Great movies, but has the bar been lowered in Hollywood?

[RadioRaheem84]

I just saw Ben Affleck's new movie The Town and it was an amazing movie. I loved it, but I never would've thought of it as a best picture candidate. It was tense, gripping and what not but it didn't offer that epic feeling of HEAT. And HEAT wasn't nominated back then for best picture. If HEAT would've come out now in this era, it would've been hailed as the cinematic masterpiece of our time.

I hate to be a movie snob but in the past half decade, I think the bar has been really, really lowered to where a good but not masterpiece movie like The Town and Inception can be considered Oscar worthy.

I mean Inglorious Basterds and Avatar were nominated! Both were great summer flicks but I would've never considered them for best pic!

So what is happening? Has the bar been lowered due to what may amount to not only a weakening of standards in Hollywood but also what could be corruption ala connections (making Award shows almost a joke) OR have our tastes totally changed as movie goers where we're finally accepting other genres as best picture candidates?

Good discussion. So discuss!

[Jimmie Higgins]

I felt the same way about Inception. I enjoyed it, but it was not worthy of the amount of hype it got and I think that hype was just due to a vacuum of both entertaining blockbusters and interesting thrillers this last summer.

As far as awards go - the Oscars has always been conservative in taste as well as in politics - the whole reason that the categories and voters are divided by film trades is because the Academy was originally intended to be a sort of bosses union:lol:. But anyway, when you look back at great movies or even great entertainment that was made, the Oscar winners usually don't hold up - I mean "Driving Miss Daisy" wins but no Kubrick or Hitchcock or Polanski movie ever won?

[x359594]

...As far as awards go - the Oscars has always been conservative in taste as well as in politics - the whole reason that the categories and voters are divided by film trades is because the Academy was originally intended to be a sort of bosses union:lol:..."

Quite right. Some of the big Oscar winners are forgotten today. You really can't rely on Oscar consideration as an index of artistic success for a movie, whether it's a popular well-made entertainment or something more ambitious.

1958 was the year of Touch of Evil and Vertigo, but can you remember the Best Picture winner offhand?

Personally, I don't look to the Hollywood mainstream for good movies anymore. I look to Asian cinema, particularly Korean and Chinese movies (both from the PRC and Taiwan) and to the rest of the world and those filmmakers in the US working on the margins of Hollywood.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't really watch too many Hollywood films in the theater (the last film I watched in the theater was Dogtooth, a Greek movie), but I will say that (in general) I'm almost 100% sure that standards haven't gone down.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't really watch too many Hollywood films in the theater (the last film I watched in the theater was Dogtooth, a Greek movie), but I will say that (in general) I'm almost 100% sure that standards haven't gone down.

Well I am saying as far as American mainstream movies.

1994 was my fav year for American movies

[Os Cangaceiros]

*shrug* I don't think that even mainstream American movies have gone downhill, quality-wise. Hollywood has always been a primarily commercial venture. They make movies that are supposed to put the asses in the seats, and if they happen to have a certain level of artistry, well hey, that's just icing on the cake.

[Reznov]

If you look at it from perspective, the bar is constantly getting lowered.

There will always be one really good movie and then a bunch of shitty movies that try to capitalize on what they see as the succesful money-making elements.

(Aka Rambo, first one was awesome, then as they continued to get made they got shittier and a little bit more shittier. Oh and, the amount of gore increased to in huge amounts in each sequel.)

[Os Cangaceiros]

Dude Rambo 4 was actually totally awesome. I was suprised by how good (and bloody) that turned out to be.

[x359594]

...I will say that (in general) I'm almost 100% sure that standards haven't gone down.

I'd say they have. A few 1960 releases: Psycho, Sergeant Rutledge, Chance Meeting, Comanche Station, Exodus, Wild River, The Apartment, Home From the Hill, Hell to Eternity, Elmer Gantry, The Bellboy. Nothing from Hollywood in 2010 comes close to these pictures.

The major studios were still independent production plants and the minors could compete by tackling subject matter too risky for big budget productions. Psycho was made as an independent production for $800,000 and grossed $8 million during its first year of release. By contrast Ben Hur, released at Christmas 1959, cost $5 million to make and grossed $15 million during its first year of release.

