Open Wide - Spoon-Fed at the Cineplex - NYTimes.comHere's what I think: It's easy to lump movies together.
Part of the problem, really, is an economy that creates great uncertainty. Another issue is, that for many, even folks like me, the theatres have become a rarer place to see movies. Yes,
Transformers 2 might be a big B.O. draw now, but so have countless crappy movies. And countless good ones, too.
So what's really going on? Well, to start with, let's examine
Star Trek. The movie was a rather daring update of the original show. It packed a hell of a lot of emotion into its starting sequence. It went on to do some very audacious stuff, which I will not reveal, since it's not exactly Kosher to give away the plot. But in my estimation, the movie let the show update its style to better accomodate today's action and special effects expertise. But it doesn't hurt that the characters are pretty well known, updated with new actors as they have been, and that the general style of the universe, even with Abram's myriad touches, is familiar to folks.
What's with
Up? Well, Pixar has developed a reputation, and reputations make it easier for people to invest. If you trust a certain filmmaker or a certain category of film, you will do repeat business. They can experiment, take risks, be creative, because the audience both expects it, and knows that they're good enough to follow through.
And
Harry Potter?
Well, again, the stories are well-regarded, well known, and people have been following the story for quite some time. But we should be wary of the reflexive reflection and consideration of
Potter as being cinematic junk food. The story is layered, with all kinds of different themes and ideas at work. To say that it works because it's juvenile is to miss the maturing perspective at the story's heart.
What's the theme that's developing? Not spoon-feeding.
Public Enemies' preview was a common sight. So was
Terminator Salvation. But sometimes a movie just doesn't click. However, that's what DVD is for, and the value of that and other new channels of content delivery. Somebody talked about the long tail, the idea that on a long enough time-line, things can be profitable.
My sense is, quality for quality's sake is a good start, but we must remember that drawing people's interest and rewarding it is both an artistic and a business priority. It's nice to try and get that attention immediately, but you'll always have the fickle attentions of the audience to deal with, so the task is not merely attention now, but attention as people revisit, and as others in secondary markets are introduced. I have to confess, I see more films first on DVD now than I see in the theatres.
A.O. Scott attributes a infantilization to the Cinema, citing adventure plots and things like that, but to be honest, if you look at what we call the classics, if you look at the works that inspired and inform the serious theatre, cinema, and literature, you'll find that the non-serious work often functions as a feedstock, lending structure, lending imagination. More to the point, it doesn't hurt when juvenile and mature, serious and adventurous, real and unreal meet in the middle. In fact, if we really think about it, many of the classics, of our time and time past straddle this divide. They might have action elements, or be largely action themselves. Watching
Blade Runner, we're caught right in the middle of that.
Here's what I think: Art is communication, and it helps to have something to say, and something to say it with. The art is not in following some classic forms, rather in understanding the relationship of that form and that content to each other, and then to the audience, a sort of triangle of interpretation of the art's meaning.
What do I mean? Well, what defines a good action sequence isn't just onscreen kinetics, or their photography and editing. It is those things, complementing and fleshing out a situation deeper on down. The anime that I like to watch is often heavy on character development. Even with formulaic fights that sometimes populate the shows, the quirks and turns of character can help generate additional interest, not to mention motivate the audience to cheer for the sympathetic figure in the battle (or at least watch those figures in interest)
And when the fights and their blocking are good? Then it's downright marvellous.
Now, I'm not saying you have to go with all action all the time. But good action, or at least good awareness of how something presents itself to the camera and the editor, and subsequently to the audience, can help contribute to the exemplary delivery of the story to the audience.
I think writers and filmmakers should embrace imagination and technique both, should recognize other things as well. I think I'm going to explore this in a later entry, so see you later.
