Your task, as a class, is to engage in a debate on the state of cinema today – and its future in the Land of Tomorrow. Read at least one (or, even better, both!) of the two provocative New Yorker articles posted below. The first to post will want to begin by identifying a question or claim in the articles to start the discussion. If the debate dries up or becomes repetitive, it’s up to you all to move on to a new topic, and keep things going.
Here are the articles:
Refer explicitly to the readings, your colleagues, and your own experience in crafting your response. Use classroom appropriate conventions for grammar, spelling, and citations. Preserve your privacy by responding with your first name or initials only (or a pseudonym that you email to me!). To keep the amount of reading manageable for everyone, limit your post to no more than 200 words.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I will start this discussion by saying that I read “Gross Points.” The ideas put forth by this article are intriguing and make a good point. The movie industry of the present has wrapped itself up too much with the goals of profit and marketing products. Movies when they first came out were used to entertain and have you leaving the theater with questions that could be discussed with peers for years to come. Currently movies are brain rotting, special effect filled half-baked creations brimming with product placement, half-baked plots, and grossly overpaid actors.
ReplyDeleteThe question I propose is what do you think caused this switch from merely entertaining an audience to advertising merchandise with a lousy film? Why would the film industry move toward marketing? Do you think it is possible to recover or will the movie business fester and cave in on its self?
- d'Artagnan
Dearest Signor d'Artagnan et. al.,
ReplyDeleteI also read "Gross Points," and was not terribly surprised with what I read. As a great aficionado of older film, especially such great films as Gone With the Wind, which author Louis Menard makes mention of frequently, Casablanca, and virtually anything by Alfred Hitchcock, I feel the same sense of disappointment at the current status of the film industry.
It seems that major blockbusters have ripped through movie theaters like tornados, destroying all good taste in sight. Of course, there is an exception here and there. But it is sickening to realize the number of people who waited in line to see the premiere of "Twilight" or "Harry Potter" when compared with those of truly great pieces of filmography. It is clear that the American film industry is based primarily on marketing purposes now, and far less on the creation of art.
In response to the questions posed:
I think that Americans (and people in general) have an inherent need to belong, to follow the pack. In general, people seek out (or at least recognize) what is popular. In other words, if a large group of carefree tweens heads out to purchase every form of clothing depicting the head of what's-his-name, their peers will feel the need to follow suit. Film companies can take advantage of this by structuring their movies for marketing purposes.
I think that someday, the movie business will revert back to what it originally was. There is, among us young people, an everlasting taste for what is vintage. As we grow older, we realize that the music our parents listened to, the movies our grandparents watched, etc. are actually pretty cool. It therefore falls upon us to encourage our generation to make movies that are true works of art, not just a bunch of special effects tossed onto a screen.
If you've ever really looked hard at a Hitchcock movie, you will notice the incredible artistry that goes into creating each tiny little clip of film. Every little moment is a piece of his fantastic puzzle. This is the way all movies ought to be.
- Arnold Schwarzenegger (a.k.a. The Terminator)
Oops! I'm so sorry everyone, I just noticed the length restriction policy. I promise I won't be offended if you don't have the time to read all of my post! Many apologies...
ReplyDelete-AHNOLD again =D
Regarding deArtagnan’s question of what caused the shift from entertainment to commercialism:
ReplyDeleteMainly, I think the commercialism incorporated in the movies we watch is merely a product of our conditioning. We have become complacent to the amount of marketing we are exposed to as media consumers. When I sign into my email, links pop up advertising any variety of products, but I’ve come to view this as normal. Why? What does this have to do with the content of my online messages? Nothing, except that the ads are helping Google stay in business. In the same sense, product placement (like Gatorade in the second Wayne’s World) in films keeps the budget a little more reasonable, allowing more profit to be made. The “Gross Points” article discusses this somewhat in the terms of economics. In the end, the film is treated as a product, a commodity, little more than something to be sold. It is not a measure so much of the talent of those involved, but yet another part of our capitalistic society: who can make the product that sells most for the cheapest price to produce in order to make the greatest profit?
Aly B.
Regarding deArtagnan’s question of what caused the shift from entertainment to commercialism:
ReplyDeleteMainly, I think the commercialism incorporated in the movies we watch is merely a product of our conditioning. We have become complacent to the amount of marketing we are exposed to as media consumers. When I sign into my email, links pop up advertising any variety of products, but I’ve come to view this as normal. Why? What does this have to do with the content of my online messages? Nothing, except that the ads are helping Google stay in business. In the same sense, product placement (like Gatorade in the second Wayne’s World) in films keeps the budget a little more reasonable, allowing more profit to be made. The “Gross Points” article discusses this somewhat in the terms of economics. In the end, the film is treated as a product, a commodity, little more than something to be sold. It is not a measure so much of the talent of those involved, but yet another part of our capitalistic society: who can make the product that sells most for the cheapest price in order to make the greatest profit?
