There's something in the UK called the Campaign for Real Ale. It was started in The Guardian in the 1970s by Richard Boston, a journalist (naturally) who was alarmed by traditional British pubs being taken over by mass-produced, heavily marketed, rapidly brewed beer.
The real thing, he said, was not carbonated, was brewed in its own time, and had a distinctive flavor. It was drawn up by gravity from a cooled cellar, not forced through hoses under pressure. It wasn't tweaked to make it taste like all other beers, matching some international formula like Budweiser or Heineken's. I've tasted it. It went down smoothly, and you didn't belch.
We should start a Campaign for Real Movies. These also would not be carbonated by CGI or 3D. They would be carefully created by artists, from original recipes, i.e., screenplays. Each movie would be different. There would be no effort to force them into conformity with commercial formulas.
These notions took shape while I was viewing some well-made Real Movies I've seen this year at Cannes: Bertrand Tavernier's "La Princess de Montpensier," Im Sangson's "The Housemaid," Mike Leigh's "Another Year," Mahamet-Saleh Haroun's "Un Homme Who Crie," Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's "Biutiful," Oliver Schmitz's "Life, Above All," and Lee Chang-dong's "Poetry."These aren't all masterpieces, although some are, but they're all Real Movies. None follows a familiar story arc. All involve intense involvement with their characters. All do something that is perhaps the most important thing a movie can do: They take us outside our personal box of time and space, and invite us to empathize with those of other times, places, races, creeds, classes and prospects. I believe empathy is the most essential quality of civilization.
Consider the Tavernier. Here is a great filmmaker who has never made two similar films. He starts all over again every time. "La Princess de Montpensier," based on a well-known short story by Madame de La Fayette, is about a beautiful young woman who is forced by her father to marry one man although she loves another. The story is set circa 1570, when the land is aflame with religious wars between Catholics and Hugenots, and she is lodged for safety in the castle of her new husband, where a tutor is engaged to feed her obvious intelligence.She encourages the man she loves. She deceives her husband. Her tutor, a man who deserted an army because he became disenchanted with all wars, falls in love with her. It's the kind of film where at a masked ball a confidence is shared with precisely the wrong man. But why do I say "the kind of film?" Tavernier is precise about how and why the mistake is made, and unblinking in considering its results.
Real movies are permitted to have movie stars, just like the fizzy ones. This one stars Melanie Thierry, who brings her fresh beauty to the role of a young woman playing with fire. She creates a great deal of unhappiness, not least for herself and her tutor. Tavernier makes the tutor's love truly romantic, and not a matter of conquest or persuasion, and by avoiding all the clichés of a "love triangle," he makes a Real Movie.
"Un Homme Qui Crie" ("The Man Who Screamed"), said to be the first feature from the African nation of Chad, is about a proud man who loses his job. Adam, tall and handsome, resplendent in his white uniform, is in charge of the pool at an upscale business hotel. Everyone calls him "Champ," because years ago he won the Central African swimming championship. A rebel group is having success in attacking government forces, stability and prosperity are affected, and he is demoted to a post as guard at the hotel's front gate and given another uniform. "The pool is my life," he despairs.This is, of course, the same story as Murnau's silent classic "The Last Laugh," yet not the same at all. What Mahamet-Saleh Haroun does is original: He considers an African war not in terms of bloodshed and politics, but in the ways it overturns the lives of ordinary people, whose status and security hang by a thread. The film gives us a remarkable idea of Chad, like all African nations more complex than most of us realize. Adam could be my father, or yours, out of work after years of what looked like a lifetime job.
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's "Biutiful" stars Javier Bardeem in a virtuoso performance as a low-level criminal in Barcelona who is told by his doctor he has very little time to live. He works as a middleman in an industry which makes fake luxury items in sweatshops and sells them to tourists via sidewalk vendors. You've seen the Gucci bags lined up on pavements.Uxbal's life is a mess. He is separated from his bipolar wife. He tries to care for the sons he loves. He is under urgent pressure from his criminal associates; he helps supply illegal Asian immigrants for the sweatshops. There is blood in his pee. He works in crime, but is not a bad man, and indeed under sentence of death he is moved, like the hero of Kurosawa's "Ikiru," to try to do something good.
One gesture he makes ends in tragic consequences. Uxbal made the gesture, but also tried to make some money on it. He's devastated. Inarritu follows his last days with great intimacy, burying his camera in the seamy street life Uxbal lives, introducing many characters in sharp and colorful relief. He grants his characters the dignity of having feelings and reasons, and not simply behaving as mechanical inhabitants of a crime plot. Bardeem is a possibility for the festival's Best Actor award.
"Poetry," by Lee Chang-dong, tells the story of a South Korean woman (Jeong-hee Yoon) who learns that her son was involved in a rape with five classmates. The girl committed suicide. Shortly before discovering this, with great shyness, she signs up for a poetry class, and makes some new friends who encourage her to find beauty everywhere; has she ever really looked at an apple?She works a few days a week as a caregiver for a rich man whose right side has been paralyzed by a stroke. She begins to meet with the fathers of the other five students. They talk about raising funds to buy off the mother of the dead girl. And she writes some poems. All of these strands come together and illuminate each other, in a film that never takes its eyes off her for long. The film contains certainly the most poignant badminton match I can imagine.
Among other Real Movies at Cannes this year, I wrote about "Another Year" and "The Housemaid" earlier. "Robin Hood," which opened the festival was, sadly, carbonated, and pumped into theaters under pressure.
