The end is nigh. Dark days are ahead. People are stupid, and a disgrace.
Such sunny sentiments have been shared by various prominent film critics (notably, Roger Ebert, Jeffrey Wells and Patrick Goldstein) in the wake of the box office triumphs of TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN and GI JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA.
These box office figures, when coupled with what's popular in television and music today, make me inclined to agree...
But then, I take a deep breath, and really think about it.
Sure, the signs are there if you're looking. But the cold, hard fact is the signs are always there if you want to see them.
Nostalgia constantly colours our judgments. We always remember the films, songs, shows, experiences we love, above the ones we hate. Or the undiscovered gems we've unearthed, either through long hours of dedication or complete dumb luck. When you think about it (when it comes to entertainment, at least), the human mind is fundamentally optimistic... as long as we're talking about the past.
I remember reading my old edition of Halliwell's Film Guide, back in the early 90s, which used to have quotes from reviews written at the time of release, and being utterly gobsmacked at the critical derision which greeted some of the classic films of the 1960s and 70s. How could Bosley Crowther not get the delicious social commentary and ironies of BONNIE AND CLYDE, and merely dismiss it as "a cheap piece of bald-faced slapstick comedy" and "strangely antique, sentimental claptrap"? Now, make whatever case you like about TRANSFORMERS not having any redeeming social or ironic value whatsoever -- don't worry, I'll agree with you -- but not all blockbusters out there are the same. Who knows, maybe in decades time we'll be discussing what THE PROPOSAL says about relationships in the age of the Global Financial Crisis, or what THE HANGOVER says about modern men in the early 21st century? Who are we to say? My point with Crowther (and his ilk, like John Simon and so on - check Halliwell's, there's a raft of critics slamming great films as empty or brainless) is that he was a major critic who was completely out of touch with the zeitgeist on that picture (and many more). And, as much as I hate to admit it, I think the same thing is happening here.
Allow me to clarify: On a fundamental, opinionated level, I (mostly) agree with these cats. I detest the endless parade of remakes, optioned toys/board games and the all-conquering cult of "brand awareness", as well as the shiny, cut-happy, visually cliched storytelling we get in big films today, but you can't blame the public for this. The general viewing audience can only eat what they're served. To which the three critics above will cry, "But why don't they seek the good stuff out?" Or, in Roger Ebert's case, "Why aren't more kids seeing THE HURT LOCKER?" Well, in regard to HURT LOCKER, it's R-rated, so teens have to drag an adult. And the reason adults can't or won't be dragged is the same reason why they won't seek the good stuff out. The fact many critics ask this question at all illustrates a cruel truth: a startling number of film critics (and buffs) are out of touch with Jane and Joe Public.
Jane and Joe Public could – generally speaking – give a fuck about film as art. Or film festival prizes. Even the Oscars don't matter much, except as vague validation in watercooler conversation (eg. "Oh, I've heard that SLUMDOG MILLIONARE is really good. Didn't it win the Best Picture Oscar?"). This is selling neither their intelligence or cultural awareness short. See, unlike critics and film buffs -- and I want you to listen very carefully -- Film is not the most important thing in J&J Public's life.
They've got kids to take care of and pets to feed and sports to ferry the kids to and bills to pay and work to do and groceries to buy and washing to do and back patios to repair and plants to tend and...
(Quick aside: I'm not saying film critics and film buffs don't have these too. But critics/buffs are wired to love film with all their hearts, will always make room for the demands of being a film lover... and are in the vast minority. End of aside.)
...dentist bills to pay and schools to choose and families to plan and houses to buy and mortgages to pay and... you get the picture. For J&J Public to decide to go to the movies, it's a big thing. It takes time and effort. So, they're looking to get it done with the least amount of effort required. What's more, they might not leave the kids at home. The kids have seen all the ads -- on TV and the internet and on the sides of buses -- and want to come along. So now, J&J Public are focused on family fare. Now, some people read reviews, most don't. Most go from word of mouth, which is still, after all the tricks are pulled from the hat, a marketer's greatest ally. Most don't live near an art house theatre, let alone look in the art house listings, let alone feel inclined to go to an art house theatre. If a particular J&J Public reside in an affluent suburb or major city, the inclination might be there. If not, forget it. So, once they've booked the babysitter or piled the kids into the 4WD, they're looking to see a film the whole family will dig, with no extra effort. I'll be honest: it feels a little patronising to spell this out, but this is what critics just don't understand. It's what good specialty films are up against. It's why it's easier to rock down to the local shopping mall to take the kids to TRANSFORMERS or GI JOE -- or, if the kids are at home, to take themselves to see THE HANGOVER or THE PROPOSAL -- than to drive all the way across town to go to the lovely, refined art house palace to see MOON or THE HURT LOCKER. (In fact, most "specialty" films are for adults, another obstacle. Not a lot of art house fare skews toward families.)
