Two films I had the chance to see recently, back-to-back, were Venus (dir. Roger Michell) and Black Snake Moan (dir. Craig Brewer), two low-budget indie films from last year. I honestly hadn't intended to consider the two films together - they were simply two that were on my "to see" list and I happened to pick both of them up on the same night. What I didn't realize is that they shared so much, but differed in important ways.
Both films have the same general narrative gimmick - an older man (in the case of Venus, a cadaverous Peter O'Toole, in Black Snake Moan, Samuel L. Jackson) crosses paths at a crucial point in his life with a young, attractive, libidinous woman. Temptation ensues, eventually both characters learn "life lessons" in the tedious Bob McKee tradition and emerge healed. Of the two, I'd have to give Black Snake Moan the edge, simply because its setting (the deep south) and its metaphorical carpet (southern gothic blues) is less well-trodden ground than in the case of Venus's aging, Shakespeare-quoting, whiskey-drinking British. Both films, though, have an essential sweetness, an old-fashioned sense of romance and humanity that is enormously appealing.
What superficially drives the drama in both cases is the immortal question, "Will they or won't they?" Venus simply tosses the issue away early on, with O'Toole having prostate surgery that renders the question academic. Black Snake Moan toys with it a bit more seriously, but ultimately both films are playing past the titillation, and are more interested in treating the characters as lost souls in need of each other's rescue.
There's a darkness to both films, but ironically it's Venus that tells the darker story in the "lighter" surroundings of autumnal London, and Black Snake Moan that takes the more heartwarming route in the deep, myth-laden vernacular of the South. Venus is about O'Toole's character coming to know himself through the girl, having one last hurrah, but is finally about death. Black Snake Moan touches on death but veers away from it towards life. Where death hangs over Venus, it simply passes through Black Snake Moan. John Cothran's character in Black Snake, Rev. RL., articulates this explicitly in a moving, gentle speech about how religion has it all wrong in focusing on heaven, when really it should focus on what's happening day to day. In Venus, the characters learn how to die with dignity (a process which, ironically, involves a great deal of indignity), whereas in Black Snake, the characters learn how to live with it.
An interesting PS to my thoughts on these films comes from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops which, you may be surprised to hear, offers some perceptive and intelligent film analysis on their website, but in the case of these films, their objections are telling. Their take on Venus is that it is "morally offensive", whereas Black Snake Moan they simply rate as "limited", that is, appealing to a limited audience who may be turned off by the moral offenses in it. Their objection seems to essentially come down to, unsurprisingly, sex. The O'Toole character is offensive because he wants sex, but can't physically have it, where as Jackson's character is not as offensive, because he is capable of it, but chooses not to. The Bishops, whose opinion I generally respect, seem to have missed the point of both films, in that they are, neither of them, really about sex. Of course, the notion of "dying with dignity" doesn't seem to hold much water with Catholic dogma, either, so perhaps this is a part of their issue with Venus. Interesting, though, that desire is at the heart of it. I think it would make an interesting moral discussion, but in the meantime, feel free to enjoy both films.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
The Problem with Downloading
Since we've established that the HD format war is probably going to wind up killing both disc formats for home video (see previous entry), the common belief is that eventually all disc formats will be replaced by downloading from some kind of legitimate video distributor, sort of like how Apple's iTunes Store works for music. It's certainly a tempting thought to make the leap from audio to video, particularly since many people seem to have climbed onto the legitimate downloading bandwagon. But there are major logical flaws to the argument "downloading will succeed DVD rental", and they all revolve around this notion of what the internet "should" be, and what the video market "should" be, and what it really is. Once you let go of those romantic notions, reality becomes astonishingly simple.
In a nutshell, downloading's not going to work until two conditions are met:
But let's be honest - the Apple store (and iTunes) is very much a generational phenomenon. Young people (and I guess I'm still one of those...) find it a sensible and convenient way to purchase music legally. But I seriously doubt that older folks, including the world's largest single demographic (baby boomers) have bought into it with as much eagerness. For them, buying music means going to a store, picking out a CD/LP/Tape, talking to the clerk, maybe listening to a track and having their purchase rung up on a register. Yes, they're on the way out, but they're still the bulk of consumers.
