The State of Cinema

[Jeff]

Nearly five years on, I'm a lot less optimistic about the state of American studio filmmaking than I was when I originally passed along Alexander Payne's memo in the initial post of this thread.

A series of new memos (decidedly tongue-in-cheek this time) from A.O. Scott and Manhola Dargis paint a far bleaker image on the state of cinema (the Hollywood variety, anyway), and their publication seems as good of reason as any to revive this thread.

This is my favorite bit. Here's hoping some Hollywood players who can greenlight a picture take it to heart.

Yes, green is good. But there is no ecological benefit in recycling intellectual properties or in treating pop-culture treasures like so much scrap material. Let us read our comic books and watch our DVDs of old movies and television shows and try to capture our imaginations with something new. So, enough with the serial killers (unless you’re David Fincher); period dramas; movies in which children die or are endangered; (bad) literary adaptations; superhero epics; tween-pop exploitation vehicles; scenes with bubble-breasted women working the pole in strip clubs; shady ladies with hearts of gold; Google Earth-like zoom-ins of the world; sensitive Nazis; sexy Nazis; Nazis period; dysfunctional families; dysfunctional families with guns; suburban ennui; suburban ennui with guns; wisecracking teenagers; loser dudes scoring with hot women who would never give them the time of day even if they were drunk out of their minds or too young to know any better (hello, Judd Apatow!); feature films that should have been sketch comedy routines; shopping montages; makeover montages; bromances (unless the guys get it on with each other); flopping penises; spray-on tans; Kate Hudson; PG-13 horror remakes; or anything that uses any of the “classic” songs that we are sick of hearing. What’s left? We don’t know. Isn’t that your job?

[Gregory]

Personally, instead of "period dramas" I probably would have listed "action movies based on Hasbro toys."

Seriously, I'm also sick of fads and pandering, but in many of these examples I think the problem is not with the film's thematic content per se but rather that the filmmakers never come within miles of doing anything interesting or inspired with it.

[Tom Hagen]

I don't understand why A.O. and Manhola are lamenting the state of American cinema. Was 2007 really that long ago? You know, the year that had so many great films (be they Hollywood, indiewood, or from abroad) that they each crammed like 20 films into their respective top ten lists? Admittedly there is a ton of schlock out there -- and being professional film critics, they certainly rifle through more of Hollywood's stale trash than the rest of us -- but really: who cares? I don't have to watch any of these hackneyed, derivative films. I loved what the Coen's said when they won their Oscars, their statement thanking the industry for letting them play in their little sandbox. We are living in a great age of American auteurism: Soderbergh, the Coens, Haynes, Jarmusch, Van Sant, Linklater, P.T. Anderson, Wes Anderson, Jonze, Kaufman, Russell, Payne, Sofia Coppola, Fincher; in their various ways, all of them are thriving within the system, using Hollywood's money to make personal movies filled with ideas and artistry. We all have our favorites, and there have undoubtedly been big misses from almost all of these filmmakers. But at their best, these filmmakers as a whole are rivaling the scope, ambition, and success of the '70s film school generation, the last great era of American film.

As long as that sandbox continues to exist, Hollywood can make all of the Harry Potter sequels and Vin Diesel movies that it wants to.

[domino harvey]

Thank you Tom Hagen, I was going to say more or less the same thing. 2007 was one of the best years for movies in recent memory and at least half of those great films were mainstream fare. 2008 was a bad year for all films and 2009 isn't shaping up much better, but we're not so far from the last milestone that we need to start running around in a panic

[Gregory]

Tom, I'd love to share in your enthusiasm over recent U.S. films, but a few of the directors you list -- and others besides -- haven't released a feature film since 2003 or 2004. Several have one upcoming, but nevertheless aren't these big lapses worrisome? I've also seen a lot of promising talents stagnate or decline in the past 5-10 years. And if this is a great era, where are the amazing new talents? All the auteurs listed made their mark in the '90s. I'd say only a minority of those who showed early promise are still doing genuinely interesting work.

I don't feel completely comfortable making any claims about the state of cinema, though, because such views really depend on which films one happens to see from a particular year.

[Antoine Doinel]

Tom, excellent post. What Scott and Dargis don't consider is that we need shitty, mainstream pap to keep money flowing into the studios so they can fund smaller projects. Also, they frame their argument in a non-existent "us vs. them, art vs. mainstream" dichotomy that for most viewers doesn't exist. I have no problem saying that I see stupid summer blockerbusters (bring on more exploding Transformers!) alongside other indie/arthouse/foreign films. But clearly my expectations and what I expect to get out of the films depends on what I'm seeing. But what is more dismaying is that they don't encourage their readers to go see smaller, arthouse films in the theater rather than waiting for the DVD or VOD. It's one thing to rail against "the man", but execs only sit up and take notice when a film becomes a small film becomes an unexpected hit. In general, I would love to see film critics and enthusiasts start pressing for better theatrical presentations and experiences. It is still the best way to see a film, but the exhibitors have done such a shitty job (ie. poor projection, dirty theaters, loud patrons etc) that people are staying away more and more, making blockbuster films all the more crucial and important for studios.

Gregory, I'm not concerned about the gaps at all. It means directors are waiting to do things on their own terms as much as possible rather than compromise just to get something out. Also, there are people like Steven Soderbergh, who by any kind of Hollywood logic shouldn't have had half his films greenlit. But he is very savvy about finding money (Che was mostly funded overseas; his HDNet deal), working on a shoestring budgets and shooting quickly. I think we are going to see a lot more filmmakers in the decade finding unique financing opportunities, and especially as the price of shooting digitally becomes easier (ie. smaller cameras and quicker workflows) I think we are going to see a burst of talent coming out of the woodwork.

[Gregory]

Soderbergh is savvy without a doubt, but personally I've almost never been all that impressed with what he's able to produce with the funding he gets. This is quite a subjective judgment, but I think this kind of thing has to be part of any discussion of the state of cinema. I think a similar thing is true of Linklater, another filmmaker with a foot in both camps. He's capable of great things, but his work is so "all over the place" I tend to brace myself for huge disappointments with each new film.

But just in terms of getting funding, aside from a few shining examples of success I sense that the process is so difficult that many talented people just languish. I'm thinking here not just of Hollywood but also independent filmmaking in general.