|
|
Post by spiderwort on Nov 7, 2019 5:52:25 GMT
Personally, I'm very tired of the cynicism that predominates in films these days. It gives a negatively lop-sided view of the human condition, which is primarily a direct result of truly cynical decisions made by the corporate media in order make more money. Sadly, audiences, especially young ones, seem quite willing to embrace this world view. That makes us as viewers complicit in such negativity, a fact that never seems to be acknowledged or discussed. I believe in realism - or the cinematic illusion of realism - but a fundamental reality of the human condition is that there IS goodness in the world, not just bleakness, despair, and evil. I'd love to see more films tilt in the direction of goodness and optimism so that we are once again inspired by what we see, instead of being assaulted by sensation for sensation's sake. Of course, such films are being made today, but not as many as in the past, and too many of them fall by the way-side, lost in a sea of violent and sexually graphic films that offer little in the way of meaningful, life-affirming substance.
This is why I see fewer and fewer new films these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by RiP, IMDb on Nov 7, 2019 6:07:35 GMT
Personally, I'm very tired of the cynicism that predominates in films these days. It gives a negatively lop-sided view of the human condition, which is primarily a direct result of truly cynical decisions made by the corporate media in order make more money. Sadly, audiences, especially young ones, seem quite willing to embrace this world view. That makes us as viewers complicit in such negativity, a fact that never seems to be acknowledged or discussed.
I believe in realism - or the cinematic illusion of realism - but a fundamental reality of the human condition is that there IS goodness in the world, not just bleakness, despair, and evil.
I'd love to see more films tilt in the direction of goodness and optimism so that we are once again inspired by what we see, instead of being assaulted by sensation for sensation's sake.
Of course, such films are being made today, but not as many as in the past, and too many of them fall by the way-side, lost in a sea of violent and sexually graphic films that offer little in the way of meaningful, life-affirming substance.
This is why I see fewer and fewer new films these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Nov 7, 2019 7:02:13 GMT
I hardly ever check out anything new-haven't really for 10 years. The plots don't interest me. They sound weak and bland. The actors are so boring now.
I just don't believe that the corporations are listening to audiences at all.
I think they narrow the range of who they hire and what they will make, and then the audience has to take it or leave it.
The studios were making lots of movies that ended with failure in the 1960s-70s. They were skillfully made even if the endings were such downers and sometimes inexplicably negative. Lots of films with sour endings. Why? Nixon? Yeah, sorry I don't buy that.
Then the blockbuster restored optimism but with a change-the victor was now always the underdog or the marginalized person.
But I guess that was a done phase and the superhero has taken over-but they do not follow the old fashioned hero on a mission and succeeding formula. They are usually pretty negative and downbeat.
I watched Pirates of the Caribbean 4 and how does that end? The romantic lead guy is mortally wounded and dragged into an underwater pit by a mermaid.
Why? What's the message?
My feeling is that unless there is some environmentally-driven biological factors (which i doubt) that has caused everyone to become more feeble, one could probably have a generation of actors and filmmakers that at least satisfy in similar capacity to olden times, but it requires a complete removal of the current narrow filter and corporate oversight.
They don't even make movies because they want to, they make it because the head office tells them to put out some content by a certain date and it has to have this this and that message components.
Look at this new Invisible Man film about an abusive husband.
A million ideas they could do with an invisible man story and they choose that?
Agenda-driven filmmaking.
Maybe I am too optimistic but I don't think the public wants it-it is forced on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Nov 7, 2019 18:58:39 GMT
I'm glad that movies like The Theory of Everything 2014, The Immitation Game 2014 and Hidden Figures 2016 are still made, is able to find a market and make healthy profits.
|
|
|
|
Post by spiderwort on Nov 7, 2019 19:09:09 GMT
I'm glad that movies like The Theory of Everything 2014, The Immitation Game 2014 and Hidden Figures 2016 are still made, is able to find a market and make healthy profits. Couldn't agree more, teleadm. There are those kinds of films made now and again, and I always celebrate their success (and yes, I go to see them, too).