Go into a video store on a Friday night and take a look at who's there. Is everyone 25 or under? Or are there parents with kids, couples picking out a movie to watch together on the couch and people just getting off work for the weekend? We understand what a video store is. We've lived with it for 15 years. Even my people my grandparents' age understand the business model. I simply can't see why the majority (and yes, majority does rule in the case of marketing) of consumers would abandon a model they know well for a model they hardly know at all just because some tech guru told them it was "better". Downloading eliminates the "store experience", the notion of browsing through shelves, chatting with friends you meet at the store, having something recommended to you by a human being. It seems highly unlikely that this model will change anytime soon.
Besides, downloading is never going to catch on in a big way until bandwidth is increased by an order of magnitude. Perhaps you've heard the old story of how the reservoir in most American cities is drained to dangerously low levels once each year during halftime at the Super Bowl, where tens of millions of people all flush their toilets at the same time. Now imagine a typical Friday night in New York or LA, where perhaps a million people would try to download the same movie at roughly the same time. If this were tried today, the internet would either crash altogether, or the download speeds would be such that a typical 7 GB DVD would be just about ready to play by the time you go back to work on the following Monday morning. (And this is not even considering the next-generation HD formats for which this hoopla is supposed to be the answer.)
Yes, I can hear the objections already: "But lots of people download using Bittorrent or Limewire!" (Peer-to-peer networks that are often unreliable and depend on sharing of files between users to artificially increase apparent bandwidth - I think we know what major record labels and movie studios think of those.) "How is this different from pay-per-view on satellite?" (Two ways: a very small install base and privately owned bandwidth delivery for which users pay a large premium.) "Apple's iTunes store seems to work fine!" (Audio requires about 1/10th the bandwidth of video - and besides, not everyone wants the same song at the same time.)
What this adds up to is a need for greatly increased bandwidth if the disc format and all it entails (video stores, etc.) is ever to be replaced. Who's going to pay for that bandwidth? The government? (Last time I checked, the right to download movies wasn't in the constitution.) Private industry? (Fine, if you want to pay $1000/movie, or some similarly outrageous price that would have to be charged to recoup the staggering upfront cost of re-wiring the world.)
The fact is that, until downloading as fast and cheap as jumping in the car and heading to the video store, it's not going to catch on. Period. As much as some would like it, as much as it seems like the elegant, 2007 solution, it's just not realistic. You can't always get what you want.
The take home message is a familiar one: DVD is here to stay.
In a nutshell, downloading's not going to work until two conditions are met:
- Adequate bandwidth
- Familiar delivery models
But let's be honest - the Apple store (and iTunes) is very much a generational phenomenon. Young people (and I guess I'm still one of those...) find it a sensible and convenient way to purchase music legally. But I seriously doubt that older folks, including the world's largest single demographic (baby boomers) have bought into it with as much eagerness. For them, buying music means going to a store, picking out a CD/LP/Tape, talking to the clerk, maybe listening to a track and having their purchase rung up on a register. Yes, they're on the way out, but they're still the bulk of consumers.
Go into a video store on a Friday night and take a look at who's there. Is everyone 25 or under? Or are there parents with kids, couples picking out a movie to watch together on the couch and people just getting off work for the weekend? We understand what a video store is. We've lived with it for 15 years. Even my people my grandparents' age understand the business model. I simply can't see why the majority (and yes, majority does rule in the case of marketing) of consumers would abandon a model they know well for a model they hardly know at all just because some tech guru told them it was "better". Downloading eliminates the "store experience", the notion of browsing through shelves, chatting with friends you meet at the store, having something recommended to you by a human being. It seems highly unlikely that this model will change anytime soon.
Besides, downloading is never going to catch on in a big way until bandwidth is increased by an order of magnitude. Perhaps you've heard the old story of how the reservoir in most American cities is drained to dangerously low levels once each year during halftime at the Super Bowl, where tens of millions of people all flush their toilets at the same time. Now imagine a typical Friday night in New York or LA, where perhaps a million people would try to download the same movie at roughly the same time. If this were tried today, the internet would either crash altogether, or the download speeds would be such that a typical 7 GB DVD would be just about ready to play by the time you go back to work on the following Monday morning. (And this is not even considering the next-generation HD formats for which this hoopla is supposed to be the answer.)
