Producers and Directors say film quality deteriorating

[Doug Hess Jr.]

Here's the story:

Article Link (http://www.trib.com/AP/wire_detail.php?wire_num=252858)

[Ken_McAlinden]

There's an element of truth to it, but then again, what would you expect filmmakers who had their greatest commercial and artistic successes 20 years ago to say? Friedkin does not consider the 70s to be Hollywood's golden age. He believes that the movie industry peaked during the heyday of the studio system, IIRC.

What really happened in the 60s and 70s was that commercial and aesthetic tastes came together for a while after movie studios had almost driven themselves bankrupt. This corresponded with the coming of age of Baby Boomers who were an economic force to be reckoned with. As long as you are neither spending nor expecting lots of money, you can still make provocative and intelligent films today. John Sayles is living proof.

Regards,

[-=Rudy=-]

It's pretty much a no-brainer that films today rarely live up to my favorites from the 50's and 60's (with a scattered few in the 70's and even fewer in the 80's to the present). This is more than true today, quoted from the above article:

"'If you don't get the clothes off fast or the gun out quick, you're in trouble. Audiences want to feel something intense, quickly, without wasting a lot of time,'' he said.

Whatever happened to a solid plot and good acting? A lost art, IMHO...

[b&w]

I don't want to thread crap but something caught me eye as i read the article and thought I would comment about it.

Friedkin, who directed ''The Exorcist,'' said the advent of digital film may lead to a revolution in filmmaking. He said digital allows for inexpensive filmmaking because it does not require as much attention to light or production.
''Anyone can go make a film,'' he said.

Now I find that statement ironic being made by Friedkin because working with real "film", big budgets, and excellent cinematographers he hasn't managed to make a good movie sense to "Live and Die In LA" in 1985. In my opinion the reason that movie is actually better then the simple plot is because of some amazing acting performances and an unique and exciting car chase sequence. Before that movie, he may have only made two or three really solid movies. Is his insinuation that you need "non-digital film" and "attention to light", which really has little to do with a director per say anyway, for a film to be good, great, solid? Perhaps they should have gotten a director who directed some good films in the past 20 years to make a comment like that if they wanted the comment to hold any weight.

Now I agree that good stories and the resultant good drama is harder to find from the main stream studio system then it has been in 20 years. That doesn't mean good stories in film aren't being made. They are just being made by "independent cinema", and in that term I mean outside the big three studios. These movies have a much harder time getting out to the general public. The movie industry actually closely mirrors the music industry in that regard. It takes an effort on the part of the viewer now to find these movies and that's something people don't want to do, don't have time to do, or don't have access to the information to do. All of which lead to these general feelings and comments.

Now while I don't believe in the "story above all other aspects makes a good movie" argument, I do believe a good story is often necessary regardless of budget, genres or techniques of the film. Now where I would step away from the necessity of a good story is that for me personally, sense film is a visual medium and I love that aspect of it, that there are instances where I may enjoy the film because the cinematography transcends some of the other deficiencies the movie may have. Perhaps new visual ideas are tried (like the movie Russian Ark), use of new technology to achieve a certain look (like in the movie 28 days), or just an outstanding looking film (like in the movie Road to Perdition).

[Ken_McAlinden]

Consider the following 30 films from the last three or so years:

Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Mulholland Drive
Finding Nemo
Monsters, Inc.
Memento
Adaptation
Minority Report
The Man Who Wasn't There
Road to Perdition
Amelie
Punch-Drunk Love
Royal Tenenbaums
A.I.
Black Hawk Down
Spider Man
A Mighty Wind
28 Days Later
Donnie Darko
The Pianist
Pirates of the Carribean
Moulin Rouge
Winged Migration
Lilo & Stitch
Bowling for Columbine
Spirited Away
In the Bedroom
Far From Heaven
Monster's Ball
Gangs of New York
A Beautiful Mind
Y Tu Mama Tambien

Not everyone will like all of these films (I know I don't), but there is at least something interesting about them, and they got made despite everything that is wrong with the film industry. Heck, if they can average one decent effort a month, they are doing alright in my book. I'd even throw in Shrek and the Harry Potter films along with a few of the above as skillful exercises in broadly appealing entertainment, which is something that Hollywood was traditionally good at, but seemed to fall by the wayside in the late 60s/early 70s.