This is a great idea. It would seem as though most film makers these days have forgotten the real power of film (in my humble opinion): the power of empathy. No genre can make you feel what someone else is feeling quite like film. This is why Godard films have gone down the drain as of late, just to name one director. They are sterile constructions, attempting to pose as grand statements about the nature of life. But the nature of life is you, me, love. Not some intellectual bullshit. You'll learn more about life from City Lights then you ever will from Film Socialisme.
In the end, this is really just a call for people to cut the crap and be honest, is it not? I mean, of course not everyone can make a masterpiece, but you'll never get there by telling lies. It's so easy to get clouded by your conceptions of how things are, should be, will be, that you miss what is right in front of you. Film is a language, like music is a language, or any medium. We use it to tell the truths that we can't speak. You are not just cheating the auidience by lying on screen, you are cheating yourself. So everyone shut up, and make some damn Real Movies!!!
But Roger, if they did that ("Real Movies"), then I'd return to the cinema. And those in charge of the movie industry have proven again and again that they don't wish to see me there. They'd rather show regurgitated nonsense to people so desperate for some distraction from their lives that they'll go even though they know that they're watching rubbish.
If any of these films you mention play nearby, then I shall see them. But they won't. Instead I'll have the option of Avatar II or some remake of a movie that was quite good enough (or not) the first time it was made. I love the movies, but I'm so over the movie industry (at least in the US).
I love you Roger. You're concerns with the film world are almost identical to my own. I'm making an extreme indie this year that I hope to get into Cannes. Can't wait for you to see it.
It's nice to know that there is a market for both Real Ale/Craft beer/movie and for the macrobrew crap, even if the latter is a bigger market. I imagine that won't be changing any time soon whether it's beer or movies.
While this is not related to the content of this article (which was certainly interesting for this CAMRA sympathizer), I've been reading your journal via the Atom feed for some time, and have just ignored the three lines of indentation that imprison most of the text. Today, I looked at the source code for the posting. For some reason, the section that appears instead of the "click through for more message" begins with three unmatched <blockquote> tags. Is there a reason why they are included? If there is, it would seem they should be closed with </blockquote> and if not, they should be removed.
I generally read your journal via NetNewsWire and have appreciated your embrace of (some) new technologies. Thanks.
Singular analogy. Singular. It's come to the point I don't expect a craft-brewed movie at the commercial theaters, but instead expect them from Netflix.
Not that CGI doesn't require lots and lots of craftsmanship. But truth be told, when I noticed that a Harry Potter movie and that... oh, I think it was a "Lord of the Rings" both used the identical program of movements for a giant spider here and a 3-headed dog monster there, the novelty began to wear off. "2012" and "Avatar" were big fun, but illustrate that CGI is something like the effect pornography has on people: it gets boring very quickly if the producers don't keep thinking up novel arrangements for the same stuff.
How may I join your campaign?
I'm fortunate to live 2 blocks from one of the only theaters in Pittsburgh that plays these kinds of films. Most of America cannot easily see anything in a theater that's not heavily carbonated and pressurized.
If the beer analogy holds up, however, there may be hope. 20 years ago, the only beer that most Americans had easy access to was over-carbonated and mass produced. Some argued that this was because Americans preferred this kind of beer. But walk into any decent sized beer store today and you will be confronted with scores (if not hundreds) of different brands and styles, from micro-brews to exotic imports. The rise of "real beer" in the last few decades demonstrates that a perhaps surprising (and certainly encouraging) percentage of Americans DO care about quality, and when given the choice, will select a beer (or a film) that was made with care, thought and originality, and is not simply a corporation's attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Interesting that you choose to make a generalization about 3D and CGI. As much as I am skeptical about those two mediums, and recognize that 99% of films using them do so without real purpose, its important to recognize the advances in recent years. It is also important to note that when sound, color, and even cinemascope were introduced, many directors and critics deemed them as cheap ploys or superficial aspects unnecessary to the art. But, when directors like James Cameron, Scorsese, and studios like Pixar are embracing 3D, it can be said that this might become a tool for directors to drive the narrative, and develop the tone and style of a film. Maybe it is time to embrace 3D as more than a way to charge a higher price at the movie theater. Used properly, 3D might become just another ingredient to the "recipe" you speak of.
The boy in "Poem" is not a son of Mija. He is her grandson.
The public is too stupid to enjoy or understand "Real Movies." If a movie has too much talking in it, out come the Blackberries and iPhones.
You are part of this problem, Roger. Why refuse to give stars to The Human Centipede? And why do you bash Godard? Are you really going to change anyone's mind about him or his work?
Are you too much of a coward to go after those who make "Fake Movies"? That would be Spielberg, Bay, Bruckheimer, Lucas, Cameron, etc. Have you truly contemplated the work they are producing and directing recently?!
Godard's current work might be esoteric, but Lucas's work turns my stomach more.
YOU ARE A COWARD. FIGHT THE FAKE MOVIE-MAKERS! YOU KNOW WHO THEY ARE. STOP GIVING BLANDLY POSITIVE REVIEWS TO GARBAGE STUDIO FILMS!
If you want "Real Films," fight for them. FIGHT. FOR. THEM.
You have created an incredible platform for yourself. Use it.
I want to throw up when I read your review of ROBIN HOOD. Now there's a "no star" movie for you. You know it sucks, I know it sucks, the public knows it sucks. Yet I see you give it a couple stars. COME ON! Ridley Scott doesn't need your sympathy stars.
