In Defense Of M. Night Shyamalan

uh…i meant the FIRST post - not both. or did i say sth ‘mean’?

Perhaps M. Night Shyamalan only needs a new publicity strategy or a new publicist. His persona has become as big a part of his openings as his films. I’m not sure that’s helpful, but maybe it is. Sure is a lot of press about him and his film as a result.

There was an interview with Shymalan on chud.com http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=interviews&id=7187

he asks the interviewer which of his films is his best reviewed…

“What you think may be the critical response to my movies is very different than the reality. Like say, for example, what is my best-reviewed movie? (Someone guesses Sixth Sense) Wrong. “Signs” is my best reviewed movie, next is “Unbreakable,” and then next is “Sixth Sense” and then next is “The Village” and that’s the order of the reviews.”

Right. Well it took all of 10 seconds to check rottentomatoes.com and prove that statement to be absolute bollox.

I actually like his films, though I haven’t seen the new one, but I’d defend his work much sooner than I’d defend his attitude.

I have only seen one M. Night Shyamalan movie (I know I should see more, but scary movies scare me), but I read about him from time to time because he is interesting. So often we forget that external confidence is merely a mask covering internal fear. Anyway, I enjoyed reading your comments. It is nice to know that we are all human!

CRAIG:

Honestly, I don’t care about the internal struggle of M. Night Shyamalan. I don’t care about his insecurities. I don’t care about any of that.

But it does seem very familiar.

That’s because we ALL feel exactly the same way. When you were describing Night (heh, as I like to call him), it sounded like every single person I’ve ever met in this business. And it doesn’t matter if you’re a director, writer, producer, actor, or a gaffer. We all have the exact same concerns. Even down to the family issues.

So while I appreciate when someone opens up, I don’t give them a pass for their work. Yes, yes, I know you’re not giving him a pass per se but I really don’t think anyone needs to defend him.

Night’s best defense is his work. It should speak for itself. I know people who absolutely love him. I know a lot of people that can’t stand his movies…anymore. At this point, I really don’t care for his films. Maybe Lady in the Water is great. I don’t know. But I do know that you are totally asking for extra scrutiny when the director can’t help but put himself in his movies (to play the most pivotal character??) or even star in fake documentaries on the Sci-Fi Channel.

M. Night Shyamalan doesn’t need to be defended.

At least that’s my opinion.

Wow Craig. This one hit close to home. The funny thing is, I’m not a screenwriter - I’m a software developer. I see them both as creative processes which means that all the criticism and insecurity that may go along with being a writer also applies to software developers. When I discuss ‘creativity’ and software development, I explain that writing software is like writing a novel - give two people the same plot outline [required features] and you’ll get two wildly different interpretations. I view writing software as an incredibly creative endeavour - somewhere between art and science - which is why I don’t really understand the ‘math geek’ stereotype that goes along with it.

Back to my point, this is what got me:

"...he gets incredibly fretful when people
 don't read his script right away the second they
 get it, and he gets even more agitated when they
 don't respond the second they've finished it - 
 but I understand that."

I’ve just spent over a year and thousands of dollars to write software and to start a company. When I finally put out a demo and made the software available and sent out the announcement to my mailing list… mmm… The response was underwhelming. hmmm… I’m waiting… Oh! someone downloaded the demo! … oh, no feedback… [starts questioning self, motives, quality, what I’ve done wrong, etc.]

Thanks for the food for thought.

I will succeed! [Unless my product sucks.]

I feel the same way. I don’t talk about it, and I sure as hell don’t complain about it the way Shyamalan does…. [Emphasis mine.]

Exactly. As I said when this subject was discussed (and discussed and discussed and discussed) on WriterAction, I can of course sympathize with Shyamalan about being especially neurotic about responses to his work from people whose opinions matter deeply to him, whether employers or close friends, etc. Most of us put ourselves on the line anytime we write a script, and if it’s one that’s particularly meaningful to us, the emotional stakes can be dangerously high when we put it out there for responses. I definitely get that.

But while I sympathize with him fully on that level, I have no patience whatsoever for his relentless and ludicrously public whining about it. By authorizing, even if not actually authoring, this book, Shyamalan makes his behavior fair game for public debate and public judgment. And I find the “let the world take note” aspect of it all unseemly.

All of us need some level of narcissism simply to survive the thoughtless, sometimes downright rude or cruel, comments and slights one has to deal with in this business (because, for better or for worse, it is a business). I don’t begrudge the guy his ego. I do admire his work (I like some films more than others, but SIGNS and SIXTH SENSE are easily among my all-time favorite films) and certainly do not question his considerable talent as a filmmaker.

In authorizing this book, however, I question his judgment.

Wow. I agree completely with everything you’ve said.

But … don’t you think that the way they’re marketing A LADY IN THE WATER is a wee bit deceiving … they’re playing it like a scary thriller, but from I’ve been told, that’s not really what it is.

Or am I mistaken?

Damn, I just got neurotic and insecure about my hastily written comment …

alas, no matter how different our approach nor dollar amount in our account, the one thing which will never cease is that home run called connection.

have read you for years… keep fighting the good fight.

In regards to the marketing of his last movie, MNS has joined the ranks of skygods by putting his name above the title. I said it before and I’ll say it again…

“M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN’S LADY IN THE WATER”

sounds like he owns some chick that is taking a bath. Don’t get me wrong, I love his films (especially his “earlier work”), but the point is that if a director puts his name on the marquee and his face in the film (not in Hitchcockian cameos but playing pivotal roles) I have my doubts about his fears of rejection. It seems to me that saying that only enforces his artiste image, whilst his actions as a filmmaker indicate the exact opposite. Sure, it may all be a psychological wall to hide his insecurities, but it may also be a marketing ploy to sell himself as this sensitive guy just to put the “shy” into Shyalaman and hide the slick storyteller who knows how to manipulate the audience’s emotions. MANIPULATION being the key word: his SIGNS mockumentary is proof positive of how his marketing brain works. Now he’s made a film that’s all about loneliness and fear of abandonment…et voila… a book comes out that portrays the artise Shyamalan’s as a man who feels those emotions brooding deep within his heart. All I’m saying is KEEP IT REAL.

the personality of any given writer/director is of interest to a very limited portion of the public. the buzz about ‘man who heard voices’, however, is followed to some degree by the general public.

it may be human nature for a writer to be insecure but that’s simply no excuse for over the top holier than thou behavior. screenwriters have always gotten the short end and mns’ antics only serve to confirm the (very) popular notion that we’re thin-skinned prima donnas

‘lady in the water’ came in 3rd friday night and may not break $20m this weekend. add to that the damage to mns’ rep in hollywood and it’s clear — this man’s personal conduct has done him no good.

yes, i’m the first to admit that i would like to make the world a better place to live as a result of my writing. i believe this is common among writers, including mns. however, such a motive does not give one the right to treat others poorly or refuse professional criticism. we may all be afraid, but we still owe it to each other to conduct ourselves properly — especially if we are in a position of power as mns is.

for shyamalan there is no defense.

Whatever damage A LADY IN WATER does to mns or screenwriters in general does, in no way, equal the damage WHITE CHICKS or LITTLE MAN has wrought upon the taste and consciousness of American Entertainment.

Speaking of which - do the Wayans have to pay residuals to Warner Brothers for stealing the plot of LITTLE MAN, whole and complete, from a classic Bugs Bunny cartoon?

Joshua:

What damage have those movies done to the taste and consciousness of American Entertainment?

What does that even mean?

I’m serious.

LOL @ “full disclosure”

http://tinyurl.com/jhsj2

hee hee

RED

“‘lady in the water’ came in 3rd friday night and may not break $20m this weekend. add to that the damage to mns’ rep in hollywood and it’s clear — this man’s personal conduct has done him no good.”

I very much doubt M Night’s personal conduct has had much to do with the failure of Lady in the Water - I think you need to look at his past film record for the blame there. You can only continue to disappoint large swathes of your initial audience for so long, before they figure out that you aren’t going to be repeating your initial success.

Okay, Craig, I went to see this movie…paid for two tickets actually…all b/c I wanted to see what you were defending.

Really?

Really?

I didn’t get any sense that MNS poured a lot of emotion into this story. I don’t think he sweated over setups and payoffs, unless it was when he realized his story wasn’t long enough so he put in absurd ‘reversals’ so stretch the movie’s running time.

As far as his ego is concerned, although his acting wasn’t that bad, I did find myself wondering why he didn’t find a professional actor to play such a long part. And the part he played…if there wasn’t some ego involved in that, heh, yeah.

He SHOULD have listened when people told him the story wasn’t worth telling. He should have put his ego aside and admitted to himself and his production team that he needed more time to construct better characters and write better dialogue and…AND…he should have re-thought those long, poignant shots of actors and come up with better visuals.

Ugh.

FWIW, the audience seemed to enjoy the movie. They laughed all the way through it. Whoever said the marketing campaign sold the wrong bill of goods was right. I wonder how Nina Jacobson feels about this movie.

Suz

Susan:

I was not defending the movie. I haven’t seen the movie.

Night made the best film since Raiders with the Sixth Sense. All he has to do now is make another, tight, taut film like that one. Meanwhile, there are writers out there with far greater box office success who have not achieved his degree of business control, and other writers should be trying to learn from him and emulate him.

Well - if you want to get serious … .

I was being sarcastic, Craig - because I think both of those movies are very terrible. I actually really enjoyed Scary Move (number 2 didn’t do it for me, number 3 made me laugh out loud and I ain’t saying that to kiss up) - and more than Scary Movie, I enjoyed I’M GONNA GET YOU SUCKER which is a very funny spoof.

But I am serious about the swiping of the plot from Bugs Bunny, do they credit the writers of the original cartoon? And if no, why not? Isn’t the plot a little bit too close to the plot of the cartoon? On imdb no one else is credited except for the Wayan bros.

So I was being sarcastic about White Chicks and Little Man doing damage to the taste of American Entertainment Culture when in truth, they’re just bad movies, I’m going to assume, because I’ve only watched half of White Chicks before I had to throw in the towel. I know White Chicks blows from the first 30 minutes or so. It blows so much I am not going near Little Man. That’s my taste and my taste only. In seriousness, as you ask, I don’t speak for the taste of American culture, only my taste and the taste of those who I am close to.

In the the social circle I move in (which includes people of all cultures and colors) those two particular movies ARE HATED. Hated more so by my friends of color, in fact, they get downright angry about it. My best friend cannot say the title WHITE CHICKS without getting enraged, as that he feels they are an insult to people of color everywhere and a blot on the consciousness of American culture. As bad as any movie M. Night makes, it’s not going to be as offensive as White Chicks is. That’s his opinion and I was thinking of him when posting my above snarky comment. But in seriousness, I just think they are bad movies. I’m not a movie snob, BETTER OFF DEAD makes me laugh and laugh loud and I have never, for the life of me, understood why THE ENGLISH PATIENT won a best picture Oscar ‘cause I found it to be a pretentious bore. That’s me. I didn’t get WC and just from the previews, LM looks even worse.

But some people must like ‘em, because the movies make money (as do the films of Rob Schneider, whose movies I also detest) and while popularity may not equal quality in craft (as Kevin and I are wont to argue) it sure as hell means you’re hitting something right somewhere.

Then again, parachute pants used to be popular, too. So was Corey Feldman and Corey Haim. (Actually, I think Feldman is hilarious).

I’m not now, nor am I ever going to state that the Wayans (or Schneider or M. Night for that matter) shouldn’t be allowed to make movies. They should absolutely be free to make whatever films they want, as insulting as dumb as they may be, or as smart as they may be. No matter what damage they do or do not do to American Culture and Taste. That I’m serious about.

But if they can do that, do we not also have the freedom to make any and all snarky comments about the effect of said films have upon American Consciousness?

It seems like authors of films (I mean, writer/directors, but not entirely) have the choice of working on the projects of others, which much of the time seem to be derivative and commercial. I’ve just been reading a writers’s blog where he talks about working on animated Dungeons and Dragons and Garfield, and I’m sure he did a quality contribution, even if the subject might not be one he loves. That’s been my experience in the little TV I’ve written. It’s helped my writing, because I don’t feel a personal stake in the material, so I can learn the nuts and bolts better.

Or if he or she has enough clout or backing, a personal project, which has more integrity, and often can lead to a better and more original film, because of less of a committee working on it, fewer producers to stir the broth.

But the personal projects can also go up one’s own navel. I mean, who has been clamouring for more Jay and Silent Bob all these years? Or, even a remake of King Kong?

But I am serious about the swiping of the plot from Bugs Bunny, do they credit the writers of the original cartoon? And if no, why not? Isn’t the plot a little bit too close to the plot of the cartoon? On imdb no one else is credited except for the Wayan bros.

You’ve been reading this site for a while. You should know this. Ideas aren’t intellectual property. Only unique expressions in fixed form.

“No matter what damage they do or do not do to American Culture and Taste. That I’m serious about.

But if they can do that, do we not also have the freedom to make any and all snarky comments about the effect of said films have upon American Consciousness?”

You really think they have any real effect at all? So far as I can tell, they’re dumb, meaningless movies that will be forgotten in five years. Their long-term cultural value is 0 as far as I’m concerned. Just like 80% of the movies that came out in the 90s, and 80s, and 70s, and…

Phoenix kind of taps into an interesting aspect of filmmaking… The impact that a certain movie has not only on its audience, but the industry.

M. Night’s 6TH SENSE had every exec in town screaming for a ‘surprise twist at the end’!

Can’t take that away from him.

But you can take away his box office success… Ted (and Terry) just did.

Ideas aren’t intellectual property. Only unique expressions in fixed form.

I know this, as you mentioned, and it’s why I asked.
It appears to be that, from my distance, that they are expressing the same idea in a very similar way.

They seem to be much closer in terms of expression than, say, CARS and DOC HOLLYWOOD, which have similar ideas, arcs and events but are expressed differently. But again, I admit that I haven’t invested $11.50 and 90 minutes of my life into LM to find out specifically just to argue a point, so I could very well be wrong and will happily stand corrected, if so.

I dunno Phoenix, White Chicks is known even by those who haven’t seen it - it’s been a couple of years yet if someone says White Chicks, folks know immediately what you’re talking about - if you reference Tomcats, someone will have to look that one up on imdb, or the just on dvd Benchwarmers (a rare Rob Schnieder misfire, as my buddy sarcastically refers to it) - can you say Benchwarmers and have someone immediately know what you’re talking about in a movie?

Well, the weekend is over and the audience has spoken.

In addition, I’m now more than convinced the book The Man Who Heard Voices, is exactly like that outlandish fake documentary he put out entitled, The Buried Secret of M. Night Shyamalan. Night even went so far as to say he was upset about the documentary until it was discovered…he was behind the whole thing.