Today, the studios out source post-production, hire temp workers during filming and are subsidiaries of giant conglomerates. Small pictures now go directly to video.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

the Oscar winners usually don't hold up - I mean "Driving Miss Daisy" wins but no Kubrick or Hitchcock or Polanski movie ever won?

Really!? I knew that amount of Oscars dont necessary shows how good a movie is and i also knew that its highly political, but this just proves it to its point.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'd say they have. A few 1960 releases: Psycho, Sergeant Rutledge, Chance Meeting, Comanche Station, Exodus, Wild River, The Apartment, Home From the Hill, Hell to Eternity, Elmer Gantry, The Bellboy. Nothing from Hollywood in 2010 comes close to these pictures.

The major studios were still independent production plants and the minors could compete by tackling subject matter too risky for big budget productions. Psycho was made as an independent production for $800,000 and grossed $8 million during its first year of release. By contrast Ben Hur, released at Christmas 1959, cost $5 million to make and grossed $15 million during its first year of release.

Today, the studios out source post-production, hire temp workers during filming and are subsidiaries of giant conglomerates. Small pictures now go directly to video.

I haven't seen any of those film except for Psycho.

Independent filmmakers can still find success in today's world.

[x359594]

I haven't seen any of those film except for Psycho...

If we what we mean by "Hollywood" is the studio system that started in 1915 and was fully developed by 1925 (by which time the 7 major studios were firmly established,) then you have 95 years of cinema history to examine before you can honestly claim that there has been no diminution in the quality of Hollywood's offerings.

No offense to anyone here, but my impression is that most people posting in this thread are unfamiliar with cinema history and film grammar. Saying a movie is "awesome" doesn't say much about the movie.


...Independent filmmakers can still find success in today's world.

Yes, they can, thanks to ancillary markets like home video and venues like YouTube.

Incidentally, the best "new" movie I've seen recently is John Ford's Upstream made in 1928, a film thought to have been lost until it was discovered in a film archive in New Zealand.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If we what we mean by "Hollywood" is the studio system that started in 1915 and was fully developed by 1925 (by which time the 7 major studios were firmly established,) then you have 95 years of cinema history to examine before you can honestly claim that there has been no diminution in the quality of Hollywood's offerings.

No offense to anyone here, but my impression is that most people posting in this thread are unfamiliar with cinema history and film grammar. Saying a movie is "awesome" doesn't say much about the movie.

I'm actually very familiar with film and film history, as I took one college-credited high school film course, and one course on film and film theory in college. I'm simply not interested in watching the hallmarks of the artform, though.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'd say they have. A few 1960 releases: Psycho, Sergeant Rutledge, Chance Meeting, Comanche Station, Exodus, Wild River, The Apartment, Home From the Hill, Hell to Eternity, Elmer Gantry, The Bellboy. Nothing from Hollywood in 2010 comes close to these pictures

Well I don't think it's a constant downward slope - it goes up and down. 1960 was a good year and a lot of that had to do with an influx of television people moving to Hollywood studios and bringing a new "adult" style to mainstream film. "Psycho" was definitely influenced by television (the opening section until the famous shower murder could have just been an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents). But after 1960, there were a hell of a lot of Elvis movies before you got to the 1970s and the film-brat generation.

After the 1970s, IMO the american underground movies in the 80s - moreso in the early 90s were also very interesting. 1999 was a very good year in movies too because Superheros wern't that profitable yet (no offense, I do enjoy essacapism and a good comic book and some of the movies based on them) as so there were some interesting stylistic movies - coming from people who worked in commercials and music videos - so we got "Fight Club" and "Blair Witch Project" and "Being John Malcovich" and many other memorable movies ranging from escapist entertainment to more serious and thoughtful movies.

So I think it's like music or other popular entertainment: there are ups and downs. Pop culture is so full of contradictions and so strange under capitalism. On the one hand, the centralization of production skills and technology and resources means that culture machines like Hollywood or the music writers from Tin Pan ally can actually produce really amazing things sometimes. Of course applying the profit motive to something based on creativity and subjective tastes also produces a whole lot of crap and so there is the countervailing effect of audiences rejecting old formulas and styles which leads to the moneyed backers seeking out alternative formulas, new directors/actors/musicians/writers that can bring back audiences.