Shame them into doing better work. Is this not what the Cahiers critics did? Oh yeah, and some of them began making films themselves :)
Michael Bay will dance on your grave. Don't let him. Take them down. Kill them with words. Destroy the fakery. IT CAN BE DONE.
Get the balls to list the ten worst moviemakers in Hollywood. You'll find out that most people (critics and public) agree with you. Ruin them, like they are ruining film. Or perhaps you want every movie to be in 3D?
Here's my list of the worst:
1. Lucas
2. Bay
3. Spielberg (Munich is great--yet he choses to wallow in producing garbage. That is very sad).
4. Bruckheimer
5. Joel Silver
6. Cameron
7. Tony Scott
8. Ridley Scott (interchangeable at this point with his brother)
9. Any studio executive who greenlights only sequels, remakes, etc (a.k.a. pretty much every studio executive these days)
10. The audience at most multiplexes
Ahhhh! I wanna see La Princesse so muchhhhhhh
Really, Roger? The movies involve involvement? Okay, I know it’s not technically redundant any more than saying a symphony has a “moving movement” or a “character is characterized by.” Still, it’s a bit inelegant and clumsy. A good writer like you should be above even the suspicion of redundancy.
Yesterday on this very blog I posted a comment which read, "It seems that every year you go to Cannes and find at least one 'real movie.' In past years, it's been The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada and Indigènes, so I must conclude that what you mean by a real film is a superior example of Hollywood craftsmanship, preferably in a male-oriented genre that's presently out of fashion (i.e., the western, or the World War II film)." Coincidence?
A lot of these movies seem like they have sad endings. That's a complaint among many movie goers of critics - they mainly like boring, depressing movies with sad or tragic endings. People like going to the movies to escape their dreary lives, since most people, especially in America, believe they have dreary lives when compared to the spoiled antics of the Paris Hilton's and Lindsey Lohan's of the world - they have it all, and appreciate none of it. Meanwhile, I just spent literally my last dollar on gas. I get paid Friday.
When I leave work, I want to go see some rip roaring, awesome spectacle, like Iron Man 2. Yet, to be fair to you, I enjoyed Iron Man 2 because of the wonderful CHARACTERS, that made the action more enjoyable and meaningful, than the cardboard cutouts of Transformers 2. Of course, knowing what the hell is going on is a plus, since Transformer's 2 chaotic mess became boring, and Iron Man 2's understandable action scenes kept me excited.
I think a lot of people want better movies and characters, but their afraid of wasting money on a movie that is inaccessible to them. I am finishing up my own little zero-budget film, and have a wider taste in movies than my friends. I'll watch an independant film sometimes, and think to myself, "I enjoyed this, but my friends never would." Sometimes I watch them, and I will humbly admit - I don't know what the hell is going on, or what the movie is about! They and I know that if we plunk down $8 or $10, the latest blockbuster will sure to entertain....we hope. $10 bucks for the latest foreign award winner....I don't know. The critics raved about "Where The Wild Things Are." One of the few times I got a movie review from two of my customers was from two ladies who HATED!!! that movie, and warned me not to go see it because it was so depressing and dreary.
The Iraq War movies were praised by critics, and the public wasn't interested in any of them.
Liberals can praise those movie's messages all day long, but Americans didn't want to be lectured at the movie theater by a bunch of smug liberals. They'd much rather watch a truck transform into a robot, as Kevin Smith so eloquently put it.
Yet there is hope. Harry Potter has been kicking ass at the box office because each of those movies is different, has interesting characters, has a unique story, and harkens to a time of fairy tale and folklore. It has FANS. A lot of people saw Transformers 2, and will watch all those damn remakes. Then they'll complain about how much those movies sucked when a little time passes! And...they'll forget about them. People still remember Star Wars and E.T.
After the good news about these real movies from your, all I hope is that Ejafjallajokull will not strike again.
I'm guessing from your closing comments that you read this: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/05/robin_hood_script_russell_crow.html
Roger, if there is such an audience in the United States that hungers for "real movies" (and foreign movies), then why has nobody exploited this? Why hasn't some enterprising individual built a chain of multiplex theaters across the country that would show only "real movies" and foreign movies?
Roger--If you think about it, all of these movies are people-based or -focused. They have minimal or no special effects to interrupt (read: take over) the focus of two or more people having ordinary human interactions. I don't watch many Hollywood films anymore, as they're frequently about a proven formula with box-office stars and CGI. That stuff gets in the way of the story, robbing it of its humanity. I've recently watched DVDs of The Hairdresser's Husband, 36 Quai des Orfevres, Tokyo Sonata, Mephisto, Departures and Read My Lips. These are films about people, with story arcs that don't rely on special effects to advance the story and "enhance" the viewing experience.
Unfortunately, that kind of movie has been pushed aside by Hollywood. It's a sad commentary on our society, and is driven by the bottom line. For some reason, the decision-makers in Hollywood think we want to escape our daily lives with 2-1/2 hours of mindless violence. I suppose computer games have a hand in this, too, which would explain a movie like Transformers 2. The rest of the world's film makers don't resort to expensive CGI to tell their stories; has Hollywood simply lost its way?
What I take from this is that you would like movies that are more original in their storytelling and engaging in their characters, and more extravagant technique like CGI would be an embellishment, but not essential to the movie's enjoyment. Certainly, most filmgoers, especially people here, agree with you.