|
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Nov 7, 2019 20:16:43 GMT
Personally, I'm very tired of the cynicism that predominates in films these days. It gives a negatively lop-sided view of the human condition, which is primarily a direct result of truly cynical decisions made by the corporate media in order make more money. Sadly, audiences, especially young ones, seem quite willing to embrace this world view. That makes us as viewers complicit in such negativity, a fact that never seems to be acknowledged or discussed. I believe in realism - or the cinematic illusion of realism - but a fundamental reality of the human condition is that there IS goodness in the world, not just bleakness, despair, and evil. I'd love to see more films tilt in the direction of goodness and optimism so that we are once again inspired by what we see, instead of being assaulted by sensation for sensation's sake. Of course, such films are being made today, but not as many as in the past, and too many of them fall by the way-side, lost in a sea of violent and sexually graphic films that offer little in the way of meaningful, life-affirming substance.
This is why I see fewer and fewer new films these days.
I'm not sure that they fall into the non-cynicism category..but the dominant force in cinema today that seems to get a lot of criticism are the blockbusters, especially those from Marvel (though some may argue they are cynical in their approach to making money). I still love watching classics by the likes of Kubrick, Pressburger/Powell, Hitchcock etc, and still love watching the films I grew up on by Carpenter, Dante, Lynch, Spielberg, Mike Leigh, Scorsese, Woody Allen etc but over the last decade, as a lifelong comic collector, nothing has given me the consistent cinema going buzz that the Marvel films have. And I have to say, they are generally quite positive, optimistic films...something like Guardians Of The Galaxy (of which Spielberg said "When his projection was over, I left with the feeling of having seen something new in movies, without any cynicism or fear of being dark when needed), The Avengers, Ant-Man, Spider-Man Homecoming...I walked out of the theatre with a huge grin on my face. Sure they have their dark moments - Infinity War was gut punch unlike any other in blockbuster cinema.....but without that there would not be the emotional impact of Endgame. The thing is I think beyond the blockbuster and family films cinema has always been dominated by cynicism, and the dark, certainly since the 70s. Maybe its a reflection of the sate of the world. Personally I have time for both...this summer I went to the theatre and saw a double bill of my own making...Spider-Man Far From Home and Midsommer (an American's Overseas Vacation Double-Bill). The films you are looking for are out there if you look. And with the advent of streaming and bluray not only do I think the choice is actually wider, but access to films of other nations is a lot easier (thank god for DVD and the internet, so many films from overseas I would have missed otherwise. If I went off topic and turned into a disjointed ramble...sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 7, 2019 20:35:20 GMT
I think one issue is the rise of the antihero replacing the hero in many films.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 7, 2019 20:40:14 GMT
I hardly ever check out anything new-haven't really for 10 years. The plots don't interest me. They sound weak and bland. The actors are so boring now. I just don't believe that the corporations are listening to audiences at all. I think they narrow the range of who they hire and what they will make, and then the audience has to take it or leave it. The studios were making lots of movies that ended with failure in the 1960s-70s. They were skillfully made even if the endings were such downers and sometimes inexplicably negative. Lots of films with sour endings. Why? Nixon? Yeah, sorry I don't buy that. Then the blockbuster restored optimism but with a change-the victor was now always the underdog or the marginalized person. But I guess that was a done phase and the superhero has taken over-but they do not follow the old fashioned hero on a mission and succeeding formula. They are usually pretty negative and downbeat. I watched Pirates of the Caribbean 4 and how does that end? The romantic lead guy is mortally wounded and dragged into an underwater pit by a mermaid. Why? What's the message? My feeling is that unless there is some environmentally-driven biological factors (which i doubt) that has caused everyone to become more feeble, one could probably have a generation of actors and filmmakers that at least satisfy in similar capacity to olden times, but it requires a complete removal of the current narrow filter and corporate oversight. They don't even make movies because they want to, they make it because the head office tells them to put out some content by a certain date and it has to have this this and that message components. Look at this new Invisible Man film about an abusive husband. A million ideas they could do with an invisible man story and they choose that? Agenda-driven filmmaking. Maybe I am too optimistic but I don't think the public wants it-it is forced on them. The studios could no longer owned theater chains that played only their product. That and TV pretty much ended the old studio system. And the original founders of Hollywood, LB Mayer, Sam Goldwyn, Jack Warner were also retiring or dying off. Actually, Goldwyn instituted a new model for film-making and this "studio" is still pretty much intact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Nov 7, 2019 20:53:07 GMT
