Morlocks Are Feasting

email this story
read comments (80)
post a comment

So to recap, in the space of the last three days Bill Maher, Roger Ebert and N.Y. Times critic A.O. Scott have all deplored abundant indications of rank stupidity and infantilism among the general public -- Maher addressing diminished or nonexistent political awareness levels and Ebert/Scott pointing to increasing popularity of idiot-level CG paintbox/dada movies and the kneejerk avoidance among the under-25s of films with even a smidgen of adult texture or provocation.

Which is what I've been bemoaning in no uncertain terms in this column for years, and which is entirely about my own personality and spiritual shortcomings and nothing to do with what's actually happening out in the culture....right, naysayers?

As I stated yesterday, American moviegoing youths have essentially become Eloi. Scott paints an image of ticket-buyers as "mewling, incontinent little bundles of id with dirty minds and mouths -- that's pretty much what the major studios think of us." Either way they're seen as subjects for relatively easy manipulation and brain-washing by the junk-food-dispensing and junk-movie-dispensing Morlocks -- i.e., corporate owners of movie studios, studio-chief henchmen, slash-and-profit producers like Joel Silver and Lorenzo di Bonaventura and (they're all serving the same goal and the same gods) fast-food distributors.

Today's Eloi are not lambs waiting to be led to the slaughter, as H.G. Wells and George Pal envisioned, but under-educated ADD pudge-bods looking for steady weekend slurps of cheap-drug highs. Nothing lasting or profound, mind, but tasty and dumbly enjoyable enough to create appetites and addictions.

"What kind of person constantly demands something new and yet always wants the same thing?," Scott asks in his 12.7 article, titled "Spoon-Fed Cinema." "A child, of course. From toddlerhood we are fluent in the pop-cultural consumerist idiom: Again! More! Another one! Children are ceaselessly demanding, it's true; but they are also easily satisfied, and this combination of appetite and docility makes the child an ideal moviegoer.

"But since there are a finite number of literal children out there, with limited disposable income and short attention spans, Hollywood has to make or find new ones. And so the studios have, with increasing vigor and intensity, carried out a program of mass infantilization.

"A movie that people will go and see, almost as if they had no choice, is a safer business proposition than one they may have to bother thinking about. In this respect Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is exemplary. It brilliantly stymies reflection, thwarts argument, arrests intelligent response. The most interesting thing about the movie -- apart from Megan Fox's outfits, I suppose -- is that it has made nearly $400 million domestically.

"There is nothing else to say. Any further discussion -- say about whether it's a good movie or not -- sounds quaint, old-fashioned, passe. Get a clue, grandpa.

The new Hollywood climate is one in which "middle-aged actors and critically lauded directors look like extravagances rather than sound investments," Scott concludes. "Forty is the new dead. Auteur is French for unemployed. The Hurt Locker -- the kind of fierce and fiery action movie that might have been a blockbuster once upon a time -- is treated like a delicate, exotic flower, released into art houses and sold on its prestige rather than on its visceral power."

Bothered<< previous | next >>Check and Compare

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 10, 2009 at 5:21 AM

comment #1

Rich S. says ...

As I've pointed out before, 75% of everything Hollywood has ever produced wouldn't pass Jeffrey's smell test. American (and world) audiences have always flocked to lowest-common-denominator crap.

I think the main reason people don't recognize this fact is that most of those movies have literally been lost to posterity. But students of film history recognize this.

Maher wasn't speaking to this issue. But Scott and Ebert should know better.

Posted by Rich S. at August 10, 2009 6:54 AM

comment #2

actionman says ...

I loved Transformers 2. I also loved The Hurt Locker and Public Enemies and Big Man Japan and The New World and Domino and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Where does that leave me?

Posted by actionman at August 10, 2009 7:01 AM

comment #3

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Guys like you, Actionman, are not representative of moviegoing Eloi -- and you know it. Stop trying to muddy or dilute the issue with personal distraction.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at August 10, 2009 7:04 AM

comment #4

rsgoald says ...

I teach theory and criticism in a university film program and, for the most part, student filmmakers rarely ever have anything to say in their films. Intensified continuity takes the place of storytelling. They admire and want to be Mike Bay.

Posted by rsgoald at August 10, 2009 7:08 AM

comment #5

EDouglasCS says ...

Did A.O. Scott actually watch the trailers for The Hurt Locker? I thought they did a perfectly good job selling the movie and focusing on the action/explosions without being deceptive. I tell you, however you feel about the Bens, At the Movies is going to go right down the toilet if A.O. Scott is go on there and act like the people who watch the show (essentially the people he's bashing) are too stupid too appreciate good movies by his standards.

ANd how does this all come about? Cause of GI Joe? Because Paramount knew full well that certain members of the critical community would go in with knives drawn merely because it's Stephen Sommers or because it's GI Joe or heck, maybe even because it's Paramount or because it's another movie based on toys... the fact is that critics rarely matter when it comes to mainstream wide releases but a movie like The Hurt Locker wouldn't have even made $9 million if not for critical praise and WOM. Movies about war (and this is that at its core) have not done well and this is coming out late in the game so personally I'm very surprised and generally pleased with how well Hurt Locker is doing and I'm sure it'll continue to do well on DVD and in awards season

Posted by EDouglasCS at August 10, 2009 7:12 AM

comment #6

Sabina E says ...

First, I must say the photos are a nice touch, Wells.

Reading this post, along with Ebert and Scott's articles, reminds me of Ray Bradbury's book Fahrenheit 451, where the lead protagonist is devastated how everyone are always glued to their television sets, laughing at clowns and not paying attention to the injustice and repression that's being carried out by the government.