Yes, I can hear the objections already: "But lots of people download using Bittorrent or Limewire!" (Peer-to-peer networks that are often unreliable and depend on sharing of files between users to artificially increase apparent bandwidth - I think we know what major record labels and movie studios think of those.) "How is this different from pay-per-view on satellite?" (Two ways: a very small install base and privately owned bandwidth delivery for which users pay a large premium.) "Apple's iTunes store seems to work fine!" (Audio requires about 1/10th the bandwidth of video - and besides, not everyone wants the same song at the same time.)
What this adds up to is a need for greatly increased bandwidth if the disc format and all it entails (video stores, etc.) is ever to be replaced. Who's going to pay for that bandwidth? The government? (Last time I checked, the right to download movies wasn't in the constitution.) Private industry? (Fine, if you want to pay $1000/movie, or some similarly outrageous price that would have to be charged to recoup the staggering upfront cost of re-wiring the world.)
The fact is that, until downloading as fast and cheap as jumping in the car and heading to the video store, it's not going to catch on. Period. As much as some would like it, as much as it seems like the elegant, 2007 solution, it's just not realistic. You can't always get what you want.
The take home message is a familiar one: DVD is here to stay.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
The Buzz About HD Home Video
If your memories can possibly reach back through the mists of time to an era before DVD, you may be able to recall some dim notion of a home video format called "video tape". Sure, it wasn't digital (back then we didn't really even know what that meant), but it was cheap and common and we were all happy with it for around 15 years. Those who weren't happy with it invested in the horrendously expensive and marginally better "laserdisc", which was doomed essentially from the start by being a big, unwieldy, non-recordable, non-rentable video medium. Some of us still retain these dinosaurs in our collections, myself included, for various sentimental reasons. (Remember, it was the laserdisc that introduced us to the concept of "making of" documentaries on the disc, "audio commentary" tracks and, towards the end, soundtracks presented in digital surround sound.)
At a certain point (between 1997 and 2000), the industry did a big flip and embraced DVD as the standard bearer for home video technology. After flirting with a few other formats (VCD, SVCD, DivX), it was decided that DVD, with its MPEG-2 compression and built-in digital soundtracks, as well as CD-size, was the way to go. All major studios jumped on board, both discs and players came down in price and everyone suddenly thought video tape and laserdisc were fuzzy, blurry relics.
On what did we base this decision? Yes, DVD looked and sounded better, but was the public at large really that unhappy with the choices they had? I doubt it. It had a lot more to do with some simple market factors, such as penetration of the rental market (laserdisc never quite managed to do this), small, familiar size and price. I can imagine that the typical consumer (full disclosure: I don't think I was ever one of those) just thought that if they could get something better, as easily, for the same price, then why not make the jump?
These days, I have yet to encounter anyone other than a high-tech blogger who is truly displeased with the video quality of DVD. Even 73% high-end home-theatre owners, according to a recent poll, are satisfied with DVD as a video delivery medium. So, what's the fuss about HDTV? Clearly most people don't consider the DVD broken. What's the rush to fix it?
Even if there was dissatisfaction with the current format, the industry tearing itself apart over which "high definition" format to adopt, Blu-ray disc or HD-DVD, is only driving consumers further back into their DVD collections. I suspect, based on nothing but some info and some common sense, that neither format will come out on top unless the same factors that drove the eager adoption of DVD occur:
At a certain point (between 1997 and 2000), the industry did a big flip and embraced DVD as the standard bearer for home video technology. After flirting with a few other formats (VCD, SVCD, DivX), it was decided that DVD, with its MPEG-2 compression and built-in digital soundtracks, as well as CD-size, was the way to go. All major studios jumped on board, both discs and players came down in price and everyone suddenly thought video tape and laserdisc were fuzzy, blurry relics.