Regards,

[Peter D]

One problem with statements like "films/books/albums were better in the 1950s" is that the many bad films/books/albums from the era have vanished into the dustbins of time, leaving only the good (or extremely popular) stuff. It's the same with foreign films -- one reason that European flicks seem consistently better than their US counterparts is that the bad stuff never makes it across the Atlantic.

[Doug Hess Jr.]

Originally posted by Peter D
One problem with statements like "films/books/albums were better in the 1950s" is that the many bad films/books/albums from the era have vanished into the dustbins of time, leaving only the good (or extremely popular) stuff. It's the same with foreign films -- one reason that European flicks seem consistently better than their US counterparts is that the bad stuff never makes it across the Atlantic.

Good point. Its like referring to "The Good Old Days". I know I only like to remember the good stuff and leave the rest out. At the time, I didn't think the days were always that good.

[John Moschella]

Originally posted by Peter D
One problem with statements like "films/books/albums were better in the 1950s" is that the many bad films/books/albums from the era have vanished into the dustbins of time, leaving only the good (or extremely popular) stuff. It's the same with foreign films -- one reason that European flicks seem consistently better than their US counterparts is that the bad stuff never makes it across the Atlantic.

I think this is exactly the case. The older films are sifted through time.

[RDK]

Exactly right!

Take 1941, for example. There were 598 studio films released that year. A handful of them are timeless, but most of the others, well, aren't. After 60+ years we only remember the great ones.

[SVL]

Originally posted by b&w

Now I find that statement ironic being made by Friedkin because working with real "film", big budgets, and excellent cinematographers he hasn't managed to make a good movie sense to "Live and Die In LA" in 1985.

IMO Jade (1995?) was not bad at all; a good car chase sequence, too, and a very sultry Linda Fiorentino. And he used a song by Loreena McKennitt several times in the movie (final credits and someplace else, AFAIR). A solid movie.

[RetroSmith]

LOl.....It doesnt take a genius to figure out that movies are not up to the quality of the Frank Capra days.

The classics are STILL the best.

[RetroSmith]

Actors in Movies in the 30s and 40s were actors who, for the most part, came up thru Broadway, Vaudeville, etc, where you HAD to be good....or you didnt work anymore. Ask any actor of that era and you'll get the same answer....thats where they LEARNED.

Today, models become actors because they look good on camera, spread their legs ala Sharon Stone, or are related to the Producer (like Sophia Coppala being in Godfather 3)

Its a different world. And the movie goers are the poorer for it.

[b&w]

Originally posted by mikey5967
LOl.....It doesnt take a genius to figure out that movies are not up to the quality of the Frank Capra days.

The classics are STILL the best.

In what reference are you using the term "classics"?

[R. Cat Conrad]

Mikey5967:

"Lol.....It doesn't take a genius to figure out that movies are not up to the quality of the Frank Capra days. -- The classics are STILL the best."

Well, Mikey, as much as I'd like to agree with that statement in total, I find myself in concert only with the latter observation while being left with grave reservations about the quality of the Frank Capra days. Don't get me wrong, I like Capra's films and movies from the 30's & 40's in general. My DVD collection is quite large and includes many films from the studio system period that I do regard as "classic" in the sense that they stand head and shoulders above many other films made during the same era. Furthermore, I'm impressed every bit as much if not more by classic films made prior to the studio system's rigid control of the creative process as I am by the better efforts made under those studios when they had a virtual lock on production and talent; especially films made before the censors took to cutting anything resembling sophisticated humor and/or having to do with mature relationships.