I’m not sure so sure that book isn’t more of the same. After all, why would a book be released about the creative journey of Lady in the Water, a movie that hadn’t been released yet, if it wasn’t purely just another marketing ploy?

Ugh.

My husband and I saw Lady in the Water over the weekend and found a lot of humor in it; we enjoyed the characters—I found it frightening and uplifting at the same time. A number of persons clapped at the end of the movie which is very rare nowadays. I recommend this movie very much regardless of what the critics say. This is an excellent movie—it is rare to see a movie where you learn to care so much for the characters in it…some very good acting in this movie…again, forget the critics!!!!

Joshua,

Good to see you still fighting the good fight. There was a nice piece by Bill Maher in Salon a year or so ago about how the movies he saw when he was a kid were geared towards an older and smarter audience, forcing him to rise to the bar, forcing him to work and evolve. These days, though, movies are geared towards a fairly brain-dead, fairly young audience, and, thus, don’t engage any part of the brain that spurs the growth process.

Folks can squawk all they want, but there’s a pretty clear link between the dumbing down of movies and the dumbing down of culture. I always find it kinda chilling when screenwriters don’t get how constantly appealing to the lowest common denominator will help it to keep dropping.

I’ll give MNS one thing - he’s struggling with ideas and questions that are a cut above the usual dreck out there. I think he’s missed the mark with every movie since Sixth Sense, but at least he’s aware that there are arenas worth working in beyond the playground. If his grasp ever comes close to his reach, it’ll be pretty interesting…

Thanks Brother Olson, I appreciate the support. You find yourself in New York City, first beer’s on me.

You guys sound like the end of Top Gun.

All right, I’ll play.

“I feel the same way. I don’t talk about it, and I sure as hell don’t complain about it the way Shyamalan does, but I feel it”.

I think the point here is that you don’t complain about it the way Shyamalan does.

Important caveat: I’ve never met nor spoken to him, nor met anybody else who has. So in characterising his behaviour here I am making the possibly false assumption that the information in ‘The Man Who Heard Voices’ is accurate.

He has a right to feel “scared”, although I have not a huge amount of sympathy for the fears of an excessively well compensated creative. I don’t accept your premise that his feelings correlate into a right to express them any way he pleases.

If it is true that he expected a female executive to put his script before attending to her child on a weekend, then that behaviour is unacceptable. He ought to be called out for it as any other professional would be.

The world would be better off if professional entertainers in all fields, and as a novelist I include myself, stopped the self-hagiography. I have long disliked the word “diva” when used approvingly of a female pop star whose major personality trait is being rude to underlings (I used to work in the record business).

Simply put, I believe Night S. to be an amazingly talented man - his first film proves it - who has allowed his success to go to his head, and who has made worse films partly because he would brook no critcism. Even Ted Elliott will listen to criticism, and not merely from powerful executives whose investment in his project has bought them a certain right to speak.

A scriptwriter is, in the end, like a director, just one part of a film. Both are important parts. But film is a collaborative medium.

Whatever you, Craig Mazin, may be feeling, you do not whine about it, nor have I ever seen you demand deference or ring-kissing. It is being said of MNS that he does demand both, and does not listen to opposing points of view from well-qualified colleagues. I return to my caveat by saying that I have no way of verifying if these accusations against him have even a grain of truth. If they do, however, he deserves to be criticised and should take his lumps.

One final point. While I would beware of criticising the work of an unsuccessful writer, I think there is more moral latitude (if you like) with the highest paid, best known writers, if only because they are less likely to give a damn. I can give you a few reasons why I didn’t like THE VILLAGE. But will MNS be crying into his beer over the lack of my endorsement? I very much doubt it.

He made THE SIXTH SENSE. That movie rocks. I want him to succeed both critically and commercially - I have never wished another writer ill. But I don’t think well-deserved criticism over one project, or one phase of actions, constitutes that.

This is a green, but serious question, so I beg forgiveness ahead of time that my newbie roots are showing.

I have not seen this film, but the comments about somebody’s ego and self indulgence translating to the screen have puzzled me when I’ve heard it attributed to any film at all.

What exactly is it in a film that a viewer can point at and say “egomaniacal tripe” or “self indulgent crap”? Isn’t the very nature of filmmaking egotistical? Does it not take a certain amount of vanity and arrogance to assume we can great something great?

MBatchellor:

“I have not seen this film, but the comments about somebody’s ego and self indulgence translating to the screen have puzzled me when I’ve heard it attributed to any film at all.”

Well it would be one thing if a film was announced and then it just came out but with the marketing that surrounds a film, an audience kind of gets an insight to the conceit of a filmmaker, especially when he appears on every single talk show known to man and uses the word, “magic” like we use the word, “and”.

“Isn’t the very nature of filmmaking egotistical?”

Hell yeah. It’s funny to go back and read all of our posts.

We all sound like dicks.

Basically, my big objection to this post is that M. Night Shyamalan is a bit of a blowhard and he’s brought all this negative attention on himself, kind of like Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez. It’s just too much now. That fake documentary rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. The new book is also a bit gross, in which he’s pretending that it’s not entirely about marketing Lady in the Water while trying to make him seem more accessible and “human”.

I would have rather read In Defense of Yahoo Serious. Of course, that’s just my opinion.

Of course, I’m also an idiot.

The most difficult part of this job is fighting for the script, not your ego. I read the book excerpt that was in Enterainment Weekly or maybe the LA Times that focused on the meeting with Nina Jacobson in Philly… and it seemed to me that he wasn’t listening. He just wanted them to have faith that he could pull it off. I’ve seen the movie - the problems mentioned in the book still exist as problems in the film.

99% of the time, my beef is that I listen to their notes and actually consider them - they may be able to see something that I can not, because I am too close to the material. But once I consider the note, if it will not work, I carefully explain why. Usually, the writer is the only one who can keep the entire movie in their heads - I have yet to work with a director who could. Producers? Lucky if they’ve even read the script. Often their note is off the top of their heads, and thay haven’t looked all the way down the road. I take them there and show them how this little note about page 17 may ruin act 3. But often the problem is that they tune me out - they aren’t listening. I often get the “You’re the writer, be creative” thing.

But it appears (at least from the book excerpt) that Jacobson (his champion at Disney) was trying to explain her notes and he didn’t want to hear it. He was being defensive - which is always a mistake. Notes may seem personal, but they’re just about some writing on some paper.

And it’s all about the writing on the paper. It’s all about making teh script better.

In my experience, it’s usually their ego that gets in the way of making it a good film. But I know writers who have raeched a point where they don’t believe that any feedback or opinions could possibly improve their script. They know their script better than anyone else. To me, that’s the first step to failure.

The key is not to bend with the wind, nor stand as stiff as a board… but to listen and make a decision based on the script not on your ego or their ego. What will make this a better script? Will this change give the scene more emotional impact… or make it silly? You need to be able to explain logically why a note will not work, and why your method was the best method. And sometimes, the note is that thing you wish you had thought of, and if you are smart, you make that change… because your name is in the credits and everyone will think that brilliant idea was yours.

Check your ego at the door, check your feelings at the door - what is best for the story?

After seeing the movie, I think M. Night Shamalamdingdong needs to focus more on writing a great script and less on trying to convince people that he has the power to fix those things in post production. Fix it on the page. I’m telling you - character generators can not generate charcters on screen!

• Bill

here was a nice piece by Bill Maher in Salon a year or so ago about how the movies he saw when he was a kid were geared towards an older and smarter audience, forcing him to rise to the bar, forcing him to work and evolve. These days, though, movies are geared towards a fairly brain-dead, fairly young audience, and, thus, don’t engage any part of the brain that spurs the growth process.

Baloney. Anyone who has sat through Syriana can tell you it’s a bit more complex than the average 1950’s Western.

What people often get snobby about is comedy. Well, comedy can be complex or intelligent, but it can also be aggressively stupid and silly. There are stupid comedies today, and there have always been stupid comedies. White Chicks, for all of its flaws, isn’t dumber than Punch & Judy or some of The Canterbury Tales or The Three Stooges.

I reject the hypothesis that silly movies make people stupid. That’s ridiculous. Laughter is an emotional reaction. It has nothing to do with intelligence. I’ve been laughing at stupid comedies since I was a young man.

And I’m smart. I’m not dumb, like everyone says! I’m smart! And I want respect!

Sorry…got a little Fredo there…

“There was a nice piece by Bill Maher in Salon a year or so ago about how the movies he saw when he was a kid were geared towards an older and smarter audience, forcing him to rise to the bar, forcing him to work and evolve. These days, though, movies are geared towards a fairly brain-dead, fairly young audience, and, thus, don’t engage any part of the brain that spurs the growth process.”

I reject this notion for a different reason.

When Bill Maher was a kid, it was the 60’s. Before Superman Returns, before Independence Day, before Jaws. We’re talking about a time before The Blockbuster. We’re talking about a time when Women were widely accepted as inferior and Black people were colored. So yeah, movie making was a bit different then. Who knew what a powerful audience the teenager could/would be?

Filmmakers are younger. Movie goers are younger. And there are also a gazillion movies that come out each year so it’s easy to forget the incredible and thought provoking movies that accompanies X-Men 3. There’s just more product. That’s all.

Craig,

“Baloney. Anyone who has sat through Syriana can tell you it�s a bit more complex than the average 1950�s Western.”

Ay yi yi. Here we go, having to state the bleeding obvious, rather than discussing the issue. Yes, Craig. There are exceptions. Not EVERY movie that comes out of Hollywood is moronic. Good point. Thanks for setting me straight. Therefor, my entire thesis is now shot, because you’ve proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that at least ONE movie made in the last decade wasn’t geared towards morons. Damn. You run rings around me logically.

“I reject the hypothesis that silly movies make people stupid. That�s ridiculous. “

Jesus. Straw man much?

I’m impressed that you can vehemently reject everything I said without once actually addressing it. Nicely done.

Kevin,

“I reject this notion for a different reason.”

I’ve now read your post three times. Generally, when you make a statement like “I reject this notion for a different reason,” you have to then STATE what that reason is.

“We’re talking about a time when Women were widely accepted as inferior and Black people were colored. So yeah, movie making was a bit different then. “

Thanks for making my point. Movie making WAS different then - filmmakers were addressing issues of race and gender, were engaging their audience in a thought-provoking dialogue about the state of the world, asking them to examine issues and ideas that weren’t always in the common marketplace. They were challenging them. Watch In The Heat of the Night some time - its dissection of race in America is so much more complex and challenging than anything in, say, Crash.

“Filmmakers are younger. Movie goers are younger.”

You keep making my point. Because the advent of blockbuster movies showed the studios there was a huge youth market to be reached, they refocussed on that younger audience. Sure, adults still go to movies, but they’re not the main target. You seem to be suggesting that adults have abandoned Hollywood, when the exact opposite is more like the truth.

It’s simple math - you make a huge film that appeals to a youthful audience and doesn’t challenge them, there’s more money to be made. That’s the current economy of Hollywood.

What IS, I suppose, debatable, is my notion that a steady diet of really moronic movies might possible have a negative impact on the intellectual development of an audience. I suspect Craig, at least, knows this to be a reasonable statement, because rather than actually refute it, he changed my argument.

I suspect Craig knows the difference between A Night At The Opera and Click, even if he won’t admit it publicly.

I dunno man, I think people have a tendency to filter out the forgettable crap from 50 years ago and bang on about the “classics.” The golden Age is a couple of hundred movies out of 100,000 shitty ones that people are constantly comparing to the last 6 months and acting astonished that nothing in that 6 months holds up. People were saying this same stuff when L.A. Confidential was in the cinema.

There were just as many shitty movies back then, just that nobody remembers the shitty ones.

I mean if we compare the the academy awards this year (mit Syriana) and compare them to the year in The Heat of the Night was up for the Oscars, and we see… oh wait. 1967 had the Graduate, Cool Hand Luke, Bonnie and Clyde, In the Heat of the Night, In Cold Blood. Uhh… ok forget that example…

Anyway, Fuck the good old days. I prefer living in the future with my 46” Sony Bravia X series 1080p LCD TV. It’s shiny. You can keep yer goddamn good old days and superior audience intellegence, while I wotch things blow up real gud on my big teevee. Splosions are kewl. What were we talking about again?

Err… actually maybe I don’t want to engage in this again, I can see Mr. Hartmann is just dying to beat me up.

Not to be a pollyanna and only echo Olson (to be fair, I started the discussion before Brother Olson showed up) but I like silly movies too (I believe I mentioned Better Off Dead as an example of a silly movie I liked) - my point (regarding White Chicks and Little Man) is that they’re silly without being funny, without considering their audience, only for the marketing hook and nothing else. They’re bad movies not because they’re silly, but because they’re really bad movies.

I simply pointed out that as bad as LADY IN THE WATER may be, I don’t see how it could be as bad as LITTLE MAN or WHITE CHICKS.

I like goofy movies, but going back to the day, does WHITE CHICKS really compare to SOME LIKE IT HOT? Does LITTLE MAN really compare to DUCK SOUP?

To be fair, I was a big fan of Keenan Wayans at one point - In Living Color was must see TV in my household growing up, and I even went to the theatre to see THE GLIMMER MAN - and as I mentioned, the first SCARY MOVIE was some funny shit - Perhaps that’s why I was and still am so pissed off about WC and LM - because they could do a lot better and instead they phone it in without trying hard, at least that’s how it appears.

I mean, is anyone here really arguing that White Chicks is a quality film?

“Hell yeah. It’s funny to go back and read all of our posts.

We all sound like dicks.”>>>>>>>>>>

Hey, speak for yourself dude. I just reread my posts, and I sound like a visionary genius whose writings will change the world, if only you people will have faith I can pull it off.

Magic* another thing don’t you dare criticise my posts.

*I mean “and”

And may I add that one can learn a lot about the art of dramatic writing from Bugs Bunny and company.

Who I still wonder if they’ve been unfairly pillaged …

But regardless - smart satire doesn’t get any funnier than WHAT’S OPERA DOC!

Or … “What a gulli-BULL … what a nin-COW-poop”

Josh,

At times, upon reading you in the past you’ve driven me to the brink of wanting to take a flight to CA just to to scream WTF in front of you, however upon mending and allowing myself back onto the bloggers milieu this eveining, I am so infused by/with your positive raw objective professionalism in the following statement!

“I’ll give MNS one thing - he’s struggling with ideas and questions that are a cut above the usual dreck out there…. but at least he’s aware that there are arenas worth working in beyond the playground.”

Although I believe your next statement to be the most poiganant,

“If his grasp ever comes close to his reach, it’ll be pretty interesting…”

As with all ‘greats’, whether it be linguists, founding fathers, scientists, artists, etc; with all great attempts comes great adversity and controversy, it is only time that ages their accomplishments so to be garnished and regarded as truly capable of having had their grasp meet their reach!