Aly B.
Hmmm. It seems that the movie industry has itself faced with quite a predicament. From what I have read in "Gross Points," Hollywood has dug itself into a hole by decades of adhering to the mantra of making money instead of art. And so is painted a viscious circle: theaters won't show smaller films because they know they won't make money, but only because such films are never shown.
ReplyDeleteAnd so we have a problem which just so happened to define the Jacksonian era: the influence of the spoils system. Here we have theaters which are only playing movies that will make them money, regardless of qualification (in this case whether the movie is good or not). It took a presidential assassination to wean American politics from the influence of patronage. I'm afraid that it will require the Hollywood equivalence of a presidential assassination in order for the movie business to get back on track.
-Amanda C (just kidding it's Nick)
Ahh I meant to pretend to be Aly B. I wanted to make it look like she did three posts in a row and it would have been hilarious. I ruined my own joke...
ReplyDeleteI read both pieces, but seeing as "Gross Points" has already been discussed I will open the debate on "Big Pictures". The gist of the article is that the convenience of downloading a movie to be watched on a TV or Ipod has circumvented participation in the cinema experience.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a question, but more of an extension of ideas about how cinemas are trying to combat this threat.
3-D movie technology has developed to the point where the gimmicky red and blue glasses are no longer necessary, and the concept "could be on the verge of explosive growth". Do you think that 3-D can save the movie-going experience, or will digital data kill the film reel?
(http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4274447.html)
-Captain Planet
I also read “Big Pictures” which I found very interesting. In response to your question I think that unfortunately, within the decades to come, cinemas will be taken over by their digital enemy. I have noticed that there is a decline in people who go to the movies. There have been several times where my friends and I have had movie theaters almost completely to ourselves. Today people want convenience and comfort. They don’t want to be confined in a dark room where one has to “submit” o the screen. Why would you want to sit in a stiff chair in an uncomfortable setting when you could relax in your comfy arm recliner, have whatever snack you like, and can stop and start the movie at your own will? Not only is one capable of being completely comfortable, they are able to watch their movie in High Definition, which provides a much clearer and vivid picture. However there is something very satisfying about going to the movies. Watching the movie on the big screen just makes it seem more real, almost as if you are there. No matter how large a screen can be, it cannot replace the thearter.
ReplyDelete- schnappi
To build off of Schnappi’s comment, it is important to note that downloaded movies can be viewed on not only a TV, but computers and iPods also. As mentioned in the article “Big Pictures,” children are “platform-agnostic,” meaning that they will view movies on any size screen. Many children of today’s generation own iPods which will only strengthen the craze of downloading movies through such iPod video devices. These are the same children that would typically go to the movie theater to see the latest movie on a Friday or Saturday night. So the extinction of the theater will only continue!
ReplyDeleteI think it is also important to address the cost of seeing a movie in theaters compared to the cost of downloading a movie. I know that I personally am not willing to pay $9.50 every time I want to see a movie in theaters. If it is possible to download the same movie on my computer or TV, and I will be able to save it to my hard drive to watch in the future, how could I lose out? However, do you think that there are certain movies that must be viewed in theater to have the full experience?
KaySee
KaySee raises a good point about the cost of moviegoing. The convenience and relatively small price of digital movie downloads does have its perks. However, I am as avid a lover of seeing a good movie in the theater as I am of reading a physical, paper book. The Kindle makes me cringe. What I hope is that the increasing craze of digital movies causes the theaters to lower prices to save business. I think the theaters are wonderful places, but have inflated prices at both the ticket booth and the concession stand. Part of surviving the digital revolution may involve making theaters more accessible to the consumer.
ReplyDeleteWill
I still have some more space. I do not think that iPods and such technological advances are entirely bad for movies,as they allow the viewer to access more films and to watch them in comfort. But the thought that future generations may be denied the privilege of watching Gandalf lead the riders of Rohan over the hill to Gondor in a breathtaking panorama on a large screen with deafening audio is one that gives me shivers to the bone.
ReplyDeleteIn response to what Will said on the article "Big Pictures," I agree. I believe that movies viewed on ipods have their place as music has its place in ipods. People are not going to stop listening to music if it doesn't come through earbuds and in the same way, people are not going to stop watching movies if it is being screened on something larger than a 2 inch screen. These things are meant entirely for convenience, for bus rides, etc as the article acknowledges.
