Sorcerer vs. Star Wars

snowleopard

snowleopard

Well-known member
A little blast from the past, and forgive me if I delve into psychobabble, but I was listening to the soundtrack to Sorcerer today, reflected on the film, and something hit me. I believe a very pivotal moment in the history of cinema happened when it was released. The reason why is because it was released just weeks after Star Wars, and was killed by it at the box office, just slaughtered. But it's a great film, it really is. It's extremely tense, thought provoking, and raw. But Star Wars was so successful that Hollywood turned on it's ear. Jaws is often considered the monster that ate Hollywood because it was so successful. But I think the real pivotal point was the week/month that Star Wars took out Sorcerer. It showed Hollywood like never before that entertainment trumped art, movies trumped cinema, and with it gelled that mindset, and the industry basically emasculated itself from attempting to make films like Sorcerer as a norm soon after, and lasting some time.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am well aware that there were still great, intellectual Hollywood films after this. The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, Raging Bull, etc. etc. And in recent years we've seen the fracturing of the field create thinking films as well. However, if you think back before Star Wars (and Jaws), while there were plenty of garbage films, works like Sorcerer were the norm when Hollywood made serious "movies", not the minority. Sorcerer has a high concept, and some action, but it's actually quite cerebral. High brow intellectual films into the 1980s and 90's became movies like Terms of Endearment, Amadeus, Platoon, Rain Man, The Color Purple, Dances with Wolves, Forest Gump, Shakespeare in Love. Some great works, sure, but compare what they ask or require from the audience to what a film like Sorcerer did. It's quite the difference, and that's a damned shame.

Then again, maybe there are more great smart films out there than I'm giving credit to, and I'm just upset Sorcerer barely gets the credit it deserves, while George Lucas long ago went over to the dark side.
 
Could also have had something to do with the fact that Socerer was a remake of the fantastic "Wages of Fear" and that people walkng into a movie called "Socerer" from the director who had just made "The Exorcist" were not expecting a film about guys driving explosives-laden trucks. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was a great film, and I especially liked how long it took with establishing the backstories as to how the characters ended up in this crapy little corner of the world. But much of the failure belongs to the poor marketing.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Could also have had something to do with the fact that Socerer was a remake of the fantastic "Wages of Fear" and that people walkng into a movie called "Socerer" from the director who had just made "The Exorcist" were not expecting a film about guys driving explosives-laden trucks. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was a great film, and I especially liked how long it took with establishing the backstories as to how the characters ended up in this crapy little corner of the world. But much of the failure belongs to the poor marketing.
Click to expand...

And clearly Hollywood took away from Sorcerer's failure that remakes were box office poison.
 
I kind of agree with what you are saying snowleopard. I think the big problem was that Hollywood saw Star Wars not as a great movie that resonated with a lot of people on a deep and primal level, but just a pop culture piece of fluff that blew up out of nowhere and they thought they could replicate it with formulaic film making. Star Wars is great cinema though. Just because it is also very entertaining and popular doesn't mean that it isn't telling a story that has some deeper meaning. Mythology is our oldest form of storytelling. Mythology is just as important as some uber serious biopic about a great historical person like Ghandi or Lincoln, for example. They just cover different types of experiences and show us different sides of the human experience. Even science fiction that takes place in giant space ships and on alien worlds.

To me, the same problem always rears its head when a movie hits it big or resonates with people.

-- Both Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park's success was attributed to the brand spanking new idea of CGI effects.

-- The Matrix was seen as a success because of its cool fashions and special effects action set pieces.

-- Avatar was seen as being successful because of the great effects and mostly the 3D.

-- Inception was a hit because people were curious to see what Chris Nolan was up to after his last big Batman film. Oh, and The Dark Knight was a hit because of people's morbid curiosity surrounding the tragic death of Heath Ledger.

In Hollywood, to hell with ever attributing a film's success, nor any part of it, with a well written script that features a great story, memorable characters, and then all put together with exceptional direction.

Now, some may say the works listed above aren't great films. The thing is, they are memorable and unique ins some way and most importantly had huge ambition behind them. They all had stories and concepts that were exciting and resonated with large audiences. The Hurt Locker may have been the more important film of 2009, but Avatar will be remembered longer because it has a more archetypal story and the world it portrays comes from the part of our minds that create dreams, and not the waking state that reads the newspaper in the morning.

So what I am getting at is when something new comes along, or a new type of technology or technique (shaky-cam, found footage), then Hollywood goes overboard and just mines it until it is dry. In the late 70's, that gold mine just happened to be special effects driven event films that could play to children, teens, and adults.

Can fancy new special effects be one of the contributing factors to a film's success? Sure, but they aren't the only thing that makes a hit film. If that were the case, those silly Resident Evil flicks directed by Paul W.S. Anderson would be breaking box office records.
 
Last edited:
Nektonic said:
In Hollywood, to hell with ever attributing a film's success, nor any part of it, with a well written script that features a great story, memorable characters, and then all put together with exceptional direction.
Click to expand...

That's because the people who actually green light movies, can't do that stuff, mostly don't know the first thing about it, and more importantly, can't take any credit for that if the film succeeds. What they can take credit for is packaging movie stars with pre-sold concepts and throwing money at the screen chasing the latest fad. Enough of those meat grinder films succeed that they can justify their jobs. Meanwhile, the real creative people's work gets marginalized to the point where directors and writers become interchangeable cogs in the machine. Their only consolation is being paid obscene amounts of money, which I guess ain't so bad. But the movies suffer.
 
Good posts guys, generally agree with all you wrote.

Again, I'm not saying everything was pure art pre-1977 and it's all crass commercialism now. But there is a tremendous amount of corporate greed involved now, and I honestly believe the distinction I pointed out is true.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Could also have had something to do with the fact that Socerer was a remake of the fantastic "Wages of Fear" and that people walkng into a movie called "Socerer" from the director who had just made "The Exorcist" were not expecting a film about guys driving explosives-laden trucks. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was a great film, and I especially liked how long it took with establishing the backstories as to how the characters ended up in this crapy little corner of the world. But much of the failure belongs to the poor marketing.
Click to expand...

very well said, i love sorceror and the sound track, but freidken's ego resulted in bad buzz, star wars or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top