The studios could no longer owned theater chains that played only their product. That and TV pretty much ended the old studio system. And the original founders of Hollywood, LB Mayer, Sam Goldwyn, Jack Warner were also retiring or dying off. Actually, Goldwyn instituted a new model for film-making and this "studio" is still pretty much intact. Because they had unlimited finance. Making movies that end negatively didn't bankrupt them in the 60s or 70s. One film THE GAMES 1970 was expensive and a flop. But if you watch it, you can see why. The movie is aimed at US and British audiences and the US and British runners lose badly. The Soviet bloc athlete not only wins, but is happy that his government forced him to run. WHO is the audience for that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 7, 2019 21:09:27 GMT
The studios could no longer owned theater chains that played only their product. That and TV pretty much ended the old studio system. And the original founders of Hollywood, LB Mayer, Sam Goldwyn, Jack Warner were also retiring or dying off. Actually, Goldwyn instituted a new model for film-making and this "studio" is still pretty much intact. Because they had unlimited finance. Making movies that end negatively didn't bankrupt them in the 60s or 70s. One film THE GAMES 1970 was expensive and a flop. But if you watch it, you can see why. The movie is aimed at US and British audiences and the US and British runners lose badly. The Soviet bloc athlete not only wins, but is happy that his government forced him to run. WHO is the audience for that?
I don't know. But Hollywood of late 1960s and 70s was very disorganized and they were grasping at straws trying to make things work. Francis Ford Coppola's Finian's Rainbow is a good example of trying to mix the new with the old. Not a bad movie, but no one wanted to see musicals by then. This disorganization did help a lot of the new up and coming directors, many leftists who could not make the films they wanted under the old system got their chance. Hal Ashby, Robert Atlman, just to name a few, along with the film school brats Scorsese, De Palma, Coppola. There are actually some very groundbreaking films made during this period. Then came along little Steven Spielberg who gave them the formula to get audiences back into those popcorn concession lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Nov 7, 2019 21:22:01 GMT
I don't know. But Hollywood of late 1960s and 70s was very disorganized and they were grasping at straws trying to make things work. Francis Ford Coppola's Finian's Rainbow is a good example of trying to mix the new with the old. Not a bad movie, but no one wanted to see musicals by then. This disorganization did help a lot of the new up and coming directors, many leftists who could not make the films they wanted under the old system got their chance. Hal Ashby, Robert Atlman, just to name a few, along with the film school brats Scorsese, De Palma, Coppola. There are actually some very groundbreaking films made during this period. Then came along little Steven Spielberg who gave them the formula to get audiences back into those popcorn concession lines. They were experimenting with the B movie upgrade before Jaws. The disaster movie was an example. In some cases they showed their taste bias like Warner Bros had a massive promo for ENTER THE DRAGON, a pulp adventure film, yet they torpedoed DOC SAVAGE 2 years later, which should have been a no-brainer to play straight. For some reason they were ok with doing a serious action film with a Chinese star but not one with an American-even though the audience was American. Who decided audiences wanted to see a Mexican guy sleeping in a baby crib?
The smaller companies like AIP showed that there were audiences for action and fantasy so it wasn't because they lacked feedback. Columbia's Golden Voyage of Sinbad was practically a straight action adventure film--except the hero was supposed to be a Muslim which may have satisfied their diversity requirements and explains why it didn't end in failure for the hero like so many other ones did.
The blockbuster was about cornering the market and getting rid of the specialty film producers like Hammer, Amicus, or AIP.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Nov 9, 2019 2:25:21 GMT
I think I'm actually at the opposite end of the spectrum. I miss when I used to go to the cinema in the 1990s, in my early 20s, to see adult films. I have nothing against comic book universes or the burgeoning fantasy boom ('Harry Potter', 'Lord Of Rings', 'Dark Materials' etc.), I just wish there was more on offer for those who wish for something different. When movies like the brilliant 'Nocturnal Animals' and 'Nightcrawler' come along, it makes me beyond happy, as they seem few and far between nowadays (I think 'The Irishman' won't even play where I live due to it's Netflix streaming deal). I strongly believe the 1990s was one of the great decades for American crime cinema and I'd struggle to contain my self to a top 50 - for this decade, I can barely reach 10 when it comes to crime cinema, and all the best horror is coming from the no budget independent scene.