Sincrely… THANKS

xoxoLL

Craig,

“And I’m smart. I’m not dumb, like everyone says! I’m smart! And I want respect! Sorry…got a little Fredo there…”

It was this second piece that sent me back into the response mode - I am typing with a brilliant smile on my face from having laughed my ass off!

My husband came over, mind you my hysteria actually had the ability to tear him away from his Argentine Futbol News and then he HAD to do his Fredo impression - Christ it’s the best, I swear it pays such homage to John Cazale!

Thanks! :)

xoxoLL

Josh,

“Folks can squawk all they want, but there’s a pretty clear link between the dumbing down of movies and the dumbing down of culture. I always find it kinda chilling when screenwriters don’t get how constantly appealing to the lowest common denominator will help it to keep dropping.”

I tend to agree with you here as well as per a conversation with my daughter just yesterday. She requested that we listen to Z100 in the car. (excuse me while I pick my heart up off the floor.)

We chatted about how Z100 and so many other things in her 12 year old life tend to be so ‘cookie-cut’, and that we as a family do not have to participate within what the masses do.

We just attended the Overture of 1812 at the NY Philharmonic and I stated that I’d bet 90% of her friends have never even listened to a classical piece, nor attended a concert @ Lincoln Center - she responded with a resounding & naive, as well as heartbreaking, “No mom, none of my friends, not even band mates have!” (but they’ll spend 110$ on a pair of jeans?)

Granted this is our choice where to put our money, however society must look to themselves to blame in that if they are going to put their money there then of course it will fuel the system - even if the artists are creating crap.

How about Memoirs of a Geisha, Everythings Illuminated, Good Night and Good Luck, Sean, The History of Violence, Syriana, Munich, Pirate 1 & 2, Life is Beautiful, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, etc

(please note if I have forgotten any others it was not meant to offend as per these are the latest we’ve seen since May.) Some were on DVD and some were seen at the Village Cinemas in NYC, because we always experience a ‘hit’, not a miss in the Village.

xoxoLL

Joshua,

“I like goofy movies, but going back to the day, does WHITE CHICKS really compare to SOME LIKE IT HOT? Does LITTLE MAN really compare to DUCK SOUP?”

Olsen called out Craig for using Syriana vs a 50s Western, and I’m afraid you’re doing the same thing here. Nobody’s trying to compare those two movies to two comedy classics. I doubt you’ll find anyone who doesn’t agree that they’re mindless, silly comedies (I also doubt many of them have actually seen either movie).

My point was simply that these types of movies end up in the backwash of a decade of cinema, with no positive or negative impact in the long-term. Some people might remember White Chicks, but not because they thought it was good cinema (though if I recall, it did turn a profit). Just because something’s memorable doesn’t mean it has any impact or influence. I think many, many things are to blame for the sad state of American intelligence ahead of film. They’re pandering to the lowest common denominator to be sure, but I don’t think they’re creating it.

Phoenix,

“They’re pandering to the lowest common denominator to be sure, but I don’t think they’re creating it.”

CREATING it? Of course not. Encouraging it and helping to lower it? Absolutely. I don’t think it’s even arguable. The notion that a steady diet of moronic crap isn’t going to have an impact on an audience is just bizarre.

But Josh, your fatal flaw is in the word ‘steady’. Of course somebody who only watches pulp movies or reads pulp fiction will have their brain atrophy. But most intelligent people are quite capable of enjoying SM4 on the one hand and The Economist on the other.

You know, you can eat candy as part of a balanced diet. It’s only a problem if that’s all you eat.

The writer/director of Infested complaining about the moronic crap coming out of Hollywood? Now there’s some irony you can paint the walls with.

the new guy : also the writer of History of Violence… ‘nuff said ;-) And please, this is an adult conversation, not the “Who’s got the biggest *” contest.

Phoenix,

I was responding more in kind to Craig’s defense of silly comedies, how he likes silly. I like silly, too, when it’s done right or well. Caddyshack? One of the greatest silly movies of all time. It seemed as though Craig were defending WC and LM on the basis that they were silly while I was attacking them because of their quality, or lack thereof. I used those examples to buffer my point.

You bet there are a load of bad movies that come out every year. I think we have more now then before, because there are simply more movies than before. I guess you can ignore WC and I do my best, sure. But again I disagree that that film hasn’t had some affect upon culture. All movies have an affect, large or small. Robot Monster had an affect, as did Plan 9 from Outer Space.

Some movies, the affect was so small as to hardly be noticeable (see the above example of TOMCATS). Others, it’s quite larger. I believe White Chicks had a larger affect than the one you’re painting.

My point is that, within the circle of friends whom I converse with (outside of the blogsphere, the friends I hang with in person) White Chicks has created a hatred, one I can understand. One that has us all discussing a movie in which two black men masquarade as two white chicks a good two years after the movie has been in general release and we all pretty much know what we’re talking about. That’s a movie that had an affect, whether positive or negative.

The flip side is the film Napoleon Dynamite (full disclosure, I loved this movie) a small film with no stars that also came out a couple years ago in a very good run (not as good as WC, but a good run) that everyone, even if they haven’t seen it, has heard about it or heard someone doing NP.

Bottom line, films affect us in large and small ways, but they definitely affect us.

Shoot, why else would we be here at artful writer talking about these things if it were otherwise?

Ultimately, we’re all kind or right.

And a little wrong.

Films DO affect our society. As filmmakers we have to accept that. I mean, that’s what we all secretly strive for. So we can’t run and hide when faced with the reality of say, films influencing teens to smoke. I used to hate it when I heard that but as I become more objective and listened to every one and their grandmamma doing impersonations of Napoleon Dynamite (Jesus, one kid did it in the middle of a nationally televised Spelling Bee!), we all have to accept our impact, Good and Bad.

But Louise B really makes a good point when she says:

“But Josh, your fatal flaw is in the word ‘steady’. Of course somebody who only watches pulp movies or reads pulp fiction will have their brain atrophy. But most intelligent people are quite capable of enjoying SM4 on the one hand and The Economist on the other.

“You know, you can eat candy as part of a balanced diet. It’s only a problem if that’s all you eat.”

She’s absolutely right. If you watched ONLY spoofs or ONLY action movies or ONLY foreign films, you’d probably be a little off center. But most Americans watch a little or a lot of all. I loved Wet Hot American Summer. Laughed all the way throught. I loved Capote. I loved Pirates of the Caribbean.

I think the advent of electronic technology for the purposes of entertainment have more to do with our ignorance than anything else.

My point?

IPODS are evil. And the BLACKBERRY is the Devil’s tool.

Thank you.

Josh:

“Movie making WAS different then - filmmakers were addressing issues of race and gender, were engaging their audience in a thought-provoking dialogue about the state of the world, asking them to examine issues and ideas that weren’t always in the common marketplace.”

One thing that always drives me nuts is when people talk about the Good ‘ole Days!! If you want to address the dumbing down of America, Selective Memory is one major component. We all seem to have this revisionist history of how great things were 30, 40, or 50 years ago. A time when filmmakers were engaging the audience in thought provoking…eh, it hurts too much to continue. It’s easy to bring up the classics. You can bring up the classics for every decade. But why do we tend to forget the glut of awful, awful, westerns, gladiator movies, and shitty comedies that came out in the 60’s?

Do you know what Bill Maher’s father thought of movies that were made in the 60’s? More than likely:

“Heh, they don’t make movies like they used to. What drivel. Humphrey Bogart. Now that’s a STAR!”

Do you know what Bill Maher’s grandfather thought of movies that were made in the 40’s? More than likely:

“Heh, they don’t make movies like they used to. Damn talking pictures. What drivel. Charlie Chaplin. Now that’s a STAR!”

Kevin,

We didn’t need dialogue. We had faces! (Norma Desmond)

Laura,

Nice to hear you again. “…it is only time that ages their accomplishments so to be garnished and regarded as truly capable of having had their grasp meet their reach! This is a great point, but do you really believe that it is only the consumer/movie goer who is responsible for the garbage being churned out here in our written/film world? ” however society must look to themselves to blame in that if they are going to put their money there then of course it will fuel the system.”

R n D

RnD,

“Nice to hear you again. “…it is only time that ages their accomplishments so to be garnished and regarded as truly capable of having had their grasp meet their reach! This is a great point, but do you really believe that it is only the consumer/movie goer who is responsible for the garbage being churned out here in our written/film world? ” however society must look to themselves to blame in that if they are going to put their money there then of course it will fuel the system.”

Given a choice between being challenged and not being challenged, most people will pick the latter. Human nature. It’s the job of art to challenge. It’s the job of commerce to placate and reassure. When you talk about art in a place like this, people love to remind you that it’s a business first, but they seem reticent to ever do the opposite. Let’s take on faith that movies are business. But wouldn’t it be nice if we could ALSO take on faith that they’re an art form, too?

Craig,

Is there a reason my posts are disappearing?

My argument, Joshua, is simply this: there is an audience that loves White Chicks.

They don’t look like you, they don’t talk like you, they don’t like the same music you do, they don’t wear clothes like you, and in many ways, their lives are very, very different than yours.

White Chicks, the movie, does not make stupid people stupider. It doesn’t “dumb down” the culture. Our culture was already a vibrant mix of dumb and smart. If anything, I think our culture is smarter than it used to be, the pompous remembrances of Bill Maher aside. White Chicks merely continues a tradition that has always been with us.

I don’t like White Chicks. I’ve seen it on cable. I don’t think it’s good. I do think that the Wayans can be very funny. I also think it’s moronic to read some kind of cultural significance into White Chicks, and if I were actually sitting at dinner with a group of people who felt so strongly about White Chicks that their emotions could be described as hate, then I would get up and leave, because White Chicks isn’t important enough to be hated. It’s just a silly comedy for kids with very broad taste in comedy.

My basic argument to anyone who hates a comedy is this: lighten the fuck up. If you’re a screenwriter who thinks these movies are somehow evil or degenerate, LTFU. If you’re an evangelical who thinks Brokeback Mountain is a sign of the End Times, LTFU.

And yes, in my mind, they’re exactly the same. They’re cultural neurotics who aggrandize the effect of what is ultimately not that effective…probably because they are sensitive to films.

Pop culture absolutists are worthy of nothing but scorn.

Josh:

No. I haven’t deleted any of your comments here. Are you sure?

Craig,

“No. I haven’t deleted any of your comments here. Are you sure?”

Absolutely. Two fairly long responses I put up this morning. They were here an hour ago. Now they’re gone.

Craig,

“Pop culture absolutists are worthy of nothing but scorn.”

So are people who dismiss serious critical opinions with knee jerk tropes.

You ducked the issue by changing the terms of the discussion. The subject was bad movies. You completely redefined Joshua’s - and my - point, then attacked an argument that neither of us (or anyone else here) had made.

The issue is the astonishing decline in quality of studio output in the last decade or so. You made it about people not liking goofy comedies, and now you’ve made it a quorum on White Chicks.

Instead of attacking people who are arguing for quality, why not at least take an active stand. Say, “I think movies today are just as good as they ever were,” or say, “As a grown man, I’m proud to spend the majority of my working life thinking of ways to lure 15 year old girls into movie theaters.” And please, enough with the posturing. I’m not even sure what a pop culture absolutist is, but if it makes you happy, we’ll take it on faith that every last one of them is worthy of scorn.

Now please explain how the fact that the overwhelming majority of mainstream entertainment being geared towards teenage girls ISN’T going to have any impact at all on the intellectual level of cultural dialogue.

And see if you can do it without implying that I’m too snooty to grasp the joys of a good Bugs Bunny cartoon.

Josh:

I just checked my spam filter…they’re not in there. Did you cut and paste them from a word processor? This is obviously a bit disturbing. I’ve never had a problem like this…

I think movies today are BETTER than they used to be.

As a grown man, I’m proud to spend the majority of my working life thinking of ways to ENTERTAIN kids who are between the ages of 10 and 18.

The overwhelming majority of entertainment geared toward teenage girls isn’t going to have any impact at all on the intellectual level of cultural dialogue because that entertainment is almost always following what teenage girls are already doing and saying. Amy Heckerling didn’t invent “As if!” She copied it.

Bugs Bunny has already been reclaimed by the chronically hip. If you and I can sit down and enjoy some Stooges, then you’ll have some cred with me. :)

Nope. I wrote ‘em in this little box, hit “Post,” and they showed up. The same thing happened with my 10:20 post, but they reappeared a few minutes later.

Craig,

I was going to respond, but Brother Olson said much of what I would say, only probably better.

If you recall, I maintain that WC is simply a bad movie, but one with an affect. One effect is that a lot of people paid to see it. Another effect is that a lot of other people absolutely hate it. (btw, I noticed I used affect earlier when I should have used effect, my apologies).

People are passionate about film, music and art and why is that a bad thing? As much as we want people to love what we do as much as we do, I think telling people to LTFU is a bit out there, when it comes from a place of loving movies. People who love movies have strong opinions, like most of us who spend hours here on your site, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

I don’t think it’s fair to compare folks that hate WC to evangellicals who hated brokeback because they aren’t anything alike. People who hated WC hate it because, when they saw it it offended their tastes, not their beliefs but their tastes. People hated WC because they loved good movies and WC wasn’t one.

Evangelicals hated brokeback WITHOUT seeing the movie, based on their narrow beliefs, without referencing any of the work the people involved did. Evangilicals don’t have any feelings to movies themselves, only their own group political view. People like them are editing movies without permission because of their narrow views.

People that hate WC wouldn’t edit it without Wayan’s permission.

So they’re different and while, yes, some people should lighten the fuck up, some people who are talented (ie Wayans) should do a fucking better job if they’re going to charge 11.50 a ticket to the public.

My opinion, for better or worse.

Craig,

“I think movies today are BETTER than they used to be.”

Wow.

That is such an astonishingly demented and deranged statement, I truly have no response.

But it explains…. well….. everything.

If you ever wake up, call me.

Josh:

In other words…

…you lose. :)

Joshua,

You are wading through the kingdom of the blind, my friend. And in spite of what they say, in this place, the one eyed man isn’t king. In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man gets lynched.

Joshua:

But the Wayans are successful. They know their audience. I’ve seen it with my own two eyes. They know their audience, and you’re not it.

Regulate your passion. If you allow yourself to be angered by every movie that you find offensive or stupid or boring or derivative or outrageous, you’ll end up like Josh…and I’m starting to worry about him.

Because, basically, I’m a decent guy. :)

Basically.

Craig,

“you lose”

The marching morons have always been a majority, and it’s always been WAY easier to lower standards than it is to raise them. This is not news. Congratulations on all your success.

Craig,

“Regulate your passion. If you allow yourself to be angered by every movie that you find offensive or stupid or boring or derivative or outrageous, you’ll end up like Josh…and I’m starting to worry about him.”

