Less violence = more diversity in movies?

[Maxie Zeus]

In today's Wall Street Journal, film critic Joe Morgenstern says something I wholeheartedly concur with:


In the past few years the Hollywood studios, ever more obsessed with quick box-office killings followed by huge foreign sales, have become expert purveyors of shoddy goods. In the process they have . . . alienated, or simply ignored, huge numbers of young children and educated adults.

I hope this will change soon. DVDs are wonderful to watch at home, and some of the programming on cable TV is terrific, to be sure. But I'd still like to believe that the industry will give us--all of us--more and more films worth going out to see, because movie theaters can enhance a precious sense of community, and our need now is greater than ever for entertainment that doesn't insult or exclude.

There's been a lot of complaining here about the studios pushing back or eliminating violent fare. Let us stipulate that violence (even films about terrorists blowing up cities) has a place in entertainment, and that it ought not to be eliminated. (I loved Schwarzenegger's "True Lies," for instance, and would howl if it disappeared from stores and TV.)

But I for one would be deeply unhappy if, 8 months from now, things were back to the way they were 2 months ago. Not because of "sensitivity" issues, but because in recent years Hollywood has become so monomaniacally focused on certain demographics (yes, on teenage boys) that they've lost the ability to make popular films that appeal to other audiences. That's good for teenage boys, I guess, but rotten for the rest of us.

So I will come out and say it. I would not be thrilled with a total moratorium on bubble-gum action fare, but I wouldn't be heartbroken either, and could see a definite upside: Hollywood would be forced to relearn old habits and techniques, and might start paying more attention to story and character than to makeup and CGI. And people like me would have more of an incentive to return to theaters.

Yeah, I sound like an old fogey, and I can hear the refrain now: "If you don't like what's playing at the theater, stay at home and watch TV." That's the reason I put a key part of Morgenstern's quotation in bold-face. There's a difference between sitting in a theater and sitting at home, and it has nothing to do with the size of the explosions or the wrap-around sound. The tangible feel of sitting in the dark with other people and watching the same image is fundamentally different from sitting at home by yourself and knowing, in an abstract kind of way, that others are watching it too. You get it watching a sci-fi spectacular, and you get it watching Humphrey Bogart smoking a cigarette. There is a communal feel to going to the theater, and it's something I've missed.

I don't want movies back the way they were because, frankly, the movies have sucked. If Hollywood's new sensitivity to violence and explosions helps break them of the habit of relying exclusively on them, then I say thank God for the sensitivity.

Rant mode off. :p

[Failure]

I agree with some of the points. We do need some more originality, more variety. It would be a good thing for movie's to have to take a step away from the formulaic action and violence that many follow right now. But the changes that are coming, I'm not sure if it'll be for the better, I think it'll just be different. If movies actively try to create different and original movies, things should be good at first. Lots of variety, lots of choices. But then sooner or later, favorites will develop. Once that happens, we're just back to right where we started. I mean, it might not be mindless violence, btu it might be chic flicks aimed at teenage girls or war comedies aimed at seniors, who knows. Because once the companies find out what's profitable, then innovation goes back down the drain. Of course, that's kind of a costly process, so there's always the potential that movie theatres will try to wait this out and go back to their regularly scheduled programming. I, for one, love violence in movies, I have no qualms with it, unless it's blatantly unnecessary, but at the same time, I wouldn't mind seeing some change.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Actually, there is still a fair amount of variety out there, but they are either a: independent productions or b: flops at the box office.


But other than that, I think things will always go back to profits. If you don't have the same tastes as most mainstream audiences, you will be disappointed in the long run.

Anyone want to examine what bright about the creative energy of the 60s-70s? I thought that those decades were Hollywood's most creatively rich years.