That said, there's no need to draw this up into a manifesto. Look at how Dogme 95 turned out. Few movements have the energy to sustain their directors past being a footnote or chapter in the film history textbook. The fact is that we need a stronger emphasis on screenplay, especially in a world where current CGI technology can take care of the visual aspect.
That's actually Mahamet-Saleh Haroun's third feature film, and both of his earlier ones were also made in Chad. I don't know much about either as I've not seen them, but I've heard that Daratt is quite good.
"I believe empathy is the most essential quality of civilization."
A very strong statement and one I agree with.
Roger
Sign me up.
Hollywood is overwhelmingly a lost cause. Foreign and independent films provide an intellectual and emotional resonance that's intoxicating.
This year I've been renting scores of DVDs from an internet company; the vast majority are Criterion discs. These, as you well know, are glorious to watch, and provide a unique window on world cinema.
I've been imbibing in the greats of the film canon: Godard (Breathless and Vivre sa Vie), Zhang Yimou (To Live and Raise the Red Lantern), Wong Kar-Wai, Ozu, Truffaut, and lots of Kurosawa. It's been glorious, and a revelation.
But for every La Dolce Vita (I'm 42, and only saw that for the first time, this very week), I've also enjoyed contemporary (and very REAL) movies: Bright Star, Persepolis, Hunger, Summer Hours, and, this very evening, Tokyo Sonata.
I've been reading all I can about the Cannes festival. I want to know about what's attracted critical attention there, because some of those films will surely be available at the Toronto International Film Festival this September.
I'm glad you found some movies of interest this year. I hope the remaining days provide some more, and I look forward to seeing these in Toronto in four months time.
Keep blogging, and together - in the darkness of the theatre, or on our couches, but also most definitely in this forum - we'll all enjoy the true art of cinema that can only be found in real movies.
Dear Roger;
Maybe Hollywood movies are becoming little more than digital "Budweiser" but TV is delivering the goods.
"Breaking Bad" is hand crafted goodness. I'll fill my "growler" with "Mad Men" every chance I get. Very few theatrical comedies are better made than "30 Rock".
The movie theater is becoming a 3-D theme park.
We will be mourning the theatrical experience for serious drama and adult comedy but they are and will still be making them. The studios have petitioned the FCC to allow them to disable DVR function when they feed us first run films directly to our homes at the same time as the theatrical release. If it were in place now "The Hurt Locker" just might have been a huge financial success to go along with it's critical reception.
The real stuff is and will be on TV. It will not be going back to the theater in the long run. But more quality productions will be seen by more people.
See you in the living room.
In the top 10 grossing films released in 1975 (the year that invented the modern blockbuster with Jaws) were
1. Jaws
2. Rocky Horror Picture Show (only due to rerelease)
3. One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest
4. Dog Day Afternoon
5. Shampoo
6. Tommy
7. Three Days of the Condor
8. Funny Lady
9. Nashville
10.The Day of the Locust
At least half of these movies (#s 3,4,5,9 and 10)would be relegated to the art house today. All five are certainly "real" movies, and I'd make a pretty strong case for Jaws and most of the others as well. Compare that to this list from 2009 and be depressed
1. Avatar
2. Harry Potter 6
3. Ice Age 3
4. Transformers 2
5. 2012
6. Up
7. Twilight 2
8. Sherlock Holmes
9. Angels & Demons
10.The Hangover
Although I enjoyed a few of these, with the possible exception of Up, these are "film products" rather than real movies. (I'm thinking of Michael Pollan who advises us to eat real food instead of food products).
Although tastes change, people don't really change that much. If you sit most people in front of a movie like Dog Day Afternoon or Cuckoo's Nest they will still be blown away and mesmerized by the stories they tell (Nashville might be a harder sell). For some mysterious reason, few outside a few major urban areas seem to want to see this type of film at the multiplex. I think that people (especially adults) are just out of the habit. Perhaps, if we measured the eyeballs delivered to a movie in all forms (including DVD, pay per view, etc.), we'd see that "real" movies are more popular than we realize; they just don't deliver box office grosses.
However, as another side to this, and in Godard's defence, a quote by Roberto Rossellini:
“I am not a pessimist; to perceive evil where it exists is, in my opinion, a form of optimism.”
I haven't seen a movie in the last three months that didn't feel like all the others...ones that used to only come out during the summer and usually there was only one.
Now with CGI, producers and directors have bastardized all storytelling into the same mish-mash drawn out fight scenes that are all sound and fury signifying nothing. Movie going has become so dreary as films become less and less diverse.
BTW, the best "real beer" is currently made in the US thanks to the Microbrew revolution after our own citizen-revolt in the late 80's. It's in Portland, Oregon...the beer capital of the world.
Roger:
About your campaign for real movies...I'm in!
In fact, I'm about to start a major venture of my own to promote and celebrate real movies. (I'll tell you about it when you get back from Cannes.)
Your comparison of today's blockbuster movies to carbonated beverages is appropriate. I've always believed that movies are like wine. Each one has a distinct taste and flavor, and you have to sample many of them to understand what suits your palate. The best movies, like wine, get better with age.
But lately, it does seem that most of the movies that hit the multiplexes are like carbonated beverages, over-fizzing with CGI effects, shaky-cam cinematography, blaring sound effects, and hyper-cut editing.
These movies pass through your system faster than the popcorn you eat while you watch them. They have no taste, no depth, no "bouquet" (as the wine experts call it, although I never really figured out what they meant by that).
So your Campaign for Real Movies is an excellent idea. I promise, I will shortly be an active participant.