ReplyDeleteAs KaySee discussed, with the rising cost of movie ticket prices people cut back on the number of movies they see. Eventually it gets to the point that they may forget what the full-theater experience is like and learn to settle for the single speaker and miniature screen. I know that this is something that happens to me, as I am always blown away by how much more I enjoy films in theaters. I remember reading an article (Boston Globe, I believe?) about a new diner-movie theater in the same complex as a football stadium. Theater customers can relax in a reclining plush chair while being waited on for food orders. I can't say I entirely agree with this new super-combination enterprise but, granted it is a good way to promote business. If theaters try new ways of appealing to consumers, I think the industry can easily make a comeback.
-Amanda C (yes the real Amanda C, not the failed imposter)
I completely agree with KaySee and the real Amanda C. There have been many times in which I decided against going to the movies simply because I'd much rather have ten dollars in my pocket. Why bother paying such an inflated price for a movie you might not even enjoy when you can see it for much cheaper in the comforts of your own home? I do admit that the large screens and great sound systems of theaters are appealing. However, the cold, money-grubbing, big business feel to many movie theaters is a definite turn off. As discussed in "Gross Points," the movie industry is all about the cash. On the rare occasions I go to see a movie, I can't help thinking about the greedy corporations that will receive audience's hard-earned dollars. Why does a movie, like the latest Mission Impossible installment for example, cost 150 million dollars to make? 150 million dollars! It's just entertainment. It's not like that money is going towards, I don't know, finding a cure for cancer. I enjoy a good film just as much as the next person, but half the time these big blockbuster movies aren't worth your ten bucks anyway. The movie industry needs to seriously reconsider the costs of their products if they want to stay in business during this new digital age.
ReplyDelete- T-Money
To build off of T-Money's point and re-open the discussion on "Gross Points", I agree that cinemas are going to have to come up with more creative ways to draw back customers who are finding easier ways of viewing their beloved blockbusters and, in the process, discovering the enjoyment of smaller-grossing films whose distinct plots and cinematographic techniques have captured the interests of today's "YouTube generation" (as some have called it). However, Hollywood is still insisting on combating this threat with their old techniques, showcasing what they think sells (one could argue that this could be anything from grocery store products to violence and sex).
ReplyDeleteIn response to the first question posted, I actually believe that Hollywood has done a decent job of manipulating our YouTube generation to promote their movies. This generation is known for wanting rapid action sequences or fantastical romances that captivate audiences from the beginning to the credits (think James Bond or Twilight). The availability of options in viewing movies provided by the internet still makes it increasingly difficult for Hollywood to market their summer blockbusters but it will probably take a massive extinction of interest in their shameless techniques for them to get any kind of clue.
-- Sah-rah
I agree with T-Money and everyone else who has talked about the fact that the movie business is being corrupted because the industry is “all about the cash.” Consequently, today’s mutli-million dollar blockbuster film is nothing like the thoughtful cinematic masterpieces of the past that Arnold Schwarzenegger likes so much. In regards to the articles, I read “Gross Points.” Menand argues that the action-packed blockbuster that appeals to Americans and foreigners alike may be the “end of cinema.” I’m not a big fan of action movies, and while I think that they can be mindless, I don’t think that they contribute to cinema “dying.” (Then again, maybe, as Tom Shone asserts, because I “can’t enjoy what Lucas and Spielberg created….[I] just don’t enjoy movies,”?)Motion pictures, despite all of these arguments over blockbusters, have always been extremely visual. So, a film without much dialogue and a great deal of action that appeals to a mass audience (even with move theatre attendance at a meager $25 million) is really a testament to the medium of film, a visual medium that appeals more to the eyes than to the head. I found the assertion that “the blockbuster is a Hollywood tradition, but blockbuster dependence is a disease,” to be very interesting. Consumers are driving this demand for blockbusters, but then this demand is “killing” the film industry. Does this mean that consumers (who are not attending movies in as great numbers as in the past) are to blame for the demise of the motion picture industry?
ReplyDeleteAlessandra
In response to Alessandra, I don't believe either side, the filmmakers or the movie-goers, is more at fault then the other. I know personally I like to go to films in the theater when they contain better cinematography then anything else. While reading "Big Picture" I agreed with the beginning story of watching an action movie on a small screen. When seeing movies that spend a mass amount of money on stunts and imagery, it seems unfair to cut it down, and show it in a manor that the directors did not intend it to be seen. Therefore I would go to the movies for a film that may be less like a classic and more of an adventure.
ReplyDeleteI don't go to the films that don't seem to need the big screens because I don't want to use to the money like everyone else. It's hard to blame the consumers for a demise in the film industry when it costs so much to go to. Any group of two or more can easily spend thirty or more dollars just at the ticket line. Why would any consumer want to spend the money when they can just rent it later and watch it in the comfort of their own home? It seems like people's tendencies to settle for second if it is more convenient applies here. It is easier to watch a movie at home, therefore that is what many do.
