Tag Archives: Terrence Malick

Why Films Are Getting Stupider (Probably)

Posted on by

When DreamWorks’ CEO, Jeffrey Katzenberg, stated last month that 2011 had so far been one of the worst years for cinema in recent memory, it was easy to see where he was coming from.

Sure, the CEO of DreamWorks complaining about the quality of filmmaking does reek of hypocrisy (this is the man responsible for the unforgivable Shrek sequels) and yes, this year is probably not worse than 2010 but still, it’s hard to imagine 2011 being remembered as a golden year for cinema (or une année d’or if you want to be all Cannes about it).

How will it be remembered?

Perhaps as the year Harry Potter part 7 part 2 was able to stake a legitimate claim to the title of ‘Best Film of the Summer’, or the year Hollywood was running so low on ideas that they made a freaking Smurfs movie even though no one asked for one and scientific studies (probably) showed that most people would rather have a knitting needle shoved into their eye than have to pass posters emblazoned with the vacuous faces of the smug blue bastards on the tube everyday. Or perhaps 2011 will quite simply be remembered as the year cinema got even stupider.

The central problem with cinema today is that the film industry is no longer making movies for adults. I believe that the blame for this can be attributed to one little word: ‘demographics’.  For a long time now, the balance between ‘show’ and ‘biz’ has been out of whack. Studios are so focused on revenue that films are increasingly being made solely to appeal to the broadest possible consumer demographic, forsaking little things like quality and integrity.

It seems that some marketing genius somewhere has also decided that people over the age of about 15 don’t go to the cinema anymore.  In addition to this, it’s common knowledge that the young, perhaps due to their not-as-yet-entirely-formed brains, are much more inclined to buy the ‘merchandise’ that movie studios are busy fashioning out of cheap plastic and the tears of orphans in some factory in the Far East. This has led to film studios pouring huge amounts of time and money into films aimed at teenagers and, God help us, tweenagers. (It should be noted at this juncture that this demographic of course deserves to be rewarded for its valuable

Unnecessary and irritating

contribution to our flagging economy and for the fact that it isn’t comprised of ungrateful squatters insistent on milking dry our society’s bizarre idolisation of the young).

This not only leads to more films being made specifically for a younger age group, but also to the tweaking of films that traditionally might not have been aimed predominantly at a youth market (this is why every big Hollywood film now has to have a seemingly unnecessary and irritating teenage character who makes wisecracks and adds little or nothing to the plot).

In addition to this, there are countless examples of screenwriters having their work butchered because Hollywood execs are worried that this youth market won’t understand words of more than two syllables or be able to focus on the screen for 15 seconds without an anaemic chase sequence or a cutesy CGI rabbit prancing around.  In short, they are attempting to make movies so stupid that even the stupidest person in the room can enjoy them.

Of course, this is based on the mistaken assumption that teenagers and children are idiots. I don’t believe this and I’m sure you don’t either. In fact, in my experience kids are more equipped than most to follow the plot of even the most byzantine blockbuster because not having student loans to pay off or a job to worry about means that they are able to focus much more energy on understanding the intricate details of a fictional world.

Naturally, some children are idiots in the same way that some adults are idiots (children and adults share many similarities like this, something the use of ‘demographics’ fails to elucidate) but on the whole, children are pretty smart. If you don’t believe me, just ask any little boy about his love of Star Wars or James Bond or dinosaurs and I guarantee that he will amaze you with an answer so extensive and detailed that even Temple Grandin would probably think it was a

All it takes is one strong gust of wind...

little over the top.

No, I don’t think that the youth market is stupid and neither do you, but as we all know, conventional wisdom has no place in Hollywood and clearly they think the little darlings are as thick as box of rocks.  Don’t believe this? Don’t believe that movies are getting stupider? I have a statistic: the average shot length (ASL) of US films in 2008 was 2.5 seconds (the most recent statistic I could find). This means that roughly half the time in 2010, movies could not go 2.5 seconds without cutting to a different shot. The average movie studio believes that we can’t go more than about three seconds without the under-15s getting distracted and leaping around the cinema trying to catch imaginary butterflies.

If this is not an absurd underestimation of our collective intelligence then I don’t know what is.

Compare this to the fact that in 2000 it was 4.7, in 1994 it was 6.8 and in 1972 it was a whopping 8.6 seconds and you have categorical proof that films are getting dumber and it’s children’s fault.

 

Of course, the fact that so many films are being so heavily targeted to the youth demographic means that anyone over the age of 15 is skipping the cinema and staying home to watch Game of Thrones on Sky Atlantic instead. This means that when the marketing guy checks the figures again, he naturally comes to the conclusion that no one over the age of 15 goes to the cinema and so he reports that the studio should be even more heavily targeting their output to the youth demographic who are of course all suffering from ADHD, anterograde amnesia

Did you know that if you watch Transformers: Dark of the Moon whilst simultaneously listening to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon it actually drowns out the piss-poor dialogue?

and crippling stupidity. This in turn, leads to more stupid movies and even fewer intelligent adults going to the cinema. The marketing guy then checks the figures again and so on and so forth. It’s a vicious circle, but I’m sure you’ve got that now (unless of course you’re a teenager, in which case we’ll be here for hours).