P.S. The only "carbonated" movie I ever really liked was "One, Two, Three," a 1961 comedy starring James Cagney as a Coca-Cola executive.
Maybe the Campaign should contain a provision stating that film sequels "will be allowed, but their creation should be tightly regulated"...
Amen, Roger.
Not twenty minutes before I read this entry, I was perusing the latest articles on the website Dread Central and came across some disheartening news. Wes Craven's upcoming horror film "My Soul to Take" (formerly known as "25/8" ) is being "converted to 3-D."
Catch that? It wasn't shot in 3-D, it's being converted (ala "Clash of the CGI"-er- "Titans").
I like Wes Craven.I'm a fan and have been for years. Unlike a lot of people, I've never jumped on the "he's not what he used to be" bandwagon. The terrific thriller "Red Eye" alone made that impossible for me. I think he's capable of creating suspenseful, intriguing horror films with an eye for story and characters who are more recognizably human than the usual genre representations.
To that end, all of the information I've gleaned about "My Soul to Take" thus far suggests that it will slide effortlessly into this niche. I was really anticipating it's release this October.
Now it's being propped up with the irritating eleventh hour addition of a gimmick which will serve only two functions:
1)Distract from Craven's directorial style, which hasn't needed a 3-D assist in the past and 2) line the studio's coffers with the extra revenue earned from the jacked-up ticket prices which always accompany 3-D films.
When I read about decisions like this, I wonder if there's a filing cabinet drawer in an studio executive's office somewhere with a folder inside that bears the legend "Cynical Cash Grab Ideas."
For its' genre, this could very well be a "real" movie. But the studio apparently believes fans are incapable of being scared unless things are popping out at us, despite Craven's long history of creating dread and chills sans the need for the glasses. Unnecessary carbonated additives indeed. All I can do now is hope a 2-D version is made available simultaneously. Otherwise it's a long wait for the DVD release.
"Right now it's only a notion, but I think I can get the money to make it into a concept, and later turn it into an idea."
--Character in "Annie Hall" that doesn't know what a Real Movie is.
While I certainly do not agree with all of your reviews, I share your misery at the decline of original story telling in modern film making. In the era of super CGI, 3D, and mass consumerism, how can this downhill slide into constant mediocrity be avoided?
Film has always been a medium of illusion. One builds part of a set, which is fake, or finds specific locations with possibly no real connection but tie up cinematically, and then the camera subtracts everything outside of the frame, creating a false world for the audience according to the creative bias of the director and cinematographer. Real emotion can cinematically be created from a string of false ingredients. However, people who search for a way to show the truth of life with a camera, whether it be dramatized or documentary, will only encounter the impossible. Every time a director or cameraman chooses ways to show the truth, it is no longer the truth, and simply the perception of the man or woman behind the camera.
CGI and 3D intrinsically have nothing wrong with them. To say they do would be akin to choosing a medium such as oil paint and saying everything made with that is cheaper and less real of a creation than picking up loose pigment and making drawings on rocks. Yes, CGI can look fake if used improperly. I also believe at this point physical miniatures and effects look more appealing than computer generated effects. However, studios like Weta have created amazing, fully realized worlds through compositing live action and special effects. Yes, 3D seems like a cheap gimmick, and for many movies it is. However, I believe it worked very well for Avatar, and although that would obviously be very far away from your idea of a real movie, it shows that a movie-going experience can be enhanced by 3D. Some claim that 3D limits the attention of the viewer to a smaller part of the frame. While that may bother some people, it is in the vein of visual taste, which is always subjective. Sometime in the future 3D may look like a halfway job compared to what may be invented.
When storytellers move in the direction of the fantastical in any way, whether it be dream sequence, surreal elements, sci-fi, etc., it means the cost of putting something in front of a camera will rise, usually greatly. That means getting studio funding. You can blame the studios but you can also blame the cost of stage space, the cost of lighting, of costumes, of other equipment. I am a film student currently at school in Chicago. Would you be willing to put up millions of dollars on an idea I have for a movie if you had no idea how the public would receive it? Would you be willing to put up tens of millions of dollars if you ran a studio with who knows how many people working under you, who could lose their job along with you if you make wrong decisions on who to bestow the money to for a film? There is definitely a negative trend on movie banality, but the process of a person funding a movie is a logical one.
I don't believe it should be a "Campaign for Real Movies". I believe it should be a "Campaign for Passionate Moviemakers."
I left a comment earlier. Maybe it got censored. Maybe it just hasn't been approved yet.
It wasn't a very nice comment. I called you a coward for not pointing out that Lucas, Spielberg, Bay, Bruckheimer, Scorsese, Ridley & Tony Scott, among others have betrayed their gifts, and the public, in recent years.
Why not use your platform to shame some of these money hungry, "real cinema"-hating clowns? They are attempting to destroy an artform by making every film into a 3D circus, to fatten their wallets.
You are too kind. You reward too many stars to mediocre "product." If you want "real films," you must resume your activities as a real critic.
You lead the way. Don't let us down. You shirked your responsibility when you refused to give a star rating to THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE. Have you become afraid of your readers?
Ebert: Comments don't go up immediately here because actual human eyes must see them first.
My responsibility? To what, the star rating system?
My first reaction was "file under: Dogme", but I guess that would be going a bit too far. I too have an allergic reaction to the super-hyped movie, though I have sometimes seen merit where little was expected. I was quite taken by Tea Leoni's character Julie in the first "Bad Boys", who underwent some interesting development over the course of the movie.
