Cedarville University

Commercialism it the all-pervasive evil of Western society. While I could write a very long article on that subject, instead I’ll just say that commercialism especially causes damage to the arts, and for the specific purposes of this blog, it causes damage to the art of filmmaking. If you do not even regard filmmaking as an art, this article is for you. See, movies have these annoying things called budgets and if the budget exceeds the profits, no matter how critically acclaimed that movie might be, the studio that financed it is not going to be happy. So many studios go the safe route and turn out movies that are sure to be a hit. How do they determine that they will be a hit? People have seen them before, and they liked them before. Of course they will like them again. Of course, they will have different characters, and situations and characters twisted just far away from the last remake (because by now the original successful idea has been being copied for about fifty years or so) to avoid getting sued, hire some huge name actors with hot faces to put their many times inconsiderable talents into the project, and ta-da! the audience is sure to flock in.

The reason? Most movie goers are deep inside comfort zones, they know what they like, what is safe, and don’t you dare try to push them outside of that, cause odds are they will not understand it. And when these people come across something they don’t understand, they just decide that it is no good. Then they return to the same old blockbuster plots that replace substance and character with effects and explosions. But if you have realized that this is true, wouldn’t you want something better? Don’t you get tired of watching effects-driven (Bay-directed???) flicks over and over again. Hollywood has pulled the wool over your eyes, and I like to blame commercialism. But if enough people would spend their money on good films, then the tide of filmmaking would turn decisively in favor of the true artists, and abandon the lovers of spectacle for its own sake. Of course, the problem is most people don’t see the situation this way. Take a young male audience, example- they seem to judge a movie wholly on how much violence is in the film, and how cool that violence is. I was talking to an (unnamed) guy the other day about an (unnamed) movie, and he actually admitted to this. After telling me how cool he thought this particular movie was (which has a 26% rating on the Tomatometer, although when I told him this critical opinion, he responded typically by asserting, “They’re idiots.” I can testify to how smart movie critics are, especially Roger Ebert ), I asked him, “Didn’t you just like it because it was really violent?” And he actually said yes. But still, that didn’t effect his opinion of how good it was. So there are so many violent actioners to appease that big demographic. (If I really wanted to make enemies, I could go after the girls with my opinions on Twilight, but I don’t really want to make enemies. )

So in this climate of commercialism and audiences dug so deep down into their foxhole comfort zones, a guy like me is thankful for Fusion, the film org on campus. I am the type of person, anyone that knows me can attest to this, that likes to talk about movies and analyze them and think about them for hours, and Fusion, which holds somewhat regular viewings of films, allows me to do so with other people who love movies as much as I do. We even have our own little fifteen seat movie theater, with a nice screen, so we can turn down the lights and really have a quality viewing experience. I’m hoping Fusion gives me an even bigger appreciation and love for film-making as my college experience continues. I also hope that more people would go see good films, and not be stuck in their same-old, same-old routines. For example, to counter the belief that explosions make a good movie, let me do a quick comparison of the worst movie I’ve seen this year (this time I don’t care if I make enemies) and the best one, respectively, Transformers 2 and The Hurt Locker. Transformers 2 operates for that male demographic, no character development, hardly any plot, what plot there is the makers borrowed from many other movies, and it tries to make up for all this with mindless, boring, headache inducing scenes of CGI action. The Hurt Locker, on the other hand, is about a bomb-defusing squad in Iraq. Wait a minute, wouldn’t that mean there would be like tons of explosions in a movie about a bomb squad? No, because Kathryn Bigelow knows what she is doing. Sure, there are a  few explosions, but they are all well-placed. For example, there is an explosion right at the beginning. The reason, as Roger Ebert points out, is to show the audience just how much damage these bombs can do. (Oh, and by the way, the explosions in The Hurt Locker are not CGI, they are the real deal. If you see the Hurt Locker, notice how much “less cool” they look and more much just plain scarier.) That way, now that audience knows the consequences, we are dreading another explosion the whole rest of the movie. That is real suspense.

And so, I have been able to write a little bit about one of my biggest pet peeves, the lack of good movie taste. For your sake, I will cut off now. But again, thank God for orgs like Fusion that keep the love of good moviemaking alive.

So

This entry was posted on Monday, November 23rd, 2009 at 10:28 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.