While this article isn’t really a full vindication of my criticism of movies in this thread in The BBQ Pit, I noted that my choice not to go to movies has some support, from this article in the South Bay Daily Breeze, of November 22, p. B-4:
[article]
[headline] A LOOK AT THE DUMBING DOWN OF HOLLYWOOD
by Steve Murray, Cox News Service
The shark in Jaws ate more than bit players. It chewed up the old way Hollywood made movies, with a little help from Star Wars. These were unprecedented hits that gave studios their new holy grail: The blockbuster that passed the $100 million mark at the box office.
And these two movies are indirectly to blame for the bad, dumb and loud flicks that crowd today’s multiplex.
Tonight’s [Thanksgiving Day, Nov. 22, on KCET, a PBS station in Los Angeles] “Frontline: The Monster That Ate Hollywood” dissects how the moviemaking business has gone from what producer Peter Gruber calls “a cottage industry” to a profit-seeking machine. Now, tie-in products (like Harry Potter toys) are as important as the film itself. Studios rely on cable and network broadcast deals, video rentals and DVD sales to boost profitability.
And if a movie doesn’t take the No. 1 spot at the box office on its first weekend, it’s considered a bust.
One large culprit for the dumbing-down of movies is the international market, once an afterthought to studios, now a major target. That’s why many would-be blockbusters have three things in common: minimal dialogue, loads of action and a bankable movie star to overcome the subtitle barrier. (You don’t need to speak English to appreciate Tom Cruise leaping through the air in the Mission: Impossible flicks.)
Anyone who likes smaller, smarter films will be depressed to hear actor-producer Michael Douglas (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest) and producer David Kirkpatrick (Big Night) say they couldn’t make their films now in a world where the bottom line is king.
Producers interviewed complain about the business but continue to play by the rules.
[/article]
(I replaced Murray’s quotation marks around movie titles in his article, with italicizing.)
Nothing to crow about, is it? 
Steve Murray sounds awfully smug about something that was old news ten years ago.
Yeah, goddamn those movie moguls for trying to make money! Who do they think they are?
Burn down Hollywood!
Yeah, back in the old days, Hollywood didn’t care about the foreign market. Not during the silent era, when the companies were worried about the new “talkie” technology and how it would cut into the money they were making from overseas. Not during the '30s, when the studios asked directors and writers to ix-nay the ashing-bay of the azi-nays, because they were making a pile of money in that market. Nope, they stayed true to their art.
And the movies these days! All aimed at the lowest common denominator: those idiot movie buyers who throw eight bucks for a ticket, just because it made “ET’s” cover last week. Those brainless toads! Remember when you could see quirky independent movies that the studios would NEVER make today. Films like “Memento,” “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back,” “O Brother Where Are Thou,” and “Hedwig and the Angry Inch.” A peroxide-blonde transvestite. Now THAT’S something I’d like to see on a Burger King glass!
Oh, wait, you did see them last year!
Feh. This reminds me of the Los Angeles Times article that just appeared. Seems that the writer just discover that moviemakers LIKE TO MAKE MOVIES THAT MAKE MONEY.
What’s more, if a movie makes money, THEY MAKE A SEQUEL.
Yes, there are a lot of sequels out there. Yes, they make money. Sometimes more than the original.
My point is that Hollywood has ALWAYS made sequels. When they counted the receipts from silent-era “Tarzen of the Apes,” starring the immortal Elmo Lincoln, guess what sunshine, THEY MADE ANOTHER TARZEN MOVIE.
Did this writer ever hear of the Marx Brothers? Abbott & Costello? Laurel & Hardy? Did he ever hear of the old-time movie producer who threw the script of a movie they just made to the scriptwriter and said, “Do the same, only make it a Western.” Yes, I’m paraphrasing the line. The story, including cites, can be found in a coffee-table book called “Flesh & Fantasy.”
Recycling didn’t start last year, kids. It’s been going on from the beginning.
That’s ridiculous. It hasn’t been a cottage industry since Edward Muybridge photographed horses and naked gymnasts in the 1870’s.
Pesch, I’m interested that you mentioned Laurel & Hardy, but I wish you had mentioned Our Gang as well, as an excellent case in point.
Before I go any further here, however, I must reply to your point so sarcastically announced at the start of your posting: I don’t question the right of studios or movie production companies to make a proft; I believe it is possible for them to do so without engaging in the full-blown commercial campaigns mentioned in Murray’s article.
