Difference between revisions of "Decline of Hollywood and Western Cinema"

Revision as of 10:47, 5 February 2023

From Reddit a motion picture production insider shares his thoughts:

Why do movies suck? Why do they ignore logic? Why do they insult your intelligence? Let me tell you why. First, I work in the movie industry in a capacity that has allowed me to work on over a hundred films. I'm a crew member who is involved intimately in story and production. My S.O. is also in the industry and works in the realm of the Studio/Executive producer. So, I have seen first hand exactly how films are made, and more importantly, why films are made.

Second, let me state that I am aware that not all movies suck. I have worked on a film that won the Oscar for Best Picture, so I know that great film-making can be achieved. But why is it so hard?

To get to the answer, one has to understand the true nature of the movie industry. Films are made because deals are made. Deals are the genesis of the whole process. A very few, well connected people, some who have money, some who have powerful ties, some who represent talent, and less frequently, some who have massively bankable talent such as an A-list actors, decide which projects will be made. Let’s call these folks the “Above the above-the-line”. Everybody involved in this initial process will make a fuck-ton of money (except perhaps the investors) and all of this cash is guaranteed, regardless of the outcome of the project. Let that sink in for a minute. Once a film deal is made and a film is green-lit for production, the originators of the deal are going to cash in. What follows makes no practical-business difference to them. Sure it would be nice to have a box office titan but let’s be real; these folks are already rich. Their goal is to make big money, fast. That is what drives the business, not creativity, or a desire to entertain, or to inform, or to make a social statement. Those ideals are championed by the next level down.

Production. First to the trough, are the producers. They head the production companies that actually make movies. Think Castle Rock or Dimension. Some of these are wholly owned by studios and many are not. Each of these companies is headed by a producer and they receive very nice compensation each time they produce a film. They oversee writers, casting, location, budget and lastly, the crew. So next to feed, is what we call “above-the-line”. The writer, director, production designer, composer, and all the credits you see before a film begins. These are the big creative forces. These folks are paid very well and for the most part deserve it. They are almost always extremely talented. The hundreds of other crew members get what’s left in the trough.

Now that you know who’s involved, let’s talk about risk. Remember that the big fish have already cashed in and they are likely moving on to the next deal and the next big check, so they’re now only slightly concerned with the outcome. The producers must now work with the director and the writers to make the film something “good”. Reputations are on the line and a bad outcome could ruin careers. By outcome, I mean profit first and critical acclaim second. The amount to which each of the above-the-line players will risk angering or challenging the status quo varies but, in general, a production designer, for instance, isn’t going to criticize the material if it means not working, so it is here where they lying starts. The director has likely already concealed their true opinions about the script when they were vying for the job and it isn’t likely that his crew is going to express their critical opinions for fear that they will be kicked out, so everyone begins to ignore the growing number of elephants in the room. Bad writing, stupid logic, tired clichés, poor casting, ridiculous locations... All these things are allowed to grow like a toxic mold. If the material was bad to begin with, it’s going to get worse. If material was brilliant to begin with, expect it to be watered down and compromised. Endless rewrites, overzealous actors with crappy opinions, budgetary constraints, studio notes, test-audience reactions... these can beat the film into a bloody mess and all the while no one wants to risk being seen as critical. Why should they? If the movie makes big box office, they’re seen as brilliant. If it doesn’t, blame the writer. Blame the director (even though everyone played a part in the making of a piece of shit and few if any tried to avoid it). Of course, there are strong-willed directors and producers with the clout to fight off some of this nonsense but we’re talking about most films here. Smaller, independent films can also avoid some of these problems but I’ve seen the lack of criticism alive in every project on which I have worked, regardless of size. Just yesterday I saw a preview of a movie to be released next year and I wanted to set the screen on fire. I was angry and appalled that a film that was so loaded with everything that makes a movie bad, had been allowed to exist. But I know better. I’m not going to change Hollywood with my opinion. I’m not going to help make the movie better with my criticisms. I will simply be expunged from industry from which I make my living. So when I read the weekly posts on Reddit about movie clichés or movie logic that we hate, I can only take comfort in the fact that I don’t expect a movie to be smart or logical or good. Hollywood is a place where a deal is made by the rich and powerful and the end product is virtually irrelevant. That is why so many movies suck.