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