of all movies already exist, and it's up to screenwriters to try to capture those ideal movies as fully as possible. How awesome is that?!(And I'd love to know what Aristotle would think of that!) Black also says of action films, earlier back at 7:37, ". . .all these action films are all about ejaculation anyway, guns exploding all the time, boom, boom, boom, it's all sexual. . ." - a wonderful statement that reminded me of an equally wonderful Robert Frost quote, "Unless you are educated in metaphor, you are not safe to be let loose in the world." - AND which also then left me, as a woman, to wonder, does that also mean that, as far as those financiers/big tentpole movie maker types mentioned earlier are concerned, it is just fine, in the name of maximum profits, to make movies that are overwhelmingly geared toward/concerned with the experiences of only half of the people on the planet(why, yes, there is such a thing as female ejaculation, but that's a whole different metaphor/discussion, yes)? And how very depressing one must find that idea, if one is a member of that other half of the planet thus relegated to being most often seen as nothing more than a prize/sop/prop in such movies. Though Aristotle himself probably would have no problem with that idea; the ancient Greeks, after all, were notorious misogynists. . . Meanwhile, thank you again as always, Scott, for leading us to culture AND making us think!

There were two types -- or genres, if you will -- of drama presented at the ancient Greek spring festival to the god Dionysus, tragedy and comedy. The Poetics focuses on tragedy with only fleeting remarks about comedy. (Some scholars argue that Aristotle's treatise on comedy was lost; others say he never wrote it.) Whatever, we have but half of an analysis of drama as it existed in his day. Does Aristotle ranking of elements for tragedy apply to comedy as he knew it? Perhaps Spectacle (sight gags and props) and Diction (jokes) might have ranked higher in his estimation -- or ought to have: we know there was a lot of visual gags in early Greek comedy. (And one of the most common prop gags was the use of enormous phalli.) And jokes about sexual potency--or the lack thereof--was a pervasive theme. If there is a 'Platonic ideal' in comedy down through time, it is raunch. So I suggest the take away is that there is no one-size-fits-all dramatic formula to be found in the Poetics (or any other text on drama for that matter). In contemporary cinema, Spectacle ranks high as the must-have element for genres like action-adventure, super-hero, sci-fi, and fantasy films. For other genres, not so much, or not at all.

RE: "Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet." Is that any less true today? A move script is only supposed to sketch the Spectacle in a few hundred words -- or less. Then it is left to a special effects cast of hundreds and a budget of millions to flesh it out, make it come to life on the screen.

Ah, Pgronk, I love this: "If there is a 'Platonic ideal' in comedy down through time, it is raunch." Amen! And as you say, to have but half an analysis (for whichever reason) - what a shame. also, in case anyone's interested, here's a link to the awesome George Clooney diatribe: http://www.deadline.com/2013/08/george-clooney-slams-sony-investor-daniel-loeb/#utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I would take this one, pretty much, at face value: pure spectacle can have its own reward, but it has nothing to do with story. My guess is that the $836 million take for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen would be completely immaterial to Aristotle. Likely he would subscribe to the oft-noted view that effects-laden film spectacles have far more in common with a theme park thrill ride than they do with character or theme-based drama. I disagree that Aristotle’s perception of spectacle was lightyears away from what we have now. The tricks and surprises conjured by the stage machinists were likely just as eye-popping for his time as our movie-going experience is today. If, upon being time-traveled to the present, it turned out that he loved CGI spectacles (there’s an idea for a film!), I’m sure he would still understand the difference between that and the “art of the poet” (what for him was Tragedy, and for us is stories toiling in character and theme). On the other hand, I would wager that how he understood character is where he had a vastly different perception from us given our far greater awareness and appreciation of human psychology. Remember, for him character meant Moral Character, how a person’s internal values are reflected in their actions. We know that, while that still holds, there’s also far more area to explore when portraying the many facets of an individual. This is why I think its important not to put too much stock in Aristotle as a source of guidance on matters of Character. We are far ahead of him in this regard, at least when we manage to stay focused on art. Conversely, when we succumb to the emotional attraction of physical thrill and confuse its commercial value with cultural value, then we would do well to, at the very least, return to Aristotle’s admonishments on the importance of Moral Character lest we don’t end up contributing to a devolution of humanity.

Thank you, Melanie, for bringing up the brutal and extravagant Roman Colosseum spectacles. I wasn't going to go there, but think of them often, and their correspondence with the Fall of Empire, when confronted with our own entertainment excesses. Also, there seems to be no question that those financier/tent pole types are more concerned with satisfying that other half of the population from you and I. But don't be depressed. The female-generated, female-centric films are out there. They're just not being made by studios and you have to look a little harder to find them. I saw Margarethe von Trotta's Hannah Arendt this weekend. A portrayal of Arendt's struggle to comprehend the motivations of Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann that builds to a "female ejaculation" in the form of an impassioned speech on the nature of evil. No evil is vanquished or enemy destroyed, but make sure you see it with a couple of other people cause you'll want to talk about it after.

Hi Jennine, Margarethe von Trotta's Hannah Arendt sounds awesome - thank you for the heads-up, can't wait to see this one! Also love what you said about being wary of succumbing to the emotional attraction of physical thrills, and of confusing commercial with cultural value; along with the importance of heeding A.'s admonishments re: moral character - Evil, after all, is so banal. . . :) Cheers, Melanie

Aristotle's notion of character is not sufficient for contemporary drama, but I think it is necessary, a good foundation on which to build. But I would point out the limitations of refracting what for the Greeks in Aristotle's time was a profoundly religious and uniquely civic ritual through the lens of a modern medium whose purpose is mass entertainment, not worship, profit, not piety.

Once again I am blown away by the depth and diversity of comments in this series. I am currently on the road, so will take awhile to process all of your ideas and respond, but please accept my thanks for your feedback!