Fascinating how expressing concern over the deteriorating state of mass culture causes you to worry; apparently, the only way to be healthy is to embrace the swirl down the toilet and to become part of it. Thanks, but I’m pretty fucking happy working, in my own little way, to slow the inevitable.

I’m far more worried by people who DON’T get angered by the slop that’s jammed down our throats by the studios these days, the people who just accept it, and come to like it. Every time you let them lower the bar on you, you pave the way for them to drop it even further. Your sense of smell has become so atrophied, you think cowshit smells like a rose.

Some of us can still smell the roses, which allows us, from time to time, to grow our own. Don’t worry about us.

Craig:

Well…

Ech, somebody kill me for agreeing with Josh.

I really don’t think movies have gotten better. I mean, they really do get worse every year. I’m not a movie snob. In fact, I fucking hate movie snobs.

But let’s put aside all those socially conscious movies. Let’s talk about mainstream genres. Nowadays no one can even make an Action Movie anymore.

Seriously.

Sure there are exceptions but most of the action movies contain:

1. an insane amount of CGI that makes everything look fake and ridiculous.

2. an insane amount of wire work for EVERYBODY does that kick-flip backward thing.

3. a Director whose previous credit was a music video that featured some impressive booty shaking, someone from a boy band that decided to go solo (yeah, get that paper), a yacht, and/or a Bentley.

However, let’s not forget about personal taste. I think that White Chicks is a pretty shitty movie. But I actually know a lot of people that liked it. I also think that Crash is a pretty shitty movie. I truly think they’re equally as bad and one of those movies one the Academy Award. Just because someone likes White Chicks doesn’t make them dumb. Just because someone likes Crash (a movie in a world in which you’d go buy a gallon of milk and the cashier would call you a spic. Yeah…that’s EXACTLY how racism works), doesn’t make them dumb.

I said that movies impact our culture. But I don’t believe movies make our culture dumber because a certain group of people perceive a movie to be bad.

There’s a difference.

Uh…

Keep in mind that when I said I agreed with Josh, it was only on the statement that movies have gotten worse.

I don’t agree with any of the other crazy zealot stuff.

I don’t care if Josh Olson wrote Schindler’s List, Pulp Fiction, Fight Club and Being John Malkovich, he is also responsible for the kind of lowest common dominator filmmaking (Infested) he’s calling others out on. That is the height of hypocrisy.

Denominator :)

Olson:

Egads, you’re starting to sound both bitter and messianic at the same time!

“I don’t care if Josh Olson wrote Schindler’s List, Pulp Fiction, Fight Club and Being John Malkovich, he is also responsible for the kind of lowest common dominator filmmaking (Infested) he’s calling others out on. That is the height of hypocrisy.”

Yeesh… and Francis Ford Coppolla made Dementia 13 for Roger Corman. And Barry Sonnenfeld and Wes Craven worked on Porn. What’s your point?

“Yeesh… and Francis Ford Coppolla made Dementia 13 for Roger Corman. And Barry Sonnenfeld and Wes Craven worked on Porn. What’s your point?”

What if Barry Sonnenfeld made porns like his mainstream movies? There’d be a bevy of pornstar cameos and every scene would be a set up for some farcical hijinks…and sex. And Tom Sizemore. Definitely Tom Sizemore.

Debates like this are so lively. All we need now is a steel cage and a championship belt on the line.

The irony of this is that the foundation of the movie industry is built, not on professionals, not on the educated elite, but on Joe Schmoe who works for just above minimum wage, is having problems with his girlfriend (or boyfriend), doesn’t have quality health insurance, and can’t always pay his rent on time.

All the professionals here, whatever their creative philosophy, are trying to convince Joe to work that extra hour at work so he can afford to buy a ticket to their movie on opening weekend.

But, sadly, Joe is not smart enough to know what he REALLY wants.

Poor Joe.

Good thing he keeps buying those tickets, though.

Earl:

But…but…but Joe’s a moron! A marching moron!

Regulate my passion, Craig? I believe I was communicating the passion of those that pay to see movies, ie, the circle of friends I have who are not in the biz but have strong feelings for it - lots of folks who don’t work on movies have REALLY strong passion for it (I mean, you’ve met some Star Wars fans, right?) -

I do have passion, though, which you know from my regular presence here on your site - it’s not a blinding rage, which maybe how it sometimes comes across, but I have it. I was a big Wayans fan at one point and I’m extremely disappointed in them, but I am nowhere near as angry as those I know who are the target audience you mention (and on a side note, how am I NOT their audience if I’ve paid to see their movie, either by rental or at the cinema? I believe that I am) - my friends who’ve spoken to me about this film are in the Wayans audience, at least, in the demographic put forth by Chris Rock at the Oscars - and they hate the damn movie. I was careful to say that I was relaying what I’ve heard.

I don’t fit in the same category culturally, being white and from Iowa, but as someone who saw most, if not all of their movies (from THE LAST BOY SCOUT to THE GLIMMER MAN) and their television show, I’d say I am their audience and I want them to do better. Why can’t I ask that?

I concur with you that WC is simply a bad movie - I also stated, bad movie or not, they must be onto something or there wouldn’t be this stampede to the box office - so in a way, we agree on a few things.

Where we disagree, it seems, is the overall effect a movie has on culture and, ultimately maybe we’ll never agree on it.

I note that the Wayans tried many different types of genres, action flicks to comedies and dramas until they hit it bit with Scary Movie, I mean, how does one go from Steven Seagal to Little Man, it’s amazing how resiliant and determined they are.

I don’t know why White Chicks was so popular but, as I noted before, so were both Corey Feldman and Corey Haim at one point.

As far as movies being better than ever now in terms of quality and content, I think that gets said almost every year (well, maybe not 2003) and William Goldman eloquently smacked that old trojan horse down in one of his books, complete with titles, awards and details. So no, I don’t buy that. I think one can say that about television writing now, but it’s a stretch to say it about film.

I thought ‘99 was a good year for film, but it still didn’t reach the quality of ‘67. Or ‘72 or ‘74.

But I certainly hope that one day, in the future, folks will be able to say in all honesty that films are better now than they ever were and prove it. And I hope I can contribute to that effort.

How’s that for passion?

“Beware of those who think they’re smarter or more enlightened than the majority when all evidence points to the contrary.”

              -Kevin "The Stupid One" Arbouet

I think movies can be directed better than before. I don’t think movies are better written than before.

This was the useless commentary of the day.

Josh and Craig : Go in your room ! No dessert for both of you !

Joshua:

You can ask anything you want of the Wayans.

But here’s a fact.

Their movies appeal to an audience that is defined more by age than race or geographic location.

Every year, you move further away from that age. And, not surprisingly, every year you find yourself less interested in what the Wayans do.

It’s fairly common for we humans to stop accounting for our own progressing age as we evaluate things. We like to think that it’s not we who are changing, but the world or the industry or the movies.

It’s us. Soon we’ll be just like our grandparents, eternally cranky and confused at the stupidity, vulgarity and ugliness of the world.

But not me. I’m rather sunny.

I was a Joe Schmoe not too long ago, and many of my friends and relatives still are Joes. I’m a proud card carrying member of the Joe Schmoe club. Joe Schmoes are smarter than one thinks (and older than the 13 and 14 year olds targeted by most movie products) and are more offended by the utter stupidity in a lot of films, example being the one’s listed above.

They get caught once in awhile, they get rolled up in a Blair Witch or a random Adam Sandler drive-by, but eventually they catch on.

I mean, come on, didn’t anyone else here work in a video store? People are smart but movies, a lot of movies, not all but most movies, aren’t targeted for people, they’re targeted to 14 year old kids.

God, there’s nothing I love more than watching people who genuinely know better argue for lower standards.

I also love the idiotic notion that anyone who argues for higher standards must, ipso facto, believe that everything should be Masterpiece fucking Theater. As the boldly anonymous newguy points out, I’ve written and directed a zombie movie. Only an abject fucking moron thinks you can’t argue for quality AND make horror films. Who’s a snob now?

Craig, some of the people here genuinely don’t know better. But you do. You know the sophistry you’re engaged in, but you do it anyway, because it’s better to play to the crowd than it is to actually engage.

If folks like me have, actually, “lost,” it’s because it’s so much easier to play the game you’re playing than the one we are. PT Barnum was, after all, quite right.

I’m sorry - could someone remind me again why we’re supposed to be polite to abject morons?

For the record, Craig, I love me a good fart joke - I wrote a rather infamous play (infamous in new york city) around fart jokes called BODILY FUNCTIONS that still gets performed. I’m also the author of SPOOGE -the SEX & LOVE MONOLOGUES. Top it off, I’m a huge Bugs Bunny fan.

I’m sunny too, and I loved THE INCREDIBLES. Watch it every time it’s on. That was targeted toward younger folks, but smart enough for everyone.

I get that I’m supposed to be old and cranky at some point but I haven’t gotten around to it yet. I’m still young and carefree with a weekness for cage-fighting whenever it’s on Spike TV.

But you’re right, I’m older than 14 or 15. And many of the fans on sites like aintitcool are much closer to the age demographic you mention and what are their thoughts on the latest Wayan offering?

Shoot, I loved I’M GONNA GET YOU SUCKA, and not because I was twelve years younger when I saw it. I loved it because it was well done. Same with SCARY MOVIE. You cannot say I’m not their audience simply because I didn’t like White Chicks, not when I paid to see SCARY MOVIE.

It’s not a fair statement. I love movies. I’m not french, but there are french movies that I like. I’m not Japanese, but the original SHALL WE DANCE kicks the American remakes ass ten times to Sunday, it’s that much better. I thought TRAINSPOTTING was great, even though I’m not Scottish and a heroin abuser (at least, not yet).

I’m not from New Zealand, but I loved ONCE WERE WARRIORS as well. How can I love this if I’m not in their target audience?

I like the movie FLUKE, which is obviously targeted toward a younger audience. How can I like it if I’m too old for it?

“God, there’s nothing I love more than watching people who genuinely know better argue for lower standards.”

correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe anyone here is arguing for that.

At least I hope to christ they aren’t.

“and Francis Ford Coppolla made Dementia 13 for Roger Corman. And Barry Sonnenfeld and Wes Craven worked on Porn. What’s your point?”

Yes, but you don’t see Coppola getting up on his high horse and denouncing movies like DEMENTIA 13, do you?

““God, there’s nothing I love more than watching people who genuinely know better argue for lower standards.”

correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe anyone here is arguing for that.

At least I hope to christ they aren’t.”

Nope, nobody is.

“If folks like me have, actually, ‘lost,’ it’s because it’s so much easier to play the game you’re playing than the one we are. PT Barnum was, after all, quite right.”

About what? If you’re referring to the famous line about a sucker born every minute, PT Barnum never actually said that.

Joshua J.:

“I don’t know why White Chicks was so popular but, as I noted before, so were both Corey Feldman and Corey Haim at one point.”

…I was with you up until that moment when you put down THE FUCKING FROG BROTHES!

They were dedicated to a higher purpose, man…just like the Josh Bros (yourself and Olson).

…I was with you up until that moment when you put down THE FUCKING FROG BROTHES!

LOL! I know, man, I know - remember when Schumacher actually made movies? Damn!

put it this way - the argument seems to be going:

A) movies are getting dumber every year, and the audiences are getting dumber. So fuck the audience. They are idiots anyway. Seriously. Fuck them.

vs

B) movies are both as dumb and as clever as they ever were, but the ones marketed at retarded children make more money now, since retarded children have more money to spend on crap so it SEEMS like the lowest common denominator is dipping. But It’s not really. I swear.

The solution to A) is: write a novel. Or make a movie nobody sees. Or commit suicide and blame the audience for your failures. The solution to B) is: make a movie that’s good. And it’ll find an audience. Eventually.

I prefer B all round.

Unless Josh, you, and others are actually having trouble getting films made that don’t appeal to retarded children… which is another issue altogether… (assuming we are talking about films that are already made rather than the difficulty in actually getting them made in the first place)

“Yes, but you don’t see Coppola getting up on his high horse and denouncing movies like DEMENTIA 13, do you?”

you don’t see Copolla coming out and saying much of anything these days, so he may or may not. Dunno. But we do see the aformentioned William Goldman railing against how crappy movies have become. Movies like… ummm… lemme see… Dreamcatcher. Wait he was curiously silent on that one… couldn’t blame the director I guess…?

oh, and not to be too film-geeky, but Corey Haim wasn’t one of the Frogs - just to point out -

But he was in spirit man, in spirit. Death by Stereo, dude!

“About what? If you’re referring to the famous line about a sucker born every minute, PT Barnum never actually said that”

Which is really what this is all about. The authorship of that stupid quote.

“oh, and not to be too film-geeky, but Corey Haim wasn’t one of the Frogs - just to point out -

But he was in spirit man, in spirit. Death by Stereo, dude!”

And just like that, Joshua was a virgin again.

Wait, are we all agreeing that M Night Shyamalan’s movies suck?

I’ve lost the thread of this post.

I thought Signs was fantastic - except the last 5 minutes. None of his films are without merit. The village didn’t work for me, but the score was superb. Haven’t seen the lady in the water.

I think this thread has developed into more of a free for all, since it’s not so about writerly issues that Johhny Hartmann can whinge and wag his finger about us being off topic.

In fact, I noticed even Johhny is off topic here.

Gotcha. Ha.

So let me get this straight, Josh, you don’t feel you’ve contributed at all to the dreck you’re so passionately railing against? Your argument seems to be, well I made a zombie movie, that’s different! Um, no. It’s exactly the point. Because the majority of the “dreck” as you see it has creators that have just as many caveats and excuses as you do.

Ruairi,

“Unless Josh, you, and others are actually having trouble getting films made that don’t appeal to retarded children… which is another issue altogether”

It is harder now than it has ever been to get a movie that doesn’t appeal to the lowest common denominator made in the studio system. Craig’s love of the crap that’s out now notwithstanding, it’s a systemic problem that most people within the system despair over. Believe it or not, most studio execs don’t want to make stupid crap. But it’s a mighty fucking battle to get a movie for an adult audience made these days, moreso than ever. Don’t let the cynics and the lovers of shit tell you otherwise.

Just a reminder (again…again)…be civil. You all know what civil is.

Josh

Check the end of the ‘Writing Oblivion’ topic. Maybe those are your missing posts.

LOL! I’m sure your post will be edited for content, Olson, but it made me laugh -

Now the second beer’s on me as well as the first, should you find yourself in the big apple, Brother Olson.

And hell Craig, I’d buy you one too, I’m not a philistine, you’re in town and want a brew, it’s on me - or the best cup of coffee in the city (JOE’s, west village, they sent someone down to columbia to learn how to make cappichino’s from a master, so it is said).

….yeah, just like your identity, buddy.

Okay, now THAT’S weird. I have no doubt I screwed up and posted them in the wrong place, but they don’t show up when I go to the thread from the main page, only from the link.

Fucking internets. Fucking fingers.

