Thursday, January 29, 1998
Big-budget flicks hurt industry
MOVIES: Plethora of popular films abandon quality for mindless
amusement
Brace yourselves. I have not seen "Titanic."
Judging by its box office receipts, I must be one of the few
people left in America who hasn’t seen this bloated epic. I’m
feeling a little torn. On the one hand, all of my friends keep
telling me how wonderful it is. The characters are so rich, the
story is great, it doesn’t feel like three hours, blah blah blah.
But there is a part of me that doesn’t want to contribute to the
behemoth studio system that spends millions and millions of dollars
on special effects vehicles. I don’t want to be herded into the
movie theaters by spin doctors and CEOs who have concocted
brilliant marketing schemes to get every last one of us. And
frankly, I’m sick of Leonardo DiCaprio.
At least "Titanic" is a step above other special-effects films
like "Starship Troopers," another one that I refused to see. I’ve
heard that James Cameron actually has a story in Titanic, but the
bottom line is that the story is there to justify an hour and a
half of mayhem and destruction. And I still don’t understand why
"Waterworld" received so much negative press for being the most
expensive film ever made, but no one seemed to mind that "Titanic"
surpassed that figure. Maybe if Kevin Costner had put some young
teen heartthrob in the starring role everyone would have left him
alone.
It amazes me that Americans, who complain about the government
taking their precious dollars to support programs that help the
poor and disenfranchised, have no problem with studios spending
ridiculous amounts of money on mindless entertainment. I know
competition is tough in the film industry right now. Films are
being released by the dozens when the average American movie-goer
only sees six films per year. Films must fight it out at the box
office, but I don’t think that hitting below the belt is the way to
go. Giant grasshoppers with a vendetta against the human race?
Volcanoes erupting in downtown Los Angeles? Tornadoes that demolish
everything in their path, yet leave our heroes unscathed? Excuse me
while I tackle the projectionist and rip that crap out of the
machine.
It’s really frustrating to see studios, who have billions of
dollars at their disposal, unable to direct their efforts into
making films that actually have something to say. Maybe I’m jumping
the gun, since I didn’t see the cinematic masterpieces, "The Lost
World," "Batman and Robin," or "Speed 2." I’m sure the producers
behind these films claim that meaningful social commentary is
embedded deep, deep, deep down inside. I don’t feel like wading
through all that sewage in order to find these gems of
enlightenment. And I don’t understand why the public eats these
films up.
I’m guessing it’s the hype machine, a.k.a. fast food tie-ins,
marketing blitzes and merchandising bonanzas. Production companies
want people to know about their movie – they have to advertise
somehow. But the hype machine is more than advertising. It preys on
our desire to be cool, hip and happening; a manipulative
monstrosity that shoves us into the slaughterhouse. I have friends
who won’t see a film unless it’s advertised on television. Sappy
love themes and catchy intros get made into music videos and
bombard radio airwaves.
I can sit in a theater during September and watch trailers for
films being released the next summer. Smaller companies who don’t
have the money for such extravagant marketing campaigns must pray
for positive word-of-mouth while giant lizards and killer asteroids
hoard ticket sales.
This barrage of shameless advertising contributes more and more
money to already sky-high budgets. Perhaps I speak with a little
bit of jealousy; I am lucky enough to be attending one of the top
film schools in the country. I know that if my classmates each had
$1 million, they could produce films with much more heart and
meaning than anything a studio could churn out with $100 million.
But no, instead, we get "Barney’s Great Adventure" and yet more
installments in the "Lethal Weapon" and "Star Trek" franchises.
United Artists is making a sequel to "Carrie." She already killed
the whole town: what’s next, the world? And why does Disney have to
remake all of their films five times?
For most people, movies are an escape. I’m not a big fan of this
idea, but it seems to fit in our society of Elvis impersonators and
sports utility vehicles. Really, does anybody drive through the
mountains these things? In the commercials they do, but in real
life people just like the idea that if time permitted they could
tackle Mount Everest. It has nothing to do with the top film
schools in the country and their reality of driving down the
freeway and making trips to the grocery store. Just like escape
movies have nothing to do with the problems we face in everyday
life or improving the social fabric of our world.
I’m sure most Americans think the whole point of movies is to
escape, to forget, to ignore. Many people think the arts are a
waste of time, that it’s okay for films to be silly because they’re
not important anyway. But a nation’s art is its soul, and our
acceptance of empty movies is a symptom of our materialistic
culture and attitude of mass accumulation. They’re like junk food:
we eat and eat, but it doesn’t fill us up. We want big movies, big
stars and big explosions, but when we walk out of the theater it’s
nothing but a meaningless jumble. A very expensive, meaningless
jumble.
The beauty of the American film scene is that because of its
mammoth size, there is something for everyone. Especially in big
cities like Los Angeles and New York, any mildly aware citizen can
find a film that suits his or her tastes, so I shouldn’t whine too
much about the studios’ preoccupation with alien invaders and
natural disasters. But I wish people would think about the films
they see. I wish they would think about studios that dish out
bland, warmed-over plot lines and uninspired characters. No matter
what genres you prefer, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for
quality filmmaking.