What's in the bag?
It's somehow inevitable that as soon as I left Dartmouth, the film series stopped included Marx Brothers Doubleshots and played two movies that I would have loved to see in the first week: Run Lola Run and Sin City. In retaliation, I found Run Lola Run at the local library and watched it last night ‚— a full day before it played at Dartmouth!
It's a very enjoyable movie. The plot is fairly simple: a fiery-haired girl has twenty minutes to find 100,000 marks or her boyfriend will be killed by the gangster who employs him. The movie follows her attempts to find the money, which are complicated by her moped having been stolen earlier in the same day, forcing her to get around Berlin on foot. Parts of the movie are a little strained: for example, several early parts are animated, and while the animation recurs in one particular moment throughout the film, it's never really clear why. Lola also screams when she's feeling particularly pressed by chaos; it's an interesting effect, but largely ignored in the middle o the film to return in a pivotal moment at the end. However, these are minor quibbles, and the majority of the movie is quite successful, as it blends music-video-esque quick scenes and cuts and a frenetic pace with an engaging story.
Hollywood's been in a slump lately: even with the (relatively) critically acclaimed Batman Begins and the LucasArts shit-into-gold machine that was Episode III, ticket sales are at a 20 year low. A number of explanations have been proposed: the growing prevalence of DVDs and DVD rentals, large screen TVs, movie theaters tending to be enormously shitty places to go, etc. While those probably all contribute — particularly the combination of the cost of movie tickets and the stock car experience you get — but I think it's also partly a result of the complete lack of innovation in Hollywood currently. Except for Sin City (and even that was an adaptation of a comic, not an original work), nothing Hollywood has produced recently has been even vaguely interesting, and even the American public is likely to eventually get tired of the same by-the-numbers stories, bland camera work, and uninspired direction. If Hollywood wants to get moviegoers to start going to movies again, it needs to start making movies worth going to, and xXx: State of the Union is not the right place to start.
5 diversions:
While it is obvious that movie-going is down, I'm not so sure it's even as simple as "movies have been really bad lately".
I won't argue with that; they have been.
But over the years, if the American movie going public has made anything apparent, it is that they love "by-the-numbers" plots and boring stories to be fed to them.
"If Gregory Peck can do it, then by God, the public will eat it up when Adam Sandler does it too," is what Hollywood thinks. For the most part, they're right.
The downturn movie ticket sales is more than just a slow economy, although it does play a role.
Honestly, who wants to drop a twenty on a movie date anyway? (only kind of kidding)
Maybe Hollywood is simply oversaturating the public. Whether it's the Michael Jackson trial or Brad Pitt and Angelina (which everyone has been hearing about since before Brad and Jen's split, yadda yadda, Billy Bob), I feel that a lot of people just don't want to deal with it anymore.
Or they have plenty of exposure in their homes - on the TV, over the internet. Just look at what is on the Yahoo! frontpage.
And not dealing with the exposure to celebrity and airbrushed glam means not going to movies, not going to concerts, so on and so forth.
I feel that a lot of people just don't want to go out anymore, or feel that they don't need to. Why go out for food when you can order? Why go out to watch a movie when you can rent? Why rent when you have a Netflix accounts? Why go out to buy a CD when you can order it or just use iTunes? You get the idea.
The counter-argument is that the "experience" is lost, but aside from events like the opening of Episode III or Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings, a lot of people aren't going out for "experience" anymore, I feel.
The movie industry will never tank due to nostalgia and the fact that people still need something to do on Memorial Day, because God knows it's not for doing anything productive, but the industry will have to deal with the fact that it's harder to get Americans off their (large) asses these days.
Look at concerts for example. They can't have a Lollapalooza anymore. Stadiums aren't selling out for a lot of acts that might sell out stadiums.
It's not apathy. I think contentment is more the word.
We had plenty of it for four years at Dartmouth, being spoiled in our bubble. But it really isn't just Dartmouth that spoils its denizens.