[Nightflower]

Sorry, but not likely. Let's face it; the nature of people (Hollywood especially) is to take the easy way out. Instead of taking the time to think of good character development, and plot, they might opt for the next big thing. Can't make blockbuster explosive movies with terrorists in them? What about romantic comedies? Or teen flicks? I don't know what they might do...but I'm not holding my breath. Plus, if they're afraid of offending people, they won't try anything radical or dramatic. By anything radical, I mean anything that may make people think for a minute, and they certainly don't want people thinking!

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Ah, well...this sucks. I always like char development, and yet we know that's not gonna happen...this sucks! :mad:

Though, there's always a chance...

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

We may have more of those 1980s-style Sylvester Stallone "patriotic" movies for all we know...

[Nightflower]

Are they clamping down on all violence, or just things that deal with terrorists and explosion? Cuz they can always set movies in a different era, um, like... the American Civil War. Just an example I could think of off the top of my head.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Nightflower
Are they clamping down on all violence, or just things that deal with terrorists and explosion? Cuz they can always set movies in a different era, um, like... the American Civil War. Just an example I could think of off the top of my head.


I'm not going to ask why it is acceptable to show people killing each other, but not making love with each other (I've gotten enough Christians annoyed).

So, I'll limit myself to noting that the 1950's - early 60's 'Biblical' films were the only ones which could get away with showing cleavage (because the clothing had to be 'historically correct'):rolleyes:

[Eraserhead]

Agree that films just have'nt been the same since the "body-count" factor came in effect in the beginning of the 80s.

Its as though people just forgot all about the films from the late 60s-70s like THE GREAT SILENCE,STRAW DOGS,and TAXI DRIVER. In those films, on-screen violence meant something.
But the problem is that we, as the audience, had gotten so used to see movies where hundreds of henchmen & bystanders are gunned down & blown up, that we no longer take movie violence seriously.

However, due to the nation's tragedy, it appears that this is just the establishment's knee-jerk reaction to Hollywood about film-violence. Keep in mind that Schwarzenegger's film is only "put-on-hold", we will see it eventually, and that proves that these type of films will continue to be put into circulation.

By the way, 1 of the films I mentioned, THE GREAT SILENCE, has just been re-released on DVD, if you can, please check this one out. Because it is what Violence, not just movie-violence, but the grim act of itself, is all about.

[James]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

But I for one would be deeply unhappy if, 8 months from now, things were back to the way they were 2 months ago. Not because of "sensitivity" issues, but because in recent years Hollywood has become so monomaniacally focused on certain demographics (yes, on teenage boys) that they've lost the ability to make popular films that appeal to other audiences. That's good for teenage boys, I guess, but rotten for the rest of us.


RANT MODE: ON

I totally agree. It's not so much the violence, sex or the language, but the approach to movies that needs to change. In the last ten years there have been several occasions I can think off when I came out of a cinema and thought, 'Hey! This is going to change the way Hollywood makes films!'. Uh huh. No way, sir! Pulp Fiction was a film I thought that would change Hollywood's conception of the majority audience (afterall, you'll never be able to stop them producing for the average joe). Nothing has changed, in fact, it seems to have got worse.
Teenage boys do get most of the films, but it's a catch 22. They film for an audience that they know go to the cinema (because a cinema is a good place to hang, snuggle etc..) but by doing so they alienate the older groups. There by they look at their audience demographs and see it's mainly teenage boys/girls that go to the cinema and the circle repeats.

Other problem is, I think people on the whole are easy to please. Many a bad or tainted film has been given the thumbs up by friends which really didn't deserve to be. People need to get higher expectations out of films too - that might stop the studios from stepping in and messing up the creative teams work ('Oooh, I don't think that ending will sell - change it!').

And get some NEW talent. I have never been a big fan of Cruise/Kidman/Reeves etc. I don't want to see the SAME stars in each film!! Let's see some new talent! Are we really so superficial we need to recognize the lead role to actually go and see the film? :(

[The Mad Hatter]

Myself, I'd just be happy if Hollywood did less sequels and released more semi-intelligent movies that got the mind working. But I doubt that'll happen.