Okay, so here are my missing posts from earlier:

Louise,

“But Josh, your fatal flaw is in the word ‘steady’. Of course somebody who only watches pulp movies or reads pulp fiction will have their brain atrophy. But most intelligent people are quite capable of enjoying SM4 on the one hand and The Economist on the other.”

And as we all know, the vast majority of the filmgoing audience is wildly intelligent and reads The Economist regularly.

Still waiting for one person to address what I actually said….

Posted by: Josh Olson at July 25, 2006 9:14 AM

Joshua,

“It seemed as though Craig were defending WC and LM on the basis that they were silly while I was attacking them because of their quality, or lack thereof.”

EXACTLY.

It speaks to the stereotypes Craig holds so dear - in his mind, anyone who yearns for quality in film is some kind of dour, overly serious poseur, in desperate need of a kick in the pants. In a weird way, it reveals a prejudice against silly comedy not on your part or mine, but on Craig’s.

I take it on faith when I read a rant such as yours that your list of th finer things in life includes a great deal of ludicrous, inane comedy. I have yet to meet a tasteful, intelligent person, for instance, who doesn’t love Bugs Bunny or Groucho Marx.

Posted by: Josh Olson at July 25, 2006 9:21 AM

Kevin,

“I loved Wet Hot American Summer. Laughed all the way throught. I loved Capote. I loved Pirates of the Caribbean.”

As with the discussion about the public’s awareness of directors, you take your experience to be the universal. The overwhelming majority of Americans never heard of WHAM (Their loss); I’d wager a good number of them HAVE heard of Capote, but clearly never saw it. However, tons of them have heard of and seen Pirates, and I would suggest that that goes exactly to the heart of what I’m talking about.

You live in a world in which people are aware of all of these films. Most people aren’t Most people go to the multiplex, and that’s the extent of their cinematic life.

We’re not talking about people who read The Economist. We’re talking about the mass audience.

Posted by: Josh Olson at July 25, 2006 9:25 AM

Kevin,

“One thing that always drives me nuts is when people talk about the Good ‘ole Days!! “

That’s lovely, sweetheart. But that’s a pretty mindlessly knee-jerk response to a valid, well thought-out critical opinion. If you seriously want to maintain that movies coming out of Hollywood today are as good as they were thirty years ago, you’re going to have to write one hell of a well-thought out book on the subject, because at this point in time, that opinion is about as radical and as unsubstantiated as you can get.

” We all seem to have this revisionist history of how great things were 30, 40, or 50 years ago. A time when filmmakers were engaging the audience in thought provoking…eh, it hurts too much to continue.”

Nothing revisionist about it. You cannot possibly make the argument that studios today are as adventurous and as willing to take risks today as they were thirty years ago. But if you’re going to state that that they ARE, you HAVE to make the case.

“But why do we tend to forget the glut of awful, awful, westerns, gladiator movies, and shitty comedies that came out in the 60’s?”

More importantly, why do you make assumptions like that? I guaran-fuckin’-tee you I’ve seen a hell of a lot more of those movies than you have. We can take it on faith that the crap from any previous era can compare to the crap of today. But there hasn’t been a single studio release this year that can compare to even the good B movie releases of the 70s, man, let alone The Godfather, Taxi Driver, Badlands, Mean Streets, The Conversation, The Exorcist, Patton, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, Jaws, Chinatown…. Jesus, I could go on all day.

Short version, Kevin - make a case for your position. Just wailing about how much you hate hearing something isn’t a case. Just saying “No, it’s not” isn’t a case. You are taking a wild, radical, way the fuck out there position, and you’re somehow expecting that just because it’s dribbled from your keyboard it must be true. Well, no. I’m not your mother. I don’t have to think every word you say is precious and beautiful. If you really want to argue that the quality of studio output hasn’t dropped in the last, say, thirty years, you need to make a critical case. You haven’t even tried. All you’ve done is throw cow-flop at people who have offered thoughtful opinions.

Posted by: Josh Olson at July 25, 2006 9:37 AM

Newguy,

Any question, no matter how transparently rude, hostile and moronic, will be answered if you simply ask it openly and honestly. It’s real fucking simple. And frankly, I’m as happy to answer that specific rude, hostile and moronic question as you are eager to have it answered. So step up, bubba. Have some balls.

Trust me - nobody will know who the fuck you are even when we DO know your name.

Joshie,

I am related to someone responsible for the “dreck” you’re slamming on a public board. I don’t wish to drag a name into your pathetic rantings. It’s a simple as that.

“It is harder now than it has ever been to get a movie that doesn’t appeal to the lowest common denominator made in the studio system. Craig’s love of the crap that’s out now notwithstanding, it’s a systemic problem that most people within the system despair over. Believe it or not, most studio execs don’t want to make stupid crap. But it’s a mighty fucking battle to get a movie for an adult audience made these days, moreso than ever. Don’t let the cynics and the lovers of shit tell you otherwise.”

well the fact that (flaws and all) movies like Syriana, Munich, Good Night and Good luck, and most particularly United 93 are being made these days, gives me plenty of hope. I don’t think it’s as bleak as you are making it out to be Josh.

newguy:

so it’s not okay for “joshie” to openly voice his oppion in a public forum, yet you can slam his work anonymously?

Interesting paradigm.

And for the record, I didn’t ask you any questions until you started in with the pre-school name calling. I merely pointed out the irony in Mr. Film Messiah’s resume.

Really? Simple as that? I’m related to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, believe it or not, but what does that have to do with the subject at hand?

What does that have to do with the fact that you haven’t present any reason arguments for or against either side - all you’ve done, new guy, is attack Olson’s resume’ - that’s it, personal attacks and nothing else.

Olson is at least presenting his case, as am I. He gets a little more hot than I do, but so what? As I mentioned before, nothing wrong with being passionate about your work as long as you’re smart about it, too.

Are you hear to defend the quality of the film White Chicks?

And I will say again, I like silly, goofy movies that entertain, I’M GONNA GET YOU SUCKA would be the top of that list - I merely pointed out that I cannot fathom that, as bad as A LADY IN THE WATER may be, I find it hard to believe it will be as bad as White Chicks was.

That’s what got this ball rolling -a comment I made a long time ago - don’t blame brother Olson, I started this fight by picking on the most successful movie-making family around right now - the Wayans.

I take full responsibility for my statements and if I ever meet them, will own up to it - I did it out of love for movies.

Actually, I did it because I’m a fan at heart -

Aren’t we all?

…did the new guy just say he really wants to suck Olson’s dick?

Yes, he did. And then he personally insulted me, though I did not insult him.

I guess I should be wary because he’s “related” to someone who makes movies. ooo. ahhh. Okay, I’m already bored with this.

Newguy, since you’re new, let me acclimate you to the Craig Mazin rule - which is you shouldn’t really say anything on the board here that would earn you a punch in the face, if it were said in person.

Unless you’re pretty confident you can handle a punch in the face in person, as Olson is.

Me, too. I can handle it a sock in the jaw, I’ve had many and returned many such favors in kind. If you wish, we can discuss it in New York anytime. I’m not hard to find.

Shoot, Kevin and I have actually met a couple of times and managed to behave like adults. Had fun, even.

But, once we’re live in person, you want to throw some leather around, that’s fine too.

Actually,

being told I’m the mini-me version of Josh Olson isn’t really that terrible of an insult, now is it? It’s actually kind of a compliment. Thanks!

I’m not into guys, but if I was, Brother Olson … I’d be your wingman, anytime!

Josh:

Oh, Josh. You gotta be kidding me.

Okay, I was a segment producer for a show entitled, Weekend Vibe. There was a segment that included bad movies from the 50’s and 60’s and I had to sit through some of the worst movies ever.

The only reason I didn’t start listing movies is because of the space issue but since you’re holding onto your revisionist set of beliefs, here’s a sample of some of the crap from the 50’s and 60’s:

When Worlds Collide, This Island Earth,20 Million Miles to Earth, The Blob, Conquest of Space, It Came From Beneath the Sea, Teenagers From Outer Space, Tarantula, Monolith Monsters, The Thing From Another World, The Atomic Submarine, Teenage Zombies, Plan 9 From Outer Space, Night Train to Mundo Fine, The Beast of Yucca Flats, Monster A Go-Go, The Horror of Party Beach, and let’s not forget my personal favorite Santa Claus Conquers The Martians!

If you talk to a Film Historian, not a critic, not a screenwriter, and not your girlfriend that agrees with everything you say, you’ll find out the painful truth that horrible bad movies existed from the dawn of celluloid.

Oh and here’s another interesting fact. People in the 50’s and 60’s weren’t exactly fucking geniuses. In fact, most people were pretty retarded. Some teenagers in the 50’s thought you could get a girl pregnant by kissing her with an open mouth.

The farther you go back in time, the dumber people were. I don’t know if that’s a fact but it helps my argument so let’s all pretend that I read that somewhere.

Stop touting the classics. There was a shit load of other movies that came out in 1972 besides The Godfather.

Understand this: Your father thought the same thing as you. You’re getting old and cranky. It’s fine. We all do.

I still think you’re cuddly, though.

Plan 9 from Outer Space DVD ~ Tom Keene

$13.99 Used & New from: $

Can you imagine paying $13.99 for Plan 9 From Outer Space?

Abso-fucking-lutely.

“When Worlds Collide, This Island Earth,20 Million Miles to Earth, The Blob, Conquest of Space, It Came From Beneath the Sea, Teenagers From Outer Space, Tarantula, Monolith Monsters, The Thing From Another World, The Atomic Submarine, Teenage Zombies, Plan 9 From Outer Space, Night Train to Mundo Fine, The Beast of Yucca Flats, Monster A Go-Go, The Horror of Party Beach, and let’s not forget my personal favorite Santa Claus Conquers The Martians!”

dude, I love most of those fucking movies.

Reprinting a post I made to Wordplay in 1999.

Here’s a quote from critic Kenneth McGowan of the New York Times:

… producers have got to shake themselves out of the ruts of machine production and mere money-squandering and try to see see the full possibilities of their art.

Question: what movie prompted him to write this?

Answer: THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI, when it was released in —

— 1920.

I just thought it was interesting in light of a number of discussions of modern movies that take place on these boards. There seems to be a general consensus that movies have somehow become worse on whole than in earlier periods. Even thinking back to a more recent period of history like the ’70s, the movies cited as proof of this thesis are THE CONVERSATION or TAXI DRIVER — no one ever mentions CLAWS or FIRST LOVE or I NEVER PROMISED YOU A ROSE GARDEN, or any number of bad, forgettable movies that were released in that decade.

That’s because they deserve to be forgotten. The movies we cite as classics are classics because they are good movies, not because they are old movies.

I also thought the quote was interesting because it points out that the whole ‘Business v. Art’ debate has been going on since almost the earliest days of the industry, the feeling is always that the ‘Business’ is destroying the ‘Art’ — and yet no one can argue that there have not been great movies — artful movies — made since 1920.

Just for a laugh, here’s another review of CALIGARI:

“THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI represents the inevitable lines along which the cinema must evolve, and the first American producer who has the insight and intelligence and courage to turn in that direction … will not only succeed financially, but will go down in the moving picture history of America as a truly great man of the industry.”

Funny how the critic points that it requires insight, intelligence and courage to have the very insight he has already had. Not too self-congratulatory.

ruairi loves MONSTER A GO-GO and like a drooling drunk lurching into a gold mine actually manages to bring us back on topic, for his post demonstrates that the quality of a movie, any movie, from any decade, is… subjective. and that, is a fact.

but it doesn’t unburden screenwriters from the other fact that “constantly appealing to the lowest common denominator will help it to keep dropping” as so eloquently worded by dr. olson.

why not try and tap into new themes and topics and tell unique stories that aim to enlighten, like, say, a certain mr. shyamalan does…?

isn’t that what EVRYBODY reacted to when SIXTH SENSE came out? not only that is was well crafted and had a surprise ending, but that it was a movie we hadn’t seen before, telling a story we hadn’t heard before, making us think of shit we hadn’t thought of before?

failure to succeed is still more honorable than failure to try.

Right Ted,

But we’re not arguing that there were NO bad movies made in the sixties and seventies - we’re arguing that the overall quality was higher, as a rule, than it is now. Goldman covered this (though he referenced a different era), and Peter Biskind did, really extensively, in his book. In countering, I cannot add anything that wouldn’t be referencing those two.

And my main point is that movies have an effect, good ones (Sixth Sense) and bad ones (the aforementioned and much maligned White Chicks) and sometimes the effect on culture is postive and sometimes it’s negative and maybe, sometimes it’s both.

Not just popular movies, either, let’s not forget that HEAVEN’S GATE had a large effect upon how movies were made afterward.

And popular bad movies we love (Billy Jack) also had an effect (one could argue that the idea open big on a lot of screens and drown the television with ads for the film started not with Jaws but with Billy Jack, which was independently produced and distributed). It’s part and parcel of our culture, how can any movie not effect us in some way, either big or small?

I merely pointed out that WC has had a negative impact upon our culture, based on what I’ve observed via my social circle and from what I could endure from the movie itself. I never imagined that it would start a wave of debate such as this one.

I have a newsflash for Ted, Kevin and Craig - the discussion of whether or not movies are worse now than they were thirty years ago is over. It ended before we got here. That each of you can name:

A) Bad movies from the past B) Reviews that lament the badness of great movies from the past

has no bearing on the issue, unless you’re one of Mazin’s cultural absolutists. Read John Simon’s pan of Godfather some time. It’s a hoot. And yet, somehow, the critical discussion of that film is over and its place is assured.

Getting bogged down in this discussion is, frankly, kinda mind-blowing, but then, that’s why I come here. To have my mind blown. Because when I go out into the world - and I have a lot of different worlds - I can’t really find anyone who would seriously make the argument that somehow studios are as daring and risky and bold today as they were in, say, the Seventies. The notion that this is some kind of golden era of cinema is simply laughable, and I will say what I said to Kevin - you guys are the ones taking the radical view. It’s on YOU to make the case.

And, by the way, that will require some serious critical analysis. You want to do that, cool. I’d love to read it. I’d love to hear some actual critical thought coming out, instead of the usual stream of faulty data. (A bad review of a classic film isn’t critical analysis. Sorry.)

So there’s 2 arguments going on here.

1. Was the quality of movies better way back to, I guess, when gas used to cost .50 a gallon?

2. Do movies impact our culture?

“But we’re not arguing that there were NO bad movies made in the sixties and seventies - we’re arguing that the overall quality was higher, as a rule, than it is now. Goldman covered this (though he referenced a different era), and Peter Biskind did, really extensively, in his book. In countering, I cannot add anything that wouldn’t be referencing those two.”

Well, a couple of things. First of all, I love William Goldman’s writing. I can watch Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid anytime. But you know what? He’s not an authority on film. He’s a great screenwriter who freaks out from time to time. His word isn’t gospel. His books are quoted as fact waaaaay too often among screenwriters. We gotta stop that.