OK, that comparison is going a bit too far, but still, most Americans don't give a shit about good movies, politics, or art.

Like Actionman, I enjoy all kinds of movies, but Wells is right that we really don't represent most of the American audience: Joe Average with a large tub of buttery popcorn and a Supersized Coke, slurping nachoes while cheering for a shot of Megan Fox's ass slinking on the motorcycle.

Sadly, as an Indian American, I think the same can be said for BOLLYWOOD. People's taste in good films is rapidly declining in India, with soulful Hindi films, being replaced with MTV-esque, crappy 2 hour long music videos with bad acting and scantily clad "actresses" who only became famous for their family connections.

Posted by Sabina E at August 10, 2009 7:16 AM

comment #7

actionman says ...

wasn't trying to muddy anything, jeff. I'm just saying that there are people out there who like a little bit of everything. that's all.

Posted by actionman at August 10, 2009 7:16 AM

comment #8

JeffK says ...

As a guy still in his twenties, I feel like I have to often put on the "kids gloves" when talking to my friends about movies. For instance, when my friend started blabbing about G.I. Joe looking good, it took a lot of restraint to not start laughing and calling him a retard. But having experienced the most painful 2 1/2 hours in a theatre this summer with Transformers 2, I'll gladly continue to be in the minority so I can enjoy seeing stuff like Hurt Locker and Moon in nearly empty theaters, where I can always get the best seats.

Posted by JeffK at August 10, 2009 7:17 AM

comment #9

Sweetbubba says ...

Is there any greater sign of the infantilization of the American public than the election of someone as completely unqualified as Obama? Who other than children would be swayed by his flowery rhetoric without noticing how completely lacking in substance his statements were.

Even if you're pro-Obama - you still have to be cynical about the fact that he had to be marketed in such a base manner to rouse the lowest common denominators in society.

Posted by Sweetbubba at August 10, 2009 7:18 AM

comment #10

Brendan says ...

What does this really say about the generation that reared and pacified this under 25 fast food/gaming culture nation that Jeff and others is constantly warning us about? What does it say about the Boomers that have coddled them from car seats, to video games to take-out 8 days a week to wanting 100k jobs when they "graduate" from a 4 year University?

I am a decade older then this flock and, like every generation before its own, I am amazed at the striking difference. But, who taught them to like crap at the cinema? Who taught them to put over 4000 calories in their body a day? Who taught them that it is just fine to piss on the Bill of Rights and never read the thing in the first place? And most importantly, who is profiting off of these weak minded and uninspired lot?

One other factor for this group is that they really are (here in the States) the Internet & 9/11 generation. Since those turning point in American history, they have plugged in, shut out and have become social networking introverts. They have been wired and programmed this way by the machine and they know no better. They eat what they are fed and do not question what is going into their eyes or gullets. If they think outside of the heard box, they are thought of as the fringe or outsiders, going against their "play date" nature. That truly is what scares me the most.

Posted by Brendan at August 10, 2009 7:27 AM

comment #11

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to Sweetbubba: That' s a really intelligent analysis. I hope you continue to read HE and continue to comment because guys like you are great in the way you elevate things by bringing your laser-liker vision to politics and entertainment and...well, everything.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at August 10, 2009 7:27 AM

comment #12

larry braverman says ...

People are stupid. Agreed.

Like you said, you've been saying this for years.

We get it. Can you move on? Just for a while?

Maybe talk about an old movie you've recently seen instead of complaining about the projection?

Posted by larry braverman at August 10, 2009 7:27 AM

comment #13

Brendan says ...

Way to make my first point with a type-o.

Posted by Brendan at August 10, 2009 7:30 AM

comment #14

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to Braverman: Poopsie feeling tired and worn-down by all the agitated rhetoric? Poopsie want a pillow and a popsicle? There, there.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at August 10, 2009 7:30 AM

comment #15

Sabina E says ...

oh YES, SweetBubba, putting Obama on the Presidential ticket wouldn't be any better than putting Sarah Palin on the VP ticket. Stop trying to change the goddamned subject.

Wells, now that I've thought more about this, I've got something else to add.

How many Americans have actually sat down to read a classic literary book or an old Greek stage play? Not very many. How many Americans have sat down to watch a classic B/W film or a New Wave French film? Not very many.

but there'll always be a percentage of the U.S population who will read classic literature. The same goes for people who have a huge appreciation for classic, art, and foreign cinema.

This, Wells, is just a huge indication that film have come a long way to be accepted both as an art form and as a commercial form. Hell, 60-80 years ago, didn't art critics used to look down at films and poo-poo cinema as an art form?

Posted by Sabina E at August 10, 2009 7:30 AM

comment #16

nemo says ...

Sweetbubba's comments are right on the money. You just have to remove the nonsense word "Obama" and substitute "George W. Bush" or "Sarah Palin" and it all makes perfect sense.

Posted by nemo at August 10, 2009 7:40 AM

comment #17

tombstoneblues says ...

I've pointed this out before, but studies consistently show that young people today are more tolerant and liberal than any generation before it. Sure, many of them are stupid. Most people across all generations are not particularly bright. But keep in mind these same kids you seem to hate voted overwhelmingly for Obama and people around your age voted for George W. Bush-- twice. My point is, kids today are stupid but so is everyone else and at least we're not dumb enough to support a man who nearly destroyed the country in 8 years.

Posted by tombstoneblues at August 10, 2009 7:42 AM

comment #18

Jack South P.I. says ...

One, I'm not sure moviegoers are getting that much more stupid. Rather, critics like Ebert, Wells, and Scott - who have each been in the game for decades - are finally reaching their shit limit. If they were just starting out their careers now, they would be far more tolerant of mass entertainment. They are simply tired of wading through the shit and shouting at the tide.