[DR. BELCH]

--but is "more diversity" a buzzword for more cookie-cutter family-oriented kiddie-friendly drek that seems targeted at eight-year-olds? I just saw a preview for a movie yesterday that showed a chimpanzee flatulating on the head of a school principal. It's Disney, naturally...and powered by Zoog (which seems to be one of the lanthanide elements of the periodic table, possibly one of the previously unknown elements). Given that option, I'll gladly watch Sly or Arnold blow up about ten million buildings and shoot twenty million bad guys while droning on in their semiintelligible patois....

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by DR. BELCH
--but is "more diversity" a buzzword for more cookie-cutter family-oriented kiddie-friendly drek that seems targeted at eight-year-olds?

Well, not in my vocabulary. :D

On reflection, I would alter my remarks somewhat.


Originally posted by Failure
But then sooner or later, favorites will develop. Once that happens, we're just back to right where we started. I mean, it might not be mindless violence, btu it might be chic flicks aimed at teenage girls or war comedies aimed at seniors, who knows. Because once the companies find out what's profitable, then innovation goes back down the drain.

This is actually a deeper point than I first suspected. The problem, I now think, is with demographics and with targeting movies at demographics, and not merely that a demographic I don't belong to is being assiduously catered to.

A work of narrative art (a novels, short stories, plays and films) will work best when it combines elements of story and character in a way that leads the development and expression of both: Incidents unfold in a way that leads to greater complexity in the story, and reveals and/or alters aspects of the characters. How these incidents play out, and what kind they are, depend upon the story's genre, but even in the most hackneyed stories (boy gets, loses, regains girl; hero on a quest) those incidents are the instruments by which action sheds light on character while character motivates action. To let those incidents (whether they explosions, musical numbers, vaudeville sketches or sex scenes) float about unanchored to anything like this development will diminish the overall effect, and possibly destroy it.

But by focusing on demographics, and on the incidents that are strongly preferred by a certain demographic, the filmmakers elevate the content of the incidents at the expense of the story those incidents are supposed to embody. "Throw in lots of explosions" -- or sex scenes, or musical numbers, or whatever -- "because that is what our demographic likes!" becomes the slogan and strategy. It doesn't work as art, and by and large it doesn't work even as audience appeal, because unconsciously the audience knows that it is missing something, that the parts don't hang together right.

In marketing at targeted demographics, the studios are aiming at psychological factors, at scratching psychological itches, and not at satisfying the deeper urges that people have for good storytelling.

One reason why children's films are so dreadful, for instance, is that they are made by adults who are aiming at what they imagine is a "child's psychology" (or what they think is appropriate for a child's psychology). One reason "Willie Wonka" is so good is because it is made by adults who know that children are just people straining toward maturity, and that adults are people who still contain the child's resentments. It's not "aimed" at anyone group, and so can satisfy many different groups.

I'm late for an appointment; I'll pick the thread up later.

[DR. BELCH]

ME:
[Is] "more diversity" a buzzword for more...kiddie-friendly drek that seems targeted at eight-year-olds?


Maxie Zeus:
Well, not in my vocabulary. :D
You aren't a TV/movie exec, though. They have a language all their own. The journalist has his AMA stylebook; I shudder to think what industry Bible the Kellners and Turners bow to.


On reflection, I would alter my remarks somewhat.
Maybe I'm a bit harsh, but you have to admit that if Spiderman and the MIB and X-Men sequels get knifed and delayed...and the next six months brings nothing but a steady diet of fluffy comedies from the Mouse, the masses will revolt.

[James Harvey]

I think we may see more thrillers that won't be based around what building will be blown up first. There were some great politcal thrillers a few years back that were so intense and entertaining, yet didn't rely on death and destruction. Anyone remember the AMAZING movie Arlington Road? We may get to see more intelligent thriller fare.

Still, I do want to see mindless stuf flike big action movies, which I think we'll still get in the next few months. I still wanna see comedies. I think alot of people ar ein the mood for a silly comedy and ZOOLANDER may deliver.

