I often take a contrarian view at screenings: the argument that 'the medium is not the message' is really a protest against technological or market determinism. Directors know their craft involves choices — framing, pacing, performance, sound design — and they can’t be reduced to the platform their work appears on. When a show moves from cinema to streaming, or a novel becomes a film, what changes are constraints and affordances: runtime limits, budget, censorship, audience expectation. But those are tools, not the theme itself.
Historically, filmmakers have reclaimed authorship through style — the so-called auteurism — precisely to show message stems from intention, not purely medium. I see this in adaptations: 'Memento' uses structure to echo memory, but the core idea remains an exploration of identity, not a manifesto about filmic devices. Directors push back because a wholesale devotion to medium-first thinking removes responsibility for what they actually want to say.
I get excited talking about how platforms nudge creators, so when I hear someone claim the medium isn't the message I think of the attention economy. Lately I've noticed short-form apps and algorithm-driven platforms changing how stories get told — 60-second beats, punchy hooks — and many directors push back because they don't want themes squashed into platform-friendly templates. That doesn't mean the medium has no influence; it absolutely does. The camera can lie with angles, editing can reorder truth, and a live theatre's immediacy changes how an audience feels tension.
But from my perspective, saying the medium isn't the message is a defensive, creative stance: it's asserting that ideas, ethics, and character arcs refuse to be fully determined by format. Look at adaptations like 'The Last of Us' — it benefits from television's scope, but the themes of love and survival were already present in the game. Conversely, seeing a play or novel adapted into a film can reveal hidden layers or blunt some edges; that interplay is fascinating. In short, medium matters, but directors remind us meaning emerges from choices, context, and how audiences bring their own baggage to the work.
Sometimes I get into these late-night arguments with friends over whether form dictates meaning, and that's where the phrase 'the medium is not the message' pops up for me. I like to flip McLuhan on its head: sure, the medium shapes possibilities — a close-up in film is a different kind of intimacy than a stage monologue — but directors who say the medium isn't the message are defending the idea that intention, performance, and context carry the real weight.
I had one of those tiny epiphanies watching 'Blade Runner' after reading 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' The cinematic noir mood, the soundtrack, and the rain-drenched visuals gave the film a life separate from the book's themes. The medium added flavor, but the message about memory and humanity lived in the choices: which scenes were kept, which emotions were emphasized. Directors who push back against medium-determinism want to remind us the story, the actors, and the political or personal lens matter more than saying the medium alone defines the meaning. It’s like arguing a guitar makes the song — it helps, but the melody still comes from the person playing it.
I like to think of media as different instruments in an orchestra. When a director says 'the medium is not the message', I hear them saying the instrument shouldn't steal the melody. The camera, stage, or console gives unique colors and dynamics, but they’re still serving the story and the intentions behind it.
Practical stuff matters too: studio notes, runtime, and distribution often bend how a story is told, so directors push back to protect themes and tone. A movie can make a joke land differently than a comic, but the point — what you’re trying to say about people or society — can survive the shift if handled deliberately. I usually side with creators who treat medium as a collaborator, not the boss.
2025-08-30 20:13:02
7
View All Answers
Scan code to download App
Related Books
Framed Before the First Cut
Montsea123
0
2.6K
I was an emergency physician.
After finishing a night shift, I had just walked out of the hospital entrance when a colleague from the hospital called me.
"Dr. Doherty, hurry back. A critically injured patient was just brought in. The chief wants you to return immediately and help with the resuscitation."
I turned around without thinking.
But then a stream of floating comments suddenly appeared in front of my eyes.
[Do not enter the operating room! Do not take part in this resuscitation!]
[The patient is already dead. If you go in, you will be taking the fall for the hospital director's daughter!]
[This patient's family is powerful. You will not only be sentenced to death, your parents will also be forced to jump to their deaths as well!]
My steps stopped cold.
A few seconds later, my heart tightened.
I decided to believe the comments.
I would gamble on it.
My eyes swept quickly across the ground.
I immediately locked onto an uncovered deep shaft on the road.
I gritted my teeth, shut my eyes, and threw myself straight into the opening.
I was the kind of girl everyone called hopelessly lovestruck.
That day was no different from any other. I clung to my boyfriend’s arm, leaned in close, and shamelessly asked for a kiss like I always did.
However, right before my lips touched his, a line of glowing comments drifted across my vision. They floated in the air like a livestream chat.
[Can this side character wake up already? Can she not see the male lead avoided her the entire time? He hated clingy relationships like this.]
[The kind of person who really suits him is the female lead. Someone gentle, patient, and understanding.]
[Once the real female lead shows up, this annoying clingy girlfriend is definitely getting dumped.]
My body froze.
I slowly loosened my arms from around his neck.
In the next second, he suddenly looked up at me.
“Why’d you stop?”
Among the world's female models, Julian Vance once again ranked first as the photographer they most wanted to spend a night with.