When Laurel & Hardy, and Our Gang, were making their films under the aegis of their original companies (Pathé and Hal Roach Studios) they flourished. But when the more commercially-minded MGM took over (long before the TV era, ncidentally) the decisions all came from the studio bosses, leaving the stars and directors no latitude–and that is what had generated the films’ appeal. The big studios, however, relied on the performers’ famous names–sort of a bait-and-switch.
And what did we get? At least one compendium of Laurel & Hardy films notes how the quality of the movies went downhill by dint of the executives’ do-it-our-way-or-not-at-all ukase. As for Our Gang, who of the Teeming Millions doesn’t know well–and rue well–the day when MGM’s theme for Our Gang seemed to change to little ten-minute morailty plays? Leonard Maltin, in fact, says MGM ‘beat Our Gang into the ground.’:mad:
And, as I noted in the OP, even a big-name star like Michael Douglas deplores the current commercial philosophy.
(In 1977 an article in Sports Illustrated noted, to my anger, that, with the runaway success of Star Wars, 20th Century Fox started buying up ski resorts in Colorado.)
As I said, I don’t begrudge studios turning a profit, but this takeover policy inspires me to suggest that the executives take a flying leap for the moon and get bent! :mad:
Normally, I wouldn’t say this but…
Dude, chill out. They are just movies. And as pesch pointed out, there are PLENTY of low-budget, independent films released where the director and producer get a lot of maneuver room. Kevin Smith’s New Jersey Chronicles, Memento, etc. Go see those instead of the other stuff.
How about we do something before you start foaming at the mouth:
When was the last year when hollywood released more good movies than bad movies?
In the last 15 years I haven’t seen more than 5 good movies in a single year.
I don’t think hollywood has ever had a year of making good movies… Maybe if we’re lucky they’ll make 2 or 3 worth seeing.
Btw: I’m scared about the Gary Sinease (spelling)movie Imposter comming out this month. Its been delayed for 2 or 3 years, was origionally a 45 min long film in a sci-fi anthology and had a dozen writers add another HOUR of filler to the script. Its a great Phillip K Dicks and apparently the 45 min version was great.
Yes, you’re right about “Our Gang.” Another great series.
I suppose my point is that it’s always been a fight between “art as art” and “art as commerce.” The creative artist has always had to fight to get their own way. Some do it with the independent route, some work within the system. And some artists see their work shut down, bowderlized, destroyed, or cannot get their projects off the ground at all, and that’s a shame too.
One of these titanic battles was made into a book, “The Battle of Brazil” about the Terry Gilliam film. The book includes the complete script of the revised version that the head of the studio wanted, with commentary by the author showing how studio decisions would have eviserated Gilliam’s vision. It would have destroyed the movie.
It’s not fair, and it is worth commenting and criticizing. But much of what I read is pretty shallow and ill-informed, and that’s what gets me annoyed.
Then you’re not going to the right movies. Just this WEEK, I can go see a David Lynch film (Mulholland Drive), a Coen Brothers film (The Man Who Wasn’t There), a Pixar film (Monsters, Inc.), a Jean-Pierre Jeunet film (Amelie), a David Mamet film (Heist), a Terry Zwigoff film (Ghost World is still in theaters here in Chicago), a Baz Luhrmann film (so is Moulin Rouge) and not one, but two Richard Linklater films (Waking Life and Tape)! I’ve seen all except for the Mamet and Linklater films (I will see them). And those are movies playing in the regular theaters! I’m not including all the good films playing at the art house/limited run theaters!
Seek, if you want to see good films, and ye shall always find them. Why is it so much easier to bitch and moan about how there “aren’t any good films out there” than it is to actually go SEEK OUT the good ones!
If you’re in movie hell and only have a multiplex playing the most mediocre of current films, blame it on where you live and get yourself a DVD player. Then seek out the many hundreds of excellent films you’ve obviously missed over the last 15 years.
Hollywood, schmollywood. Hollywood has ALWAYS made a bunch of really bad to mediocre films and you had to go out looking for the good to great ones. It’s always been that way. Always.
Eq
Ok, where to start.
First off, each year there are maybe 3-10 movies that I don’t watch. These are usually movies targeted from small children (think Rugrats) or movies so utterly terrible everyone hates them (think the Beavis and Butthead movie). Every other goddamn piece of hollywood drivel I’ve seen.
Also, I don’t get to see every art house movie but I do see the ones that get good reccomendations by some film professors I know. I’m a huge fan of a lot of foreign cinema but unfortunatly can only understand the Japanese films but I also enjoy French, Chinese and Italian movies.
And I still feel the majority of them are crap.