'Nightcrawler'
'Nocturnal Animals'
'Few And Far Between'
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Nov 9, 2019 11:11:00 GMT
I'm glad that movies like The Theory of Everything 2014, The Immitation Game 2014 and Hidden Figures 2016 are still made, is able to find a market and make healthy profits. yes - in fact The Immitation Game and Hidden Figures are in my top 10 of the decade.
|
|
|
|
Post by nostromo on Nov 9, 2019 11:16:07 GMT
Personally, I'm very tired of the cynicism that predominates in films these days. It gives a negatively lop-sided view of the human condition, which is primarily a direct result of truly cynical decisions made by the corporate media in order make more money. Sadly, audiences, especially young ones, seem quite willing to embrace this world view. That makes us as viewers complicit in such negativity, a fact that never seems to be acknowledged or discussed. I believe in realism - or the cinematic illusion of realism - but a fundamental reality of the human condition is that there IS goodness in the world, not just bleakness, despair, and evil. I'd love to see more films tilt in the direction of goodness and optimism so that we are once again inspired by what we see, instead of being assaulted by sensation for sensation's sake. Of course, such films are being made today, but not as many as in the past, and too many of them fall by the way-side, lost in a sea of violent and sexually graphic films that offer little in the way of meaningful, life-affirming substance.
This is why I see fewer and fewer new films these days.
They are being made. Check out the films of Hirokazu Koreeda, Ki-Duk Kim, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Fatih Akin, Ruben Ostlund, Aki Kaurismaki etc. They make some really marvellous movies about life. Also, for a recent example - check out 'And Breathe Normally' (2019). It might just put your faith back in humanity.
|
|
|
|
Post by spiderwort on Nov 9, 2019 14:31:31 GMT
To be honest, I‘m not a big fan of these movies where everything is looked at through the rose-tinted glasses and where the happy ending seems to be obligatory. And I‘m not a fan of these nowadays „one-hero-rescueing-the-world“ films either. Personally I prefer more or less realistic films although I have to admit that you‘re right about the violence and sexuality. Aren’t they simply mirroring our society that is becoming more and more aggressive and seems to have all lost all its taboos? Oh, please don't think I mean films that have only happy endings or look at life through rose-colored glasses. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm talking about films that still contain life affirming qualities even when grim and possibly end in death. I think it's the exploitation of the worst in the human condition without the counterbalance of some goodness that upsets me the most. That and too often the failure to convey the absolute reality that there are consequences to actions in every human story.
A film can make me weep at the sadness and heartache in the world and still show me that in spite of that, to whatever small degree manifested, there is goodness, too, goodness that in the end countervails the bad. Without that, a film is meaningless to me, and, I believe, harmful to society. My favorite film, the one that inspired me to become a director, Splendor in the Grass, is one of the saddest films I've ever seen. And yet it still, in its complex way, offers so much that is life-affirming about the human condition. That is the power of its art.
And as for films mirroring our society, as one who's spent a lifetime studying and making films, and who's old enough to have experienced the changes that have been wrought on the screen in the last several decades, I must categorically say that I believe that films (and television) do not mirror society, they direct and define it. The easiest way to understand that concept, I think, is to recognize the power of commercials to lead people to where businesses want them to go. Culture follows the medium, I believe, like form follows function.
That's one of the reasons I've resisted participating over the years in certain kinds of productions. I believe that the people who have the ability to put things on the screen must take responsibility for the power of their influence. I think, in the end, it's that lapse above all else that I regret the most.