Compounding this problem is the fact that films getting steadily stupider means that cinemagoers (on the rare occasions that you do go to the cinema) are becoming less demanding, indoctrinated by this widespread idiocy. This means that the bar for what people will pay to see at the cinema just keeps getting lower. So when you forked over your hard-earned cash to see Transformers: Dark of the Moon (even the title has a typo) because ‘y’know it passes the time of day and there are like some real cool ‘splosions and such’ you were actually creating a demand for more horribly inane movies to be made. Basically, it’s your fault.

By now this relentless negativity, this somewhat condescending end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it attitude that I’ve adopted has started to wear you down and you’re probably left asking firstly, whether things are really as bad as I’m making out and secondly whether we can do anything to prevent cinema’s seemingly inevitable descent into idiocy.

Well, the answer to the first question is a tentative ‘not really, I’m being dramatic’. While on the whole, studios do seem to be churning out more and more movies that are little more than products designed to generate revenue, all is not lost. This year alone has seen

Apathy is bad

many surprising, heartfelt, challenging brilliant films such as Win Win, True Grit, Tree of Life, Beginners, Bridesmaids and Submarine so we definitely shouldn’t give up hope yet.

And the answer to the second question is ‘yes’, you can prevent it by going to see the films I listed above because demand creates supply.

If more people go to see intelligent and well-made films, then more intelligent and well-made films will be made, it’s basic economics. Now, I’m not saying that we all need to be watching Eastern European art house films with inexplicable costumes and ugly people crying, just choosing the better option.

If you’re going to the cinema this evening, don’t go and see Transformers, go and see Super 8 or Tree of Life instead. And later this year don’t go and see Final Destination 5 (5inal Destination, seriously?), go and see Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris.

Have some self-respect and demand something from cinema. Demand to be challenged, to be moved, or to laugh. Demand to be exhilarated or befuddled. Demand to be angered even.  Just don’t allow yourself to be yet another pile of laundry who just sits in that dark room feeling nothing for 90 minutes and then immediately forgets about it afterwards because you are better than that and you deserve better than that. After all, we are lucky enough to be alive at a time when the likes of Terrence Malick, Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese are still making movies. Let’s take a moment to be grateful for that.

If you want to try to counteract the ill-effects of the cinematic junk food you are being force-fed, then please check out our new semi-regular feature, ‘Have you seen… ‘. The first of these is about the 1998 film Happiness and can be found here:    Have You Seen… Happiness?

The Tree of Life {Film Review}

Posted on by

Terrence Malick has been a unique filmmaker, always distancing himself from conventions to bring his own artistic license. From his 38 years of being in the industry, he has only made five films. It took him a full 20 years from Days of Heaven (1978) to The Thin Red Line (1998). He is infamous for shooting footage the length of a football field and also not being part of the publicity spot-light. The Tree of Life is his new movie since 2005’s The New World, barely any details were released for the film. Only two posters and a trailer were only shown to various multiplexes. It finally got screened at 2011 Cannes Film Festival, and it was received mixed reactions of boos and applause. I, however, thought it was worth the wait.

The Tree of Life is quite simply a breathtaking experience, a beautifully crafted film that doesn’t really give you straight answers but really makes you think. The film will be, inevitably, be compared to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey but it also reminded me of Koyaanisqatsi. The film deals with questions that the characters imply through-out; what is the meaning of our existance? What is our purpose in life? The story revolves around Jack (Sean Penn), who works as an architect in modern day America. He starts to think back during his childhood during the 50s, with his parents and going through different phases in his life. His parents are played by Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain, who resemble two things that runs the theme during the duration; nature and grace. Nature is unpredictable and harsh, which Pitt tries at one point make his sons strong and confident. Grace is the complete opposite, it is elegant and calm as Chastain becomes supportive to her sons. Young Jack (Hunter McCracken) is very conflicted from the two, he leans towards nature but as an adult, he starts to feel more empathetic (shown through his sub-conscious walking through a desert and eventually ends up in a beach)

The performances from the entire cast is superb. They are barely given any dialogue, but their natural reactions and expressions are subtle. It is the meaning of the phrase; show, don’t tell. McCracken impresses as the Young Jack, showing the childhood curiosity and frustration everyone deals with. Such as a scene where he walks with his mother in town and notices police officers taking convicts away in their patrol cars. Looks up to his mother and asks in a worried tone if he’ll ever be like them? Sean Penn doesn’t get as much screen-time but he makes a presence when he’s thinking about his childhood experiences.

