Solaris (Tarkovsky)
For better or worse, it seems the case when a good chunk of the world’s population thinks “film,” they think “Hollywood”. As anyone who’s ever made even a cursory visit to Twitch knows, there’s a bit more to it than that. Global cinema has always been and will always be – though to be fair, it’s within only the last 10 to 15 years that most other countries have started working with concepts, budgets, and levels of technical innovation commonly seen in U.S. productions. There’s no denying Hollywood sets a number of standards others strive to match and exceed.
For all its gloss and grosses, though, one of the biggest knocks against Hollywood filmmaking has been it socially shallow agenda. Aiming for the lowest common denominator often seems standard practice and when projects that do so are richly rewarded by the public on a regular basis, the drive to innovate and challenge is lessened. With the socio-political climate across the globe being less than flowery, there appears to be a growing public appetite for something deeper within populist entertainment and wonder of wonders, Hollywood is actually delivering. For the first time in what seems like an eternity, socially conscious filmmaking is commanding an increasingly large bit of attention among studios. Yep. I’m about to glad-hand Tinsletown…
The interest in projects that stretch beyond boilerplate thrills has grown steadily since the tail end of the 1990s, and within the last few years has reached a surprisingly high pitch. Early entries in the wave like Fight Club and Three Kings imparted smart, incisive cultural and political critiques between bouts of high-concept visuals and elaborate action. Released with the events of September 11th still smoldering in the public’s mind, Ridley Scott’s increasingly resonant Black Hawk Down sandwiched a dire evaluation of crusading war policy in between some of the most intense combat sequences ever committed to film. Love him or hate him, Michael Moore’s cannon, beginning with Bowling for Columbine in 2002, reached wide audiences and engendered debate and an unheard-of legion of “response” films. Recent titles such as Good Night, and Good Luck and Breach have continued drawing parallels to and examining society, and future releases like There Will be Blood and The Kingdom appear poised to offer commentary amid spectacle.
The curtailed list above highlights the need to piggyback thought-provoking material on tried-and-true tropes that will offer audiences some distraction – it’s the “spoonful of sugar” mentality at work. Filmmaking on the scale of the projects above requires a return on investment, further rationalizing the piggyback mindset. It’s hard to either endorse or rebuke this tactic – watering down is watering down, but the more butts there are in seats the more chance there is to stir debate. Of course every frame of film is meant to manipulate, engendering fear, longing, excitement, and so on – however there can be no denying the growing trend to intersperse plot points meant to goose more community-minded sections of the brain.
Where’s this all coming from? The last time Hollywood readily fostered this much opinionated filmmaking was the ‘70s, with the public reeling from the drawn-out conflict in Vietnam and corruption in the Nixon Whitehouse. Without drawing specific parallels and taking this post in a direction it isn’t meant to go, it can’t be denied a large portion of the population feels dissatisfaction with the current U.S. administration and its policies and practices, and for the first time in a long time studios are taking a number of chances on films that challenge perceptions and ideologies. And the door is swinging both ways. The old adage about Hollywood being a bastion for God-less liberal views and attitudes doesn’t quite hold up the way it used to, with companies like Walden Media pouring huge sums of money into projects, aimed at wide audiences, with overt religious ties.
Is there a negative side to all this? Is politicized filmmaking further polarizing audiences that increasingly see themselves as Red and Blue? I’m not sure. Going back to the “spoonful of sugar” notion, the danger of someone simplifying a situation just to get their message across without offering a fair shake to all involved is very real. There’s also a question of how much foothold films should give to politicized content. “You got your art in my politics!” “You got your politics in my art!” You see where this is going…
In a world where Rob Zombie’s Halloween can wrest $30 million from U.S. wallets in one weekend, please don’t mistake my praise as all-encompassing. There’s much wrong with the studio system, not the least of which is how they’ve conditioned us to expect and accept less from our entertainment dollar. Mr. Woodcock might offer a life-changing, transcendental experience for viewers and open their eyes to notions of acceptance and tolerance, but the smart money’s on “not so much.” And you know what? Overall quality aside, sometimes that’s alright. In its own wrong-to-remake-John-Carpenter but good-to-turn-your-brain-off way, so is Halloween. It takes all kinds – and I’m thankful all kinds are increasingly welcome at the multiplex. There will likely always be a perception among the general global public that Hollywood’s a leader when it comes to filmmaking, so here’s hoping when things cool down around the world the creative types working in the studio system, who’ve been empowered by their emotions to create challenging works, don’t lose sight of pushing for something better on screen.
Shop at our affiliated sites and support Twitch while feeding your pop-culture addiction.
Reader Comments
GhostDog 09/12/2007 @ 9:53am
Hollywood is starting to make some strides. The Bourne trilogy of films were intelligent, superior spy films, that Hollywood finally got right. Perhaps the fact they were based on novels helped, but that series could have easily turned out bad if it got into the wrong hands.
The Kingdom looks promising. This look like a Hollywood action/political film that rises above the usual garbage they turn out.
International films are still superior in most cases (that’s why I love this site), but it’s nice to see that some thought provoking, well made films are coming out, and not the usual trash.
Perhaps once Hollywood finally stops the indiotic remakes, mindless films and unnecessary sequels, we’ll give them more props.
dac1138 09/12/2007 @ 10:41am
Just a small quibble with the “International films are still superior in most cases” as we tend to get the best of the best sent overseas. Hong Kong, India and South Korea’s film industries are, in anything, worse than ours when it comes to formulaic, lowest common denominator approaches to film-making. For every Election or The Host, there are 4-5 Wong Jing films (literally) or sappy Rom-coms.
DJensen 09/12/2007 @ 12:36pm
A good chunk may think Hollywood, but an even larger chunk thinks Bollywood or their own local industry first. Fortunately.
I just wish we here in Canada (outside of Quebec) thought of Canadian films first. Which I guess would mean making more films and actually putting them on screens…
GhostDog 09/12/2007 @ 2:56pm
dac1138, you make a good point, I agree with you. I just think in general, imho, I just find international films to be better overall. But like you said, there are many duds as well.
DJensen, being Canadian, and living in Toronto, it’s a shame that more Canadian stuff isn’t promoted. I can’t even tell you the last time I saw a Canadian film. It seems like it’s hard for the homegrown Canadian who make films here to get there stuff on screens.
GhostDog 09/12/2007 @ 3:01pm
Just one more thing to add to my “International films are still superior in most cases” statement that I want to clarify.
I also just want to say that I think there are a lot more quality international films than Hollywood films.