Two, I firmly believe that movie studios are, like capitalism itself, becoming far more honed when it comes to making a profit. They are purely corporate institutions now, no longer run by outsized personalities who carry with them personal likes and dislikes. It is all about the bottom line. It is all about the next quarterly report. Movie studios used to be monopolies in and of themselves. Now they are smaller pieces in ever-expanding conglomerates. Any year you make less than the year before is a failure. You must always make more money this year than the last. Always be closing.

So of course movies like TRANSFORMERS are made. It is the safest bet there it. Same with comic books and remakes. At this point, you just have to be grateful that every now and again you get a DARK KNIGHT or IRON MAN.

Who cares if the kids don't like HURT LOCKER? Movies like it will always be made because there are enough talented people that aren't interested in making crap and are willing to go the indie route. Kids will always be kids. Did you always eat your vegetables?

The biggest enemy here, in regards to low box-office totals for quality indies, are the well-to-do educated types. HURT LOCKER has made what, something like $9M? Where are all the people that say they care about good reviews and quality movies? Why are they forking over the cash? HURT LOCKER could hardly receive better reviews. Where are all the cineasts?

The kids will always pay to see the junk because they go to the movies for different reasons than I do. The real question is why people like me (and I would imagine the large majority of Wells' readership) sometimes don't pay at all.

Posted by Jack South P.I. at August 10, 2009 7:43 AM

comment #19

maxfm says ...

It's been said before, and it's true: The Hurt Locker has had a horrible, horrible, horrible marketing campaign. I've only seen the trailer online, and I've never seen a television commercial for it. The newspaper ad and one sheets are bland, and has Summit put Renner, Mackie or Lilly on any of the major late night talk shows or MTV or BET or CNN or FOX News...etc.? (Surely they have...I just haven't seen 'em.)

The movie has almost zero awareness. I know they're doing the slow roll-out thing (which hardly ever works these days), but it's only now playing in two theatres in my home state of Arkansas after its release two months ago.

I'm not at all saying I don't agree with the overall tone and concern of Ebert/Scott/Wells. I hate G.I. Joe and Transformers crap and their successes with an extreme passion. But, the bottom line is that you have to have major, across the country awareness of a film to make any kind of dent into the cinematic mindset of moviegoers these days -- period. Blaming the cultural malaise of a generation on the financial problems of one movie is slightly ridiculous.

By the way, I plan on finally seeing Locker this afternoon -- after driving almost two hours.

As for Maher's argument: America has always had its major share of kooks, radicals and others a few bricks shy of a load. With 24/7 news channels and internet access, it's simply easier to see them these days.

Finally, Jeff's coffee house incident and his reaction to the teenagers is beyond ridiculous. Jeff: I love your writing and thoughts on film, but your reactionary impressions of these and other groups are unbelievably judgmental and hypocritical. When was the last time you or Maher sat down with about five or ten of these kids and had a serious conversation on all types of topics? I know you probably hang out with some of your son's pals, so surely you realize that all is not lost with this group? I'm always around my kids' friends, as well as my college-age nephew's group, and I can tell you, they're more intellectual and into it than you might think.

Posted by maxfm at August 10, 2009 7:46 AM

comment #20

tombstoneblues says ...

Now that I'm thinking about it, I'd also like to point out how amazingly fucked up this country is right now and how difficult it will be for us to recover from the mistakes made by our parents and grandparents. Ideally, you're supposed to leave things better than you found them. Has your generation even come close to doing that? And if not, why are you so eager to damn my generation and not your own?

Posted by tombstoneblues at August 10, 2009 7:48 AM

comment #21

Travis Crabtree says ...

Ditto what Brendan said above.

Someone else alluded to it in another thread as well. People have always liked crap, it's just that now peoples' bad taste is being coddled and pampered to. "You like dumb? Have we got dumb!"

And just because you're not down with what Sweetbubba said based on your own political beliefs doesn't mean that there isn't some element of truth in what he said.

Some of you took it as "hate speech", I'm sure, but I'm not sure he meant it to be as partisan as it sounds, and if he did, he's only half-right. The same thing CAN be said about Palin. ("She's awesome! A soccer mom just like me, but with hockey instead of soccer!") Same thing with Bush and the whole "I'd feel more comfortable gettin' a beer with him than that creepy Kerry guy" attitude. And Clinton. And Reagan.

Surely you've known people who voted for Clinton, then Bush twice, then Obama. Deep political thinkers, these voters?

Posted by Travis Crabtree at August 10, 2009 7:54 AM

comment #22

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

Exactly. Slumdog Millionaire made over $140m last year and 500 Days of Summer is doing very well in its limited release, so it's obvious there is something specific about The Hurt Locker's marketing campaign that is failing. Yet apparently teenagers are to blame for its failure, and the downfall of civilization to boot.

Posted by BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey at August 10, 2009 8:02 AM

comment #23

bryce_david says ...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1046173/

If you go to IMDB's page for G.I. Joe, you can't view more user comments than the one on the main page. The link to see "more" comments, which is usually below the review, has been removed since the movie was released.

Even the User Comments link on the menu on the left is grayed out. You can click it but the fact that it's not the usual blue color indicating an active link will prevent most from seeing the reviews of user comments.

You have to type in "usercomments" next to the GI Joe IMDb address in the address bar to view the mostly awful reviews of G.I. Joe.

It looks like Paramount are in cahoots with IMDb in damage control. They didn't want professional reviews to view it and they don't want people to read reviews from average moviegoers too.