The film has a non-linear narrative, often cutting away from Jack’s story to shots of the formation of the universe and how the planets are created. Then it views when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth, continuing Malick’s trademark on showing nature as a major element. All of these sequences are shot beautifully. Legendary special photographic effects supervisor Douglas Trumbull (who was responsible for the effects in 2001 and Blade Runner), was a consultant on the effects of this film. The effects in this film look organic and believable, a film to be big in scale requires believability (especially when dealing with a theme about creation and existence) The scenes with Jack’s family comes across as a family home movie, a sense of nostalgic memorabilia.

There is not much I want to say to reveal too much of the film, it really is something to see to believe. To put simply; if you are fan of Terrence Malick or want a film that has a deep message that is subtle, there is no excuse not to miss this film.

Overall; The film may divide opinions; some may find it pretentious, others may find it as a work of art. I, however, find it to be a meditating and philosophical film that is just as beautiful to watch. A huge change from the summer blockbuster season and strongly recommended.

5 out of 5

Top Most Anticipated Movies of 2011

Posted on by

As we came to a close of 2010 and the awards season have been gone and dusted, I’ve decided to make a list of films that I’m looking forward to this year. I expected this list to be quite long, but there’s not a lot I’m looking forward or consider to be really excited to quite frankly. So I’m going to reveal my top 3 most anticipated films of 2011;

Sucker Punch: I’ll admit, I’m not a fan of Zack Snyder but I don’t hate him as well. His Dawn of the Dead remake back in 2004 was pretty decent, considering the shamelessly Michael Bay produced horror remakes we’ve been getting every year or so. Then he adapted Frank Miller’s 300, visually faithful to its source material but lacked on being a memorable movie altogether. Watchmen was the high-point of his career, especially since adapting Alan Moore’s 400+ page comic book had been in development as long you could remember! While some bits hit the mark (visual style, costumes, performances from Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Jackie Earl Haley), some completely missed (both Malin Akerman and Carla Gugino gave bland performances and some of the choice of music). Of course, his trademark is his heavy use of slow-motion. If you’d take a drinking game whenever the slow-motion was used, you’d either be in the hospital or the morgue!

Now Zack Snyder has decided to come up with something original, rather than being a remake or based on a comic book. It is inevitable to label it as ‘Alice in Wonderland meets Inception’ (or as Snyder describes it, Alice in Wonderland with guns) but Snyder at least has shown he’s not loosing his creative edge. The film looks fantastic, even more so than his previous films. Although slightly bizarre that the film is set in the 1950s psychiatric ward and they come up with anime-alike robot mechs, giant samurais with a mini-gun, futuristic city and transport that hasn’t existed yet! Maybe I’m thinking about it too much than needed, but this does stand-out from most other blockbusters this year. (Released on March 25, 2011 in USA and April 1, 2011 in UK)

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo: Probably the most controversial choice on this list, as the Swedish original was praised by critics and audiences (even went to win a BAFTA for Best Film not in the English Language and 2 nominations including Best Actress – Noomi Rapace). The reason I put this relatively high on this list is because of David Fincher. I am a huge fan of David Fincher, and I personally think The Social Network is the best film made in the past decade. This sort of material is right in Fincher’s alley; a dark mystery thriller, the sort he’s done with Zodiac and Se7en.

The film stars Daniel Craig as Mikael Blomkvist, an interesting choice to play the troubled journalist and is accompanied by Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander. Mara worked with Fincher in The Social Network, as Mark Zuckerberg’s fictional ex-girlfriend. It is a bizarre choice but it really have to admire a beautiful actress as Mara to transform a character that looks both gothic and punk. If you have not yet seen the published photos of Mara’s transformation, I strongly you have a look before you make an judgements (http://www.wmagazine.com/celebrities/2011/02/rooney_mara_girl_with_the_dragon_tattoo_lisbeth_salander_ss#slide=3). She looks other-worldly and makes me fascinated how she’d portray the character that’d be different what we’ve already seen. Steven Zaillian is adapting the novel, which he has done very good movies in the past with Schindler’s List, Gangs of New York and American Gangster. So I am very optimistic on this English adaptation. (Released on December 21, 2011)

The Tree Of Life: This film being a complete mystery intensifies my anticipation levels through the roof! It’s slightly odd that a non-blockbuster such as this movie would be my number 1!? The synopsis on IMDb is only given very briefly; The story centers around a family with three boys in the 1950s. The eldest son witnesses the loss of innocence.

Probably a few reasons being that it is written and directed by Terrence Malick, who is known to shoot an unimaginable amount of footage and has made films such as Badlands, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line and The New World. Another reason is it features my favourite actors; Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. There’s not much to say about the film, except if you know Malick’s work then there’s everything to be excited about it. I strongly suggest to check out the trailer, the only preview of the film thus far! (Released on May 27, 2011)

If you’re excited about these films as I am or looking forward to any other films that didn’t make this (very short) list, send comments below!