Guest Contributor: Raj Mehra
(The following is a scathing article that a friend to Critical Myth wanted to offer, and I thought it would spark some interesting discussion/debate, especially after the holiday season film deluge! Let the ranting begin!)
Are we in some kind of cinematic “Logan’s Run” scenario? As more-seasoned genre fans might recall, “Logan’s Run” is a science fiction film set in a future where, around age 30, you are terminated for the good of society. Mainstream media tells us the average movie-going person fits within the 13-24 demographic. That is why you see cookie-cutter comedies, mindless remakes/reboots, overstuffed comic book “epics”, and even the most pedestrian video games turned into the latest movies. Some rise above the noise, but how often do we see good writing, great acting and excellent direction? What happened to those fundamentals?
It makes me cringe when I see the websites, Variety news articles, or Oxford cinema listings that say the audience was geared towards the “over 30 crowd”, so “it is destined to be a flop”. Perhaps taste is not a main ingredient of movie making today? Or is it a question of playing to the lowest common denominator, the demographic with the most dispensable cash, when the economy makes it less likely that budget-minded parents will go the movies for date night?
But the evidence seems to indicate that it’s not the audience; it’s Hollywood. In an article that ran in GQ earlier this year called The Day the Movies Died, Mark Harris seems to imply a disturbing trend in Hollywood that seems to cater to a demographic of its own choosing. Some might interpret this trend to say: if you are not white and male between the ages of 13-24, then Hollywood doesn’t want you. Just look at how films targeted to African-Americans, such as those written and/or produced by Tyler Perry, are practically shoved into “special engagements” and barely promoted, despite their popularity.
Increasingly, engrossing drama and storytelling is the purview of premium cable networks, as if Hollywood has decided that it’s easier to convince a more mature-minded demographic to stick to the couch and stay in for the night. Notice how the major cable networks want signature dramas as the hallmark of their schedule; just running an uncut version of a blockbuster on Saturday night is no longer enough. Remember when HBO or Showtime would compete for the rights to a film, and then advertise the premiere for weeks in advance? Now they show up without fanfare, while “Game of Thrones” or “Dexter” gets top billing (and better casting).
Consider the recent trend of releasing a film to the theatres in a PG-13 format, only to release an R-rated version or the “director’s unrated cut” on DVD or on-demand viewing. Once upon a time, it was NC-17 that was the proverbial kiss of death; now, Hollywood considers releasing an R-rated film to be a risky business proposition. Why? Because it’s so much easier to get that desired demographic into a PG-13 film. And if they cut out all the pesky character development and replace plot with mindless action sequences, all the better!
So it may not be too surprising that 3D has become the new Hollywood standard, and mainstream media is all but conditioning kids to watch one kind of film. Movies in 3D is nothing new; it has been around since the 1950’s, a gimmick to lure young people in to watch the latest silly horror movie. But in 2009, James Cameron and “Avatar” took what was largely a gimmick used in computer-animated movies (where it actually works fairly well) and brought it to massive-budget blockbusters. And now everything must be in 3D, even if it was never actually shot and framed for 3D viewing. “Clash of the Titans”, anyone?
Hollywood complains about the massive drop in ticket sales in recent years, and their only solution seems to be adding 3D to everything. Why? Because then they can charge a premium for the “added feature”, even if the movie itself is worse (or even ruined) when converted to 3D. How many movies have made far more money at the box office just based on that premium, when superior films were shown as intended and made less without the artificial boost?
Still, the numbers are the numbers, and the profits continue to drop. Roger Ebert gave his reasons, but it all boils down to a few essentials. Hollywood continues to push directors to post-convert their films into 3D, on the premise that “the audience demands it”. Studios push theatres to eliminate the traditional 2D option to expand the more profitable, PG-13 3D version. Movie budgets could feed entire Third World nations for a month, with diminishing returns. They continue to toss out a failing gimmick to a demographic that is increasingly less and less interested. Is it any wonder that Hollywood seems increasingly out of touch?
