I have a theory that the studios that produce films in Hollywood have a very specific goal. Yes, it's to stay in business. Yes, it's to make money. But HOW do they stay in business? How do they ensure a healthy profit margin? If you compare cinema from around the world with cinema from Hollywood, one thing is clear: sameness sells. The studio system (and yes, the "system" is still very much alive and well) is based on creating entertainment that keeps people coming back - like the tobacco industry infusing their cigarettes with addictive nicotine, since we all know without the nicotine, smoking would be much easier to kick. And the only way to keep audiences coming back is to program them to believe certain things, to instill specific expectations so that the viewer is cajoled into a false sense of security. By giving audiences a level of predictability, they know what they're getting when they walk into a movie theater and leave fully satisfied so long as those specific expectations are met.
I don't believe people like to be provoked, I don't believe people like to be pushed when they go to the movies. American audiences have come to believe entertainment is synonymous with indolence. They don't want to think, they don't want to be reminded of their world, their troubles, their reality. They want to escape and they want to escape to a place they know, like an old pair of shoes that they can take comfort in.
Production companies take advantage of this American affliction (or should I say, disease) because it reduces their risk at profits. If a studio can make film after film knowing an audience will embrace it, then the studio will do everything it can to keep that conveyor belt going. It will do everything it can to support the affliction that the audience is suffering from. Because why would a studio want to do anything otherwise? If it can produce film after film following the same format, the same formula, with consistent returns, then who can blame them?
Well, I blame them. It's not elitism to say the masses are ignorant. It's not snobbism to point out the Kool-Aid they're drinking and say "wake up!" It's not out of line to point out narrative expectations that define the quality of a film as complete bullshit. It's not wrong to defend the importance of this art form and remind people of the bubble they live in. Outside of this country, where cinema isn't at the level of "busines" that it is in Hollywood, remarkable works of art are being created. And Americans are getting left out! Americans are missing so much because the propanda they are fed has limited their palate to the point where they can't enjoy all the rich textures being created throughout the world. This is a crime! The public deserves the full experience cinema can provide! People talk about how some foreign films can't be remade in the US because American audiences couldn't handle the material. While I agree with that, I don't blame the public for being stupid. I blame the studios for brainwashing the masses into paralysis. I blame propaganda for beating the public into such submission that they are incapable of ingesting anything except what they have been programmed. What a sad state of affairs cinema must be in for such a comment to exist. What a devastating decline in taste we have suffered, to the point where fast food is not only the only food we eat but the only food we accept to exist.
When I hear people criticize a film as "boring" what it usually means is that they don't get it or they were confused. We are fed the belief that confusion is bad, uncertainty is the enemy. We are fed the notion that if things aren't easily explained then they aren't worth explaining. But are we that lazy? Are we so stunted that any activity from our brain cells sets off the alarms? Are people outside this country so much more enlightened? I don't think so. I admit that with other forms of art, I can be just as anti-intelligencia as the next guy. I'd much rather sit down with a John Grisham novel than with a Tolstoy manifesto. But I'd like to think Americans are just as intelligent as anyone else. I'd like to think Americans are capable of comprehending even the most difficult ruminations. But we just need to be given the chance. We need to wake up from our hypnotized state and question our expectations. Why am I thinking this movie is boring? Why do I love the way this story is told? If we analyze our impressions we can get beyond the state of denial we all seem to be in. If we look at a piece of art and try to understand the artist's intentions we might better open ourselves to receive the many gifts creativity can bring us.
It is my belief that people don't like surprises and they don't like watching a movie that is unpredictable. Audiences like familiarity, especially when they go to a movie to escape. But I contend that there are other mediums you could use to escape; cinema is too great, too powerful to be wasted on such triviality. As Sean Penn once said, "If you want entertainment get yourself a couple hookers and an eight ball." Cinema should provoke, should inspire; cinema should make you think about the world around you and make you feel for the human condition.
I love films that take me to places I never imagined. I love films that keep me guessing because that's what life is - a big bowl of unpredictability! To me, sameness is boring, predictability breeds complacency. I don't care how many explosions there are, if I know where the story is going then I'm going to be bored. Recently I watched a French horror film called "Martyrs". It wasn't a great film but it was different. It aspired to be something more than just another disposable piece of cinema meant to sell popcorn. It was thought-provoking and it did go in directions I never expected; for that I give it props. I wish more films did that, even mediocre fare like "Martyrs" which is only worth mentioning because the bar for the genre is set so low. In a perfect artistic world, "Martyrs" would be at the bottom of the pile, where originality was common. Unfortunately, we live in a system where originality does get noticed because it's so uncommon, regardless of the quality.
Am I an asshole? Are my expectations too high? Can't a society choose to define cinema in strictly narrow terms without being labeled ignorant or brainwashed? Don't people have the right to believe what they want to believe? Yes, I suppose they do. Ignorance is bliss and nobody should be forced to be literate. Lobotomies are a dime a dozen and if the lemmings want to march off the cliff, that's their business. The problem is that these lemmings are marching cinema off the cliff with them. The destruction of the art form rests solely on the system that is barraging the marketplace with gunk labeled as class. And that's not right. Call me condescending but I refuse to accept the masses' assessment. I refuse to look at cinema from such a narrow scope when I know it's reach is deep and meaningful. The bumper sticker "Question Authority" is apt here. We should constantly be assessing our own beliefs and searching for better answers instead of accepting the world that has been given to us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more, with virtually everything you say. Even with Oscar-nominated films, sometimes, films that are praised and praised, I feel the emotional beats are all so familiar. They're such a product. Even with a film like The King's Speech, which I more or less enjoyed, I still found myself more than a little disheartened at the familiarity of the story structure. I didn't know the story but the characters and much of the dialogue were so familiar, the characters not so much characters as recognizable types. We will only tolerate so much originality. And it must be original in a way that's safe, in a package that is comfortingly familiar. Different, but the same, is the unspoken credo of the mainstream Hollywood film, and even a lot of the so-called independent films have become like that. The ones that truly are surprising (a few that come to mind from the last two or three years are Winter's Bone, Cell 211, Frozen River, Tell No One, The Secret in Their Eyes, Leaves Of Grass) cost shit to make. The movie Once was made for 100,000$. I mean, to earn a living you have to pretty much sell out and direct commercials and then maybe you get to do your little film but nobody will finance it and, you know the deal. It's very disheartening. I look at the actors working in this stuff and think to myself, why would somebody want to make, for instance--Oh, I can't think of one off the top of my head, fill in some banal rom-com--? You know? I can't imagine doing anything that I didn't believe in. I could only be an actor in Los Angeles if I had Daniel Day Lewis' opportunities, or some other elite actor's. You know, the very very few who get to do the amazing stuff. And as great as they are, it's not just because they're great that they get to do these roles. Some of it is just destiny, because I've seen countless character actors in theaters around the country who are every bit as good as our most lionized actors (SEan Penn, kate blanchett, Daniel-Day, et al)but they will never be seen by most people, never be known the way these prized few are, who get the best opportunities. It's just all so fucked, the way it works. That's why I went back to my first love, which is writing. Because I can do it and do it my way and nobody can tell me to do it differently and I don't have to worry whether anybody will like it and it's just bliss for me, really. Everything you said about the business end of things in America is so true. I hope you find a way to make the kind of films you like and to make an impact and to get paid well. I sincerely do. It's obvious and it's awesome how much you love film, and I look forward to continuing to read about how it's going for you. B. Lennon