So J&J Public can not, must not, be blamed or derided. It ain't their fault. But it's got to be somebody's... right?
You bet.
What if, by some quirk of fate, the local shopping mall multiplex was showing MOON or THE HURT LOCKER? And were on the equal amount of screens as the blockbusters? And those films had the same level of marketing support as the others? Some of J&J Public would go, guaranteed. And those -- we're talking Mr & Mrs Public here, not the Public's film buff mate who likes all those weird foreign films & exploitation movies -- that enjoyed them, would tell their friends. And more would go. And, like all other films, some would hit, some would flop... but they'd have a fighting chance.
Of course, we don't live in that world. We live in a world where your multiplex has 20 screens but shows 10 films. Where we can't turn a corner without hearing about Megan Fox's views on men or how Channing Tatum got those pecs. Where intelligent specialty and indie fare are continually pigeonholed as such and rarely allowed to cross the borders of major cities or affluent suburbs. We live in the world of mass media as one gigantic, throbbing, incestuous, tumour-like entity. We live in the world of big studios swallowed by mega-corporations. Everything is money, everything is controlled, and everything that emanates from these megaliths is marketed to within half an inch of its glossed-up little life.
And that's who to blame. Like I said, the public can only eat what they're served, and it's too arduous to travel to another restaurant... too bad the most accessible restaurants in town are all McDonalds’.
I heard the saddening news this week that Paramount is closing the door on its excellent Paramount Vantage specialty division, responsible for films like THERE WILL BE BLOOD, BLACK SNAKE MOAN, BABEL, SON OF RAMBOW, INTO THE WILD and REVOLUTIONARY ROAD. Apparently, Paramount execs have been very open in their ambition to focus upon bigger event movies. This from the studio who shelled out for megabucks for... TRANSFORMERS and GI JOE. So look forward to more of the same. Vantage is only the latest casualty in a war that's killing specialty divisions like grunts who've just shown you a picture of their girl back home: Warner Independent Pictures and Picturehouse are dead, even once-powerful mini-majors like Miramax and New Line Cinema have been scaled back dramatically (New Line is actually virtually dead, with only THE HOBBIT keeping it alive). Studios have decided, in their infinite answer-only-to-stockholders wisdom, that there's no money in making interesting movies in this current financial climate.
There’s the rub. We, as a public, have to vote with our feet to change this. But the studios aren’t letting us, not really. Because they know and, unlike the critics, acknowledge what the public are up against. Promote the hell out the product and throw it on every two available nearby screens, and people will go. What’s more, studios will steer clear of each other’s similarly themed releases so everyone makes as much money as possible. That’s how corporations think, because money is what feeds and drives them, what makes them grow. This is their nature, and you can’t blame them for doing it. And what critics don’t realize is people don’t care about this as much as them, not because they’re stupid or lazy or illiterate, but because they’ve got too much important stuff to deal with and film is an escape from all that, which they can afford all too infrequently. See, the corporations that own the studios are the casino, the public audience are the gamblers, and – as any recovering gambling addict will tell you – the house always wins.
I agree that blockbusters, generally, are often lazy and/or moronic and are swallowing the major movie business, and something needs to change. So, what form of subversive activism do Jane and Joe Public have?
When you’re looking up the session times in your newspaper, or at outside the local multiplex, if there are two highly promoted, massively budgeted blockbusters going head to head… buy tickets to the one that looks or sounds smarter. Don’t fall to peer pressure. Don’t see something purely because it’s the only thing opening this weekend – look at the stuff you may have passed over last week. Thing is, if we’re talking about movies showing at multiplexes at peak times of the year, if they’ve got big production and marketing budgets, then they’re all blockbusters… which means, they’re all designed to entertain. Choose DISTRICT 9 over GI JOE. (Which the American public did. Take THAT!) Choose PONYO over G FORCE. You’ll walk out having had a fun time, with the added benefit of not having to feel like an idiot if you enjoyed yourself. Good, fun, guilt-free entertainment… and isn’t that what big studio blockbuster movies are all about?