The Morlocks are hard at work.
.

Posted by bryce_david at August 10, 2009 8:04 AM

comment #24

Rhymerguy says ...

With John Hughes' passing, the phrase "movies that defined a generation" comes to mind... and I shudder to think about what the current spate of 'popular' movies might be defining in this generation. For once I am glad I am older and not younger. While I still enjoy a goofy popcorm CGI riddled movie like any, I treasure the fact that I spent my youth with video tape, limited cable, and no internet. Without being overwhemed with pop media choices I, like many of you, was able to cultivate an appreciation for movies that is apparantly lost on so many today. I am hopeful I will have some guiding influence on what my nieces and nephews get weened on in cinema as they grow into their teens, but I am prepared to surrender to the notion that I am one man standing against a tide of lemmings.

Perhaps cinefiles always were and always will be a minority of sorts, and the movie landscape has always been changing, with buckets of crap celluloid paving the road every decade. After all, nostalgia is about the good ole days, not the bad ole days.

Posted by Rhymerguy at August 10, 2009 8:04 AM

comment #25

Brendan says ...

tombstoneblues - That really was my point. I think why Jeff is so in tune with this issue is because he has two sons of this generation and has worked his adult life to protect them from this flock. I read his disapproval as him being even more upset with his generation, the ones which produced these "Morlocks". A 22 year old kid has time to change and time to grow and can be a late bloomer. Some thing can happen. A woman/man can enlighten them, force them to evolve. A job can challenge them and force them to grow, mature. An event in their lives can shape them and mold them and set them on course for a better life. (I dare ask if the cinema will do that for the masses, maybe the 2% that work in the industry or that are inspired.)

But what of the 55 year old person? How can they change after being so set in their ways or grow and how many do? How many look past profit margins and 401ks and retirement plans? Look at these crazy people fighting over health care these past couple of weeks. What generation have they come from? How educated are they on the facts? How many know that 80% of them have a form of Govt based heath care? Where do the "Morlocks" come from?

Posted by Brendan at August 10, 2009 8:12 AM

comment #26

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

There is also this weird notion that for some reason 2009 is much worse than any other summer and that we are all doomed.

Look at 1999 - widely hailed as one of the best years for film ever - and you'll see the multiplexes were graced with such gems as The Haunting, Inspector Gadget, Wild Wild West, Universal Soldier: The Return, Deep Blue Sea, Runaway Bride, Big Daddy and yes, The Phantom Menace.

Posted by BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey at August 10, 2009 8:13 AM

comment #27

Mark B says ...

It does make me wonder how far off we are from movies like the one depicted as the "future Best Screenplay winner" from IDIOCRACY: "ASS". Of course, I suppose Mike Judge's film would've been a bit more accurate if it had prophesied a CGI butt instead of a real one.

Posted by Mark B at August 10, 2009 8:26 AM

comment #28

JD says ...

As a cultural entity, the United States has been crippled by capitalism. Everyone -- from movie executives to directors to filmgoers -- prioritize success (or the perception of success) and conformity above everything else. As a result, most directors will knowingly make bad films if they know they'll make money and most filmgoers will knowingly flock to bad movies so they can feel current and keep competitive with all their peers who are seeing the same horrible movies as everyone else. Most people aren't interested in individuality anymore. They're too weak, thin-skinned, conformist and yes, dumb (or at least movie dumb) to develop personal preferences, taste, opinions, etc. When people say, "Transformers 2 was good dumb entertainment," I always wanna ask, "Okay, what smart, substantive entertainment have you seen lately?" But I don't bother because I already know the answer.

Posted by JD at August 10, 2009 8:29 AM

comment #29

Phatang! says ...

Bosh: we ARE all doomed. Forget about this year. Look at the movies that are being made for future years. Read Variety. It's ALL comic books and video games. And some horror. That's it. By 2011 there will be a TRANSFORMERS out every weekend. If you can't market it on the title alone, it won't be made.

Posted by Phatang! at August 10, 2009 8:30 AM

comment #30

EdHavens says ...

A business is run for profit first and foremost. Show business is no different, and what is happening in 2009 is what happened in 1989, 1969, 1949 and 1929. Movies are being made that producers and distributors hope will catch on with the public. Some will, some won't. A few will be cherished by generations, while most will thankfully be forgotten in a few years. No one talks about Honey I Shrunk the Kids anymore, even though its gross, adjusted to 2009 dollars, would be nearly $235M. Honey is in the same barely remembered dustbin as Tango & Cash and Harlem Nights and See No Evil, Hear No Evil and the hundreds of other 1989 "successes" that never warranted another thought after seeing them.

A few summers from now, someone else will write the article A.O. Scott wrote this week. The titles and wording will be different, but the same sentiment will remain. And the circle will go around again.

Posted by EdHavens at August 10, 2009 8:31 AM

comment #31

Beth says ...

I work with juveniles within the court system. These kids are being raised, taught, and surrounded by stressed, selfish, dysfunctional med/sex addicts who thinks creating life may make them feel better because we have total control over our children. They have no power. Our generation has to answer and take responsibility for this mess. 'If it feels good, do it' is not working. Sex without consequences is not working. Letting strangers raise our children is not working. Spending only three or four hours five days a week with our children is not working. We don't have time for our kids so we let a few rich people in hollywood dictate what they wear, what they listen and so on and so on. We are like children so how can we raise adults.
Our way isn't working. We can't have it all. We need to make better choices.
Sorry for the rant. Love the blog and comments.

Posted by Beth at August 10, 2009 8:37 AM

comment #32

crazynine says ...