The point I'm trying to make is that every era of film has it's classics, even though styles and tastes will inevitably change to accomodate the sophistication of the viewing audience balanced by society's needs and the public's mores. Social attitudes, reflected in the scripts, of course, aren't the only issue in changing approaches to filmmaking. Acting, overall, is more realistic today than it has been at any time in film history. That doesn't make older films which were hampered by tight budgets, heavy censorship and unrealistic stage acting any less enjoyable, but it does mean that for some the suspension of disbelief may have to be relaxed a bit in order to appeciate the film as an audience of that era might have enjoyed it. If you don't believe me, try watching some of the classic silent films which I readily admit are among my greatest film passions. Silent film acting ranges from mildly theatrical, which prevaled throughout the studio system years of sound films in the 30's & 40's as well, to wildly expressive, so quaint as to appear either sublimely silly or ridiculous in most any modern context. FTR, my wife can't stand most silent films because of the overly theatrical acting.

The bottom line is that I must agree with Ken McAlinden's list and with Peter, Doug, RDK and others who appreciate older films, but recognize the high quality fare and variety being offered filmgoers today. Just narrowing the selection of films on Ken's list to The Lord of the Rings sagas, Finding Nemo, AI, The Pianist and Blackhawk Down, and adding Schindler's List, CastAway, Unbreakable, and The Unforgiven (i.e., along with guilty pleasures like Starship Troopers, the aforementioned Spiderman and Chicken Run) I would have no difficulty describing any of THESE as being classics as well, and some arguably the equal of anything Frank Capra was able to accomplish in his heyday under the repressive studio system!

In closing, this is all just one man's opinion, Mikey, and in no way intended to offend your sensitivities or downplay anyone else's views. Still, I can't help but wince whenever I read comments that sound unmistakably like someone's great great grand pappy muttering in disgust: "These kids today...!" :winkgrin:

:cheers:
Cat

[Peter D]

Originally posted by RDK
Take 1941, for example. There were 598 studio films released that year. A handful of them are timeless, but most of the others, well, aren't. After 60+ years we only remember the great ones.

Wow, I would have never guessed that there were anywhere near that many films made in 41! I would have 150, maybe. Where did you get the info?

[RDK]

Originally posted by Peter D


Wow, I would have never guessed that there were anywhere near that many films made in 41! I would have 150, maybe. Where did you get the info?

I pulled it from a reference book called "Movie Time" by Gene Brown. There are other ways of gathering the info per year (counting and adding the releases from the different studios, for example), so even though this particular book is a bit cheesy (it's sort of a film almanac) I don't doubt its statistics.

Here're some fun stats, selected at random:

In 1913, there were 1000 theaters just in New York City (!), and 214 theaters "catering to a black audience" throughout the U.S. There were only 12 feature films released this year, with an average budget of $13,000.

There were a whopping 841 feature-length films released in 1918 (I wonder how many of those still survive?)

In 1931, there were 662 features released. There were 21,993 theaters, but only 13,128 were wired for sound.

In 1959, there were 4768 drive-ins. The average ticket price was $.51. "Ben Hur" won 11 Oscars. "Porgy and Bess," a film now largely "lost," won a Golden Globe for Best Musical Picture. Rock Hudson was the top star at the box office.

[Gardo]

I too believe that there are plenty of fine movies being made today. Anyone who can't find at least one good movie a month to go to either lives in a very isolated city or isn't looking hard enough.

That said, I do believe that even the best movies today are often less well-written than movies from earlier decades. Earlier screenwriters drew from a deep literary background. Today's screenwriters draw more deeply from other movies, and often from TV (okay, perhaps one can't draw deeply there, but still). And though I don't know what causes what, it's also true that today's filmgoers don't seem to be as responsive to beautiful, dense dialogue as an earlier generation was.

No, I don't consider beautiful, dense dialogue to be "uncinematic.":)

[Mike B]

I would even go so far as to say that there are more interesting films being made right now than there have been in a long time. Since there is no "trend" or single dominating film-maker (ie, Spielberg), there is cinematic chaos, which makes for interesting time.

