Give the new guy a chance

In a day and age where anyone can make a movie and put it on the Internet for everyone to see you would think there would be better movies being released at your local theater, but not everyone has caught on yet. If producers of major film companies were to turn to the Internet and small film festivals, there might be some legitimate movies that have depth and substance. You say that some of the film festivals are producing some of the horrific movies being shown in our theaters now ad while that may be true, those festivals had the right idea, once. In the beginning of festivals like Sundance and Cannes the idea was to show good films that were not produced by big companies and had no big names. Now a lot of actors think it is “hip” to star in an independent film so that they might be taken more seriously. And if you ever go to Sundance you will see stars going into large tents that are filled with “swag” or really expensive merchandise celebrities get for free. But if there were new festivals that resorted to the bones of what Sundance and Cannes used to be the direction of film would not be headed towards the toilet.

Artistic? No.

While there are some people out there who share the same feelings about the choices we have when it comes to cinema, there are some who have tried to fix it themselves. Some so-called directors have tried to make “edgy” and “artistic” movies and most of the the time the general consensus is that they tried too hard. In Vincent Gallo's Brown Bunny, there is a explicit scene that demonstrates non simulated oral sex has been described as “not gratuitous” to an “odd and off-putting” film. And Roger Ebert is not the only one who feels this way, and sadly this was only one of the films similar to it. Countless movies have been made to break new ground in film but the movies that the general public hears about are the really terrible ones or the amazing ones, and the amazing movies usually end up becoming widely popular blockbusters.

When a director comes from left field with a film, it can either go one of two ways: atrocious or awe-inspiring. And then there are some directors who try and replicate a style of directing from some of the great directors. This can be done the right way. There is always influence in a film, whether the director realizes it or not. Christian filmmaker, Scott Derrickson, says that “prospective filmmakers have a responsibility to understand the history of cinema”. Because to understand where we are going, we must understand where we come from. When it comes to directors like Martin Scorsese and Paul Thomas Anderson there is evident influence of Sam Peckinpah, The Wild Bunch director, in Scorsese and Scorsese in Anderson, and half of the other directors out there. These are examples of using influence from a director and making it different and unique to you. And when a director tries to somewhat copy a director it is evident and just makes it painful to watch. It seems as though anyone can make a movie these days and call themselves a “director”.

Same ol' actors. Same ol' movies.

Every movie released within the past ten years or so has been a vehicle for celebrities. When a movie is released these days someone will say, “Oh I want to see the new movie with (insert celebrity name here)” not “Oh I want to see the new movie about...”. Movies from earlier generations of course had some big names, but there was also a great plot and substance to them. Matthew McConaughey is one of the celebrities who make millions of dollars playing the role of the hunky ladies' man with a southern drawl. He is not the only celebrity that has fallen into this trap, and it seems it will happen to more as time goes on.

Look at the movies released at your local movie theater, and half of them are remakes or books turned into movies. Most of the movies are made to make you laugh, scare you half to death, show you how great of an “actor” some stars can be, and some are just made so you, the viewer, can be amazed by the 3-D graphics or how many things can blow up. Some movies from the 1980s, which is not very long ago, are being remade, and a few are even being turned in to musicals. Case in point, Footloose. It is now being made to feature this generation's teenyboppers singing instead of just dancing. Apparently the writers in Hollywood have writers' block because more classic movies are getting new faces rather than new movies being made. According to Simon Brew of denofgeek.com, there were thirty-eight planned remakes as of 2008. Some movies are getting remade while others are getting sequels. Take Rocky for example. There have been six films total, the first made in 1976 and the last movie was made in 2006. And everyone can agree that each film got worse the next time around, not to say that the first is not a classic, because it is. While some “has beens” try to reprise their famous roles in sequels or remakes, there are newer actors in the game snatching those roles for the younger crowds. As a viewing society, we all need to put an end to this horrible stage of remaking everything and demand fresh, new ideas.

Old beats New

Movies today cannot even slightly compare to the movies of previous generations. Well they can, but when compared, the newer movies are nowhere near as good as the older flicks. It might be hard for some people to believe that some the wildly acclaimed greatest American movies do not have color and every laugh, action scene, and even nudity has purpose. According to filmsite.org's list of 100 greatest movies, as of 1998, there are only six movies that made the cut that were made in 1980 until 1998. Another widely acclaimed source for great movies, AFI.com, lists thirty-one movies from 1980 to 2008 on their list of the top ten movies of ten genres. This list is updated every year so there are some definite changes, but each list gives the number one spot to Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane is a black and white movie made in 1941 that won four Academy Awards. It's sad to say that Transformers will probably never be on either one of those lists. Half of the movies being released in the next few weeks will probably not make either list, but there are always exceptions.

The film studios are producing these movies and putting them out for general consumption. And as consumers we pay money to watch these awful movies, so the studios are giving us what they think we want. And from the millions of dollars consumers spend, the studios think we want dramas that are over acted, or sometimes under acted, action movies that blow things and people up, or movies with stupid, ridiculous humor. Basically we pay for movies that make spectacles, whether it be effects, laughs, or “acting”. Some people say that the movies that are making millions of dollars make so much money because society as a whole is becoming lazier. Apparently, viewers today do not want to think, we just want to laugh,

watch some actors bite their lip and call it acting (cough, Kristen Stewart, cough), and watch cars blow up, according to Janet Harbord in her book The Evolution of Film: Rethinking Film Studies. While I can say that our minds are not like those from generations before, there are some people who still want to watch a movie with substance and think every once in a while instead of mindlessly staring at a screen. For example, the era of action movies started in the 1980s and have not yet stopped. But back then, there were at least three movies playing that were blowing things up, example Big Trouble in Little China, Lethal Weapon, and Die Hard. There is always a time and a place for action in a movie, but killing for revenge or hate or whatever reason should not be the center of a movie. Older generations understood that, now we just need to send that message to the generation of today.

Dora with a gun: The future of cinema?

Imagine sitting in the movie theater watching previews and on the screen comes sweet Dora, from Dora the Explorer, but she doesn't look the same. Instead of that purple backpack, she is now carrying rifles. Dora has grown up and become a hunter. Her life has turned into First Blood, but instead of hunting county sheriffs she is hunting monkeys and foxes, like her former friends Swiper and Boots. This is an option for the future of movies, maybe not that extreme, but something along those lines.

One thing is certain, no matter where you live, how much money you have, or how old you are you have seen at least one movie. Movies seem to have withstood the test of time, so it is safe to say that people around the world will still be watching them in the many many years to come. Over the past ninety years movies have changed entirely from the actors, to what they are wearing, and even the sets on which they are filmed. As people change it is obvious that the things those people make will change, it's called progression. But it seems that people in this day and age cannot come up with good, original ideas for films. Substance has been thrown out the window in movies released in the past ten years, as compared to movies from the 1920s and thereafter. Now when you step into a movie theater, there will be at least one preview for an action movie where everything blows up or gets shot. While those movies make a lot of money, they will not be winning any Academy Awards anytime soon. Granted, there are many movies that make millions of dollars that are critically acclaimed. But what, or who, is at the root of these horrific movies you ask? The answer is obvious; the studios.