Skip to main content

The Factory System

When you see an article titled “The Day the Movies Died,” you can probably expect a boatload of negativity. That said, Mark Harris’ polemic in this month’s GQ on the state of Hollywood is pretty even-handed. After all, it blames the upcoming string of lame comic book movies and sequels on the one group you might not have expected: Us, the people who do most of the hand-wringing. “We can complain until we’re hoarse that Hollywood abandoned us by ceasing to make the kinds of movies we want to see, but it’s just as true that we abandoned Hollywood,” Harris writes. “Studios make movies for people who go to the movies, and the fact is, we don’t go anymore. […] Put simply, we’d rather stay home, and movies are made for people who’d rather go out.” The moral? If you like movies, start supporting the good ones and ignoring the bad ones. [GQ] (Christopher Rosen, “Only You Can Save Movies, and 7 Other Stories You’ll Be Talking About Today,” Movieline, 18 Feb. 2011)

Anyone who reads Movieline would note that the particular "adult" movie -- Inception -- Harris laments hasn't become the model for Hollywood, is exactly the one Stephanie here blasted for being at-the-core infantile. And something of a sham: putting itself in place of something -- Hitchcock -- that truly was adult, so that the truly childish could never not know themselves to be not-adult (I hope I got that right). They'd also know that The Social Network was hit hard by Armond White for its uncritical look at what is essentially immaturity and a-whole-generation-spread psychological disorder -- autism. Black Swan, too, again by Stephanie, for being so obviously cliche-driven, and yet flummoxingly completely ignorant of it. And though she really liked it, still made aware by her that The King's Speech was first reacted-to by friend critics as essentially middle-brow -- which it is: a taste for luxury and refinement, mass taste/opinion disregard, equals Bad; mostly maintained anal-retentiveness -- this, taking into full consideration all the expletive-exhalation exercises -- just-assumed self-sacrifice for the nation, equals Good. And personally, though I loved True Grit, it had the feel of satisified film-makers who've found their peace (congrads! you deserve it!), and are mostly now offering the field to self-assured new-comers they'll insist to themselves represent a vital, respect-worthy energy, rather than the likes of the gibbering nincompoops we hear of in the film, inflated to emboldened crusader status for embodying an energy way more foul than that (I'm not actually so much thinking Hailee with this -- but more what's to follow). If the lament in the article is mostly that there are few good films being made, I'd say for me it's that the problem Harris identifies throughout his article -- a preference for formula; abandonment of anything "hard" or truly challenging -- afflicts the sort of films he would see more of.

His point that stars aren't as requisite as franchise is interesting. We are living in an age where that previously so often aired wished-for truth for Tiger Woods by sour-grapes, other-pro golfers -- that he wasn't bigger than the game, when, apparent to all, he couldn't more have been at the time -- which has become truth for him, is true now for movie stars as well. It seems to me that what this means is that there isn't going to be anything going on within a film, that out of its uniqueness and budding power, will extend out and set a new standard. The shell, the encasing armor, won't permit it, and the only people who'd step inside it are the ones who wouldn't really think to try it -- whatever their ability to contort themselves, fundamentally they just want their place (I'm more than kinda even looking at you, James Franco and Anne Hathaway). Perhaps that's mostly why the smart stay out of theatres: once we agree to go, we're not really agreeing to participate, but following into the Depression' factory-mode like everybody else. The '60s generation was once told by its elders that they needed to learn the language to have a real voice; they responded -- smartly -- instead by attempting to levitate parliament buildings through love.

I prefer their theatre, but maybe their descendants -- us -- are showing in our own way that we're onto the same truth: participate as directed, and they've got you. We'll let some time pass; let the stupidity follow and take root; and take advantage of stopping surprise and dumbfounding bafflement to hit them with a Citizen Kane at some point, and stay more in the game after that.

Link: Only You Can Save Movies, and 7 Other Stories You’ll Be Talking About Today (Movieline)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…