Monsters Inc, it was cute kinda funny and totally inoffensive. Its not quite a master work of american cinema. It all depends on how you define good.
Unbreakable, fantastic movie. Boring as shit for the most part, but well done (if underacted but then again consider the script and the purpose). A lot of reviewers couldn’t get off of the bad superman clone they used. Or the fact that every 30 seconds there wasn’t something on screen to keep the audience rivited.
Final Fantasy, I really liked that one. First off I was astounded by the CGI work, and secondly I really liked the handling of traditional japanese themes of role in society vs moral obligation vs love. If you didn’t get it watch a lot of Ozu (a fantastic director) just be warned you will get bored and some of the camera work is godawful.
Session 9!!! Ohhh favorite horror movie to come out in a long time.
Heist was good, kinda formulaic (spelling) good actors/acting though. Really predictable and kinda halfhearted. It was like Ronin, strictly by the book script. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t well done or that I didn’t enjoy it. It was both, but with a tiny bit 'o work it could have been really good.
Moulin Rouge. Gag me, I hate Nicole Kidman. The whole movie ended up reminding me of Evita which was an ok movie overall but just very wierd especially considering the historical context.
Life as a house (or what ever the exact title was) was really really good, I enjoyed that.
I’ve also never been a big David Lynch fan. All of his movies come across as being far to much of an excersize in self-gratification.
Kiss of the Dragon, I really like Jet Li and the movie was very enjoyable. IF they had fixed up the script and made the bits with the hooker (who played that role I can’t remember for the life of me… which is one of my complaints) it would have been a ‘good movie’.
From Hell gets all tingly very good movie. Badly misscast (think female lead) a terrible rewrite of a graphic novel which was a terrible rewrite of a good book. Male lead was great and the guy who played the Royal Physician was freakign amaizing!!!
AI, pretty disappointing, but to be expected when you take a dramatic downshift in directorial power. (Kubric [god] to Speilburg [Saint, but falling with some of his more recent movies])
What Dreams May Come… I’ve spent more time trying to figure out if I liked this movie.
Bicentennial man, magnificant! It actually managed to capture what I feel was AA’s feelings behind his stories and his understanding of humanity.
The Haunting of Hill House (or the new version The Haunting (?)) Combine the best aspect of each and make them as the origional (same date for the origional mind you) and you’d quite possibly end up with one of the best horror films.
Anything with Billy Crystal… burn it, burn it now.
Tape, I couldn’t get into it. That one was my fault was in a very close minded mood when I went to see it.
The Truman Show. WHY THE HELL DIDN’T Carrey get a goddamned academy award nomination!?! Good script, his character came across EXCEPTIONALLY well.
The Ring. Finally managed to get my hands on a bootlegged copy of this puppy (with subtitles couldn’t understand enough of the Japanese to get a working understanding of most of the plot). Pretty good, I’d rank it on par with the Parasite Eve movie (Its not a movie based on the game ya uncultured hippies, the games are based off of possible future events based off the godlike book. Read ‘Blood Music’ then think of a better plot with a slightly different idea [I think parasite eve came first but can’t remember] hell PE is simply the better book of the two.) The Ring is origional and pretty good and PE is a moderately well done movie based off of one of my favorite books.
Okage, damn good movie (be prepaired though its New Line Gay Japanese Cinema and if you’re not forewarned its a suprise).
Death by Hanging (don’t think anyone will ever see it only a handful of copies exist anymore). Really really good movie.
Dog Star Man, you just gotta let go and you’ll enjoy this movie. Sit around with some friends in comfy chairs, substance abuse if so desired and remember falling asleep during the movie isn’t a bad thing. (seeing it in my college’s screening room with those uncomfortable desks sucked I had such a pain in my back and neck…)
You see, it all depends on what you define as a good movie. Most movies are entertaining and I enjoy. That doesn’t mean I think that they are good movies.
I try to see things that are new innovative and push the limits as far as what technically is in the movie, what sort of story is being told or what the message is.
Far too much of the drivel comming out of hollywood is a simple rehashing of old tried, yet in some cases true, plots, characters and actors.
This is one of the reason why I truely hate romantic comedies.
Its like taking ‘Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ and ‘Snatch’ and trying to figure out which one gets the GOOD MOVIE award from Colin. Lock Stock is new and innovative, Snatch is a much better technically done movie with better actors. I like the actors better in the second (Brad Pitt was fantastic!)
Ok thats long enough for me.
You’re homework assignment peoples is to figure out which of those movies I mentoned I think of as Good Movies. 