Seriously.

“we’re arguing that the overall quality was higher, as a rule, than it is now”

We’ve talked about Subjectivity before. Quality always was and always will be subjective. Quality never has and never will be an absolute. NEVER.

Second, I agree with you when you say that movies have an affect on our culture. Of course they do. Art has always had an effect on our culture.

Kevin,

As to your string of 50s and 60s sci-fi schlock, again, I say - and with no animosity or hubris - you can’t even begin to have seen as many of those kinds of films as I have. You came to them through a job. I came to them through a lifelong love of film. I may not know how to tie my shoes, but you can’t even begin to think you’ve seen more movies than I have. Sorry.

I’m thrilled you had a job that forced you to sit through a few of them. I’m saddened, however, that you didn’t develop enough of a critical eye to get how good some of them are. Anyone who can’t see the difference between the Howard Hawks Thing and Plan 9 From Outer Space has pretty much talked himself out of any serious critical discussion.

“If you talk to a Film Historian, not a critic, not a screenwriter, and not your girlfriend that agrees with everything you say, you’ll find out the painful truth that horrible bad movies existed from the dawn of celluloid.”

Thanks, but let me make something clear that you have a hard time dealing with. I know as much about film history as the vast majority of film historians, I have as good as critical eye as the best critics, and I’m reasonably qualified to speak as a good screenwriter. (Where I come from, it would be unthinkable to try to succeed in this business without any of that being true.) As for my girlfriend, we argue about movies all the time, and she manages not to be threatened by the fact that I know more about them than she does.

Joshua, you reference Peter Biskind as though he’s a reputable source of information.

That’s another debate in itself.Luckily this one is easier to settle;

He’s not.

Kevin,

“Well, a couple of things. First of all, I love William Goldman’s writing. I can watch Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid anytime. But you know what? He’s not an authority on film.”

Interesting. You have a real problem with the idea that there are people whose names are not followed by PHD who might actually be authorities on film. Yeah, William Goldman kinda is an authority on film. If you moved in different circles, you’d be amazed to find out how many people work in this business who know its history inside and out. In your circle of friend, I have no doubt you’re “the film guy,” but let me assure you - not to harp on this - that anyone who lumps The Thing in with Plan 9 From Outer Space is a rank novice.

Understand this - there is no shame in ignorance. There is shame in arrogant ignorance. William Goldman is WAY more of an authority of film than you are. So am I. Sorry that that offends you. Get over it.

Newguy,

Every opinion I offer here I offer under my own name. If you’re afraid to do that, we have nothing else to say.

I’m sure your friend’s movie genuinely sucks ass.

Josh:

“The notion that this is some kind of golden era of cinema is simply laughable”

Who said that this is the golden era of cinema?

“Because when I go out into the world - and I have a lot of different worlds - I can’t really find anyone who would seriously make the argument that somehow studios are as daring and risky and bold today as they were in, say, the Seventies”

Hmmm. I’m way too lazy to do this so I’m gonna cop out and say that you should do this:

Get a list of every single movie made from 1970-1979. Every single one. Now I want you to count how many “classics” are on that list. Next, I want you to count how many movies are considered bad OR ones that you’ve never even heard of. Now make those numbers into a fraction, i.e 24 good/345 bad .

Do the same thing for movies made from 1990-1999. Every single one. Now I want you to count how many “classics” are on that list. Next, I want you to count how many movies are considered bad OR ones that you’ve never even heard of. Do another fraction.

I bet you the amount of good movies that are considered classics from the 70’s and 90’s would be around the same number.

Of course, let’s not forget one huge factor. What makes a film a “classic”?

TIME.

You made that point when you said:

“Read John Simon’s pan of Godfather some time. It’s a hoot. And yet, somehow, the critical discussion of that film is over and its place is assured.”

One day my son will be talking about Traffic as an old American classic film.

Josh, every single person of a certain older age ALWAYS talks about how much better things were back when. From movies, to television, to music, to cars, to women, to men, to fucking everything. For every guy who touts The Godfather as a beacon of greatness there’s an older guy who’ll say that The Maltese Falcon was better. And a younger guy who’ll scream that Scarface was better.

Welcome to THE REASONS WHY AMERICAN HISTORY IS SO SCREWED UP.

Gee, when I was a kid I was taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America. We all know how right the majority was on that one.

Uh, okay Ruairi, I guess you’ve convinced me with your well-thought out counter argument against the work of Peter Biskind.

Wow, I never would of thought that, in all his books filled with ideas, it’s all just made up and he doesn’t know one damn thing about any of the films he’s written about or the many people he’s interviewed, despite the fact it’s sourced and footnoted. I don’t know why it never occurred to me, “he thinks he wrote a book, but … NOT.”

Dude. Come on.

Why should I take your word for it when basically you just say “he’s not” and when I read through a book as well referenced as some of his (not to say he’s the only authority, but certainly informed enough to be some kind of authority)? Not to say there isn’t anything debatable within, but more than enough to say he’s at least done some research.

But your view is - “NOT”. Sorry. You didn’t convince me.

Basically, why should I take your word for it? I didn’t look at his credentials, I read and thought over his views and arguments and decided for myself what made sense. Much of his books consist of interviews, some of which contradict each other and he documents them as such. (one such example being the altercation being Hopper and Rip Torn) - It gives the reader the option to decide one way or another.

So - because you say “he’s not” I should just toss everything written in there? I’m sorry, don’t think so.

In other words - he is more than you are, thus far. At least pertaining to the argument on film quality of yesterday vs that of today.

And Kevin, I don’t look up to Goldman as some sort of deity - just that his arguments add up to some kind of sense, even if he’s a little too clever for himself at times. Same as above, he offers his view and backs it up with ideas.

Those ideas make sense to me. I don’t like all the movies he’s written, either, but I find myself agreeing with much of what he says about the craft and business of writing for movies. I’m basing it on his ideas, not my emotional reaction. His ideas may not be gospel, but it doesn’t mean that, because he’s popular, he doens’t know what he’s talking about.

But it doesn’t hurt that he has two Oscars on his shelf, either. Funny, I’d thought you’d have his back since he is so popular.

“William Goldman is WAY more of an authority of film than you are. So am I”

I would never consider myself an authority on anything. I have something called “Common Fucking Sense”. And just because you know more about a subject than I, doesn’t make you an authority either. I know I can do a handstand longer than you but that doesn’t make me a fucking gymnast.

I do know that Ted knows WAY more than you. That’s obvious. And he disagrees with you. Does that mean he’s right? Nope. Why? Because we’re talking about a subjective medium you silly goose. This whole discussion is one big OPINION.

I want to pinch your cute chubby cheeks.

Hey Joshua, umm… relax man. You’d think I just personally insulted you or something.

I gotta say I don’t like Peter Biskinds writing, I don’t like his attitude, and I don’t like his agenda. And I particularly dislike the many, many reports of one sided reporting and disputed “facts” in his books. And I don’t like that I felt BAD after reading easy writers raging Bulls. And I don’t like that he tried to pull a poignant moment out of his ass at the end of the book, after shitting on peoples private lives for 300 pages preceding, to prove he really “cares” about these people. Like he’s fooling anyone.

But I don’t wanna get sucked too deep into this vortex. So I’ll let Don Murphy do my arguing for me on this one.

http://www.donmurphy.net/dmbiskind.html

Well, Don Murphy, why didn’t you say so - we all know he has no axe to grind, now don’t we?

But nonetheless - I am always happy for new and interesting views on the subject of cinema. All of them.

So I thank you for your link, in all honesty, mayhap will debate it again at a later date.

Kevin,

I repeat - your inability to distinguish between The Thing and Plan 9 From Outer Space leaves you standing outside the door on this one. When it comes back around to a subject you have anything valid or thoughtful to contribute, I’ll pay attention.

Josh:

You’re asking for a critical analysis to prove films aren’t worse (if not better) today than they were in the good old days, but in all fairness what tangible research do you – as an authority in film history – bring to the table that supports your view on the decline in quality of films?

P.S.

Ted:

I’ll be at the harmony gold screening tomorrow, looking forward to your Q&A.

Kevin,

One last thought - instead of indiscriminately blasting people who know WAY more than you do, why not put your idea into action? Make that list. Granted, trusting someone who can’t tell the difference between Howard Hawks (Or Christian Nyby) and Ed Wood to distinguish the difference between The Sting and Basic Instinct is an iffy proposition, but you might actually learn something from it, as opposed to what you’re doing here.

Johnny,

“You’re asking for a critical analysis to prove films aren’t worse (if not better) today than they were in the good old days, but in all fairness what tangible research do you – as an authority in film history – bring to the table that supports your view on the decline in quality of films?”

How about this - on average, I see anywhere from 100 to 200 new releases a year. That’s new releases. God knows how many older films I see as well. This is what I do. Some folks here seem to think we’re discussing an idle hobby. There’s a reason I moved to LA to work in film.

Or this - no research, just facts. The financial considerations that run studios have changed radically in the last thirty years, neccessitating a change in the sort of movies that routinely get greenlit and in who the target audience is.

Quality of product is significantly less important to the success of a film today than the quality of the marketing campaign.

I read countless books about movies, from making of tomes to critical analyses. I have yet to come across any that posits the notion that Craig offers, that movies are better now than they’ve ever been. I can say, with some authority, that that is not a commonly held critical view, and so I ask for a throughtful, critical support of that view. Because it’s not just uncommon, it’s radically out there.

I’ve read a ton of books on the movies as well, read several times, plus interviews and anything on the net I can dig up - not just Biskind but any and all info I can get my hands on, and none of the books I’ve read present the argument that movies are better today than in the sixties and seventies. It’s a bit mystifying to hear.

It’s a bit of a radical thing to say, like, those that maintain there is no Global Warning happening. Despite it being hotter now than it’s ever been.

I haven’t seen as many films as Olson, not anymore (but in my video clerk days I’d given you a run for your money) but I agree that there’s been a change in how movies are invested in, plain and simple. That change has effected content and not always positively.

Globally, for example - American films are made now, more often, to appeal to other countries - in a way, today, american culture is less important to the content of films than the one in Japan or Europe, because sometimes that’s how the money is made -

That changes things, one way or another.

Josh:

“I repeat - your inability to distinguish between The Thing and Plan 9 From Outer Space leaves you standing outside the door on this one.”

Well, can I come in? Because I can distinguish between The Thing and Plan 9 From Outer Space. I just don’t like either of them. I can distinguish between Ultraviolet and Crash. I just don’t like either of them. Is that ok with you? I mean, does that make me retarded? Am I wrong for having different tastes than you? Oh no! We like different movies! I’m an idiot! I can’t even use this computer! Wait, what the fuck is a computer?! Noo!!!

Your constant MO of choosing not to listen to someone when they start making sense has already been discovered like months ago. We all know your little trick.

And it’s old.

It’s one thing to be an arrogant dick, which is fine by the way, it makes for interesting reading but when you start to believe your own BS and spew your thoughts and opinions as facts, well…that’s just more than a little sad.

If you weren’t such a silly film fascist, you’d realize that no authority in the universe can tell someone what is good and what is bad. Unless of course, that person is a huckster and/or a con artist. Now we all know you’re a fascist but I don’t think you’ve ever been categorized as a con artist. I don’t…think you are…I guess.

Joshua on the other hand can be objective, therefore we can have an adult discussion with opposing views. And I just realized that when you read that sentence you must be thinking, “Ad..adu…dis…shit, what the hell are those 2 alien words next to each other. Dammit! Kevin’s a dullard”

“One last thought - instead of indiscriminately blasting people who know WAY more than you do, why not put your idea into action? Make that list”

Weren’t you paying attention? I’d never sit down and do that. I’m WAY more lazy than you. Sorry that offends you. Get over it.

Wait…damn, I suck at this.

“I read countless books about movies, from making of tomes to critical analyses. I have yet to come across any that posits the notion that Craig offers, that movies are better now than they’ve ever been. I can say, with some authority, that that is not a commonly held critical view, and so I ask for a throughtful, critical support of that view. Because it’s not just uncommon, it’s radically out there.”

Yeah, it certainly is out there. Not in here anyway. I haven’t seen Craig argue that. There’s a big difference between “better now than they’ve ever been” and “Not worse than they’ve ever been”

So yes, you are correct that saying films now are better than ever is a way out there, silly, absurd, radically stupid, ignorant, retarded, ill informed position. But I’ve never heard anyone ever say it, ever.

Craig, correct me if I’m wrong. You aren’t saying that, right?

It’s steady decline versus wavering/approximately constant, give or take, not steady decline versus steady improvement.

One thing that I hope is not in dispute. Movies are BETTER MADE now than ever before. Whether they are better stories, better told is another matter altogether. Pirates of the Carribean in 1925 COULDN’T have been made as well. Technically. Hey it’s one notch on the steady improvement argument that nobody is making. At least I tried to give it a shot. That’s all I got :)

Josh:

“The financial considerations that run studios have changed radically in the last thirty years, neccessitating a change in the sort of movies that routinely get greenlit and in who the target audience is.”

I second that - obviously, since it is a fact. But are all 100-200 new releases you watch every year studio films? What about independent films? Are they not part of the modern film age, and in that, unique to this era as a means to tell thoughtprovoking stories?

Josh —

Since your argument is that the overall quality of contemporary movies is less than that of movies made in the past, how can the overall quality of movies made in the past not have bearing on the argument?

-

I can’t prove that movies are better today than yesterday. I don’t really know if they are or aren’t. I think it’s sort of a stupid thing to think about.

There have always been good movies and there have always been bad movies. Josh believes that his personal viewing of movies is somehow quantitative, but that’s because Josh is a fundamentalist about movies. I’m not. Josh is an absolutist. I’m not.

There is no way to quantitatively determine whether one era has better movies than another. First, I suppose we’d have to agree on “better,” then a way to measure “better,” then a way to analyze the statistics…

…in other words, we’d be insane.

Beyond that, we change. We grow up. I just don’t get as excited about candy as I used to when I was 10. I don’t get as excited by porn as I used to when I was 16.

Is the porn getting worse? Is the candy getting worse?

Because we change and grow and see more and more movies and adjust our expectations and desires according to our experience and our evolving tastes, it stands to reason that we simply cannot make one-for-one comparisons between our interest in movies we saw when we were 13 and movies we saw when we were 35.

Jamming slop down people’s throats since 1995,

C.

I may be misunderstanding you, Craig, and if so, I apologize.

But. Basically, you’re saying there’s no way to tell good movies from bad, or compare the list of good movies on one hand to another list of good movie on the other and decide which are better?

the AFI does that when they choose the centuries best films. We also do it every year. Critics often give a list of that year’s best films in which they do exactly that, pare down the list to the best ten.

The Academy does it every year, but pare down the list to the best five.

