Article #1 had a thesis that movies have become "movies", that entertainment has become "entertainment" - a facsimile thereof.
Article #2 is a long meandering analysis of the audience and the way people react to certain pieces of art. I think it's a pretty good one, I agree with a lot of what he has to say, I didn't like Chasing Amy either, etc.... but nothing he says is about Movies Nowadays (per se), but rather, about movie watchers. Even the fact that he compares reactions to an old (Touch of Evil) and a new (CA) movie is almost coincidental. It's not the fact that Touch of Evil is old or "subtle" which makes him mad that people scorn it; it's peoples' reasons for scorning it (which have only a little to do with its old-ness or subtle-ness) which irks him. So he's not writing about old movies vs. new movies at all, but about reactions to movies, in general.
"Cultural observers" say lots of stupid-ass things. Right away I'm suspicious; is this article really about movies, or about "Americans"? Can't complain about one without complaining about the other, can he?
Well, I'm not going to defend the author from Anti-Americanism. He may very well be, I don't know. Certainly there are other film industries worldwide, India, France, etc. But most of the flow is one-way, US-rest of the world, so it seems more likely to find lots of foreign commentary on our films than US commentary on BollyWood, for example.
Actually, this paragraph doesn't make sense. We have a witty Eco quote being used as a launching pad to explain that movies are immune to the charge of falsifying themselves, because they're already false. Translation: "Movies are make-believe."
Most of us were already told this by our parents at age 2.
Exactly. Is it good or bad entertainment? Are some movies entertainment at all, or are they spectacle designed to evoke the same emotions that 'real' entertainment would. So, for example, is Moulin Rouge (sp?) entertainment or spectacle? Does the fact that the performers are singing modern music help conceal the films flaws? Example review:
http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/m/moulin.html
In keeping with a recent motion picture trend that anarchonistically applies modern music to period pieces, Moulin Rouge ventures down the same trail explored by the likes of Kenneth Branagh's Love's Labour's Lost and the woefully inept A Knight's Tale.
Since Moulin Rouge is the product of Australian director Luhrmann, its chief trait is style - that's with a capital S-T-Y-L-E. Viewers are likely either to love or hate the movie's excesses, much as was the case with Luhrmann's oft-discussed 1996 production, Romeo + Juliet
Moulin Rouge subjects its viewers to a sensory overload with gaudy, gloriously overproduced musical numbers that pay homage to the greats of the past while simultaneously outdoing them.
Despite all of the bombastic musical numbers, or perhaps because of them, the love story in Moulin Rouge works. At times, it's even touching. Some of this has to do with the actors. Ewan McGregor plays his role with a puppydog likability and naïve romanticism. Nicole Kidman positively smolders - it's a shame that her on-screen work here is likely to be overshadowed by her off-screen problems. One could make a compelling case that this is the best performance of her career. The love songs, which form the bulk of their interaction, serve to enhance the sense of romance, and it helps that neither of the stars is being dubbed. Their voices are strong and clear (although occasionally drowned out by the instruments).
Historical purists and those who enjoy only sedate films are likely to be infuriated by what Luhrmann has done here, but who cares? We live in an age of excess, and Lurhmann takes it to the hilt.
Translation: current entertainment isn't really entertainment. How do we know? Because "television producer Phil Rosenthal", whoever that is, says so.
This argumentation style isn't really argumentation, is it? Something vital is missing. Like facts, logic, evidence....
I agree. I wish he had provided examples. but I'm working on it : )
So entertainment engages the audience in many ways - "even physically". But today's "illusion of entertainment" only causes "purely physical effects". So that's why it's not "really" entertainment.
There's a contradiction here. Anyway, I certainly wouldn't argue with a claim that American Pie 2 engages the audience on a lesser level than (say) Saving Private Ryan. It engages them "purely physically", if this guy insists. Fine.
That's entertainment. How is it not?
