In an interview today on Talk of the Nation, A. O. Scott, the movie critic, says that big budget movies can only pander to the action movie goers. I hope they are wrong. He thinks deeper stories have no place in big budget movies because they can't make the money back worldwide. Most of his interview appears to be the result of an article he published in the NY Times about the Super Hero Genre being at the end of its rope.
I can only hope Tony Scott is wrong. Is the world wide movie going audience really that stupid? Are we really so much smarter than everyone else? Personally, I think it is insulting to think that other movie watchers in the rest of the world can't appreciate a good story. I think his opinion actually represents the type of thinking that has gotten us in so much hot water in the past with the rest of the world.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think the problem is with ticket prices, actually.
I can wait for a drama, and enjoy it completely on my home TV screen.
But if a movie is a big epic spectacle, then I want to see it on the big screen, in the theater.
This is also true of comedies - they tend to be better when you're immersed in an audience who's laughing along side you.
But if I have to pay ten bucks for a ticket, and another ten for popcorn, I may decide to wait on a deep drama or complicated procedural film. This is more and more true as home TVs get bigger and HD saturates the market.
Hollywood knows this, and they make their money from ticket sales, so they're leaning more and more toward spectacles. I think you're seeing musicals return from the abyss for the same reason.
The other thing is that TV does depth better. You can do much more in 13 episodes than you can in three hours on screen. And you can do it on TV if you don't need an effects budget or big stars either.
DVD sales only help this.
I think as time goes on, movie theaters will rely more and more on spectacle - action, comedy, musicals, 3D - and TV will take over dramas, procedurals, character pieces, etc.
It might look like movies are losing their depth, but they're not, really. They're just getting a lot longer and debuting on TV instead of the theater.
I agree with everything Skudge said but would also add that a lot of it is simply language. Sophisticated stories often (but not alwaya...Wall-e is a good example) rely on nuanced understanding of the filming language.
So, in that regard, action is more universal.
The language barrier makes the most sense and I can see that. However, I wasn't necessarily arguing against action movies or saying action beats drama. I think action definitely draws a bigger crowd and of course, as Skudge mentioned, you'll pay the bucks to see that in the theater.
What A.O.Scott was saying though is that he sees no place for story IN the action flick itself. This is what I really take issue with. Again, the language barrier perhaps is too much BUT a good story I think really needs to be considered to drive longevity.
Take a look at the Lord of the Rings series. It was almost too much story and it certainly had lots of action. Recently, The Dark Knight shows how a good story can elevate an action picture above the crowd. It will be interesting to see how the Watchmen is handled.
There is no question that action flicks make the bucks and they correspondingly require the bucks to make. I just hope that a big budget movie isn't synonymous in the future with simplistic story telling. I want complexity and something to com contemplate after I see a good action picture.
I didn't read the article so, of course, you're right. Of course you can have deep stories. People not only can "get it", I think they prefer it when given a chance.
Post a Comment