"Which is what I've been bemoaning in no uncertain terms in this column for years"

You're a real visionary, poopsie. Have an orthopedic pillow and an Ensure popsicle, poopsie.

[BTW, random fact: popsicle is Popsicle (R), a trade name. Talk about market dominance; hell, fewer and fewer people use "Xerox" as a synonym for copying anymore, but popsicle, THAT will live forever).

Posted by crazynine at August 10, 2009 8:38 AM

comment #33

MAGGA says ...

"Exactly. Slumdog Millionaire made over $140m last year"

And it was a movie about fate. The kid was "supposed" to win, it was "written". Not a very deep or penetrating movie. As for stupid Americans, I'm in Norway and my co-worker just told me she worked in a video-store last year and a guy told her the movie he had just seen was rubbish because you could predict the murder and the murderer. The film was "Tha Assasination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford".

However, I've been thinking about the teenagers' culture lately. Each decade seems to have defining bands, movies etc, and I can't for the life of me figure out what defines the current teens, who are after all the most powerful peiople in entertainment because the actuially, you know, do things (if older, "smarter" moviegoers went out of their houses once in a while we'd have movies skewing older and smarter). And I think pop music and movies are no longer what defines a new generation. They're not remaking the sixties in their image, but rather expressing themselves through blogs, youtube-clips, facebook, twitter and probably tons of ways most of us don't know about. Most of us is as dumb as Happy Days or The Monkeys, some is clever.

It's not as if American movies have ever been remotely close to being predominantly cerebral exercises. At the risk of being unpopular, what makes, say, Bullit better than Transformers (I think both are braindead)? Or, in newer movies, how is Gran Torino objectively more thoughtful than playing GTA?

The points Maher makes are far more troubling.

Posted by MAGGA at August 10, 2009 8:39 AM

comment #34

MAGGA says ...

"Sex without consequences is not working."

That's a point with which Maher etc would disagree strongly. It's healthy, fun, you meet new people and you need to be somewhat clever and articulate to attain the standards you want. With a condom, the consequences are all good.

Posted by MAGGA at August 10, 2009 8:48 AM

comment #35

Brendan says ...

Great comment Beth.

We are the ones that have to stop this madness. To that point, I have two little children and I am amazed at how many of the "play dates" they go on consist of them sitting around the TV watching some Disney and or Nick movie. It has gotten to the point that we talk to the parents first about this and request no TV. The looks we get are amazing.

Now, I am not asking for them to babysit my children. "Play dates" are an exercise in human behavior. I want them to interact with others. I want them to play and use their imagination with others. I don't want Walt Disney or Pixar being the focal point of the experience. Turn it off and read them a book.

God I sound old.

Posted by Brendan at August 10, 2009 8:49 AM

comment #36

Jack South P.I. says ...

The reason Wells/Scott/Ebert are so mad, I think, is that they feel a sense of injustice. TRANSFORMERS is bad and it is popular. THE HURT LOCKER is good and it is not.

You can't worry about grosses (which are the initial measure of a movie's popularity). Movies like HURT LOCKER will have a long tail. They will be talked about. My guess is that it will find it's mass audience when it is out on video later this fall.

Michael Mann movies suffer this kind of thing all the time. They look too smart and too different from everything else but people watch them for years. I remember telling anyone that would listen that HEAT was the best film of 1995 and it got exactly zero Oscar nominations. That movie will live forever because it has something more than a marketing campaign. HURT LOCKER will live on. TRANSFORMERS will not.

This is how I keep score. This is how I keep myself from going crazy.

Posted by Jack South P.I. at August 10, 2009 8:51 AM

comment #37

Bob_Roberts says ...

Part of me really wants to agree, BUT after a completely unscientific spin through Wikipedia, I looked at 1939, a year though of by some as the greatest year ever for movies and 2009, which is shaping up to be very mediocre.

1939 - 150 movies released w/ 6 true classics, 8 near classics (including Only Angels have Wings, Beau Geste, etc) and 25 movies that were squeals(they best being the Charlie Chan or After the Thin Man...so nothing great)

2009 - 187 movies slated for release. Hesitant to count the classics or near classics. Will we have 14? Doubtful, but we will look back on some (Avatar? Hurt Locker?) and regard them as classics or near classics. However, there are only 20 movies that are remakes or sequels being released this year.

My takeaway? I don't think that Hollywood has changed in 70 years, nor has the public's taste. However, when we are lacking the perspective of time, in this case, decades, things get muddied up. We can choose to champion the movies that moved us, but to try to change a system that has not budged in 70 years is a Sisyphean task.

Posted by Bob_Roberts at August 10, 2009 9:04 AM

comment #38

larry braverman says ...

Thanks Papa Jeffey.

Poopsie's all better now.

*sigh of contentment*

Posted by larry braverman at August 10, 2009 9:22 AM

comment #39

Jack South P.I. says ...

Bob makes an important point. Great Years for Movies are defined by how many great films there are, not on which movies make money. I usually see 2-3 great movies a year. More than that is a great year. Less than that is a sub-par year.

People only remember the good because only the good are worth remembering.

Posted by Jack South P.I. at August 10, 2009 9:24 AM

comment #40

lipranzer says ...

Again, these complaints have been made about every generation - "Oh you young kids!" The problem, as Travis and Brendan have pointed out, is the visibility of those who like the trash, the platform they have, and the power of those who choose to cater to the trash-seekers. Oh, and the venom spilled at those who care about movies as art (or music, TV, literature, etc.).

Posted by lipranzer at August 10, 2009 9:44 AM

comment #41

bluefugue says ...

>Surely you've known people who voted for Clinton, then Bush twice, then Obama. Deep political thinkers, these voters?

