Denby: Has Hollywood Murdered The Movies?

Denby wrote a book off this article, Do the Movies have a Future, which I read. I think his notion that the big studios do little to nothing to develop smaller movies or more importantly, up and coming directors is being born out. I was listening to a podcast from LACMA with Richard Linklater and he said that the first of his Celeste and Jesse movies Before Sunrise was produced by Columbia, a big studio, the next one was the indy arm of Fox and the last one, from this past year was totally independent. No studio interest at all.
Soderbergh also has that video about how much it costs to market a movie and how a small movie just doesn't make sense in the studio eco-system leading him to release Candalabra on HBO.
With the international audience becoming more and more of the income stream for the big studios, and all the shortcomings of films that appeal to that group that Denby enumerates, I'm afraid that this is the deal now.

Where I disagree a little with Denby is in how he characterizes direct to download and DVD releases. I think it's a very viable way to get eyes on independent movies. They don't all have to come out in the multiplex to be successful. Heck, I'm in a movie that's getting a DVD/OnDemand release on June 17th, an independent that comes from really good producers. It's how it works for most indies now.
 
Good article. Yes, it's long.

I think people have a deep spiritual need for storytelling, like old campfire tales that pass on wisdom. Popular cinema is devoid of this wisdom. I've been saying recently that pornography is the best form of entertainment, and movies need to stop trying to compete with pure visual arousal. We can do better.
 
Last edited:
hscully said:
Where I disagree a little with Denby is in how he characterizes direct to download and DVD releases. I think it's a very viable way to get eyes on independent movies. They don't all have to come out in the multiplex to be successful. Heck, I'm in a movie that's getting a DVD/OnDemand release on June 17th, an independent that comes from really good producers. It's how it works for most indies now.
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but most Indies I know want a big screen. that's the end all be all of film making, to see your work on a big screen with an audience that experiences the movie as a group, not by themselves on their computer, ipad, tv, etc.
 
Gillvane said:
I don't know about you, but most Indies I know want a big screen. that's the end all be all of film making, to see your work on a big screen with an audience that experiences the movie as a group, not by themselves on their computer, ipad, tv, etc.
Click to expand...

I know I do! I want to see my stuff on the big screen which is why I submit to festivals. Denby would agree. The thing is that the large majority of indies don't get theatrical distribution and even really good movies with name actors don't all get theatrical distribution. The marketing costs are prohibitive. Check out Soderbergh's last talk in April.

I go to movies and I want that big sound system and that huge screen in beautiful 4K projection. I don't find watching movies on small devices very satisfying but I have a good size flat screen and a good sound system and I watch 4 out of 5 movies on Netflix DVD or streaming or Amazon Prime or on Demand and we really enjoy the experience. It is pretty good and more and more it's becoming what's available to indies as the platform.

Going to the movies is what Denby is talking about so maybe it's irrelevant to the conversation but Denby, in his book talks about going to the movies as the only satisfying experience and I just don't find that true and I love going to the movies.
 
Gillvane said:
I don't know about you, but most Indies I know want a big screen. that's the end all be all of film making, to see your work on a big screen with an audience that experiences the movie as a group, not by themselves on their computer, ipad, tv, etc.
Click to expand...

I know I do! I want to see my stuff on the big screen which is why I submit to festivals. Denby would agree. The thing is that the large majority of indies don't get theatrical distribution and even really good movies with name actors don't all get theatrical distribution. The marketing costs are prohibitive. Check out Soderbergh's last talk in April.

I go to movies and I want that big sound system and that huge screen in beautiful 4K projection. I don't find watching movies on small devices very satisfying but I have a good size flat screen and a good sound system and I watch 4 out of 5 movies on Netflix DVD or streaming or Amazon Prime or on Demand and we really enjoy the experience. It is pretty good and more and more it's becoming what's available to indies as the platform.

Going to the movies is what Denby is talking about so maybe it's irrelevant to the conversation but Denby, in his book talks about going to the movies as the only satisfying experience and I just don't find that true and I love going to the movies.
 
Gillvane said:
I want filth, degradation and unbridled crazyness in my films. Well, the non-mainstream films anyway. Have you seen Choke? How about Crash? These don't come close to Pink Flamingos, but they will do.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115964/

I also like Star Trek and The Avengers.

What would be really cool would be the return of the 4 wall distribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_wall_distribution

The micro cinema.


Click to expand...

I'm tending to the 'and now for something completely different' camp on... uh... well... camp...