Now I agree taste is subjective (I’m with Kevin on CRASH, I was mystified) but while taste may be subjective, quality in craft is not - which means that Josh can make a quantitive judgement such as the one you mention. Why wouldn’t he be able to? It’s one way to learn about the process. In film studies, we study old movies (Citizen Kane) over and over again, just like in American Lit we go over Mark Twain. We study them with a quantitive eye, do we not?

I think you’re being a bit slippery here, I mean, If there’s no way to quantitively judge movies from from era to another, it also stands to reason that there’s no way to quantitively judge one movie from another - or the movie scripts from one era to another. It also leads us to believe that we cannot quantitively judge one script to another to today - no one script can justifiable be better than other, since it’s strictly subjective.

Which is also insane, because why read old scripts, why pore through books and why pore through this site and Wordplayer if we didn’t all believe, on some level, that what we do has a quantative quality that those in the know recognize immediately and the public at large recognize when realized onscreen?

If it’s not quantative at all, creating the stories as we do, why even bother? There are easier ways to make money.

To get back to Craig’s article at the top, In Defense Of M. NIght Shyamalan.

I haven’t read the book you write about (and don’t really plan on reading it) but I’m kind of curious to know what kind of defense MNS comes up with in regard to LADY IN THE WATER. Or rather, what he was trying to attain with the film, why he held out in the face of such adversity, what drove him. I assume the book sheds some light on that.

I think MNS is a great filmmaker (at least he seems to have a distinct authoral voice) but I´m not exactly a fan. SIXTH SENSE is in fact the only film of his I’ve seen.

SIXTH SENSE is essentially psychological drama and it is very firmly rooted in reality. By reality I mean the the world as ordinary people understand it and experience it in their everyday lives. What happens in SIXTH SENSE could happen to anyone. Conceivably. In real life.

MNS’s post SIXTH SENSE films are all journeys into the fantastic, so I’d say he made a radical departure. By switching from what’s basically realism to fantasy he must have lost a big chunk of his (original) audience. And perhaps gained new audiences.

Anyway.

I watched the LADY IN THE WATER trailers and they look superb. See, even though I never seem to make it to a MNS film I always watch the trailers and always want to know what they’re about. I guess I’m subconsciously hoping that one day I’ll be intrigued enough to actually want to see a film of his. F-ing crop circles is not my idea of intriguing.

But the LITW plot outline on imdb makes no sense. Either something is seriously wrong with the film or someone did a horrible job writing a plot outline for imdb.

I found myself wondering if this Lady in the Water is a pre-existing character (from a children’s book, a fable, folk belief) that the audience is supposed to know about. But I don’t think she is a pre-existing character. They’d say so, somewhere.

In his previous films MNS was always in familiar territory. UNBREAKABLE is about a guy who — for some mysterious reason — is invulnerable to physical harm. Well, that’s familiar enough from mythology, not to mention superhero stories. SIGNS: Crop circles and the aliens who make them. THE VILLAGE is about animism, basically. The stage is always basically set before you go and see the film. Or don’t, as in my case.

So I guess that MNS is contructing his own mythological world in LITW.

I haven’t read any reviews (well, one, Scott the Reader’s. But I’m trying not to read the reviews).

I don’t particularly care whether the film is good or bad, I’m just curious to know what MNS has to say about it. And I think Craig knows something about that.

Is MNS trying to transcend the genre? Or did he simply want to make an art film? By ‘art film’ I mean film that’s first and foremost a personal expression, a film that doesn’t conform to genre conventions and doesn’t fit any pre-existing template.

The imdb outline reads like someone was desperately trying to press a strange story into a conventional ‘logline grid’. The end result is like a Belgian waffle, with unexpected holes here and there, instead of the regular square one.

“But. Basically, you’re saying there’s no way to tell good movies from bad, or compare the list of good movies on one hand to another list of good movie on the other and decide which are better?”

“the AFI does that when they choose the centuries best films. We also do it every year. Critics often give a list of that year’s best films in which they do exactly that, pare down the list to the best ten.”

“The Academy does it every year, but pare down the list to the best five.”

Well, these awards are more popularity contests than any real measure of goodness. Filmmakers literally campaign for nominations like a politician. Probably because politics play a major role.

But just to bend a bit, yeah, I guess there has to be some kind of measure for how much care a filmmaker goes into making his film. Like even if it’s not your cup of tea, you can still see what went into it. Fine, you win Joshua!

However, I still think TIME has a lot to do with our reverance of movies. 20 years from now they’ll be studying Schindler’s List, just like Citizen Kane.

That may sound ridiculous but I believe it will be true.

I also believe that Aliens are being transported around the city in those annoying luggage wheelie things so maybe I’m not the best person to get opinions from.

Ruari,

“So yes, you are correct that saying films now are better than ever is a way out there, silly, absurd, radically stupid, ignorant, retarded, ill informed position. But I’ve never heard anyone ever say it, ever.

Craig, correct me if I’m wrong. You aren’t saying that, right?”

Craig’s exact words: “I think movies today are BETTER than they used to be.”

That is an exact, cut and paste, no context removed quote.

“One thing that I hope is not in dispute. Movies are BETTER MADE now than ever before. Whether they are better stories, better told is another matter altogether. Pirates of the Carribean in 1925 COULDN’T have been made as well. Technically. Hey it’s one notch on the steady improvement argument that nobody is making. At least I tried to give it a shot. That’s all I got :)”

Keyword being “technical.” No offense to Gore Verbinksi, but he’s no Michael Curtiz.

Johnny,

“I second that - obviously, since it is a fact. But are all 100-200 new releases you watch every year studio films? What about independent films? Are they not part of the modern film age, and in that, unique to this era as a means to tell thoughtprovoking stories?”

Sure. And they’re victim to many of the same economic concerns of studio films. I think there’s been a fairly steady decline in the quality of indies as well.

Ted,

“Since your argument is that the overall quality of contemporary movies is less than that of movies made in the past, how can the overall quality of movies made in the past not have bearing on the argument?”

I never said it didn’t. I just pointed out that your citations only have merit if one is an absolutist - “Look! Not every single person alive at the time thought Dr. Caligari was a masterpiece!”

There were bad reviews of Citizen Kane. Doesn’t exactly prove that this is the new Golden Age of cinema (Which, if we’re to take Craig’s view, it must be.)

I love how a good amount of posts start with “I haven’t seen ‘Lady In The Water’…and I haven’t read the book”, but then proceed to crtitically judge both the film and Night’s personality. Anna brings this art of prejudice to the next level, criticizing all of M.Night’s work based on the trailors and imbd synopses! Mindboggling.

………”Craig’s exact words: “I think movies today are BETTER than they used to be.”

That is an exact, cut and paste, no context removed quote.”

Dang. My brain must have refused to process that information. Does not compute.

I prefer this quote from Craig:

“I can’t prove that movies are better today than yesterday. I don’t really know if they are or aren’t. I think it’s sort of a stupid thing to think about.”

er… Craig, I guess I’m gonna have to ask you to clarify your point of view on this… even if it is stupid…

“even if it is stupid…”

I mean is a stupid thing to think about. I’m not calling you stupid.

Craig,

“I can’t prove that movies are better today than yesterday. I don’t really know if they are or aren’t. I think it’s sort of a stupid thing to think about.”

You’re right. Especially for people who love movies and who make them. It’s moronic for us to be concerned with quality, or with maintaining the standards that were set before us, the standards that inspired us enough that we decided to pick them up and carry them ourselves. In fact, any attempt to think critically should be dismissed out of hand.

“There is no way to quantitatively determine whether one era has better movies than another. First, I suppose we’d have to agree on “better,” then a way to measure “better,” then a way to analyze the statistics…”

Guess what, Craig? It’s already happened. The verdict is in, and it’s crystal clear why you weren’t invited to participate. What’s not clear is how you managed to miss it entirely.

“Because we change and grow and see more and more movies and adjust our expectations and desires according to our experience and our evolving tastes, it stands to reason that we simply cannot make one-for-one comparisons between our interest in movies we saw when we were 13 and movies we saw when we were 35.”

You really do sound like the hackiest studio exec in the world trying to defend his latest unwatchable turd. Here’s a one-for-one comparison I CAN make - when I was 13, movies were being made for 35 year olds. When I was 35, they were being made for 13 year olds.

But it would be madness for me to think that that might somehow affect the quality of the movies being made.

Josh, good morning’,

“Sure. And they’re victim to many of the same economic concerns of studio films. I think there’s been a fairly steady decline in the quality of indies as well.”

Fair enough. And on second thought I’d have to agree with you here. Digital video has tipped the quantity / quality balance way into the red. But in general I feel that every year had its “Son Of The Mask” and its “A History Of Violence”. In conclusion we have learned that” “There are good films, and bad films”. Those shall be my final words on the matter (it’s getting stuffy in here and I have a deadline to meet).

Ruari,

“I mean is a stupid thing to think about. I’m not calling you stupid.”

Oh, I will. I’ll happily call Craig stupid. But I do it with the following codicil - I don’t think Craig believes half of what he posts here. I don’t think in real life that Craig responds to critical discussions of the state of film with “That’s a stupid thing to think about.” And I don’t think Craig genuinely believes movies today are better than they’ve ever been. I think there’s a certain level of ass-covering going on, and a certain level of just general cantankerousness and affected contrarianism.

So I don’t think Craig himself is actually stupid. But I think the character he plays online is a bit of a dolt.

I’m not sure where all the misunderstanding is coming from. I think Craig makes a great and valid point about your tastes evolving with age.

Consider all the foods you hated as a child and relish now. Think of all the music the 7th grade version of yourself loved that the guy at your 10 year reunion shuttered at. To take the music example, I loved U2 in 7th grade along side freaking Vanilla Ice. U2 stuck. Still love them. Vanilla Ice? Not so much.

U2 is classically good. The kind of good that 13 year olds may not completely get, but some do. Vanilla Ice was wildly entertaining for me as a 7th grader. As a 28 year old dad, I can’t say he has the same appeal… even on the Surreal Life.

Unfortunately, the entertainment industry, from music to movies, is geared toward people far younger than most of us. That group of people, from about age 12-17 has the most buying power. That age group sets the tone for popular culture. Whenever my wife asks me how a movie like Accepted gets made, my answer is always highschool kids.

The real question should be, “how did movies like Taxi Driver or Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid or the Graduate or Schindler’s List get made? Who could have ever thought that they would make a dollar?” Thankfully, demographic is only one piece of the puzzle.

Craig did post that he thought movies are better today than any other time - I read that, but now I cannot find the comment now …

And as I mentioned, there are numorous tomes written by well regarded writers (Goldman is, a well regarded writer, for the most part) disputing that idea. And what are we doing here if we don’t believe there is a discernable difference between good movies and bad ones?

When I said, “Today’s movies are BETTER than…” I was being snide. Hence the all-caps. I thought (wrongly) that my point would be obvious…stupid questions deserve stupid answers.

I just love that Joshua thinks we can quantify artistic goodness. How are you going to do that, Joshua? An E-meter? :)

Qualitative judgments are basically metaphysical in nature. I’m not being slippery. I used to think like you (and I guess Josh)…that quality was obvious, it was measurable, and that people who didn’t think The Godfather was the greatest movie of all time had faulty measuring mechanisms.

But then I read Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, absorbed (as best I could) Pirsig’s metaphysics of quality, and had a major change of heart.

That’s why I couldn’t care less why Josh Olson thinks I sound like a hacky studio executive. At this point, I’ve pretty much gotten his one point. I disagree with it in a very fundamental way.

Now, Ted tells me (having met Josh) that it’s Josh who is playing the online character, and that in real life, he’s nowhere near as personally insulting or vulgar or angry as he is online. That could be true. Gotta say though…the odds of this particular relationship spilling over into lunch or a cocktail party are getting slimmer and slimmer. :)

And now, back to slop-forcing…

“So I don’t think Craig himself is actually stupid. But I think the character he plays online is a bit of a dolt.”

Definitely applies to several posters here. Anyway, I have a couple questions.

Josh, you said that indy films are subject to the same economic problems as studios (much moreso in fact, I’m sure) and so their quality was going down. But your argument for studio films getting crappier was because they played to teenyboppers, while this is definitely not the case for indy films. So what are indy films doing different now than they were before that is making them inherently worse?

Also, let’s say films ARE worse because of the new lowest common denominator—what is Hollywood supposed to do about it? You said yourself that studio execs (ostensibly the guys greenlighting the movies) want to make better movies, but their hands are tied by the demographic. They don’t think movies for older audiences will sell. If that’s true, what could they do to change it? Just start making those movies anyway, and hope that after enough flops older people will start seeing them? Or are they just flat-out wrong about what the mainstream audience wants?

” Gotta say though…the odds of this particular relationship spilling over into lunch or a cocktail party are getting slimmer and slimmer. “

— You also gotta admit though, the guy’s blog-forum gold. 160 comments and counting. That’s 60 more than your last three posts combined. Maybe you do owe him a beer?

Phoenix,

“Josh, you said that indy films are subject to the same economic problems as studios (much moreso in fact, I’m sure) and so their quality was going down. But your argument for studio films getting crappier was because they played to teenyboppers, while this is definitely not the case for indy films. So what are indy films doing different now than they were before that is making them inherently worse?”

Distribution is harder and harder to come by for indie films, and so they’re much more star-driven than they used to be. Twenty years ago, the big indie films were movies like Secaucus Seven, Chan Is Missing, Stranger Than Paradise, etc. Not a star among them.

Now to get an indie film financed, you almost have to have a star. Doesn’t have to be Bill Murray, but there’s a whole slew of indie stars who demand top dollar to be in these flicks. Makes it harder, limits the kind of movie you can make.

“You said yourself that studio execs (ostensibly the guys greenlighting the movies) want to make better movies, but their hands are tied by the demographic. They don’t think movies for older audiences will sell. If that’s true, what could they do to change it?”

Not much more than they’re already doing. As many people have noted, good movies for adults DO manage to get made. What WE can do is A) support those movies, and B) make an effort to WRITE those movies. It’s hard. It’s harder to get a grownup, intelligent film set-up than it is to get some junky kids’ movie greenlit. Some give up. Some don’t.

Fight for narrative. Fight for characters. Fight for real stories. Fight for wit and intelligence, and most of all for real emotion. Do not buy into the ludicrous and indefensible notion that critical thought is “stupid.” Hold yourself to higher standards than are being espoused by some here. Resist the idiotic lure of mass approbation and the so-called “common man.” These are the dreams of the hack. Don’t be a hack.

If your primary goal is pleasing an audience, you’ve lost the game. That’s a deceptively elitist notion, that the audience is somehow something seperate from you, that they don’t see things the way you do, don’t understand the things you do. Trust that you are not unique, and if something pleases you, it will also please millions of others. If you think of the audience as a seperate, outside thing that you have to think about in order to reach, you’ve lost the game. Doesn’t mean you won’t have a financially successful movie, but it does mean it won’t have an ounce of honesty in it.