I don't know, these are just my impressions, I've never read anything specifically about the music or film industry from a business standpoint or a radical standpoint so if people have suggestions for something that talks about the tension between entertainment production and profit, let me know, I think it would be interesting.

[x359594]

Well I don't think it's a constant downward slope - it goes up and down...I think it's like music or other popular entertainment: there are ups and downs. Pop culture is so full of contradictions and so strange under capitalism. On the one hand, the centralization of production skills and technology and resources means that culture machines like Hollywood or the music writers from Tin Pan ally can actually produce really amazing things sometimes...

I take your points here, and of course you're right about both, the fluctuations in quality and the ability of the culture machines to produce really lasting works of popular art.

One book that deals with this phenomenon in the movie business is The Genius of the System by Thomas Schatz. I don't agree with him entirely but the book is a useful overview of the commercial film industry informed by a plausible theory of how the the industry functions to produce both art and junk at the same time.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Overall, I think the bar has been dropped simply because to me, today's movies seem nowhere near as good as the movies made between 5 and 10 years ago were. There are some big exceptions to this like Avatar and Star Trek (IMO), but overall, there hasn't been much that seems appealing to me.... :p

[La Comédie Noire]

There's always been shitty movies, people just don't tend to remember them.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There's always been shitty movies, people just don't tend to remember them.

You mean you don't remember classics like the highest grossing film of 1929?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b5/GoldDiggersBroadway2.jpg/220px-GoldDiggersBroadway2.jpg

[Jimmie Higgins]

One book that deals with this phenomenon in the movie business is The Genius of the System by Thomas Schatz. I don't agree with him entirely but the book is a useful overview of the commercial film industry informed by a plausible theory of how the the industry functions to produce both art and junk at the same time.Thanks, I'm checking it out on Amazon.

It would also be interesting to hear what people think about the auteur theory from a radical perspective. Obviously some directors do have a recognizable style (often self-consciously since the French New Wave) and repeated motifs and themes, but the factors of the collaborative nature of film-making and the commercial aspects of film-making complicate this idea. It also strikes me as a sort of "great-man" view of movie making, but that's just kind of my gut reaction so maybe that's a superficial way of looking at it.

Popular Front films in France were made collaboratively including one by Renoir "The Crime of M. Langue" I think, but I don't know too much about how many of these films were made or how they were done on a collaborative basis.

[praxis1966]

I haven't seen The Town yet, but I probably will this weekend. From what I understand it's supposed to be really good, and it should be given that the same guy who wrote the source material for this one also wrote Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone.

As far as the Oscars go, though, it's true what JH says in terms of them being politically conservative. 1992 is the perfect example. Personally, I thought Malcolm X was hands down the best film released that year, but what won? Unforgiven, a fuckin' spaghetti Western retread. Malcom X wasn't even nominated, nevermind that despite the fact that Betty Shabazz said of Denzel Washington's performance that she had to remind herself several times throughout the film that she wasn't actually watching her late husband on the screen he couldn't get a best actor nod. Incidentally, you know who won best actor that year? Al Pacino, for going "Hoo hah!" for two hours.

Then of course there's 1997 and the battle of the two boat movies, when that steaming pile of shit Titanic won and Amistad wasn't even nominated.

As far as this year's Oscars go, I'm sure my favorite film of the year so far, Brooklyn's Finest, won't even be considered because it had a horrible release date. For its moral quandries that suggest cops and crooks are far closer than the disparate, dichotomal light the general public views them in, the subtext of urban blight as a physical manifestation of a greater social spiritual malaise, its superbly executed noirish technical aspects, and stellar performances from a great ensemble cast, I thought it was brilliant. Personally, I put it on level pegging with other dirty, gritty movies about NYC's underbelly of old like Taxi Driver (Scorcese, 1976) and Serpico (Lumet, 1973). I seriously doubt, however, too many folks here have even seen it...