Loading ...Hollywood seems to cater to those who would prefer unintelligent entertainment. The movies which do well at the box office tend to be those with what I like to call the “crash, bang, boom” effect or part of franchises (which often have said effect) rather than those which tend to be thought provoking or have more of an independent or “calm” vibe to them. This probably has to do with the fact that much of mainstream North American society doesn’t value intelligence. Sure, more and more young people are getting post-secondary educations, but at the same time, students aren’t necessarily getting the kind of exposure they should be, whether it be in elementary school, high school or post-secondary.
We already know that art programs are being cut. Not having the exposure to art often led to a lack of appreciation of film, theatre and even music and so forth that might not be considered “cool” by their peers. Because these young people are the main consumers of the entertainment industry, the industry would do whatever it takes to lure them in. And this means producing junk. Why bother making a non-period piece with a soundtrack filled with Chopin and Mozart when you can bring in the latest pop star? Better yet, make him or her the star. And if you’re targeting a male audience, make it loud and add a scantily clad female. If your demographics are predominantly female, you know it has to be a romantic comedy where it ends ”happily ever after.” In both cases, the hero(ine) wins and gets the girl or the guy. As soon as you drive away from this formulaic storyline, chances are, you’re not going to get a lot of consumers.
An interesting example is Sacha Baron Cohen’s most recent movie, Brüno. It was heavily criticized for its gay stereotypes. But I think that was the whole point of Brüno. His character was put on film to be made fun of – Sacha Baron Cohen wanted to see how the world reacts to someone like Brüno. He wanted to expose the world to its own stupidity. One of the most glaring scenes was, of course, the minister who “converts” homosexuals to heterosexuals. The point of that scene was, obviously, to show how openly politically incorrect an individual can be. However, that’s probably not why people liked the movie. I think many who saw the movie enjoyed it because the entire concept of the film was silly, including the title character. Sadly, that probably was the reason why the movie did fairly well.
I am not saying that I absolutely avoid mainstream entertainment. I don’t. I actually like some of the things they produce, but I am hoping that one day, the general public would also start appreciating more intellectual productions. We can’t be boxed in, believing that it’s this way or the highway. We need to think. We aren’t thinking enough.
Loading ...
I disagree with many of the statements in your article. You assume that a movie would be more intelligent if it were a “period piece with a soundtrack filled with Chopin and Mozart.” However, there is no reason why making a movie set in a historical period with classical movie would in any way make it more valid, engaging and compelling than a movie set in modern times, dealing with modern issues, and with a modern soundtrack. Some of the best classical music to come out of this century has been written for movies. I put forward the soundtrack for Memoirs of a Geisha as a specific example. (Also Pirates of the Carribean, which is brilliant.)
As an intelligent person and a lover of the arts, it is important to remember that much of what is now considered “highbrow” and cultured today was the equivalent of Hollywood blockbusters for its time. Opera is a prime example. Your formula for what makes movies unintelligent today is the model on which most operas were written: put a celebrity in the title role, make it loud, add some scantily clad women (plus affairs, murders, incest, suicide, etc.) and put it all on a formulaic foundation of Rom-Com Happily-Ever-After or Tragedy, depending on the audience. There is certainly nothing thought-provoking or enlightening about it.
But can many “crash-bang-boom” types be enjoyed on more than one level? There seems to be more of that in the past than in 2009. A lot of the best-known tragic operas, for example were really social commentaries on how people are treated.
Lord of the Rings is pretty crash-bang-boom, and yet I suggest that there is a considerable wealth of “levels” on which to enjoy it. History, myth, religion, war, class conflicts, the struggle against good vs. evil and the internal struggle of self. Pirates of the Carribean has the “civilized world” vs. the outcasts, the grasping ambition of the British Empire and resultant consequences, science vs. myth and religion, not to mention the examination of the play between life and death.
Certainly the opera, Elektra, has little more in the way of “levels” than the more recent movie by the same name.
I can’t think of much valuable social commentary in Paggliacci: alcoholic husband kills cheating wife in tragic accident. However, it’s certainly entertaining.
Just a few examples. Movies and concerts today are about entertainment, just as operas and symphonic concerts were about entertainment before. You get out of them what you put in to it, and they can also be deeply moving and effective contributors to society at large, but at the end of the day, there’s nothing wrong with just enjoying yourself.
Purple Mangos, isn’t that what I just said in my reply to your first response?