Quote:
|
Originally Posted by natalia
Once a villian, normally I agree with your opinion on movies. But I can't say that I agree that there simply is no consistent talent regarding movies left anymore and that the majority of modern films are lousy (any more so then they were in the past, anyway). You posit that great directors like Hitchcock, Wilder, Peckinpah, etc… aren’t really coming around anymore, hence the greater percentage of crap movies. I disagree with that sentiment mostly because the idea of a director as auteur, the defining creative force behind a movie, has only been around since the 60s. Before then, the studio system in the early days of film churned out tons and tons of crap, even as they turned out a few gems that we are still watching. I read an article online that described Hollywood during it’s studio heyday as a “dream factory”. They’d churn out movies one after the other (some of which had only been shot in two weeks).
I’m not sure things are all that different today (except for the longer shoot times because of the much larger budgets that are at stake). Sure there is a ton of crap out there, but there are some very, very good movies still being made. I also think there are a lot more entertainment sources out their competing for our free time and increasing smaller amounts of discretionary funds (the Internet, video games), so maybe we feel worse when we get duped into shelling out 11 bucks for a bad movie.
|
That wasn't my argument. There's plenty of consistent talent left in movies, just not so much in Hollywood movies.
By the way, I happen to believe in the idea of director as auteur, but it doesn't necessarily matter when people started discussing it. Hitchcock, Wilder, Chaplin, etc...made films prior to the 60's. Auteurs have existed since the beginning of film, it doesn't matter when people decided to define it. Orson Welles was an auteur for sure, and he was making movies in the 40's.
There are good movies coming out of Hollywood today, but it's a rare thing. The majority of great American movies today are independent films. It used to be Hollywood making the best American movies. You say they would churn out movies that sometimes had only a two week shooting schedule as if that's a bad thing. Granted, wonderful movies would generally need a longer shooting schedule, but these massive Hollywood budgets today generally
inhibit creativity. Most interviews with filmmakers about some of their best films involve them talking about how a smaller budget forced them to be more original, innovative, creative, whatever.
An example I can think of off the top of my head (you'll forgive me if I'm not as on top of things as usual...I've had a few beers, two shots of Jager, and several Vodka & Redbulls) would be Jaws. Spielberg had a decent budget on the film, so it's not a perfect example. However, the mechanical shark rarely worked correctly. Originally Spielberg intended to make the film with the shark in a lot more scenes, killing people on full display. Due to malfunctions, Spielberg was forced to think of different approach, a more "Hitchcockian" approach. We now rarely see the shark until the end. Most people will say this made the movie much better, the horror being more mysterious and forcing the camera to focus on the human characters that make the movie more than just a simple horror feature. Also, Spielberg's best film (Schindler's List in my opinion) only cost $20 million compared to Jurassic Park's $65 million, and had a shorter schedule as well. Both were made the same year.
As far as "gems" go that we still view as classics or whatever, I believe there are many more Hollywood gems in the 25 years prior to 1980, than in the 25 years after. Anyway, I've said more than I intended. My real point is simply that Hollywood needs to get its act together again, and that small budgets and limited shooting schedules aren't necessarily a bad thing. Massive budgets and huge shooting schedules make a filmmaker lazy. Smaller budgets and lesser schedules force the director to be creative.