One of my dad's favorite prognostications is that Americans will eventually turn into large, sedentary dinosaurs with extremely dextrous fingers. Think TRex.
Obviously Hollywood has an obligation to prevent this eventuality by making entertaining and thought-provoking movies.
Or Jurassic Park 4. Or 5. I've lost count.
Satchmo wrote:
Honestly, who wants to drop a twenty on a movie date anyway? (only kind of kidding)
I've dumped a lot more than twenty on dates before; it's the "movie" part that's the problem.
You're right on a couple of points: people are overexposed to Hollywood and its drama at this point. Mark Caro wrote a nice article in last Sunday's Chicago Tribune on the subject,
but free registration is required and if you get spam in your mailbox for a while thereafter, it's not my fault. ;-)
His basic point, though, is that Hollywood has become more impressed with itself than it is with the movies it produces. While authors are told to write about what they know, it would be nice if it were interesting to someone else, and Hollywood is rapidly losing track of this.
The thing is, I think that is the same as "movies have been really bad lately." Going to the movie theater has always been about the experience, but if the movie itself is bad, there's no experience to be had. Hollywood has relied on name value to sell bad movies for some time; as the name value is collapsing, people are noticing that the movies really aren't any good either.
Of course, you're right that it's seeming to take more and more effort to get the American public off its collective fat ass. However, that granted, if the Hollywood studios are going to make any money at all, they're going to have to find a way and I suggest that making good movies is the best start I can see.
I think one of the best examples of Hollywood beating a dead horse is the travesty known as Oceans 12.
Now, Oceans 11 was a genuinely entertaining remake. It had the cast, which it attracted through the original's Ratpack moniker, it was well updated - especially the humor, and as heist films go, it wasn't badly done.
It was a bit gimmicky, but it was entertaining nonetheless.
Then it made a ton of money, did well on DVD, and the next thing you know, everyone and their mother wants a sequel. At least that's what the bigwigs in Hollywood thought.
And the result?
Well, not only was 12 trite, but it made no sense, completely subverted the nonlinear storytelling to confuse the audience, and worst of all, valued the actors' experience more than the audiences.
One wonders how they got the adline (12 - the new 11) and the plot by test screenings. I saw it and wondered if they had done any test screening at all.
Because no matter the audience, I think everyone walked out thinking "What the heck did I just see?"
So how do you get around it? Obviously some films do deserve to be remade, and can be done so successfully.
Remaking movies and adapting books into movies is not only easy, but sometimes, it's a great idea. Only sometimes though. Look at the wave of comic book adaptations - Spiderman? sure. Sin City? good idea. Punisher? err . . .
I guess if Ocean's 12 teaches us any lesson, it is that the dead horse Hollywood has been beating is named Julia Roberts, and that she should stop making movies.
> While authors are told to write about what they know, it would be nice if it were interesting to someone else, and Hollywood is rapidly losing track of this. <
Unfortunately, after you've lived and worked in Hollywood and its environs for a few years, what you know is interesting primarily to other Hollywood dwellers. Writing, acting, waiting tables, shooting at other drivers on the 405. When they do try to write something else, it usually devolves into a crappy merchandising opportunity.
It's not quite fair to bring up Ocean's 12, because it's so atrociously bad it's hard to discuss. The highlight of that movie for me was when Brian and I stopped the movie and spent five minutes discussing whether their magical mystery security beams would work.
It seems like we've all agreed that Hollywood has run out of ideas, and isn't fostering creative filmmaking. The question is, if there are creative filmmakers out there — and I have to believe there are — why doesn't anyone want to play their movies?
Part of the answer may be that most movie theaters now are chains just as big as the studios, and probably can't afford to take risks like that. But, given the state of movie ticket sales, playing art films may shortly be no more of a risk than playing anything else, or leaving the theaters empty.
Post a Comment