|
Some of you were likely expecting a movie review from me this past month. Well, to tell the truth, things have been a bit busy, and we havent gotten out to see any movies lately. Weve watched a few on DVD, but none of the new ones in the theaters the past few weeks (this is being written the first week of May; we may see a movie or two before this sees print). Instead of a movie review, I started composing this rant about Hollywood in general instead.
The popular "image" of Hollywood is one of conspicuous alcohol and narcotic consumption, and based on what some of the studios turn out, I can believe that image. Many times, Ive wondered what the producers were smoking when they signed onto this project or that project. Most of the time, these fiascoes fall into one or more of these basic categories.
REMAKES:
Im not sure what it is with some producers that makes them to believe that they can "improve" on an old movie by remaking it. While some old movies can easily be improved upon, the problem is always that, no matter how well you do, youre always going to be compared to the original, and usually not favorably. Most often lately, the remakes focus more on offering us a more impressive visual experience and less on content. Two good examples of this are the recent remakes of "Planet of the Apes" and "Rollerball". Both of the current offerings are impressive in their special effects (as compared to the originals), and offer us a greater "action packed" experience. Both, also, lost much in the original allegoric or metaphoric symbolism that fueled the popularity of the originals. We were given an alternate way of viewing ourselves in the originals, and the remakes left much of that behind to simply "entertain" us. Im not sure whether Hollywood is telling us we dont need to think about our movies, or whether we told Hollywood we did not want to think about them, but it seems that "thinking" movies are becoming more scarce as time goes by.
Some remakes seem to be more of a "tribute" to the original rather than an attempt to "improve", but even these seem to suffer from the remake syndrome. "The Preachers Wife", a Christmas movie from a few years back, is an example of this. Basically a remake of the old "The Bishops Wife" (starring Cary Grant, David Niven, and Loretta Young), Penny Marshalls remake (starring Denzel Washington, Gregory Hines, and Whitney Houston) took the story to the African American Full Gospel setting. This, in itself, perhaps did much to redeem the movie, as it plays less as a "remake" and more as a "retelling". The various roles, while similar to the original, are sufficiently different to help dissuade the almost obligatory comparisons. Yet, for everything done "right" in "The Preachers Wife", it still was compared unfavorably to the original. In all fairness, had the time frame been reversed, and "The Preachers Wife" brought out first, followed many years later by "The Bishops Wife", the unfavorable comparisons would also likely have reversed, and it would be Cary Grant that would have been trying to live up to Denzel Washingtons performance.
Apparently, though, Hollywood has found that "remakes" of old, popular movies are likely to do well in the box office, despite any unfavorable press they might receive. Expect more remakes, and the ensuing comparisons to the original that go with them.
SEQUELS:
This is very similar to the "remake" syndrome, both in the comparison department, and in the "business end". A successful box office smash invites a sequel, as audiences often want "more" of the story anyway. Some stories, though, really do not leave much room for sequels, and the writers often have to "reinterpret" what happened in the original to open up the plot for the sequel. But, as long as audiences are willing to plop down the cash to go see them, Hollywood will crank them out. Strangely, Hollywood is also not opposed to cranking out sequels to box office losers as well.
Some sequels are actually better than the original. "Silence of the Lambs" was essentially a sequel to "The Red Dragon", yet "Silence" was a better film with a stronger cast. The problem, though, is when Hollywood continues to crank out sequels when the appeal and "magic" of the original has vanished. By the last offering in the "Rocky" series of movies, many audiences had lost interest in the characters, and the whole series became a running joke in Hollywood (how many sight gags of futuristic scenes and "Rocky 25", or something similar, have you seen?). "The Land Before Time" series has reached this point. Thank heavens my kids are too old for those. Of course, when the first one came out, my kids were NOT too old for that kind of movie, even though my youngest turned 18 in April. That tells you how long this series has been "milked." Folks, I think even dinosaurs grew up faster than that.