Would they have been deep political thinkers had they voted for HW Bush, or Dole, or Gore, or Kerry, or McCain? Or would they have had to organize PACs during primary season and get other candidates nominated in order to meet with your approval?

Posted by bluefugue at August 10, 2009 9:53 AM

comment #42

Gordie Lachance says ...

Of all the issues facing life on this planet over the next few decades with regards to overpopulation, runaway technology, further consolidation of the remaining corporations (especially the media companies) and less and less real meaningful productive work for people to do, the de-evolution of American pop entertainment seems like an awfully silly thing to be worried about.

The fact that we still get even one or two films of real quality out of the system we have is amazing.

Posted by Gordie Lachance at August 10, 2009 10:09 AM

comment #43

Rich S. says ...

Bob_Roberts, another thing you can add to your analysis is that some of the A-List features these days would have been movie serials in the 30s and 40s and television shows in the 50s and 60s. What is G.I. Joe but Tom Corbett, Space Cadet with better costumes?

This stuff has always been around, and always will be.

Posted by Rich S. at August 10, 2009 10:25 AM

comment #44

shermy says ...

I think the value of entertainment- rather than overall intelligence- is what has really been lowered. Our art has simply become so disposable, no one places much value on it anymore.

Look at how commonplace downloading movies, music, and videogames has become. When the decade began, it was a shady practice that few understood. However, the other day I met a woman who couldn't remember any movie titles she had downloaded, yet she knew how to get them for free.

The whole concept of a musician creating an album has largely been destroyed. Today people cherrypick the singles they want and leave the rest.

And look at the way reality tv has completely dominated television. Now if you want to see a quality series, you basically have to switch to cable. It still amazes me that shows like American Idol have taken over. I'm always reminded of that bizarre tv show from Fahrenheit 451.

But I still think it's a stretch to assume a person's dvd library is a reflection of his intelligence. The smartest people I know generally have some of the worst taste in movies.

If I need advice about investing or a medical issue, I'm going to the friends that liked Paul Blart and G.I. Joe, respetively. In my experience, the ones who can talk for hours about The Hurt Locker or Inglorious Basterds typically have the least insight into other (ie. non-film) topics.

Posted by shermy at August 10, 2009 10:45 AM

comment #45

Travis Crabtree says ...

"Would they have been deep political thinkers had they voted for HW Bush, or Dole, or Gore, or Kerry, or McCain? Or would they have had to organize PACs during primary season and get other candidates nominated in order to meet with your approval?"

Am I drunk or did you completely miss my point?
(A: Both!)

My point was if you really knew the issues and if you have/had actually thought-out political convictions then you almost certainly would not have voted for candidates as different as Clinton, Bush and Obama.
Meaning.... (for example), if you voted for Clinton twice, then Bush twice, then Obama... (not saying which is better than the other), then you are more than likely voting for a candidate because you "like the cut of their jib" or because they seem like "really decent guys who I'd like to hang out with" rather than, say, their position on taxes or abortion rights or international trade policy.

Posted by Travis Crabtree at August 10, 2009 11:05 AM

comment #46

ErrantElan says ...

I agree with Magga - Maher's comments are much more worrisome and on-the-point for me.

Movies have always been dumb. Popular movies have almost always been dumb. Look at the top ten grossing films since 1930....most will be movies you may never even have heard of, because they are forgotten relics of whatever dumbly amused the children (or children-at-heart types) of that time. Americans may or may not always have been cultural savages and rubes, but dammit, at least we're consistent. Acting like things are any different now is silly - at least as far as public interest in crap is concerned.

i do believe, however, that capitalism has entered a new phase recently, as was mentioned above. What effect that's having on any of this is too complicated for this post, but it's there.

And btw, if anyone is at fault for the way younger people are today, isn't it the previous generation who raised them?

Posted by ErrantElan at August 10, 2009 11:24 AM

comment #47

ErrantElan says ...

* a brief caveat - i meant look at the top-ten-grossing films of EACH year since 1930.

Posted by ErrantElan at August 10, 2009 11:28 AM

comment #48

Jayne says ...

I remember rather well a huge fight I had with a friend in the late 80's over the level of crapitude of TOP GUN, so this argument is nothing new.

In defense of the twenty-somethings I know, they are really busy people with not a lot of free time or money. They tend to be putting themselves through school, at great time and expense, and their choices sometimes reflect the need to simply turn off the brain for a few hours. I do find that generation to be much more tolerant, perhaps TOO tolerant, of people's differences and good-natured, in general. They don't have a highly critical nature and that extends to something like film. I'm not making excuses, just relaying what I see.

As for people like myself and my husband, we are fucking busy, too. Between two jobs, four kids and the rest of our lives, it's nearly impossible to get to the good stuff. We saw Hurt Locker this weekend, and it was fantastic. But I'm not surprised it's having trouble attracting an audience. It isn't easily described, doesn't have a traditional structure and is completely devoid of the typical jingoistic military themes.

In the end, good movies have always had a hard time finding an audience. If there was any justice in this world, we'd have a Serenity sequel or two by now and Transformers 2 would have tanked. But alas, it surely hasn't worked out that way.

Posted by Jayne at August 10, 2009 11:40 AM

comment #49

nightheat says ...

Guys like Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, ect... they don't make films to connect with the audience on a personal level. Its all contrived nonsense. The auteurs of this day and age aren't making films based in reality... what is the point in a film like "There Will Be Blood"? Paul Thomas Anderson doesn't make personal films because he has nothing personal to say. He's a sycophant and privileged pretentious douche bag. Scorsese's best films are the ones dealing with the mafia, not because he was in the mafia, but because he came from an italian background and knows that culture very very well. For me, the best films are always grounded in reality, I don't want to see some fantasy about WWII where Hitler is killed. I want to see a real story about WWII, so fuck you Tarantino. Truth is stranger than fiction, I'm not going to watch your contrived stupid fantasy film about WWII.