And yet he had never taken a single photograph of me.
When reporters asked about it, he could never hide the fondness in his eyes. "My wife is for my eyes only. No one else gets that privilege."
On my birthday, I happily changed into a lace nightdress and, for the first time, asked him to record me with his camera.
Several minutes passed. The shutter never sounded. Behind the camera, Julian's expression had gone stiff.
"Forget it," he said.
My joy collapsed into confusion. "What's wrong?"
"It's just..." He laughed dryly. "Photography is work. I don't want to mix you up with work."
Then he put the camera back, turned around, and went into the bathroom.
The door to the darkroom where he developed his photos was half open, red light spilling through the crack.
I walked inside and saw an album on the worktable titled Vivian Blair's Private Diary.
I opened it.
Inside were photos in every degree of intimacy and every kind of pose.
At the start of graduation season, my boyfriend took more than two hundred photos of Madison Vale.
Chase Whitman was president of Westbridge University’s photography club. He knew how to find flattering light and how to coax people out of stiff smiles.
Madison stood beneath the maples outside the library in a white dress, her graduation cap tucked under one arm.
“Am I taking up too much of your time?” she asked.
Chase checked the last few shots and smiled. “You make my job easy.”
When it was finally my turn, he barely looked at me.
“Stand by the tree.”
He clicked the shutter twice and lowered the camera.
“Done.”
I stared at him. “That’s it?”
He turned the screen toward me. In one photo my eyes were half-closed; in the other, a branch shadow slashed diagonally across my face.
“Can we try again?”
Chase sighed. “Avery, you always tense up. Fifty more takes won’t change that.”
Ten minutes later, my phone buzzed.
He had posted in the Westbridge Buy:
Twenty dollars for someone to spend ten minutes taking a few graduation photos of my girlfriend. Nothing fancy. She just needs something usable.
Half an hour later, a stranger replied.
I sent him my location, then added: Just so you know, I’m not very photogenic.
His answer came almost immediately: That usually says more about the photographer than about the subject.
When Rowan Hayes arrived, he looked at Chase’s two photos and said, “He didn’t even try.”
An hour later, he sent me the raw files.
No filters, no heavy retouching. Just me on the library steps, my hair loose in the wind and my eyes brighter than I remembered them being.
After I accidentally uploaded a rant post instead of my resignation letter, the messages went like this.
Me: [Did you see the file I submitted?]
He: [Mm… yeah. I saw it.]
Me: [Then why didn't you reply? You don't approve?]
He went quiet.
I lost my patience and typed back, [If you're not saying anything, I'll take that as a yes. I'll come by your office this afternoon.]
He replied almost instantly. [That fast?]
Me: [Fast? How is that fast?]
He: [I need some time to think.]
Two seconds later, another message came in. [Is that okay?]
I said yes.
He ended up leaving work early and even gave the entire company three days off.
Sitting at my desk, I thought about it for a long time.
He was the owner of the company, yet there he was, acting like he was afraid I might leave.
Was he really that desperate to keep me?
I get excited thinking about this because it flips a tidy slogan on its head and forces you to look at movies like living, breathing conversations. When people say the medium is not the message they’re pushing back against Marshall McLuhan’s claim in 'Understanding Media' and insisting that content, context, intention, and audience interpretation matter just as much — sometimes more — than the technology carrying the film.
For me this idea pushes film theory away from technological determinism and back toward things like ideology, authorship, and spectator experience. It’s why debates about preservation, translation, and censorship are as important as debates about 35mm versus digital. Bazin’s love of the long take in 'What is Cinema?' sits beside Eisenstein’s montage; both are medium-sensitive, but when you say the medium is not the whole message you allow for social context, reception history, and industry conditions to reshape meaning.
Practically, that perspective opens film studies to adaptation studies, fan practices, and platform effects: a scene streamed on a phone while someone scrolls Twitter functions differently than the same scene in a dark theater. I tend to think of films as ecosystems — medium helps form them, but it’s not the sole storyteller — and that complexity is why I keep going back to old movies with new eyes.
There are mornings when I wake up scrolling through a feed and I feel like the old slogan 'the medium is the message' gets flipped on its head. Back when that phrase was coined, people were trying to point out how the delivery system shapes meaning — and that's still true — but today I think writers need to treat the medium as one ingredient, not the whole recipe.
In practice that means I write imagining three things at once: the platform’s quirks (short form vs long-form, autoplay vs text), the audience’s context (commuting, skimming between classes, reading at midnight), and the piece’s core impulse (what feeling or insight I want to leave behind). I often type a paragraph on my phone during a bus ride and then expand it on a laptop later; the piece changes, but the core idea keeps surviving the format shifts. That survival is the real message.
So for me, the takeaway is pragmatic: craft work that can wear different outfits. Focus on clarity, emotional hooks, and modularity so your words can move across places without losing soul. It’s a small habit that’s made my writing feel more resilient and, surprisingly, more honest.