As for the original article... I do sometimes wonder if there's quite a bit of 'rose tinted glasses' being worn by those who look to the past. While it may be that 'adults' were a significant movie viewing demographic, when... there was no TV, or similar 'visual' media presentation device...

But that doesn't mean the subjects of the films were somehow 'for adults'. In fact the Hays Code pretty much put everyone in the 'infantile' status, disallowing any really 'controversial' issues being brought to the fore. There were rules on how 'the clergy' could be represented, how 'marriage' could be depicted, further, any reasonably 'adult' conversation about 'sex' was prohibited, or buried in 'deep' euphemism. And even more absolutely, no conversation about anything but 'heterosexual' relationships of a 'romantic nature' (there of course could be platonic 'buddy' films...), etc, etc, etc...

This all began to break down in the late 40's, and by mid-60's it was all but demolished... and who were the popular movies directed to... 'youth'... Unless the author of the article thinks that films like "I Love You Alice B. Toklas"(1968), or "The Magic Christian"(1969), were directed towards oldsters, or "The Graduate"(1968) was directed to the 'over 40' crowd who wanted to see Anne Bancroft in lingerie...

In other words, the 60's Studios catered to the dominant viewing market, which was imbued with 'counter-culture' or 'counter culture wanabees'... in fact one can claim that The Media coopted the Counter Culture... and turned it into a resource of spoofery, al la "Laugh-In"... (I've often thought of Nixon's appearance on that show... but I digress...)...

The reason why there was theater attendance in the era, the first 80 years of Film... is very simple, that is the only venue that a film could be seen in, either in a 35mm projector theater, or via 16mm prints that were made of some of the more popular films of the era and rented by groups for projection.

The fact that today there are few venues for 'big screen' presentations, is due directly to the existence of alternatives.

As for 'what I'd like to see more of'... Well I sure don't want to see 'yet-another-indiscreet-charm-of-the-bujwahzee'... On the other hand a convoy of "Shortbus"(2006) might be interesting...

Another significant difference between 'then' and 'now' is the lack of cultural ghettos where in certain elements of the 'avantegarde' inhabited. I personally have disliked the fact that New York seems to be the only place were if one is 'serious' about avantegarde... then one has to relocate... John Waters developing works in Baltimore... was a difference, and so, I think that his 'model' would be of interest to track for avantegarde outside the traditional enclaves... Even San Francisco, the destination of many New York City expatriates, does not really have the same sort of 'ambiance' despite many people seem to affect that 'air'... Ok, maybe only in the cellar of the City Lights Bookstore... but Berzerkley has all but caved in, and walk down Telegraph is sort of like going to a museum filled with fossils...

Then there the cultural sump of LA... even when the Hip Bagel was an 'in' place...

Anyway... where was I...

I think these days the Internet is the only place one can develop a sense of group cohesion... but I think it is still going to take some time for this 'new model' to sink in and develop...
 
Last edited:
hscully said:
Going to the movies is what Denby is talking about so maybe it's irrelevant to the conversation but Denby, in his book talks about going to the movies as the only satisfying experience and I just don't find that true and I love going to the movies.
Click to expand...

It is my belief that at some point it will be come economically feasible to have a small 'theater', which provides the 'big screen' (ok bigger than a home display...) presentation. In San Diego, there is an entity which is screening relatively unknown films and is part of an organization called "Media Arts Center". They 'sell' training and classes, and have these more 'cultural' activities in their facilities.

Don't know how long they will 'last' but I think that is going in the direction that I have 'foreseen'...
 
A lot of people love Star Wars. Part of it was the visual awesomeness. An even bigger part was that everyone wants to be the rebels. Everyone wants to be in the minority, fighting the evil empire. Because they just don't get it like I do. If I don't enjoy something, it must be becausethe system is broken.

There are a lot of places that screen small and unknown movies, documentaries and so forth, but they don't gain much traction. Why? Because the audience doesn't want that. And they shouldn't get it. The studios are not in a place to force feed people movies they have no interest in just because a few individuals think that they are superior to everyone else in their understanding of what really counts as storytelling. I want to see things blow up. I want to see Batman punch someone. I want to see a telepathic kid on a farm rip someone apart when he gets mad. And yes, sometimes I want to see something very different, but there's no reason that has to be in a theater.