Trust that while it’s easy to appeal to the lowest common denominator, people are fucking STARVING for good, solid, intelligent movies that challenge them. Give ‘em the first, and they’ll forget you ten minutes after they’ve lined your pockets. Give ‘em the second, and you’ll have yourself a real audience.

Laura, Laura, Laura,

What makes a film a ?classic?? TIME.

I think I need to steal your onion rings away once more like I used to when Mom wasn’t looking - how could you not include the most classic of all times!

CADDY SHACK!

You probably classify as having watched that 12 or 13 times just because you were cleaning up around your three brothers constantly! (By the way we really do love our little sister even if you won’t take our calls of post here while you are in session!) :(

Paul & Mike @ MLPFS

”Gotta say though…the odds of this particular relationship spilling over into lunch or a cocktail party are getting slimmer and slimmer.“

—> You also gotta admit though, the guy’s blog-forum gold. 160 comments and counting. That’s 60 more than your last three posts combined. Maybe you do owe him a beer?

Craig, are you saying there is no discernable difference between a good screenplay and a bad one, that it’s strictly a matter of subjective taste?

It sounds as though that’s what you’re saying.

Joshua:

There is a discernable difference. And because you used the word “discernable,” I assume you mean an individual is discerning. So yes, it is a matter of subjective taste. Of course it is.

Are you seriously arguing that there’s an empirical difference, quantifiable and measurable by some kind of instrument?

If it weren’t a matter of taste, we’d all be out of work. The reason people hire Josh and I and Ted is because we have a certain subjective taste that appeals to other people who share our subjective tastes.

Good lord, haven’t any of you taken ANY philosophy classes?

Johnny:

I’m not a comment whore. I’d rather have ten well-written, dispassionate, rigorously reasoned comments than 100 rabid screeds. I didn’t start this site for the pleasure of deleting comments like “suck my dick” and so forth.

It’s pathetic, frankly, and while I appreciate Josh Olson’s intellectual contributions, his other contributions make it so that I wouldn’t miss him if he stopped coming.

As such, I’m neutral on Josh’s value to these discussions.

Johnny:

“Anna brings this art of prejudice to the next level, criticizing all of M.Night’s work based on the trailors and imbd synopses! Mindboggling.”

I made no judgements about Night’s films, any of them. Please read my post again and tell me what I said that makes you think I was criticizing them.

Joshua:

By the way, you might be wondering…what is the IT that we’re discerning?

In other words, if discerning is subjective, that’s fine, but what’s the substance we’re judging? Is there’s something called Quality that we’re judging?

That’s a Very Big Question, and I refer you to Mr. Pirsig for an exploration of that.

Josh is great! Totally entertaining.

I used to get really upset at his silly comments. I used to think that Josh was like James Earl Jones from Finding Forrester. You know, gruff and smart with a kind of “I’m doing this for your own good attitude.”

It took me awhile to realize that he’s more like Geoffrey Rush from Shine. While he can write an impeccable piece of music, he also thinks dragons are playing the flute outside of his window.

How could anyone not love that?

It’s like watching a cute little boy trying to pick up a ball while accidentally kicking it across the room.

Anna:

Besides the critical undertone of your comment as a whole, I’d say “F-ing crop circles is not my idea of intriguing” qualifies as a prejudice as you do not care what the film is really about (faith) purely based on its poster.

You make a lot of assumptions based on trailors and imbd loglines. What I was trying to point out is that many people who comment on this board do so without real insight into what they’re commenting on. That’s all. Didn’t mean to pick on you.

Come on, can we at least agree that video games today are better than they ever were…

“Come on, can we at least agree that video games today are better than they ever were…”

Especially since I started writing them!

Josh:

apologies for not getting back before this. I’m on a deadline.

I did address your point, as written, which was that writing a fun pop movie (such as one of my recent favourites BRING IT ON) will rot people’s minds, because the modern day American cinema is feeding them a diet of trash.

[“The notion that a steady diet of moronic crap isn’t going to have an impact on an audience is just bizarre.”]

I dispute the premise on two counts. 1. That writing a lowbrow film will corrupt the mind of the watcher; I contend that is only so if lowbrow is all the watcher absorbs. Indeed, a person can watch only lowbrow films and still be unaffected, providing they get intellectual stimulation elsewhere - if they read literature, or the Economist or watch a good play, for example.

1. That the cinema feeds a constant diet of trash. Film output is varied. As you know, it is my position that film has never produced great art, using ‘art’ in its ordinary honorific sense here. I think it is facile and stupid to compare CITIZEN KANE to a symphony by Beethoven or a play by Shakespeare. Or, if those examples are too sublime, even to, say, ‘Barchester Towers’ by Anthony Trollope.

I would be interested to know if you consider ‘A History of Violence’ to be a work of art, as opposed to a good film. By ‘work of art’ I mean something special, like a painting by Fra Angelico or a novel by Dickens, not ‘a creative work’.

I have had a bunch of philosophy classes, actually, and I’ve also read Pirsig more than once (though it’s been a few years since I last read him) and while I don’t remember everything regarding his journey to defining quality (other than it drove him nuts) I think I can say that, while he may not have been able to definitively define quality, that doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t exist, either.

There are many things we struggle and fail to define, but simply because we haven’t be able to do that yet, doesn’t mean rules don’t apply. Newton’s laws were true long before he put it into math, as were the thoughts of Einstein, etc.

If you are putting me on the spot, I’d say yes, I believe in quality. I’d bet you secretly do, too. You must be proud when you acheive work that is quality in nature, and it’s not simply subjective, though that plays a part of it.

But let’s leave quality behind and talk about good writing, at least.

The IT I am speaking of is good craft, of course. You may not find gore movies such as HOSTEL to your taste, but you can certainly objectively state, as a craftsman, whether or not a movie is well made or badly made even if the subject matter is not to your taste, can one not? We can do that objectively, one one hand, in addition to the subjective matters of taste.

I’m saying the IT we speak of isn’t necessarily about taste, but the work itself. We can look at a paragraph and state whether or not it’s well written or not. Same with an argument, we can examine both sides (which is what a few philosophy classes are about, right?) and decide whether they are properly constructed or not.

That’s the work end of it. That’s what I mean when we say one movie is better than another. There certainly is a subjective cast to it, but that doesn’t mean one cannot do quality work. If I recall, you were a marketing exec - I’m sure you did a good job marketing a film, even if it wasn’t, subjectively, to your taste, right?

I also think there is such a thing as natural talent and natural ability, talent that one can recognize, in painting, basketball or writing, but that means little when we speak of movies, and a whole other barrel of monkeys.

I do agree with whomever stated earlier that movies are technicallly superior today than they ever were.

Kev - Point of order, and I know you’ll accuse me of regressing back to virginity again (which, when I think about it, wouldn’t really be a terrible thing) but James Earl Jones wasn’t in Finding Forester, I believe you’re referring to Sean Connery.

They’re often mistaken for one another.

If you are putting me on the spot, I’d say yes, I believe in quality. I’d bet you secretly do, too. You must be proud when you acheive work that is quality in nature, and it’s not simply subjective, though that plays a part of it.

There’s no secret to it. I openly believe in quality, but I believe our appreciation and discernment of quality is the result of a fluid relationship between observer and observed. I know this is true because I like things now that I used to not like. And there are things I don’t like now that I used to love.

The things did not change.

I did.

To me, therefore, the experience of quality is relative, even if there is some metaphysically absolute substance Q inherent in things.

I feel two kinds of pride when I create. The first is personal. I create something that I feel is quality. The second is professional. I create something that an audience feels is quality.

Joshua:

Why would I write James Earl Jones? What the hell movie was I thinking of? I probably wrote James Earl Jones because Josh has a distinctive booming voice.

And he’s black.

“I know you’ll accuse me of regressing back to virginity again (which, when I think about it, wouldn’t really be a terrible thing)…”

What the hell does that mean?

By the way, I really struggled on which word to italicize. I went back and forth between “that” and “mean”. I hope I made the right choice.

Kev,

Joshua is referring to yesterday’s 2;37pm post. Don’t you read your own comments?

No, no, I know that. But why the:

“(which, when I think about it, wouldn’t really be a terrible thing)…”

I don’t know if this is an actual fact. Like, maybe you won’t find this in any medical books but being a virgin sucks. I should know. I used to be one.

Everyone,

Almost sorry we are here - this is not our ground, we manage wealth, and we are just the crappy audience that guy Ruairi chokes on and on about.

But this was a good one, “Good lord, haven?t any of you taken ANY philosophy classes?”
No need sir, our sister has taken enough for the entire blog site here so you are all safe - only pokin’ Dr. Leitman :)

But I had to copy and paste this, “So yes, it is a matter of subjective taste.”

Because it is always a matter of taste and some guy above compared The Godfather to Scarface ? He should be corrected - maybe even cinderblocked and thrown into a river -

It’s The Godfather vs. Goodfellas man and EVERYONE internally knows that hands down it is GOODFELLAS - of course from the cruddy audiences point of view.

Mike and Paul how could you post when you chew on Laura like Beef Jerky for even bringing it up at dinner! It’s no wonder I am her favorite.

love ya sis - Sully 4

Being a virgin wasn’t so great, but losing one’s virginity, for some, is quite nice - sad thing is, you only get to lose / give it away once - I said it wouldn’t be terrible because then I could lose it again and lose it much better than I did the first time.

The first time wasn’t so bad, either.

I lost my virginity when I was 4 years old to a 27 year old supermodel so I really can’t relate.

Just out of curiousity, what are the best movies you’ve seen this year?

“we are just the crappy audience that guy Ruairi chokes on and on about.”

Wierd that you would single me out of all people… what on earth makes you think I feel that way about the audience?If it’s not clear by now, I think underestimating the audience’ intelligence is one of the worst mistakes you can make.

I’m not the one calling them brain dead/marching morons.

Craig,

” I didn’t start this site for the pleasure of deleting comments like “suck my dick” and so forth.

It’s pathetic, frankly, “

Sheesh. You change your standards so fast it makes my little head spin. Let me see if I have this right - there is no good or bad, all quality is subjective, but “suck my dick” is just bad.

Frankly, I think “suck my dick” is fucking hilarious when used properly. I think it adds a little zesty spice to an otherwise dreary and moronic argument. It makes me laugh. But then, you’re the king of highbrow comedy, so I guess I’ll have to defer to your judgement on these matters, Mr. Wilde.

“As such, I’m neutral on Josh’s value to these discussions.”

Feeling’s mutual, babe. But I do bring in a lot more traffic than you do. So, you’re welcome.

Louise,

“I did address your point, as written, which was that writing a fun pop movie (such as one of my recent favourites BRING IT ON) will rot people’s minds, because the modern day American cinema is feeding them a diet of trash.”

Bring It On is about as far from mindless crap as you can get. I find it hilariously ironic that you and Craig and Co. keep on doing this. On the one hand, you accue me of being a snob, then you turn around and prove to be the biggest snobs here. That NONE of you even know what I’m talking about when I talk about intelligent, well written movies is just…. wow. Fascinating. Bring It On is smart and sharp and funny, I haven’t seen one studio film this year that comes close to the intelligence and wit on display in that movie. Not one. If that were the worst the studios had to offer, man, we WOULD be in Hollywood’s Golden Age.

“That writing a lowbrow film will corrupt the mind of the watcher;”

I’ve never dumped on lowbrow entertainment. I’ve dumped on crap. There’s a difference.

“I would be interested to know if you consider ‘A History of Violence’ to be a work of art, as opposed to a good film.”

Ask me about something I didn’t write. The best I can tell you is I’m proud as hell of that film. I wrote a script I thought was bloody good, and they shot it bloody well. But I can’t possibly judge it objectively. I’ll say this - I’ve had some of the greatest directors alive tell me they thought it was a masterpiece. It’s sobering and flattering as hell, and I can’t possibly agree or disagree with any degree of objectivity. I’ve never seen the film, really. (I’ll explain that if you want, but I’d guess you get my meaning.)

No, “suck my dick” is not BAD.

I just don’t like it. I, Craig Mazin, owner and operator of this site, don’t find it appropriate for my comments section. I also find it disrespectful when a visitor to my site chooses to repeatedly ignore the very clearly posted guidelines.

That’s my subjective point of view.

I don’t mind debate, but I do mind selfish, inconsiderate boorishness. Please do not continue to violate my very simple guideline, or you won’t be welcome here anymore.

I think the site will manage to survive without you and your “traffic.”

Craig,

“The things did not change.

I did.”

Once again you ducked my point. Yeah, we’ve both changed. But when we were kids, movies were, by and large, made for adults. Now that we’re adults, they are, by and large, made for kids.

It would seem to be your conceit that this has no bearing on their quality.

Josh —

Although its not clear from the quote, the cited review of THE CABINET OF DR. CAGLIARI was a positive one. This, said the crtic, is what movies should be.

But the reason I posted it was not to discuss the relative quality of a single movie, but to make the point:

There’s never been a time when the overall quality of contemporary movies has not been judged lesser, relative to the overall quality of movies in the past.

There has never been a time when the argument has not been made that current movies represent the nadir of the art form.

It’s an easy argument to make — just site the very worst movie you can think of, and claim that that movie never would have been made in the past. Can’t be proved wrong, since that specific movie was NOT made in the past, and if you discount any examples of movies of equally poor quality as having no bearing on the argument, then that, said John, is that.

A far more interesting argument:

Allowing that you believe that the overall quality of movies has decreased over the years, why has that happened?

-

Josh, take a break from the site. Come back when you can follow the rules. I’m not banning you, but there are kids who read this site, I have certain standards of communication I require, and this place is not yours to do with as you wish.

Ted:

You said…

” — just site the very worst movie you can think of, and claim that that movie never would have been made in the past. Can’t be proved wrong, since that specific movie was NOT made in the past,…”

PSYCHO directed in 1998 by Gus Van Sant, versus PSYCHO directed by Alfred Hitchcock in 1960.

There’s your proof.

…but Craig,

all Josh said was See More Dumbmovies, didn’t he?

I’m closing the comments on this thread for now. I apologize, but I’m quite serious about “please keep the tone civil.” Regardless of what Josh might suggest, I’m not in this to win some sort of blog popularity contest. I don’t care how many comments any particular thread gets.

Lately, John August’s blog has been getting about 20-30 comments per post, and they’re more enjoyable to read than the 100+ comment fests I’ve been seeing in here lately.

In the past, we had some incredible discussions (and debates) that never once turned sour or personal, no matter how strenuous the disagreements. I’m going to get back to that or perhaps I’ll switch to moderated comments, but I’m not going to host these bar brawls anymore. Sorry to be so authoritarian, but it’s simply not the purpose of this website.