And as others have pointed out, it's unquestionably true that there are still films being made that contain the qualities I desire, and I'm grateful for that. I even see a few now and then. But they are far in the minority, it seems to me, in America anyway. (Though it's possible that my judgement is skewed by the fact that I've pretty much stopped looking these days, I'm truly sad to say.)
|
|
|
|
Post by nostromo on Nov 9, 2019 14:42:09 GMT
They are being made. Check out the films of Hirokazu Koreeda, Ki-Duk Kim, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Fatih Akin, Ruben Ostlund, Aki Kaurismaki etc. They make some really marvellous movies about life. Also, for a recent example - check out 'And Breathe Normally' (2019). It might just put your faith back in humanity.
Thanks for these recommendations, none of which I have seen, regrettably. It's interesting, however, that none of those titles are American. I probably should have specified in the beginning that I'm mostly discomfited by newer American films -- not all, but too many. Anyway, thank you again for the recommendations. I will check them out.
Ah right, I'm with you there yes. There's not many that warm the heart from America. 'The Florida Project' I thought did an amazing job though. 'Take Shelter' is another. And if you haven't seen 'The Rider' (2017) - it's well worth a watch. Also 'We the Animals'. There are some out there but yeah I get what you mean, there's not many and you have to root through alot of muck to find them.
|
|
|
|
Post by spiderwort on Nov 9, 2019 15:30:08 GMT
I'm not sure that they fall into the non-cynicism category..but the dominant force in cinema today that seems to get a lot of criticism are the blockbusters, especially those from Marvel (though some may argue they are cynical in their approach to making money). I still love watching classics by the likes of Kubrick, Pressburger/Powell, Hitchcock etc, and still love watching the films I grew up on by Carpenter, Dante, Lynch, Spielberg, Mike Leigh, Scorsese, Woody Allen etc but over the last decade, as a lifelong comic collector, nothing has given me the consistent cinema going buzz that the Marvel films have. And I have to say, they are generally quite positive, optimistic films...something like Guardians Of The Galaxy (of which Spielberg said "When his projection was over, I left with the feeling of having seen something new in movies, without any cynicism or fear of being dark when needed), The Avengers, Ant-Man, Spider-Man Homecoming...I walked out of the theatre with a huge grin on my face. Sure they have their dark moments - Infinity War was gut punch unlike any other in blockbuster cinema.....but without that there would not be the emotional impact of Endgame. The thing is I think beyond the blockbuster and family films cinema has always been dominated by cynicism, and the dark, certainly since the 70s. Maybe its a reflection of the sate of the world. Personally I have time for both...this summer I went to the theatre and saw a double bill of my own making...Spider-Man Far From Home and Midsommer (an American's Overseas Vacation Double-Bill). The films you are looking for are out there if you look. And with the advent of streaming and bluray not only do I think the choice is actually wider, but access to films of other nations is a lot easier (thank god for DVD and the internet, so many films from overseas I would have missed otherwise. If I went off topic and turned into a disjointed ramble...sorry.
Not O.T. and not a disjointed ramble at all. Thanks so much for the post.
|
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Nov 10, 2019 17:13:45 GMT
IMO, 80% of the film produced today s unwatchable. There are some gems to be picked out of the intolerable mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Nov 10, 2019 18:26:22 GMT
Another thing is people will say "there are lots of good films-if you look beyond North America and Europe and Hollywood" but that is the problem. Why should European and Western film be so bad?
Unless there is some scientific analysis that proves people are less creative now than decades ago there is something seriously amiss and while the ease of modern film technology may contribute to apathy or a lack of quality control I do not think it contributes as much as centralized media ownership and decision-making increasingly in the hands of the few who seem to put social message ahead of any other concern including profit (since making profit would requite being interested in public taste).
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 10, 2019 18:46:23 GMT
I think one issue is the rise of the antihero replacing the hero in many films. Though that was a major trend in the late sixties through the mid-seventies, too. The chief difference being that the antiheroes then were often complex human beings with human flaws, not CGI cartoons decked out in spandex and bemoaning the woes of being a 'societal outcast' because of their superpowers. I'd be all for returning to the former state of things, cinema-wise. Today's supehero crop of films sort of reminds me of sulky adolescents who sit in their rooms and pout over the fact that the world doesn't appreciate or understand them. No big deal if a film like that is made every so often, but I have serious reservations about the tsunami-like swamping of virtually everything else by the genre.
|
|