I just saw a repeat of Batman today (the one with Dr. Freeze). That movie appeals strongly to the viseral (physical). Saving Private Ryan does too, but it also appeals to our sympathy, our patriotism, etc.
I'm gonna need a pretty convincing example to buy what this guy is selling right here. Seriously, what on earth is he talking about?
I'm tempted to part company with him right here, by saying: "I'm reading a New York Times article that makes no sense. So apparently instead of a rational argument of some kind, I'm supposed to respond to a set of signals, a kind of code - namely, the fact that this article appears under the hallowed words 'The New York Times', quotes Umberto Eco, bashes Americans - that advises me how to respond - namely, by clapping and nodding my head like a seal - without having to expend the effort, however minimal, that real convincing argumentation demands."
Example:
How do we know the villans in Die Hard are villans? The kill people and try to rob millions of dollars. If they didn't do that, but simply walked in and the 'villan music' was cued, would it have the same effect? Contrast Die Hard with another Bruce Willis film, The Fifth Element. The bad guy there certainly chewed the scenery, but from a presentation standpoint, he had everything down - black cape, mean scowl, etc. But it was a bad acting job. Now, if people only see movies where they are conditioned to associate cues within the scene - lighting shift, music change, - with a change in what they feel, eventually they'll associate the cues with the emotion, and not with what's on the screen. (not everyone, of course)
This is a very slippery thing. Not quite at the 'know it when you see it level' but it's out there.
Re: derivatives - he's chosen a bad analogy, I agree. I think his point is that some movies are and TV shows are abstracting out the cues that provide a sense of the emotional tone of a scene. I think this is different from a formula (boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back) in that the cue is the combination of music, lighting, etc that go into a particular scene. So even if the particular boy-gets-girl-back scene is botched, or unbelieveable - meaning it makes no sense in the context of the film it would still be 'entertaining'. - here I would cite Episode II. The chemistry between the two, is, IMHO, low. The score is great. I like the love theme. But it's there in the film to smooth over the problems that people like me have with the romance. (the first kiss scene, Hayden botches it) (I'm willing to consider that he was trying to act like an awkward adolescent, not that he can't act and what we saw is the result) A spoonful of sugar and all that. NOTE that I'm not saying that every film from the past got it right. Myrna Lloyd, Jane Russell et.al certainly acted in some real stinkers. So this isn't a completely new development.
Ah, so central to his grand thesis is the fact that sitcoms (like Adam Sandler movies) are also crappy compared to Frank Capra films. Got it! What a great point.
Or you go to a big commercial movie, and just by experiencing the rapid cutting and thumping music you know how you are supposed to respond, whether the action engages you or not.
Bad Movies, I hate to break it to everyone, have always existed.
LOL. But is this a new kind of badess, or an old kind of badness. To paraphrase Beavis and Butthead, does it suck more than anything has ever sucked before?
(Oh wait, I was supposed to name a grand old classic movie in that space, wasn't I? So sorry....)
Nope. doesn't bother me.
Anyway, in short: Bad movies are worse than good ones. Unsuccessful filims are less entertaining than successful ones. What an earth-shaking discovery! The only place where I part company with the author, I guess, is the implication that good films are all a thing of the past. The only way he supports this conclusion is by ignoring all non-Adam Sandler films, of course....
Huh? New paragraph? That's it? I thought he was going to actually explain and justify his claim that what he is complaining about here isn't just bad or unsuccessful films, but is different in kind ("a matter of kind"). How is it different in kind? He never says. I guess we're just supposed to take it on faith.
The audience reacts not because it knows the formula — it reacts because the formula knows the audience.
Uh, ok. This is some kind of metaphysical argument that is way over my head. How does it happen that a "formula" "knows" an "audience'?
A movie audience in 1955 goes to see a movie in which a bully pushes around a decent guy. The audience roots for the decent guy to prevail in the end. It's a formula, but the audience "doesn't know" this. Instead, the "formula knows the audience". Therefore it's "real entertainment".