To get to your original point... my point is, that the filmmakers in hollywood now, the ones in the system, are obligated to shape popular culture. They're in a position to make smart films that can also appeal to the mass audience and the fact is they're not. There are no new Stanley Kubricks because no one is striving to be Stanley Kubrick. Hollywood left to its own devices just wants to make money... fault the auteurs, not the audience or hollywood. its the filmmakers failing us.

Posted by nightheat at August 10, 2009 12:09 PM

comment #50

MAGGA says ...

Nightheat, your reaction to Inglorious Basterds (which I've read but not had the chance to see) seems to say "I like this one type of movie, the strictly realistic one, and don't try to push anything else on me". Which is the same kind of thinking that gets us sequels, remakes, adaptations etc.

Also, Punch-Drunk Love seems to me one of the most nakedly personal films of the decade, and I think he DOES strive to be Kubrick, who was also criticised for being cold, distant, and whose movies were not consistently huge at the box office.

Posted by MAGGA at August 10, 2009 12:28 PM

comment #51

Wrecktem says ...

The cool thing is, when today's kids are having this exact same argument 50 years from now, most of us will be either dead or close to death, so we won't care as much.

Posted by Wrecktem at August 10, 2009 12:38 PM

comment #52

Jayne says ...

While there's nothing better than a movie that hits all the right notes, the truth is television is where a tremendous amount of provocative, personal material is finding a home, because the writer-director has more creative control. And the viewer has TIVO, meaning they can watch things on their own schedule, at lesiure. The result is that cinema is evolving into more and more visual spectacle, and less emotional spectacle.

Posted by Jayne at August 10, 2009 12:41 PM

comment #53

MAGGA says ...

The great thing about television is that if it's bad, you stop viewing. You don't know if a movie is bad until you're there (though I don't have to do much guesswork to avoid every single fucking tentpole this year and, yes, download them illegally without shame so as to deny them my money yet styill be allowed to have an opinion), and by then you've paid, your friends don't want to leave, and maybe there's a good joke or a nice moment somewhere in the film. It's all about propaganda. Get people to the cinema the first weekend and you're a Hollywood hero. It reflects neither negatively or positively on the quality of the work. That's the genius of the Hollywood system. The movie itself doesn't matter. on TV, you have to earn longtime viewers.

Posted by MAGGA at August 10, 2009 12:55 PM

comment #54

longrunner says ...

'Which is what I've been bemoaning in no uncertain terms in this column for years'

...in other words, "First!!"

Posted by longrunner at August 10, 2009 1:10 PM

comment #55

Gordie Lachance says ...

I would ask the same question of nightheat as I would of Jeff Wells-

Why expend so much energy tearing things down (and in nightheat's case, doing it with such transparent jealousy) when you could use this forum to champion something deserving that's gone overlooked? And why all the anger?

Posted by Gordie Lachance at August 10, 2009 1:58 PM

comment #56

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"Guys like Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, etc... they don't make films to connect with the audience on a personal level."

Jackie Brown. Magnolia (love it or hate it, but don't deny it's personal). Bottle Rocket.

You don't like films not based in reality, that's fine...that's your prerogative. But why would you knock them down when some enjoy them?

Still waiting to hear what's so "realistic" about A Clockwork Orange. Kubrick's films were just as stylized as those other three guys you mention (not a diss, btw -- he's my favorite filmmaker of all-time!), if not moreso.

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at August 10, 2009 2:25 PM

comment #57

pm123 says ...

The problem is that in critiquing advanced capitalism's transformation of film art into pure commerce, we're applying an advanced capitalist mindset to the problem. We're bemoaning the fact that everyone ELSE has the wrong taste. None of us criticize our OWN taste - we've all seen the movies we think are good, but what we're frustrated by is the fact that the masses don't agree with us! In other words, we want our own taste to be reproduced on a mass scale. We want to commodify our own aesthetic judgment! MY opinions should be spread worldwide and become the corporatized standard! Why? Just see movies and analyze them, and share your analyses, not your judgments! Why the ferocious obsession with how much money a movie makes, or how many of your neighbors prefer another movie over the one you like? Sure, one could argue that it would be great to increase access to ALL movies, but stop trying to turn film making into a consumer activity! Just watch movies! All movies! Stop trying to "rank" them and decide who's better or what "deserves" to get made and what doesn't. To do so is to simply become the very thing you despise: a consumer of product. A good reader reads EVERYTHING, eventually deciding which authors, themes and genres he or she feels are most rewarding. Do the same for films, instead of arguing over which is "good" and which is "bad." If you don't like films by Michael Bay, save them for the dollar video store rental as I do. If you like Syberberg movies, seek them out and enjoy them and discuss them and show them to your friends! Don't let the market determine the discourse!!

Posted by pm123 at August 10, 2009 3:14 PM

comment #58

Raccoon says ...

Jeff, please say this isn't true:

http://www.celebrityfreakshow.com/2009/08/movie-critic-threatens-suicide-over-stupidity-of-humanity/

The recent tone of this site seems to support this article more than anything.

Posted by Raccoon at August 10, 2009 10:09 PM

comment #59

nola says ...

I think the big change from the past is that Hollywood used to make movies for grown ups. Yes there were some dumb programmers in the mix but at least there was a variety of films.