On what did we base this decision? Yes, DVD looked and sounded better, but was the public at large really that unhappy with the choices they had? I doubt it. It had a lot more to do with some simple market factors, such as penetration of the rental market (laserdisc never quite managed to do this), small, familiar size and price. I can imagine that the typical consumer (full disclosure: I don't think I was ever one of those) just thought that if they could get something better, as easily, for the same price, then why not make the jump?
These days, I have yet to encounter anyone other than a high-tech blogger who is truly displeased with the video quality of DVD. Even 73% high-end home-theatre owners, according to a recent poll, are satisfied with DVD as a video delivery medium. So, what's the fuss about HDTV? Clearly most people don't consider the DVD broken. What's the rush to fix it?
Even if there was dissatisfaction with the current format, the industry tearing itself apart over which "high definition" format to adopt, Blu-ray disc or HD-DVD, is only driving consumers further back into their DVD collections. I suspect, based on nothing but some info and some common sense, that neither format will come out on top unless the same factors that drove the eager adoption of DVD occur:
- The new formats become adopted by the rental market.
- The players become inexpensive.
- HDTV's, which are necessary to see any benefit of either new format, become more numerous than "old fashioned" TV's.
- The industry agrees on a format and promotes it as the logical successor to a format you already know and love. That is, they put an end to this silly "format war".
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Does Size Matter?
Of course it doesn't... except when we're talking about a TV screen. How ridiculous is it, anyway, that we constantly crave a bigger screen. And here's a hint: it's never big enough.
A few years ago, I was sharing a house with an old friend and we decided that between the two of us we could build a pretty great ad-hoc home theatre in the darkened, unfinished basement if we invested in an inexpensive DLP projector and a white bedsheet. He already had a high-end receiver and speakers, and we figured that either of our DVD players would be up to the task. A couple of months, some cash and a serious amount of dusting later, we had our theatre. The screen was massive (we measured it out at about 150 inches diagonal, 16x9) and the picture quality was pretty good, considering.
Here was the problem: after about three months, our eyes adjusted and we simply got used to it. I'm not saying it ever seemed small, but our use of the theatre did extend into overkill territory, particularly when we started watching the Simpsons down there first thing in the morning with our coffee.
I moved on some time after that, and he met a girl with kids and got married, moving into a bigger house. He kept the theatre setup (his new wife's two-year-old dubbed it the "Big Room"), but it was seeing less and less use. It was bothersome to swtich everything on, cut the lights, get situated on the couch, etc. Much more comfortable to just toss a movie on the 27 inch 4x3 TV in the bedroom. It wasn't long after that that the projector's colour wheel died, and he decided not to get it replaced.
I, in the meantime, invested in a 16x9 TV that was smallish (30 inches) but quite heavy and bulky enough, thank you very much. I sometimes catch myself looking at the screen now and thinking how small it is, especially when watching a film in 2:35:1 aspect ratio, but I try to keep those impulses to a minimum. After all, the TV was expensive enough that I'm not going to be replacing it anytime soon, and do I really want to ruin my movie-watching eyes by adjusting to a huge screen when simply a medium-size one will do? It's not the size, after all, that matters. At least, that's what I have to keep telling myself.
A few years ago, I was sharing a house with an old friend and we decided that between the two of us we could build a pretty great ad-hoc home theatre in the darkened, unfinished basement if we invested in an inexpensive DLP projector and a white bedsheet. He already had a high-end receiver and speakers, and we figured that either of our DVD players would be up to the task. A couple of months, some cash and a serious amount of dusting later, we had our theatre. The screen was massive (we measured it out at about 150 inches diagonal, 16x9) and the picture quality was pretty good, considering.
Here was the problem: after about three months, our eyes adjusted and we simply got used to it. I'm not saying it ever seemed small, but our use of the theatre did extend into overkill territory, particularly when we started watching the Simpsons down there first thing in the morning with our coffee.
I moved on some time after that, and he met a girl with kids and got married, moving into a bigger house. He kept the theatre setup (his new wife's two-year-old dubbed it the "Big Room"), but it was seeing less and less use. It was bothersome to swtich everything on, cut the lights, get situated on the couch, etc. Much more comfortable to just toss a movie on the 27 inch 4x3 TV in the bedroom. It wasn't long after that that the projector's colour wheel died, and he decided not to get it replaced.
