These days, it seems as if for every good movie, there's about a dozen bad ones to even it out. There are a lot of good flicks out there, there are just a lot more bad ones. How did it come to this? Once upon a time, Scorsese, Coppola and De Palma dominated this industry and every film they did was a masterpiece. And now hacks like Michael Bay and Rob Cohen have project after project greenlit with huge budgets behind them. Studios have made the conscious decision to sacrifice art for money. Why not go back to a time when people made movies to make good movies, not for the opening weekend box office. This may seem radical coming from someone who's industry would be hurt by a revamped studio system focusing on art, but as a hypothetical situation, less money means greater art.
If the studio greenlit fewer projects each year, this would restore some integrity to the industry. And this would mean higher grosses per film, as audiences would have less to choose to see, thus crowding the remaining features, albeit a smaller total gross for the studios per year. But this would also mean fewer bombs; would Dude, Where's My Car really have gotten greenlit if studios only greenlit half as many films? However, this means the studios may take fewer risks, resulting in fewer great films as well. This concept would force stars into supporting roles, instead of every star having their own vehicle, thus encouraging character actors and ensemble pieces, which is a far superior formula to the current star system.
The current star system itself is out of control. There are way too many people out there who don't deserve their own fame: good-looking folks who were fortunate enough to be in a successful project or two that have been capitalized upon to build a career, resulting in a mainstream success every fourth or fifth movie. This isn't right. The standard is so low, talent is no longer necessary. As long as Ben Affleck can ride Kevin Smith's or Bruce Willis's coattails, he'll be successful, but not many folks have accused him of being a good actor. Meanwhile, Jeffery Wright is not a household name. This applies to the entire industry, in which the distribution of talent is so excessive, it's rare to get a great director, writer, cast, cinematographer and composer all together on the same project. Fewer projects would mean the talent pool would be much less watered down, creating a much higher standard of filmmaking.
Fewer studio projects would also encourage the independent scene, giving smaller, self-financed pictures more coverage. And not only does creative freedom result in great films, but this world gave us mainstream crossovers like Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, Peter Jackson and countless others.
And let's revamp the studio system by not employing businessmen as studio executives who are focused on the almighty dollar. Let's put retired artists whose interests lie within the preservation of art. If Walt Disney himself still ran his company instead of Satan himself, Michael Eisner, what are the chances of movies like The Lion King II: Simba's Pride, The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea, Aladdin III: King of Thieves, and Cinderella II: Dreams Come True would ever see the light of day, thus bastardizing the films that made this company great in the first place.
Preservation of art is so important, nobody would argue that colorizing The Maltese Falcon is just plain wrong. This is the way the director intended the film to be seen. The Wizard of Oz and The Adventures of Robin Hood were both made in the late 30's, but were colorized, because the artist felt it would enhance his picture, just as black-and-white cinematography enhanced John Huston's 1941 piece. So by that same token, all films should be presented in the artist's original vision, which means only releasing films in the widescreen format. People will learn to appreciate it, just as they learned to appreciate the film with the sides chopped off, since that's what they grew used to.
And in this same vein, make the theatrical run of a film longer, so audiences will see the film as the director intended, on the big screen. With fewer films, this will be possible. This also means that with a longer theatrical run, DVD release should be pushed back more extremely. Why bother seeing a film at the theater if it's just going to come to DVD in three months? Movies are still successful if they have a larger window, My Big, Fat Greek Wedding and The Santa Clause 2 each had one-year windows and each was successful. Of course, both films' studios wanted a seasonal release for both the theater and DVD release: Valentine's Day for Wedding and Christmas for Santa, but if interest is proven to still be there for a film after a year, then why not wait a year for Mystic River and encourage people to see it at the theater? The people who bought it upon its five-month release will still buy upon a one-year release. The only problem therein lies with the greater the theatrical audience, the smaller the rental audience, as most renters are seeing a movie for the first time, whereas most buyers are not, so the rental industry will be hurt. There holiday season might be too, but if studios want Spider-Man 2, Shrek 2 and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban to be released for the Christmas rush, make it the 2005 Christmas rush, and make this Christmas rush consist of Pirates of the Caribbean, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and the Matrix sequels, and films will be viewed the right way.