Flash forward to 2002. A bully pushes around a decent guy. The audience roots for the decent guy to prevail in the end. It's a formula, but this time the audience "knows the formula". Thus it's only the "illusion of entertainment".
Two questions: 1. What's the freakin' difference? 2. This guy must have thought everyone was pretty stupid 30+ years ago not to recognize such movie formulas.
Alright, here's my take. I'm putting this here istead of a grand unification post between #1-NYT and #2-Touch of evil articles. The author in #1 is saying (and if he's not saying, I'll say) that because a lot of the modern movie audience faces movies the way the people in #2 do (which is to say, they evaluate the film's technical profiency, believeability of the effects, etc), more movies today are made with this in mind. For a large segement of the audience, if a film has decent eye candy and conforms to the conventions they are used to, then it's good. Whether the film is actually good in and of itself- does it tell a story? do the characters make sense - ie. do they do what they should do - is the hero heroic? etc. is of secondary importance. This isn't a question of formula, I think. I remember watching (on TV) the old Gene Autry serials from the 30's (http://members.aol.com/MG4273/phantom.htm) and those were very formulaic in how they were set out, with the expected cliffhanger. But they were still engaging. You wanted to know what happened to those characters. Why do people watch Dr. Who when there are much more technically proficient (Star Trek Voyager) shows on the air? Because Dr. Who is an engaging character (Tom Barnes, at least) and most of the Star Trek crew are plug-and-play (and I just know someone's going to post a Jerri Ryan photo now). Does Captain Janeway's personal whatever actually matter, or is it just deployed like the disease du-jour in some sappy Lifetime TV movie?
Ok fine, if all he's doing is complaining about the jadedness of modern audiences and the increase of irony and sarcasm and self-consciousness in entertainment and all that, he's got a point. I still don't see how that makes the entertainment an "illusion", however.
Yep, the audience is jaded. There's a feedback loop. If you grow up seeing nothing or mostly nothing but sarcastic, ironic films how will you appreicate really good films.
It is also more accessible, and since it lets viewers essentially fill in the blanks themselves, it is more certain in its results. In fact, many people, especially young people, are now likely to judge a movie or TV show by how effectively it provides the forms and activates the codes.
Lots of interesting little claims in this statement. It would be intriguing if he'd actually provide some examples. Which films does he have in mind which "provide the forms and activate the codes" for "young people", one wonders?
Scary Movie
Cruel Intentions
Breakfast Club
Ferris Buehlers Day Off
Not Another Teen Movie
Scary Movie is the worst, because it is this borsht of stupid slasher flicks that isn't anything but an attempt to pop up various situations from those films and make fun of them. It's taking advantage of the audience expectation, or conditioning process for that type of film, between hearing the scary suspense music start something bad happening. So the movie takes for granted that the audience (most of the target audience) is prepared to respond a certain way and has fun with that.
Now, Alien, on the other hand, is terrifying. It doesn't matter if you know that somethings coming, you DON'T want it popping out.
Why struggle to write real jokes when you can write "likeajokes" and get the same effect?
Because by writing mere "likeajokes" you can't rise much farther in the industry than some lame sitcom. (Let's remember, gentle readers, that earlier in this article the term "likeajokes" only came up in the context of freakin' sitcoms. But of course here the author tries to pretend that "likeajokes" are what are used in all comedy films. Don't let him get away with this sleight of hand.)
What "codes"? Does this guy even know what he's talking about? It's beginning to seem like this article is really just a stand-in or a teaser for a much longer, more interesting article - one which contains the actual content, the definitions, the examples, the logic, the arguments.
I'm assuming, of course. In reality it's still not possible to tell what point this guy thinks he is conveying, so one has to extrapolate. Hey, I did my best.
Some of this the article is muddled. Yes, could have used more examples. I think you're correct in that some of what he's saying is obvious, but perhaps he should have focused on the audience more than he did. Hopefully, I'm not adding to the general confusion here. Thanks again for your posts.