I, in the meantime, invested in a 16x9 TV that was smallish (30 inches) but quite heavy and bulky enough, thank you very much. I sometimes catch myself looking at the screen now and thinking how small it is, especially when watching a film in 2:35:1 aspect ratio, but I try to keep those impulses to a minimum. After all, the TV was expensive enough that I'm not going to be replacing it anytime soon, and do I really want to ruin my movie-watching eyes by adjusting to a huge screen when simply a medium-size one will do? It's not the size, after all, that matters. At least, that's what I have to keep telling myself.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
HD? Half Done?
A lot has been written in the last year (2006) about the rise of high definition. I've been hearing and reading about high def for over 10 years now, and now that industry "insiders" (whoever they are) are saying that 2007 is the year HD-DVD takes over, it's time to address the facts of this new format, and dispel some of the myths.
1) Most of the TV install base on Earth (the planet that includes more than net-crazy gearheads) does not have the capacity for HD. Even my TV, which is 16x9 and less than three years old, lacks an HDMI input, even though it can display 1080i if fed to it through component video.
2) The number of people using DVD (which the industry insiders now scoff at as being "old technology") is still growing. Many known to me personally have not even made the switch from VHS. And somehow they seem to be advanced beyond the "banging rocks together" stage.
3) The Blu-ray and HD-DVD players, which probably represent the second easiest way for a home user to "get into" HD are not compatible with any TV lacking an HDMI input. Meaning that any TV bought for less than $1000 and more than a year ago is not going to get the job done. That represents a pretty large barrier for the first-time adopter, even when the number of films available on either format gets large.
4) The easiest way of getting into HD, Digital Cable or Satellite TV, is still adopted only by a few consumers, and is more of curiosity than anything else. This has some capacity for growth, but its success has been rooted in its backwards compatibility. HD signals can be received through component video, allowing users like me and others with higher-end TV's to get the benefits of HD video, and the service is piggy-backed on the reliable, old-fashioned TV service that everyone has come to expect.
5) (And most obvious) Most people are perfectly happy with DVD. It provides excellent resolution, sound quality and special features for all but the most finicky consumer.
Conclusion: DVD isn't going anywhere for a long time. There's no need whatsoever to jump on the bandwagon of HD unless you're a discerning technophile with a large amount of disposable income. For everyone else, TV will continue to mean what it did 20 years ago (a box with programs on it) and DVD will continue to be the rental/purchase medium of choice.
That's not to say that films and TV programs will not continue to be shot in HD, as they should. Most news broadcasts are shot in Beta-SR, but I have yet to see a player in someone's home that can play one of those tapes. We'll still be able to enjoy the benefits of the resolution of an HD picture without buying into an expensive new technology.
And finally, there are far more important things in the digital video/home video/DVD world to be concerned about, such as the number of DVD's that are still sold with the label "full screen", meaning cropped and chopped for 4:3. That's a much more vicious mutilation of a film or program than not broadcasting it or watching it in HD, and something about which we as discerning home video enthusiasts should be concerned.
1) Most of the TV install base on Earth (the planet that includes more than net-crazy gearheads) does not have the capacity for HD. Even my TV, which is 16x9 and less than three years old, lacks an HDMI input, even though it can display 1080i if fed to it through component video.
2) The number of people using DVD (which the industry insiders now scoff at as being "old technology") is still growing. Many known to me personally have not even made the switch from VHS. And somehow they seem to be advanced beyond the "banging rocks together" stage.
3) The Blu-ray and HD-DVD players, which probably represent the second easiest way for a home user to "get into" HD are not compatible with any TV lacking an HDMI input. Meaning that any TV bought for less than $1000 and more than a year ago is not going to get the job done. That represents a pretty large barrier for the first-time adopter, even when the number of films available on either format gets large.
4) The easiest way of getting into HD, Digital Cable or Satellite TV, is still adopted only by a few consumers, and is more of curiosity than anything else. This has some capacity for growth, but its success has been rooted in its backwards compatibility. HD signals can be received through component video, allowing users like me and others with higher-end TV's to get the benefits of HD video, and the service is piggy-backed on the reliable, old-fashioned TV service that everyone has come to expect.
5) (And most obvious) Most people are perfectly happy with DVD. It provides excellent resolution, sound quality and special features for all but the most finicky consumer.
Conclusion: DVD isn't going anywhere for a long time. There's no need whatsoever to jump on the bandwagon of HD unless you're a discerning technophile with a large amount of disposable income. For everyone else, TV will continue to mean what it did 20 years ago (a box with programs on it) and DVD will continue to be the rental/purchase medium of choice.
That's not to say that films and TV programs will not continue to be shot in HD, as they should. Most news broadcasts are shot in Beta-SR, but I have yet to see a player in someone's home that can play one of those tapes. We'll still be able to enjoy the benefits of the resolution of an HD picture without buying into an expensive new technology.
And finally, there are far more important things in the digital video/home video/DVD world to be concerned about, such as the number of DVD's that are still sold with the label "full screen", meaning cropped and chopped for 4:3. That's a much more vicious mutilation of a film or program than not broadcasting it or watching it in HD, and something about which we as discerning home video enthusiasts should be concerned.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Why is it Called Film?
Our language seems to be full of anachronisms. I love the fact that on-line digital editors still refer to what they're doing as "cutting" and the finished product as "film". The whole notion of using the verb "filming" is equally amusing. This is hardly a novel observation, but there are few better illustrations of how language changes a lot faster than technology.
One of the things I'm excited about these days is the opportunity to actually shoot and edit real film. I recently acquired a Super 8 movie camera, projector and screen at a used charity store, and I'm in the process of hunting down film and developing facilities. It may be cost prohibitive, but it certainly would be a different experience to physically cut and paste pieces of film together. I'm sure it would give me an interesting insight into how the process of "filmmaking" (there's another anachronism) has evolved from the early 20th century 'till now.
I realize of course that the pros still shoot on 35mm film, but how long is that going to last? Even Superman Returns, I gather, was shot on 24p digital video. It's only a matter of time before "filmmaking" really passes into history.
One of the things I'm excited about these days is the opportunity to actually shoot and edit real film. I recently acquired a Super 8 movie camera, projector and screen at a used charity store, and I'm in the process of hunting down film and developing facilities. It may be cost prohibitive, but it certainly would be a different experience to physically cut and paste pieces of film together. I'm sure it would give me an interesting insight into how the process of "filmmaking" (there's another anachronism) has evolved from the early 20th century 'till now.
I realize of course that the pros still shoot on 35mm film, but how long is that going to last? Even Superman Returns, I gather, was shot on 24p digital video. It's only a matter of time before "filmmaking" really passes into history.
Monday, July 24, 2006
All Movies Are Modern
Akira Kurosawa always claimed that he didn't make "period" films. No matter what the characters were wearing or what historical period they seemed to be inhabiting, Kurosawa always saw his films as modern-day films, dealing, perhaps somehwat metaphorically, with modern-day issues. This is obviously not a new idea, but it is interested to view historical films as metaphors for their period of production. Film scholarship is all about context (this is also true of Art History and many other scholarly pursuits of the arts). You can't view "Ben Hur" and "Gladiator" as period films in quite the same way, even though the period of history they ostensibly cover is comparable. Their production context was completely different, politically, economically and historically. "Ben Hur" would never be made today, or if it were, it would be substantially different.
People often comment that modern movies are "more realistic" than historical films of the past. The production systems certainly have made it easier to suspend disbelief, but let's think about what we mean by "realistic" for a moment. Any Western that portrays the white settlers as the "good guys" would be considered "not realistic" by today's audience, but entirely believable by an audience in the mid-1940s. It's all about the politics of today, not of the 1880s. Besides that, the attention to historical detail would be different today (even though the "wild west" is myth, not history, but that's another discussion...), allowing a modern audience to more readily plug into what's being presented as being "realistic". As an audience, our physical burden of proof has increased enormously from the 1950s to today, thanks to modern special effects. So, realism in film really consists of two things: how well the behavior of the characters reflects the social norms (and politics) of the production time (not the historical time) and how much attention is paid to the physical re-creation of the world the characters inhabit.
So, the next time you're watching a period film (or, for that matter, a science fiction film), think about when it was made, not when it's set. That's really its historical period.
People often comment that modern movies are "more realistic" than historical films of the past. The production systems certainly have made it easier to suspend disbelief, but let's think about what we mean by "realistic" for a moment. Any Western that portrays the white settlers as the "good guys" would be considered "not realistic" by today's audience, but entirely believable by an audience in the mid-1940s. It's all about the politics of today, not of the 1880s. Besides that, the attention to historical detail would be different today (even though the "wild west" is myth, not history, but that's another discussion...), allowing a modern audience to more readily plug into what's being presented as being "realistic". As an audience, our physical burden of proof has increased enormously from the 1950s to today, thanks to modern special effects. So, realism in film really consists of two things: how well the behavior of the characters reflects the social norms (and politics) of the production time (not the historical time) and how much attention is paid to the physical re-creation of the world the characters inhabit.
So, the next time you're watching a period film (or, for that matter, a science fiction film), think about when it was made, not when it's set. That's really its historical period.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Bad Movies Make Money
Every now and then, I read a "best of" and "worst of" list. We've all seen these atrocities of serious film scholarship. They appear around the turn of the year and seem to be designed to serve the ostensible purpose of film criticism, namely helping people decide what DVD's to rent. The problem with theses lists is that the format allows so little room to breathe in the writing that the critic has no time to undertake a serious analysis of the film's strengths and weaknesses. Too often bad movie reviews boil down to "not bad, three stars". The lists encourage that kind of writing.
With that disclaimer, they can be illuminating when you stand back and look at the lists in terms of cultural contexts. Inevitably, one comes to the conclusion that you've heard of (and probably seen) most of the films on the "worst" list, and you're hearing about at least half of the "best" list for the first time. Nothing new there. We've all noticed by now how movie exhibitors show the films that will fill the house for the opening weekend, as often as not simply the film that has spent the most money on marketing. Quality is rarely a factor in determining success - it has always been this way.
So why is that nearly all the movies on a "worst of" list have made money (sometimes stupendous amounts) and most of those on a "best of" list never even played in theatres? The system seems designed to perpetuate the bad and actively discourage the good. DVD and home video have made a slight difference (and channels such as IFC help, too), but for the most part we have to accept that we'll always have bad movies, because bad movies make money. Roger Corman figured this out 40 years ago, and Hollywood followed suit shortly after that.
The reason given by the industry for this vicious and destructive cycle is circular logic itself: If the people going to see films are largely males aged 14-18, we're going to make films that appeal to males aged 14-18. Aside from the indie boom of the mid-90s (and look how fast the industry grabbed hold of that and made "indie" into a brand-name), bad movies have consistently done better than their more important counterparts.
The system is broken, and it doesn't look like it will ever be fixed. As appreciators of good cinema, we have to simply accept the fact that the best films won't be at the cinema, the best films will always struggle to be born and the worst films will always make money. The public has been trained to have no taste and then rewarded for it. They're consumers, habituated to plopping down their money to the movie having the biggest poster. In the immortal words of a good (therefore, unsuccessful) film, "Buy... buy more.... buy more and be happy"
With that disclaimer, they can be illuminating when you stand back and look at the lists in terms of cultural contexts. Inevitably, one comes to the conclusion that you've heard of (and probably seen) most of the films on the "worst" list, and you're hearing about at least half of the "best" list for the first time. Nothing new there. We've all noticed by now how movie exhibitors show the films that will fill the house for the opening weekend, as often as not simply the film that has spent the most money on marketing. Quality is rarely a factor in determining success - it has always been this way.
So why is that nearly all the movies on a "worst of" list have made money (sometimes stupendous amounts) and most of those on a "best of" list never even played in theatres? The system seems designed to perpetuate the bad and actively discourage the good. DVD and home video have made a slight difference (and channels such as IFC help, too), but for the most part we have to accept that we'll always have bad movies, because bad movies make money. Roger Corman figured this out 40 years ago, and Hollywood followed suit shortly after that.
The reason given by the industry for this vicious and destructive cycle is circular logic itself: If the people going to see films are largely males aged 14-18, we're going to make films that appeal to males aged 14-18. Aside from the indie boom of the mid-90s (and look how fast the industry grabbed hold of that and made "indie" into a brand-name), bad movies have consistently done better than their more important counterparts.
The system is broken, and it doesn't look like it will ever be fixed. As appreciators of good cinema, we have to simply accept the fact that the best films won't be at the cinema, the best films will always struggle to be born and the worst films will always make money. The public has been trained to have no taste and then rewarded for it. They're consumers, habituated to plopping down their money to the movie having the biggest poster. In the immortal words of a good (therefore, unsuccessful) film, "Buy... buy more.... buy more and be happy"
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Disney Slashes Jobs
Here's an interesting industry-related story. One week after having the most successful movie in box office history, Disney announces that they're cutting back production and slashing jobs. Here's a story from the Globe and Mail about it.
Their logic? Perfect, by the diminished artistic standards of the modern film world. Essentially it boils down to "Why make movies that might flop when we can make a big theme-park movie that can spawn toys, video games and all kinds of residual markets?" Say goodbye to the Coen Brothers, say hello to Gore Verbinski.
Icky.
Their logic? Perfect, by the diminished artistic standards of the modern film world. Essentially it boils down to "Why make movies that might flop when we can make a big theme-park movie that can spawn toys, video games and all kinds of residual markets?" Say goodbye to the Coen Brothers, say hello to Gore Verbinski.
Icky.
Summer Movie Binging
In our little town, there's quite a bit of cultural activity, and no shortage of things to do, so this is not meant as a gratuitous swipe at semi-rural life, but the movie theatres, to coin a phrase, suck. I'm sure that there is a population base around here to support an "artsy" theatre, showing challenging or foriegn films, but this doesn't seem to be the opinion of our local theatre owners. There are a grand total of two theatres within a reasonable driving distance, neither of which is really worth the trip. The one in town is nice enough as a building, but the sound system is rank awful (one tinny MONO speaker behind a ragged and smeary screen) and they seem physically incapable of projecting a film in focus. The alternative, however, is a small "multiplex" one twon over that, while technically competent, seems physically incapable of showing a good film. Each week, they seem to pick the five worst films in general circulation and show them to cinema's bread and butter target audience: 15-year-old local boys.
Which is why I try to get to Vancouver (six hours drive away) every few months to go on a binge of first run movies. In the past week, I've managed to catch "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest", "A Prairie Home Companion", "Superman Returns (IMAX version)" and "V for Vendetta". A good, hearty helping of summer movie, methinks. I'll be back next time with reviews, but reflecting on it now, maybe it's a good thing that our theatres have lost me as an audience member. Summer movies are, after all, junk food, the kind best enjoyed as a binge.
Which is why I try to get to Vancouver (six hours drive away) every few months to go on a binge of first run movies. In the past week, I've managed to catch "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest", "A Prairie Home Companion", "Superman Returns (IMAX version)" and "V for Vendetta". A good, hearty helping of summer movie, methinks. I'll be back next time with reviews, but reflecting on it now, maybe it's a good thing that our theatres have lost me as an audience member. Summer movies are, after all, junk food, the kind best enjoyed as a binge.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Movie Musings
Hi Readers
I know what you're thinking: no one needs yet another blog featuring some amateur rambling about movies. Maybe I disagree, or maybe I'm not an amateur (I probably am guilty of rambling). I post on www.mindjack.com regularly, but here's where you'll see more personal thoughts on films, and hopefulyl intelligent and insightful observations concerning the medium of film.
I'll be posting more shortly. In the meantime, welcome.
I know what you're thinking: no one needs yet another blog featuring some amateur rambling about movies. Maybe I disagree, or maybe I'm not an amateur (I probably am guilty of rambling). I post on www.mindjack.com regularly, but here's where you'll see more personal thoughts on films, and hopefulyl intelligent and insightful observations concerning the medium of film.
I'll be posting more shortly. In the meantime, welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)