I guess all we can do is wait and see. I do know that I still wanna see upcoming flicks like MONSTERS, INC, LORD OF THE RINGS (still gotta read those books), HARRY POTTER (and those), SPIDER-MAN, and a few more.

[Failure]

Monsters, Inc. looks cool, I havent seen Shrek yet though, so I wanna see both. LOTR is going to be awesome, the trailer looked great, I am looking very very forward to LOTR. I havent read the Harry Potter books, do you think the movie will be good?

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by DR. BELCH
You aren't a TV/movie exec, though.

Well, I was the one who was using the word to advance a claim, so how a TV exec would use the word has no place in the argument I meant to put forth. Just so we get that clear. :D

Maybe I can put my claims this way:

1. Most movies today are nothing but marketing ploys; Paramount made "Lara Croft Tomb Raider" because they had a title and a gimmick, not because they had a script or a story. The goal (as an earlier NY Times article I posted made clear) is simply to trick an easily manipulable demographic into parting with a great deal of cash in a very short amount of time. (This, by the way, is why I am altogether jaundiced about Spiderman, MIB2 and the rest; WB has no monopoly on this kind of thinking.)

2. This means there is relatively little incentive to make a film that works as a whole; put in those elements that "push the right buttons" or which make for a hot trailer, and the studio will be satisfied. The other elements, like interesting characters, good dialogue or developed stories are much harder to get right.

3. These days the target audience is teenage boys, which is why the "hot buttons" are gross out comedies, violence and explosions, and other assorted "eye candy." This means that other audiences are largely ignored; and even when they aren't ignored their films tend to fall into cookie-cutter patterns every bit as impoverished and insulting (in their own way) as are shoot 'em ups.

4. My first thought was that by breaking the cycle toward mindless action, a moratorium on violence would disrupt the usual Hollywood patterns and lead to experimentation and attempts to reach other audiences. Maybe, if they were forced to make other films they would relearn old habits.

5. On reflection, I am much more pessimistic:

First, as Failure and Dr. Belch implicitly point out, Hollywood's response is likely just to be to make gimmicky films for other audiences--painfully saccharine "chick flicks" or vapid "kid's films" that fail because, like recent action flicks, they are simply compendiums of their genre's cliches.

Second, I don't for an instant believe Hollywood will enter onto a long-term moratorium on violence (unless the terrorist situtations and actions become much worse, and then Hollywood is the least of our problems). They are too geared to making movies-as-videogames, and will revert as quickly to old habits as possible.

Sigh.

[TuffyCatt]

Originally posted by Failure
Monsters, Inc. looks cool, I havent seen Shrek yet though, so I wanna see both. LOTR is going to be awesome, the trailer looked great, I am looking very very forward to LOTR. I havent read the Harry Potter books, do you think the movie will be good?

I'm hoping that the Harry Potter movie will be good, because the books are my favorite books right now, and I really don't want a poor movie to ruin them for me. I'm looking forward to LOTR, I've started reading the first book, but haven't had time to get very far. And Monsters Inc should be great, because everything made by Pixar is good.

If they could make good movie that both adults and kids could enjoy, like the Toy Story movies for example, that would be the best that the movie industry could do right now during this difficult time in my opinion...

[The Mad Hatter]

Quoth Belch:
The journalist has his AMA stylebook

Actually it's the AP Stylebook, but what do I know? :rolleyes:

[DR. BELCH]

The Mad Hatter
Actually it's the AP Stylebook....
Oops. I have been out of the loop too long. :D Not that I was a fanatical follower of the Stylebook to start with, though....

[The Mad Hatter]

I hear ya. I still hate omitting the last comma in a list (the one before "and").

[Coolguy74]

WB Doesn't need to make any new family films, because they have Pokemon and Harry Potter. If Pokemon can survive in theaters, then there will be at least 2 more movies (2002, 2003).

Harry Potter may have 7-10 movies(one each November until 2007 or 2010) based on the books. There is also the Powerpuff Girls movie, so children haven't completely been alienated.