Then you have the likes of Tarantino, with "Pulp Fiction's" American post-modernism, or Luc Besson and his European take on Hollywood. I mean, "Leon (The Professional)" felt like a Real Film to me, even as it borrowed some Hollywood tropes. So, to me, there's plenty interest in the grey area between Hollywood pulp and Real Movies, where film-makers try to keep everyone happy, and sometimes fail in interesting ways.
Ebert: I agree. I've seen grey-area and even junk movies that were fun. But Real Movies are in short supply.
Can the campaign for real movies be a joint venture with the campaign for real ale? I think I would be in heaven.
Matt
UK
You give the impression Richard Boston started the 'Campaign for Real Ale'. He was just the critic. The real work was done by Makin, Mellor, Lees and Hardman.
Matt, you beat me to it. I agree completely. Let's not be too hasty and dismiss new filmmaking technologies as gimmicks, or to suggest that they necessarily cheapen films.
There is more to CGI and 3D than Avatar or Transformers 3. CGI especially is a wonderful tool that has enhanced many films (Pan's Labyrinth springs to mind as a particularly good example), and 3D is still in its infancy. Too soon to judge, I think.
Sound, colour and widescreen technologies were all dismissed or even ridiculed in their day. Why can't we be more open minded about CGI and 3D?
Yes, real films. Real stories that can be understood and where people can relate. These are films where you walk away with something to chew on. Like real ale or "steak in a bottle" as my friend says.
These films are about people and not about explosions. These stories are not created in a pitch meeting based on a title of a famous song. Lemmings will go over the cliff if you lead them. Interesting stories are not backed up by demographics and a proven track record. Real stories are created by real people who may or may not get funding for the movie only if they throw in an explosion or a happy ending.
Like making your own brew, you have to take a risk in the making of it. You do not know what the outcome will be, you only know what you try to create and the risk can be very rewarding.
To Neil Bahadur who said.
"However, as another side to this, and in Godard's defence, a quote by Roberto Rossellini:
“I am not a pessimist; to perceive evil where it exists is, in my opinion, a form of optimism.”"
In common defense (pun intended) Shemp said, "while it is good to know where evil is, it is still evil and should be avoided."
If this is a movement for Real Movies, count me in. I'm a filmmaker/marketing student who is tired of 3D movies, comic book movies, and gross out comedies.
Most theater audiences have a choice between "3D Romance", "3D Teen Comedy", and "3D Fantasy". Since different versions of each movie will take up 2 screens, multiplex audiences get less choice. The studios get to fill more screens with less movies, ticket prices go up, and their parent companies are happy.
To paraphase one of my favorite movies, I thumb my nose in their general direction.
I'm currently writing a research paper on movie marketing and I would like to share three excerpts with the people in this thread.
"The internal principles of storytelling require the screenwriter to craft truthful stories that appeal to the human experience. The true measure of a successful story is the value an audience assigns to it after experiencing it. In this sense, the innovative story is a service provision that is co-created with the audience."
"The current shift from physical to digital mediums is slowly pushing movie marketing into the new media realm. When physical media is gone, movie companies will become service companies."
"The medium-centric/producer oriented/one-to-many approach to movie marketing is incompatible with the expectations of new media consumers because it results in the same problems experienced by goods-centric marketers in other industries."
Clarifications:
Since product design is part of marketing, these statements also apply to filmmaking.
One of the "problems" I referred to in the third excerpt is the gap between our expectation of a movie and the experience of watching it. This is also called buyer's remorse.
Please note that I said "with the audience" and not "at the audience". Movies are currently made and marketed "at the audience". If market research is being done, then something's wrong with it because I'm surrounded by comic book movies.
The Real Movies are out there. After I watched "Un Prophete" earlier this year, I decided to stick with "art-house" movies.
Jay Rosen wrote a wonderful article called "the people formerly known as the audience". I highly recommend it.
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html
Ebert: I admired it and tweeted it.
Does it strike you that Hollywood is marketing a lot of buyer's remorse these days?
Audiences are becoming more and more stupid and those that aren't are becoming more and more complacent and apathetic because...what can be done? Fortunately there's Maddin, Herzog, Roy Andersson...oh wait, those are all "foreigners" from the golden land of Hollywood (and from the US). To think that Hollywood used to provide so many excellent movies and now we're lucky to get one great Hollywood film every five years or so, it's all just astoundingly depressing.
The push for 3-D is downright pathetic. Now the studios can even more easily distract viewers from the vacant, dull film they're actually watching, making them believe that because things are popping out of the screen, the film has more depth because, hey, it technically does. I've vowed to not watch any movie in 3-d (and I immediately was depressed to discover Herzog's new film would be shown in 3-d), and for that I've been called a movie snob, but in these days there are worse things I could be.
(Apologies for any rambling or incoherence. I've had a long day and I work at a theater, so I've spent all day constantly frustrated by the decreasing standards)
Hi Mr. Ebert,
I left LA to pursue a family. After nearly two years of living in Germany,
I am starting to pursue all the locally produced German and other "foreign"
films.
This avoidance to see a hollywood film unless it is in English had opened up
a whole new list of films to see.
I will always have the chance to see a dubbed version of Iron Man but
it has been more satisfying to see das Weisse Band.
Living in Germany has also led to my own discovery of Fassbinder,
a man with no frills, spellbinding characters, and very simple stories.
I agree with Miles Massicotte and others, there's a silent urge for Real Movies, at least few people do. The real world is leaving.
What's the saying? "The world is divided into the righteous and the unrighteous and the righteous do the dividing." The attitude is too often, "You're stupid if you like something I don't like."
Of course I don't want to see the industry turn to "fake" movies to the total exclusion of more "real" films but I don't begrudge the existence of "fake" movies.
Lately I've been enjoying Ozu and some early non-epic Kurosawa films (and check out "This Charming Girl", a Korean movie of a few years past.) But I still enjoyed Avatar and don't see that as a contradiction.
Yes, sadly there are fewer studios satisfied with just making a decent profit instead of a huge profit and so, while I anxiously wait to see many of the movies you've been reviewing from Cannes, I know I will have to see them on DVD since no local theater will be interested in showing them. Rather than be annoyed by this I'm just thankful I will be able to see the movies in some form.
Please forgive the early morning rambling.
How thrilling would it be the day you walked into a megaplex and looked up at the list and it read:
Hoop Dreams; Munyurangabo; Aguirre: The Wrath of God; The Friends of Eddie Coyle; Modern Times; Brand Upon the Brain!; The Virgin Spring; Band of Outsiders; Walkabout; La Strada; The Human Condition...something to that effect. Obviously this number of great films would never be released all at the same time, but the idea of each screen having a different movie of high quality doesn't seem like too much to ask for from the movie industry.
Instead we have 4 screens for Iron Man 2, 3 for Robin Hood, 2 for How to Train Your Dragon in 3D!!!!!, and then ones wasted by the likes of A Nightmare on Elm Street, Furry Vengeance, and Just Wright. Sometimes I want to cry...
My favorite weekends are the ones where I go to a two screen art house theater 45 minutes from my house with my mom and we do a double feature. We've seen pairings like Crazy Heart and A Single Man, Me and Orson Welles and The Road, Away We Go and My Sister's Keeper, and Coco avant Chanel and An Education. I wouldn't trade that for seeing all the movies playing in the big theaters for free.
Remember that box in "Kiss Me Deadly"? The one with the strange glowing contents? I'm not interested in any movie with special effects more elaborate than that little box.
I'm not completely retro, but I haven't seen "Iron Man 2." I didn't see the first "Iron Man." In fact, I begrudgingly saw "Dark Knight" to see Heath Ledger and liked him . . . and was bored by the movie.
I want movies with cowboys. I want movies with people who have conversations. I don't want superheroes more muscular than Robert Mitchum. An immediate moratorium on animation longer than 7 minutes. Don't want anything that requires stupid glasses. No sequels or movies based on bad TV shows.
Bring me acting. Bring me smart directing. "Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia!"
The call for real movies has been answered. Fair Game is... just incredible.
There is something to be said for carbonation, you know. When I am grilling on a hot summer night, I reach for the mass-produced American pilsner before the heavy "real beer". Same with movies. There's nothing wrong with wanting to get 2 hours of escapism in with "Iron Man 2".
In the 1970s, when I was a kid, even television seemed to be "about" something. I remember watching "Centennial" and loving every minute. Would "Centennial" even be considered for broadcast on a network today? I don't think so.
I remember watching Herman Wouk's "Winds of War" and the mini-series "North and South." I learned something AND was entertained.
Although I was too young, perhaps, to truly understand what I was seeing, I saw "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" at a young age and I can still vividly remember it, although I haven't seen it since that time. The same with "Alien," "Blade Runner," "Ghandi," "The Godfather: Parts 1 and 2," "Dog Day Afternoon," "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," and even the movies of my teen years like "Platoon," "Wall Street," "Aliens," "Raiders of the Lost Ark," "Beetlejuice," and the many movies of John Hughes that I spent time with. Most of those were popular films and may not fit your definition of "real movies," but they had substance to them and they were MEMORABLE. They stuck with you. Today, films are so disposable that I can barely remember what I watched last week.
The entire entertainment industry has become reactive, rather than proactive. It's like the country's obesity epidemic --- we're being fed what companies think we want, rather than just giving us something real and good. We're a country in the habit of consuming processed garbage. I don't know whether or not it's a habit that can be broken.
By the sounds of it, your criteria for a Real Movie is just that it be original and powerful. Another term for such a film is a 'good movie'. You might have heard this phrase. Kind of hard to argue with you that good movies are good to have. And indeed I'm not going to argue with you. Bravo!
Incidentally, I've been loving your updates from Cannes. I haven't had time to comment on all of them, but I've been thinking about them. I hope to leave comments, as Manuel from Fawlty Towers put it, "ee ven shwally."
Hmm. So basically a modified version of the Dogme95 movement. Your excellent web editor wrote an article about doing this a few months back.
I think your distaste for CGI is misplaced.
Years ago, I saw Egoyan's "The Sweet Hereafter" at the NYFF. Afterwards, someone asked Egoyan about a particularly complicated shot -- the bus accident at the heart of the story. Now, this film is not an action movie and is exactly the sort of small, hand crafted masterpiece you're talking about here. Egoyan explained that they had considered a wide variety of ways of doing the shot, but CGI had proven to be cheapest.
I was shocked, because I hadn't realized that the shot had been a special effect at all. Indeed, that was some years ago, and now CGI is a basic part of the way films are made. No one on a low budget can afford not to use CGI. It is the only way to achieve certain kinds of shots -- everything from getting rid of an inappropriate billboard in a period piece to fixing lighting to shooting a bus accident from an unusual angle -- at an affordable price.