These concepts may create problems in the process of solving the addressed problems, but artistic integrity was something that used to be important. Making more good films and fewer bad ones sounds idealistic, but sacrificing money for art is just delusional.
If the studio greenlit fewer projects each year, this would restore some integrity to the industry. And this would mean higher grosses per film, as audiences would have less to choose to see, thus crowding the remaining features, albeit a smaller total gross for the studios per year. But this would also mean fewer bombs; would Dude, Where's My Car really have gotten greenlit if studios only greenlit half as many films? However, this means the studios may take fewer risks, resulting in fewer great films as well. This concept would force stars into supporting roles, instead of every star having their own vehicle, thus encouraging character actors and ensemble pieces, which is a far superior formula to the current star system.
The current star system itself is out of control. There are way too many people out there who don't deserve their own fame: good-looking folks who were fortunate enough to be in a successful project or two that have been capitalized upon to build a career, resulting in a mainstream success every fourth or fifth movie. This isn't right. The standard is so low, talent is no longer necessary. As long as Ben Affleck can ride Kevin Smith's or Bruce Willis's coattails, he'll be successful, but not many folks have accused him of being a good actor. Meanwhile, Jeffery Wright is not a household name. This applies to the entire industry, in which the distribution of talent is so excessive, it's rare to get a great director, writer, cast, cinematographer and composer all together on the same project. Fewer projects would mean the talent pool would be much less watered down, creating a much higher standard of filmmaking.
Fewer studio projects would also encourage the independent scene, giving smaller, self-financed pictures more coverage. And not only does creative freedom result in great films, but this world gave us mainstream crossovers like Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, Peter Jackson and countless others.
And let's revamp the studio system by not employing businessmen as studio executives who are focused on the almighty dollar. Let's put retired artists whose interests lie within the preservation of art. If Walt Disney himself still ran his company instead of Satan himself, Michael Eisner, what are the chances of movies like The Lion King II: Simba's Pride, The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea, Aladdin III: King of Thieves, and Cinderella II: Dreams Come True would ever see the light of day, thus bastardizing the films that made this company great in the first place.
Preservation of art is so important, nobody would argue that colorizing The Maltese Falcon is just plain wrong. This is the way the director intended the film to be seen. The Wizard of Oz and The Adventures of Robin Hood were both made in the late 30's, but were colorized, because the artist felt it would enhance his picture, just as black-and-white cinematography enhanced John Huston's 1941 piece. So by that same token, all films should be presented in the artist's original vision, which means only releasing films in the widescreen format. People will learn to appreciate it, just as they learned to appreciate the film with the sides chopped off, since that's what they grew used to.
And in this same vein, make the theatrical run of a film longer, so audiences will see the film as the director intended, on the big screen. With fewer films, this will be possible. This also means that with a longer theatrical run, DVD release should be pushed back more extremely. Why bother seeing a film at the theater if it's just going to come to DVD in three months? Movies are still successful if they have a larger window, My Big, Fat Greek Wedding and The Santa Clause 2 each had one-year windows and each was successful. Of course, both films' studios wanted a seasonal release for both the theater and DVD release: Valentine's Day for Wedding and Christmas for Santa, but if interest is proven to still be there for a film after a year, then why not wait a year for Mystic River and encourage people to see it at the theater? The people who bought it upon its five-month release will still buy upon a one-year release. The only problem therein lies with the greater the theatrical audience, the smaller the rental audience, as most renters are seeing a movie for the first time, whereas most buyers are not, so the rental industry will be hurt. There holiday season might be too, but if studios want Spider-Man 2, Shrek 2 and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban to be released for the Christmas rush, make it the 2005 Christmas rush, and make this Christmas rush consist of Pirates of the Caribbean, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and the Matrix sequels, and films will be viewed the right way.
These concepts may create problems in the process of solving the addressed problems, but artistic integrity was something that used to be important. Making more good films and fewer bad ones sounds idealistic, but sacrificing money for art is just delusional.
No comments:
Post a Comment