I only recently started going to the movies frequently again, something I haven't done since college. Every week I find a film that sparks my interest. Right now, there are a bunch of movies I'm interested in seeing:
Kill Bill
The Station Agent
Mystic River

And remember, for every old-time classic, there were dozens of old time crappy movies. By the 40s, the major studios had developed an assembly-line style process of efficient, committee film making. Sometimes all the pieces came together and produced a Casablanca. Most of the time, they made something that was utterly forgettable, was maudlin boring crud, or starred Ronald Reagan.

[b&w]

Originally posted by Gardo
I too believe that there are plenty of fine movies being made today. Anyone who can't find at least one good movie a month to go to either lives in a very isolated city or isn't looking hard enough.


I wouldn't go so far as to say that if you cant find one good movie a month your in a isolated city. There a plenty of well populated cities that never see any type of "independent" movies released in any kind of theater that would be convenient or closely accessed for the regular movie goer. I do agree with the fact though that they are getting made, you just have to again, seek out information on them. Now will that guarantee you can drive a reasonable distance and see that movie, no way.

[b&w]

Originally posted by Mike B

And remember, for every old-time classic, there were dozens of old time crappy movies. By the 40s, the major studios had developed an assembly-line style process of efficient, committee film making. Sometimes all the pieces came together and produced a Casablanca. Most of the time, they made something that was utterly forgettable, was maudlin boring crud, or starred Ronald Reagan.

Well as far as the major studios are concerned currently, that's really no different then the majority of movies they turn out now. Just replace Ronald with Arnie....

[Tim Casey]

I find myself drawn to the films of the twenties and thirties - they just seemed more full of life than those from the forties onward. It kind of mirrors the rock-n-roll era - 1954 through 1970 - where the rules were just being formulated. Even the lousy movies from the thirties (say, the films in "The Dawn Of Sound" laserdisc boxes or the potboilers from the "Forbidden Hollywood" laserdisc series) had a certain coolness to them. The lousy movies from the seventies just seem like lousy movies to me; the lousy movies from the eighties and nineties just seem like lousy tv shows. The lousy movies (and the blockbusters) from 2000 on seem like lousy cable shows to me (with the exception of "Spiderman" and "High Fidelity" and a few others). But comparing the output of the industry in 1980-2003 to the output of the industry in 1925-1928 and 1930-1936 shows a huge deficit in imagination and creativity.

Sure, there's always a very good movie being made somewhere, but I have a feeling that there are very few movies from the eighties onwards that will still be around in fifty years' time.

Also, IMHO, Friedkin made some pretty awful movies. Even as an eighteen-year-old, I thought his reliance on the slow zoom in "The Exorcist" was a cheap way to build suspense.

[Ken_McAlinden]

Here's 30 film released in 1939. I would say that on balance, they are superior to the best 30 films of the last five years.

Daybreak
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
The Wizard of Oz
Stagecoach
Gone with the Wind
The Rules of the Game
Ninotchka
Of Mice and Men
Goodbye, Mr. Chips
The Four Feathers
The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Wuthering Heights
Destry Rides Again
Gunga Din
The Roaring Twenties
The Hound of the Baskervilles
Love Affair
Dark Victory
Beau Geste
Only Angels Have Wings
Drums Along the Mohawk
Another Thin Man
Young Mr. Lincoln
Bachelor Mother
Jesse James
On Borrowed Time
Midnight
The 17 Women
The Old Maid

[R. Cat Conrad]

Good list Ken, but one dynamic which should be taken into consideration is the number of films made in 1939 as opposed to the number of films made over the past few years. Regardless of the era evaluated, the pool of films you have to choose from will reflect upon the number of films one regards as superior, would you not agree?

:cheers:
Cat

[Ken_McAlinden]

I would agree, but it wouldn't make much of a difference to me. :) If 30 films that good were made in one year, then they have to be doing something right. :)

I think the single largest factor resulting in the slowing down of the number of great films per year is the prohibitive cost to produce them given the way the studios work today. In some ways, this is good news for the creative and technical folks who are being compensated more generously than their counterparts from back in the day, but it reduces the number of films that can be produced and makes production companies risk-averse.

Converted into today's dollars, Gone with the Wind was produced for less than $50 million.

Regards,