Movies as Art, Movies as Commerce

This entry was posted on Monday, June 21st, 20102010-06-21T16:50:30Zl, F jS, Y at 9:50 am2010-06-21T16:50:30Zg:i a

There has been quite a spirited debate in the comments of my article on the Huffington Post about the state of movies today. The thread of comments has grown longer and longer and it’s been a fascinating discussion. Who is to blame, audiences or corporate bean counters? Wouldn’t we love to know so we could feel all comfortable and blamey?

It would be a relief to know that we could find the reason for the spate of sequels, reboots, remakes and movies based on board games. It certainly can’t be US, right? I’m afraid it most squarely is. We have become entrenched in a consumeristic, materialistic society of our own making. America. Land of the “as seen on TV.” 1984 never looked so possible.

The spearhead of change is awareness of a problem and tremors are everywhere, from the Slow Food movement to the rise of veganism to our collective disgust of the white collar criminals who blew the hot air into our collapsed economy.

One commenter wondered about the wisdom, ethics and morals of telling film investors what to make.

This was my response:

When those putting up money for a film purely as an investment attempt to massage the box office outcome for the highest return, we reduce the artistic or linguistic toolbox, as in 1984, to the simplest terms, (double-plus ungood) or vacuous domestic wealth and privilege (IT’S COMPLICATED) and we effectively minimize our ability to express beyond profit margins.

Given the scope of the influence of film (TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, anybody?) I’d say this is an alarming state of things.

That said, in the same way that Peter Max, Andy Warhol or Jeff Koons were accused of cheapening their medium, movies are indeed a populist, organic and commercial art form free to express the gamut of human experience and thank god.

There’s no point in comparing IRON MAN (very good, actually) to HALF NELSON (brilliant) or GET HIM TO THE GREEK (very smart and funny, actually) to WINTER’S BONE (brilliant) and elevating one above the other beyond personal preference.

That said, the current trend of pablum is an alarming barometer of our times and who we have allowed ourselves to become: unthinking consumers.

True enough, there have always been bad movies, bad writing and movies or writing thought to be bad or beneath the collective intellect. Lolita comes to mind.

However, in the current atmosphere of commerce-driven art, Hollywood is chewing its own arm off with cannibalistic remakes, reboots and sequels.

Movies are indeed the uneasy intersection between art and commerce. But we can do better.

I’d love to hear from any Effers who’d like to chime in.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

6 Comments

  • Christian H. says:

    Howdy Jules,
    It’s been a while since I’ve posted, but I’ve been busy with theory and networking. I totally agree though that the problem is the “corporatization” of Hollywood. It’s hard to be bold when you have to report up the ladder to companies that have totally different business models and financial requirements with a much lower margin than say, “giant freezers” or even newspapers – well maybe not newspapers.

    But anyway, I know there are great writers with great stories out there and it is a shame that most will never even be seriously considered. I haven’t given up yet and am producing a short I wrote as another way “in.”

    I’ll be back to pitching as soon as possible and it’s much easier now that I’m in LA.

    Hey, maybe I could buy you a Starbuck’s sometime. I love talking to industry people. There’s so much more to talk about than crazy studios.

  • Yukfoo says:

    Sadly, it all comes down to supply and demand. Granted that the dumbing down of America’s movie goers, has left us where the demand for a new dick or fart joke is more appreciated than an enlightened observation, it’s ultimately the suppliers that contribute the most to this vicious cycle.

    The “dealer” is the one who makes, markets and distributes “drugs” like MacGruber, to “crack head film watchers”, collecting cash at the expense of our posterity’s brain cells.

    As an ameteur screenwriter, it sickens me, that in order for me to become a professional, I would have to discard my morals, my soul and my masterpiece, to write such a mind numbing and damaging story, with only the hope of being redeemed somewhere down the road. With all that being said… I’ve written “BioDome 2″ that I’m sure would make a great hit but I can’t seem to get in the door, any suggestions?

  • Martin says:

    I think there will always be movies as art, in addition to the commerce. The independent world is still alive and strong and will only become more so as digital means of production become easier and cheaper.

    I think what we have to look at is distribution, as many films either don’t get a proper release or don’t get a release at all. Independent films have less to lose, and so more distribution companies should try them on experimental releases (IFC has done well with this) to find a stable business model.

    Maybe the time when a movie studio will fund many original movies is over, but I think movies as art aren’t going to die any time soon, and it’s up to everyone to promote films they love. Likening it to the world of 1984 is a bit hyperbolic (control of the arts and media was one small part of the message of that book).

  • Martin says:

    One more thought: in the wake of Paranormal Activity’s huge success financially, weren’t Paramount going to dedicate about $10 million (small in movie budget terms) this year to a micro-budget program that would produce films from up and coming directors. Anyone know the fate of that so far? Because that could produce some interesting original films, and, if they were good enough, would also have the marketing arm of a big studio behind it.

    Certainly the ‘Demand it’ release strategy has worked for many small films so far, including Paranormal Activity, to build word of mouth and support for original films.

  • JulieGray says:

    @Christian – SURE!
    @Yufkoo – but you DON’T have to do that. Be a part of the revolution.

  • Thom Booth says:

    The writers of these movies must take most of the blame. In the most contrived and ridiculous concepts there still lies the glimmer of opportunity. I thought “Zombie Land” looked like an average crappy movie cashing in on the zombie craze. It turned out to be a real gem, funny, charming, and well told. Even if it was just cashing in on a current cultural obsession. A good writer could make “Smurfs” shine.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

Leave a Comment


Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree