If the Shoe Fits, Should We Wear It?
I'm struck by how ready people are for films that are big and smart and ambitious and compassionate, how tired we are of being condescended and marketed to. I know I sometimes feel like cc:'ing a memo to all the Hollywood studio heads: Please stop throwing flaming robot cars at me, then asking for an Oscar. Just give some money to some smart people with something to say and let them make a movie. - Dana Stevens, Joyless Dweeb
In the past few years, I'm sure we've all noticed an alarming trend in entertainment. Some people call it the creative vs. commerce dilemma, a theory that art and business are inherently incapable of coexisting. They believe that it's a zero-sum game, that in order to be truly creatively fulfilled, you can't do it for rewards or fame and in order to get rewards or fame, you can't be truly creatively fulfilled. Richard E. Caves argues that "art progresses through a dialogue of problems, solutions that point to new problems and so forth. The artist, engaged in this dialogue, takes satisfaction from the work itself and not the acclaim (if any) that it elicits. Art is not craft or mere decoration... if a dealer hires the artist to paint what the dealer thinks will sell, creative autonomy is clearly gone."
Indeed, the film industry seems to be caught in the thick of this dilemma. And it is not handling it well. It's operating scared - the atmosphere is cautious and stifling; new ideas are squandered and worse, even discouraged; and the horizon looks increasingly devoid of any creative ambition or audacity. But before we all raise our pitchforks in anger, consider the pressures of the industry in simple economic terms. Costs are rising. So projects become riskier. So supply dwindles. And when the selection of art is limited, you inevitably begin to fall into a cookie-cutter system, a hermetically sealed environment in which every product is mass-produced and mass-marketed to appeal to the most people in the most demographics. It's the easiest way to hedge a loss: Look the most attractive to the most number of people and you will minimize your risks. Indeed, it was noted in 2011 that "the number of major releases per year peaked in 2006 at 204; 2010 saw it hit a historic low, of 141. The number of studio films in production dropped by 19 percent, year on year, to a mere 98... Sequels and adaptations, thought to be 'safe' commercial propositions are everywhere. Risky, untested works have vanished. You'll find just a single original title, the summer comedy Bridesmaids, in the top 10 of this year's box office charts."
It’s no surprise that creatively, we live in a world of safety and conformity. Just take a look at what films came out in summer 2011: "four adaptations of comic books. One prequel to an adaptation of a comic book. One sequel to a sequel to a movie based on a toy. One sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a movie based on an amusement-park ride. One prequel to a remake. Two sequels to cartoons. One sequel to a comedy. An adaptation of a children's book. An adaptation of a Saturday-morning cartoon. One sequel with a 4 in the title. Two sequels with a 5 in the title. One sequel that, if it were inclined to use numbers, would have to have a 7 1/2 in the title.1"
But that’s not fair, one might argue, times have changed since 2011! People have changed! Hollywood has changed! Ok, let’s see what’s on tap for summer 2012: "an adaptation of a comic book. A reboot of an adaptation of a comic book. A sequel to a sequel to an adaptation of a comic book. A sequel to a reboot of an adaptation of a TV show. A sequel to a sequel to a reboot of an adaptation of a comic book. A sequel to a cartoon. A sequel to a sequel to a cartoon. A sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a cartoon. A sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a movie based on a young-adult novel.2" And as of today, studios are pushing ahead with Top Gun 2, a Stretch Armstrong movie (yes - the action figure Stretch Armstrong), another Fantastic Four reboot, another Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles reboot, another Robocop reboot, and - I am not kidding - Magic Mike 2.
But if the system works - if we're all content with films that are more concerned with their bottom line figures than actual quality of content - is there really a problem? Manohla Dargis and A.O. Scott of The New York Times seem to think so, stating that "the success of [comic book] movies shores up a false market rationale that’s used to justify blockbusters in general: that is, these movies make money, therefore people like them; people like them, therefore these movies are made." This is of course, the ageless dilemma between the chicken and the egg. We, as a generation of incrementally more hedonistic people, are demanding creatively sterile but financially viable offerings like Transformers or The Avengers. And with the demand in place, studios can't help but respond with a greater supply of things like Pirates of the Caribbean or The Amazing Spider Man. It's a vicious cycle, one in which unimaginable amounts of money are thrown behind projects that deserve nothing more than a quiet revision session.
But curiously, when faced with a inferior product, instead of concentrating on craft, it seems that the industry does the exact opposite. They green-light it as fast as possible, often even without a complete script, hire some bankable names to attach to the project, then force feed it down the public's throats with a flood of glitzy, glamorous, and unavoidable marketing tactics. It's the shotgun approach: Let's just throw it all out there and one is bound to stick! It's the sweep-it-under-the-rug approach: We can push it out the door now and just forget about it! But sadly, I think it's more like the I-don't-give-a-shit-as-long-as-I-get-rich approach.
Brand management - and by extension, sequelization, prequelization, and rebootization - is an extremely well-oiled machine, one in which it's easy to see the appeal. It's where the money's at! Think of all the millions of moviegoers' wallets we could tap! We already know they'll pay for another one - they've done it before! True art? Who cares! There's millions of dollars to be made here! Start pitching me more movies based on board games...
But the search for the culprit of this problem is neither easy nor completely possible. Indeed, Dargis notes that "there’s no question that the corporate appetite for bigger returns is insatiable... movies sell not just theater tickets but also generate multiple revenue streams (pay-per-view, toys, video games, international distribution). People were excited to see The Avengers, but how could they not be? We were bombarded with the movie for years in advance. As a Marvel executive told Forbes, 'Every Marvel movie since 2008 was created with the full intention of this super franchise.' And then there’s the 24/7 advertising and Marvel’s corporate 'partnerships' with Walmart (which is peddling some 600 Avengers products), Acura, Harley-Davidson, Hasbro, Target — I mean, there was no escaping it."
It seems a growing majority of studio executives should no longer be labeled "artists" or "creative" so much as "marketers of crap" or "meritless fat cats." They no longer serve as ushers of timeless art or even producers of mediocre entertainment; they're scared, gutless, and deceiving. I'm reminded of summer 2010 when Christopher Nolan's sui generis blockbuster Inception was first released. It was a genre film (sci-fi action thriller). It featured big Hollywood names (Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page, Michael Caine, et al). And it was the follow up to Nolan's The Dark Knight, which everyone in the world saw. But the interesting thing about such an ambitious film was that Hollywood didn't seem to know how to market it. Inception wasn't a sequel or a prequel or an anything-quel. It was - gasp! - an original story! And soon, people began questioning that the film was "too smart" for general audiences and that it may even become "Nolan's first flop." It went on to become the 6th highest grossing film of the year and the only film in the top six to be an original property.
Let's put it this way: if you as a Hollywood executive can't successfully sell a film that stars multiple Oscar-winning actors in an action-packed thriller full of gunfights, explosions, and maybe even a few original ideas, then maybe you shouldn't be in the business at all. Sometimes it's not the content that doesn't sell; it's the packaging.
A recent editorial in The Columbia Journalism Review points to a potential reason for the current situation, stating that “Six companies dominate TV news, radio, online, movies, and publishing. Another eight or nine control most of the nation’s newspapers.” It's clear the industry is becoming increasingly unstable: top heavy, overly centralized, risk adverse, creatively stifling. And in turn, this media consolidation has led to fewer disparate voices, less creative interpretations, and a general fear among provocative artists. Don't piss off Big Brother! Don't you know he works hand-in-hand with Big Sister, Big Father, Big Mother, and everyone else in the family?
But in baseball, a good player doesn't necessarily swing for the fences on every pitch. Often times, a consistent single can win the game.
And perhaps the public is finally beginning to get the message. So far in 2012, there have already been a few notable big-budget failures. And I could not be happier to see them flop. John Carter. Battleship. MIB3. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. When I see the general refusals of these lie-concept films - movies whose title suggested some sort of brand or hook on which to hang a feature film, but whose utter lack of narrative thread and/or appeal doomed them from the start - I can't help but smile just a little bit - not necessarily because of their financial woes, but because for the first in a long time, we may finally be speaking in the only terms Hollywood seems to understand.
1: Captain America, Cowboys & Aliens, Green Lantern, and Thor; X-Men: First Class; Transformers 3; Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides; Rise of the Apes; Cars 2 and Kung Fu Panda 2; The Hangover Part II; Winnie the Pooh; The Smurfs in 3D; Spy Kids 4; Fast Five and Final Destination 5; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2.
2: The Avengers; The Amazing Spider-Man (3D); Men in Black 3 (3D); Star Trek untitled; The Dark Knight Rises; Monsters, Inc. 2; Madagascar 3; Ice Age: Continental Drift in 3D; The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 2.