Disney has gotten very good, or bad, depending on how you want to say it, in the sequel department. Good grief, theyve even made a sequel to the old "Cinderella." Old Walt is probably rolling over in his grave as I write this.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND REDEFINING STORIES:
This is one of my pet peeves. Hollywood has taken on a "mission", it seems, to redefine and repackage stories to further a politically correct agenda. Again, Disney seems to lead the pack in this department as demonstrated by "Pocahontas" and "Hunchback of Notre Dame". Neither respects the original aspects of either history or literature, yet capitalizes on the names of both. I would not mind a fictional telling of New World exploration and interaction between the indigenous people of the Americas and the European explorers, except that they used the names of historical figures with little regard for the history behind them. Pocahontas and John Smith were, based on what we do know of them, nothing like the images Disney presented in their version of the tale. Likewise, Victor Hugos "Hunchback of Notre Dame" was a classic tale of gothic drama, intended for an adult audience and imbued with meaning and insight. Its not a kids story by any stretch, and were Hugo alive to see what Disneys studios did with it, Im betting hed have lawyers suing until doomsday over it.
The sad part of this is that no shortage exists of great stories to be made into movies, including stories promoting the currently popular PC values. Libraries are full of childrens books which have never been made into movies, and which would make great ones with the right producers. Why the studios feel that bastardized versions of other stories are better than using original material is beyond me. Seeing some of the other offerings in our entertainment world, I know that imagination is still powerful and active, so why its not being used more frequently, especially by the Disney studios, is incomprehensible. I can only surmise that the "dollar potential" of the "famous names" means more than making great movies from great books, and that the studios believe that we, the audience, are too stupid to know the difference. They long ago decided we had no imagination and began showing us everything and spoon feeding us whatever they thought we needed. Now they think were too lethargic and indiscriminate to know good cinema from tripe.
"ARTSY FILMS":
Im sure Im not the only one here who remembers the "Heavens Gate" debacle. For those too young to remember, or who are fortunate enough to have forgotten, "Heavens Gate" was a film by Michael Cimino about a land war in the "old west". The basic premise and plot were promising enough, and the film boasted a decent cast of well-known stars. The problem was that they made the movie to be "artsy", and it bombed big time. It was horribly expensive to make, grossed little in the theaters, and literally (Im not making this up) bankrupted the studio. "Heavens Gate" completely shut down the studio that made it. In curiosity, I watched the film on video some years later, just to see how bad a film had to be to destroy a studio. I came away from the viewing with the opinion that some decent editing (cutting at least 45 minutes to an hour or more from the film) would have made it an entertaining and profitable movie. Left in its "artsy" form, it was difficult to follow and frankly, boring.
Please dont get me wrong. A film can be "artsy" and still be entertaining. However, sacrificing the entertainment value for "art" value seems counterproductive. At least, if you want an audience for the art. Face it, folks. Many of us are also comic book readers, and well gladly take so-so art with a great story over a so-so story with great art. On a few occasions, well be blessed to find something with great art AND a great story, but most of us will not continue to shell out our hard earned wages just to look at nice drawings. The same holds true for the cinema. Were not content to sit for 2 hours, after paying $7 to $10 per person (or more), to see "nice images" flash by with a lousy story kind of connecting them.
"The Last Temptation of Christ" was another artsy film that barely escaped box office death. In its case, it was saved only by the controversy of the subject matter. Many of the people who paid to see it did so only because of the Church groups that protested it. Of those who saw it, most said that without the controversy fueling interest, it would have died out in theaters quickly. In the words of most viewers, the movie was dull. One can only speculate on the reasons a studio invested in such poor scripts, or in why they allowed such bad movies to be released. Typically, the answer were given is that it was "art". Well, some folks call urinating in a jar "art", but dont expect me to find it either entertaining, thought provoking, or worth spending money on.
CONCLUSION:
In reality, the only "critics" that truly matter to Hollywood is the paying public. Media critics can rave all they want about a movie, or slam them all they want, but the box office gross is the real criteria for how successful a film is. If we, the viewing public, are sick of lousy offerings, we need to make that statement with our dollars. Spend them to see good movies, and withhold them from bad ones. If theres nothing at the theater thats worth watching, dont settle for "so-so." Stay home and read a book, or play a game, or go for a bike ride, or something else. We can cry all we want about the quality of our entertainment, but in this case especially, money talks. Hollywood is a business, and exists to make money. They cannot make it without us spending it on their products.
|