Current distribution has made this argument lose any water it may have once held (which I doubt it ever did). The internet allows us to see anything we want, which means that if something isn't getting seen it isn't because "the studios" don't want us to know about it. It's because people didn't feel like watching it. The concept that going to the theater is the only thing that counts is archaic and irrelevant, as hard as that might be for some to admit. More importantly, Hollywood hasn't done anything to any movies. Producer produce things that make money. Things that make money are things that a large number of people will pay to see. People vote with their dollars. If a film is made well enough to appeal to enough people that they want to pay for it, then it can get made and it can get released. We even have crowdfunding now to make it a direct and literal voting with your dollar. That's really all that needs to be said, regardless of what my opinion on films today might be.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
It is my belief that at some point it will be come economically feasible to have a small 'theater', which provides the 'big screen' (ok bigger than a home display...) presentation. In San Diego, there is an entity which is screening relatively unknown films and is part of an organization called "Media Arts Center". They 'sell' training and classes, and have these more 'cultural' activities in their facilities.

Don't know how long they will 'last' but I think that is going in the direction that I have 'foreseen'...
Click to expand...

I really have been very surprised that with the rise of digital filmmaking that there has not been an associated rise in more alternative venues for showcasing independent and other films made outside of the mainstream. Here in Detroit I feel that we are very fortunate to have several venues that show more Art House fare, the best of which is the Detroit Film Theater at the Detroit Institute of Arts. A great venue and my favorite theater. However, the other theaters pretty much just show only the top tier of limited release films. I try to catch as many of those as I can, but I wish there was more offered. There was a local collective that ran an alt cinema in a cool venue downtown, but they folded. I hear they are putting together another venue and I hope they pull it off. I guess that the audience that such a rougher edgy venue would cater to have already become comfortable with getting their media off of TV, the internet and what not and just do not seek out "Going to the Movies" as much, except for the tent pole pictures that Hollywood makes.
 
I think there's something else. I know the team that produced "The Green." It was under a million but not a $10K horror film. It starred Julia Ormond, Cheyenne Jackson and Jason Butler Harner. In my opinion it was a beautiful movie dealing with a gay couple in the burbs of CT. It is as well shot and beautifully rendered as any number of layered indie films. They released on DVD and on demand. They were well received at festivals but didn't get theatrical distribution.

The film I'm in, Breakup at a Wedding, screened at festivals but also didn't get distribution. The group that produced this are no schlubs. Their other film that year was Margin Call. This film, picked up by Ossiliscope is being released on demand, and DVD.

These are really good films but they didn't get theatrical distribution. I did get to see "The Green" on demand, on my big screen TV with the decent sound system. We need that outlet because the studios can't make it work for smaller films. There are only a handful that get theatrical release so I'm glad for on demand. I hope it continues to grow and that more production and distribution goes that way. I think that the future is here and that's it.
 
David G. Smith said:
I guess that the audience that such a rougher edgy venue would cater to have already become comfortable with getting their media off of TV, the internet and what not and just do not seek out "Going to the Movies" as much, except for the tent pole pictures that Hollywood makes.
Click to expand...

My own personal problem with 'going to the movies', is that the Wife is hard of hearing, life long, and so, if we go to a film it is 1) one she wants to see... 2) somewhere there is a captioned presentation... The latter attribute has been a devil to 'solve' until recently. In just the last 2 months the Edwards theaters nearest us, have installed captioning 'heads up display' glasses, and so we can now 'go to the movies' with in a few minutes of our house. Previously we would have to drive 35/40 miles to the 'nearest' theater that had captioned presentations, and often the film was shown only once or twice a day, and usually on the 'blockbuster' category, so it pretty much limited our going to some very specific films.

The other issue is that the Wife's 'tastes' outside of the mainstream are very different from my tastes... well if I had any that is... And so we did see "Beasts of the Southern Wild"(2012), and did travel about 60 miles to the nearest 'captioned' presentation... She would not go for more 'exotic' fare, especially if it is not captioned... the only exception of course would be foreign language films that are subtitled in English... (I recall we saw "Pan's Labyrinth"(2006) in a 'art house' theater some 60 miles away... I think that was because we missed a more local showing some 35 miles away...).

And... every time I think of driving to LA... ugh... do I have to... so, I am tending more towards the Internet.

I have seen some 'watch a film together' via Internet, but I don't know if that 'works' for me... never having tried to setup things up to do that...

Since I do view 'movie viewing' as a 'religious experience'... I see viewing films by oneself as more of a 'study', and 'theater attendance'... as a church service... perhaps I should use that ancient certificate I got from the Universal LIfe Church declaring me to be a 'minister'... to create "The Church of the Living Celluloid"... and 1) get tax benefits... 2) setup a storefront 'church'... 3) battle zoning laws under separation of church and state...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top