-Rose
I’m going to have to start off by making a point that I believe Will was beginning to stumble upon. Despite the incredible rise of digital technology that has corresponded quite dramatically with the decline in the theatre industry, I don’t think that movie theatres will be made obsolete by portable movie viewing devices like the Ipod anytime in the near future. To me, a theatre and an Ipod serve to drastically different purposes. Like David Denby says in the article “Big Pictures”, “the experience [of watching a movie at a theatre] is the opposite of escape; it is more like absolute engagement.” This is the type of experience that an IMAX movie is designed to deliver. On the other end of the movie-viewing spectrum, I associate the experience of watching a movie on your Ipod more with the act of reading a book. For many young kid who have grown up in this increasingly technological generation, watching a movie on an Ipod simulates the kind of mental stimulation that you get from reading, but not necessarily the physical stimulation of going to the theatre.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rose, that it is a shame to watch movies with vast special effects and imagery on a small screen. But I also think that modern movie makers do not take advantage of the fact that their movies will be presented with thirty foot screens and speakers the size of my room. I find that many older movies, such as Blade Runner or Dances With Wolves, utilize the big screen to show vast and amazing sights, sights that evoke a great emotional response because of their vastness and contribute to the artistic integrity of the film. But this idea just goes along with the idea that Allessandra and others mentioned, that Hollywood is "all about the cash." (I actually had a discussion about this with somebody on tuesday.) It seems that film started as a medium of art, as d'Artagnan discussed. But hollywood is a business, and will always be a business, and part of the success of that business was apparently switching from art to mindless entertainment, because that seems to be what the vast majority of the people want, as Allesandra mentioned. Perhaps we should blame the lack of education on the subject of art history and interpretation in the United States?
ReplyDelete-Drew
Actually, I have to disagree with Rose and T-Money. In response to Rose’s question, the movie theatre is deservedly immortal and will never be replaced by the at-home theatre. Even if it stays its sticky, popcorn-strewn, over-air-conditioned, gimmicky self, the theatre will always attract people.
ReplyDeleteStatistics have shown that the movies are recession-proof; people are flocking to theatres in today’s tough economy. In fact, theatre attendance in a bad economy is higher than attendance in a good economy. This makes sense: movie theatres are actually cheap ways to escape reality and just get out of the house. Seeing a movie in a theatre is still less expensive than going out to a nice dinner, taking a vacation, or going to a theme park. Plus, there is the added social benefit: if you are feeling lonely, go to the movies. Surround yourself with people, even if they are strangers, and you will feel happier. The movie theatre is the greatest invention and I think its tackiness is almost part of its appeal. So what if a giant pack of Skittles costs five dollars at the concessions stand? If you want classy, go to the opera. Movie theatres know the recipe for success: people like to escape, and they often don’t care where they escape to, as long as entertainment and company are guaranteed.
Okra Win Free
I have to disagree with many of you who say that the current technology is ruining the artistry associated with filmmaking. I believe that the technologic advances are creating a definite rift between movies that are entertaining and movies that are art. This was once a thin line, but with the iPod, or streaming video, the line between entertainment and art is becoming more distinct. Many blockbuster movies such as Transformers or He’s Just Not That Into You are clearly created for entertainment; which is sometimes more valuable than some would think. Movies such as the Diving Bell and the Butterfly or The Ballad of Jack and Rose are art. Movies for entertainment are motivated by income, but movies that are created as a work of art are meant to leave their audience with a new opinion, or new perspective. Technology is allowing for blockbuster films to generate greater profits, while artistic films are staying true to their original purposes. Such rifts are not to be frowned upon, it is simply a truth about the current evolution of film.
ReplyDelete-Katia
I mostly agree with what everyone has been saying so far, especially with the idea that moviemaking has gone from a form of art to a way to make money. However, despite this overall trend, I find it interesting that artistic movies often succeed. For example, Slumdog Millionaire was arguably not created as a way to make money, but as an artistic form of expression. I would also argue with the point that “Gross Points” makes, which is that “The movie feels about twenty minutes too long; the reviews are mixed; nobody really loves it; and it grosses several hundred million dollars.” I think is safe to say that Slumdog Millionaire is a clear exception to this generalization. It was not created as a way to make money, and yet it was one of the most successful movies of 2008. Branching off of what Katia said, artistic movies also seem to spend the least amount of money. Slumdog Millionaire spent $6.1 million in creating the movie, whereas The Curious Case of Benjamin Button spent over $30 million. Although it overwhelmingly seems that the movie industry is mass producing trashy movies with star names in order to make money, it would seem that their strategies are ineffective, and that the artistic movie still has hope in today’s movie society.
ReplyDelete~Amanda S.