Now the studios run by the marketing departments only care about teen boys (i.e. movies that are critic proof)

As long as Transformers and GI Joe types films make all this money, the studios will keep making them.

Also I agree with the comments that asked where did this generation that everyone's complaining about come from? The boomer parents have to take some blame.

Posted by nola at August 10, 2009 11:45 PM

comment #60

longrunner says ...

^Raccoon - LMAO!

Posted by longrunner at August 11, 2009 6:17 AM

comment #61

Todd says ...

Jeff on this I some what agree with you. I think back to the movies that were number one in my day and what I use to see repeatedly when it first came out. Paper Moon, Young Frankenstein, Summer of '42, Jeremiah Johnson, The Heartbreak Kid, Butterflies are Free and What's Up Doc to name a few. For the Mindless crap I guess Silent Movie, Pink Flamingos, Earthquake, Towering Inferno, and Posiedon Adventure. I can't help but think even our mindless crap was Shakespeare compared to Transformers and GI Joe. I still feel They blew it with GI Joe it could have and should have had a relative story mixed with action but I guess they proved me wrong and PT Barnum right. No I did not see it the last Movie I saw at the theatre was UP. The next one I'm planning to see is Avatar. Anything else I can wait to down load but by that time I usually don't care.

Posted by Todd at August 11, 2009 10:25 AM

comment #62

Todd says ...

The only real problem with movies like Transformers and GI Joe is that their movie budgets will stop the marketing of good quality scripts from being made for now. But I believe this will be only for a short while because new technology will allow quality script movies to be made and become available but in a new way as video down loads. Movie production cost will go down significantly due to the technological advances in the pipeline. The 70 inch flat screen HD TV will be the norm in homes.

Posted by Todd at August 11, 2009 10:41 AM

comment #63

free games says ...

I loved Transformers 2.

Posted by free games at November 1, 2009 4:33 AM

comment #64

arentin says ...

Thank you for share it

Arentin Belajar Menulis

Posted by arentin at February 2, 2010 12:30 PM

comment #65

gaintwee says ...

I just want to make it clear, as I tried to do yesterday, that seeing Avatar in its proper form at ComicCon -- big-screen 3D IMAX -- revealed a fusion of CG/organic realism that seemed like something really "extra." It felt to me like an immersion into a real-seeming fantasy place than anything I've ever seen in a similar-type realm. (The CG in the Rings trilogy being one example.) Multimedia degree AND Network degree AND Software Engineering degree AND Online Software Engineering degree AND Telecommunication degree

Posted by gaintwee at February 16, 2010 10:42 PM

comment #66

ajim says ...

nice to be here.... thanks for share

nowGoogle.com adalah Multiple Search Engine Popular|intermezo

Posted by ajim at March 1, 2010 9:13 PM

comment #67

free online games says ...

Being a Newbie, I am at all times searching for articles and other content that will help me .. Thanks for your time

Posted by free online games at March 18, 2010 2:59 PM

comment #68

doublexjohn says ...

It doesn't seem to me that this is really a direct attack on Americans - it's an attack on any nation that has luxury cruise liners. If you've ever been on a cruise for a week, you've probably gained a few pounds. The initial expedition of the space cruise liner all the people were on was meant to last a few years, not 700! Any nation's people would blow up like balloons if allowed to live such a sedentary life style. And, honestly, Americans are some fat people - in fact, I'm a fat American. And I was not offended by this film. Anyone who is needs to grow a thicker skin to go with their big bones. best credit monitoring services

Posted by doublexjohn at April 27, 2010 9:05 PM

comment #69

Beginners training for triathlon says ...

Hope this institution will be copied by many other people. Thanks for informative sharing.
triathlon bike sizing

Posted by Beginners training for triathlon at May 7, 2010 3:59 AM

comment #70

dd says ...

Movie production cost will go down significantly due to the technological advances in the pipeline. The 70 inch flat screen HD TV will be the norm in homes.

Designer Handbags

Posted by dd at May 10, 2010 8:00 PM

comment #71

emogurl12 says ...

The only possible advanced medical tech on display is cloning, otherwise where did the babies come from, the people in this movie are too fat for sex. I have to watch again, but can anyone pay attention to whether all the future humans are the same, or slight variations on each other? So in a way the movie is non-sensical, faster than light travel, very advanced robotics, but no diets? Crazy talk. online fax

Posted by emogurl12 at May 16, 2010 9:33 AM

comment #72

sexy12 says ...

i'm glad in jeffrey's world all the liberals are holding hands and singing "kumbaya." because i'm sure that unchecked the libs couldn't possibly screw things up.
top identity theft protection

Posted by sexy12 at May 22, 2010 10:48 PM

comment #73

crazzyy44 says ...

Since 1974, Hawaii has required all employers to provide relatively generous health care benefits to any employee who works 20 hours a week or more. If health care legislation passes in Congress, the rest of the country may barely catch up.standing coat racks

Posted by crazzyy44 at June 8, 2010 9:18 PM

comment #74

crazzyy44 says ...

I have to watch again, but can anyone pay attention to whether all the future humans are the same, or slight variations on each other? So in a way the movie is non-sensical, faster than light travel, very advanced robotics, but no diets? Crazy talk. online fax

Posted by crazzyy44 at June 9, 2010 10:17 AM

comment #75

freestyle says ...

hosting profesional indonesia yang murah

intermezo

nice to be here... thanks

Posted by freestyle at July 26, 2010 12:42 AM

comment #76

markbenaldo says ...

this is really a movie that people will go and see, the pictures and articles illustrate above, shows the summary of the movie and it is very interesting to watch.

Funny Games

Posted by markbenaldo at January 7, 2011 7:31 PM

comment #77