CGI is now as much a part of a quiet costume drama or careful character piece as the use of appropriate lenses. It is a basic tool in the kit.
What you are railing against is not CGI. It is against mindless action movies. I suggest tarring the use, not the technology, which is used in even the best "handmade" films.
Que Si: How can you be depressed to hear that Herzog will use 3D technology? He's using it to bring a cave that cannot be seen by you, more visually cave-like than he feels that 2D can show alone. He's not using it because its the 'in-thing' to do, nor because it was a requirement to get funding (which it wasn't... as far as I know).
I imagine it would have been difficult (albeit not impossible, I'll grant) to pull off Synecdoche, NY on any kind of realistic budget without use of CG. It has its role. It's when the technology comes to the forefront that it starts to take over the show -- and yet, arguably, it's nowhere more in the forefront than in Pixar's work, and only an utter curmudgeon would want to deny that to the world. I would even argue the theoretical possibility of 3D being useful in some cases, though I personally have yet to see evidence of this.
What we need isn't a campaign for "real" movies, which runs the risk of falling rather rapidly into dogmatism (Dogmetism?) it's a campaign for smart movies. And what that requires is smart moviegoers, and a desire among cinema owners to foster them. This is possible in larger cities, but what of the smaller markets? The days of the locally owned theater are dead, and have been for a long time. So how the heck do you make it viable for the multiplexes to devote a screen or two to smarter films when it's more lucrative to add another four daily showings of, say, Sex and the City 2 because that's what people want to see? And how the heck do you train people not to enjoy their bread and circuses? Is it even possible, particularly when they can get excellent character drama on numerous TV programs, which afford even greater investment in those characters owing to their episodic nature?
I have no answers at all. In a world where The Hurt Locker couldn't get decent box office, or even nationwide release, I really don't see much in the way of improvement in the future.
Count me in on your movement Roger.
A lot of people here have talked about the rise of microbrews. Let's not forget the rising popularity of organic food as well. The powerhouses may have the ability to sell things fast and cheap but ultimately people are going to want quality.
I recently assigned Citizen Kane as extra credit in my composition classes (for no reason other than that none of my students had seen it and many of them, much to my alarm, had not even heard of it). I was immensely pleased that quite a few of them took the opportunity to watch it and all of them, who were certain they were going to hate it, had to begrudgingly come back to me and admit they wound up really liking it. It may be optimistic of me, but I'd like to think a positive experience with one old black and white movie will make them that much willing to watch the next one.
The thing is, I can sympathize with my students. When I was their age, although I was more open to films that existed off the beaten path (I first watched Citizen Kane when I was twelve, but I think that's out of the ordinary by any standard) I still gravitated towards all of the latest special effects romps and justified myself through flaccid arguments for why the big blockbuster hits were just as worthy as the art films. As I get older, however, I find myself increasingly losing interest in the big blockbusters. A lot of people here have been talking about declining standards in storytelling. I think it's a little silly to try to claim that the evolution from Independence Day to 2012 is a decline in standards because, really, they are the exact same movie. Standards haven't declined, they've stayed the same, and while there are some people who are perfectly happy to devour the same meal over and over again, a lot of people tire of repetition. Every year I've found myself going to fewer and fewer blockbuster films. In fact, the only two I've been to this year have been Iron Man 2 and Kick-Ass (which is technically an indie film though it's a studio film in spirit) and while I liked both of them it increasingly dawns on me that I ultimately gain very little from these movies - and hence my decreasing interest in them.
This is why I don't think Real Movies are going to die, because no matter what takes place in our culture there will always be those people who are not satisfied with the status quo, who are inevitably going to get bored with watching the same thing over and over again and will take their interest in film elsewhere. It helps to have that interest in Real Movies instilled in you early on (and you can rest assured I have been instilling that interest in my nephew) but many people will find it later in life. Every semester I make sure to force my students to watch Real Movies. That they always come away from it with a positive experience is very telling.
Thanks for the Cannes updates! It's been interesting to read them each day.
I appreciate the effort Mark Polak put into building that 1975 vs 2009 comparison list. He's right; it is depressing to compare those top box offices. Just look at how many in '09 had a digit at the end of the title. Bleh.
I also see Aldo Juraidini's concern about your generalizing on CGI and 3D. I don't know if you've ever read Scott McCloud's UNDERSTANDING COMICS, but I'm going to echo on his statement that one should not blame the medium but the artists working within it. I have not been much more impressed than you with what we've seen so far, but I'm hoping an auteur with deep pockets will come along in the next few years and take 3D to the next level.
Your dispatches from Cannes always make me a little hopeful and a little jealous. A few years ago, I covered a couple of NYC festivals for a small, mostly unknown website, but I got to watch mostly Real Movies wall-to-wall, and even the ones I didn't like had at least the distinction of being interesting. To spend a couple of weeks that way is like being let in on a secret. To go back to the average multiplex offerings afterwards was kind of depressing.
I 100% agree, but hold on a moment Roger.
Has not the mature film goer been singing the same song for 40 years? I well remember in the seventies the wailings about the decline of movies as we know it as one disaster movie came out after another.
The invention of the summer (now anytime) blockbuster courtesy of a big shark and a rather excellent film director, has a lot to answer for.
I recently watched all your (yes all) great movies and it was a wonderful experience for my soul as well as my eyes, ears and brain.
I'll be there again for Mike Leigh!
Rob
A lot of your "real movies" actually do have 3D or CGI in general in them, you just don't realize it because it's invisible. I'm growing tired of people bashing modern technology only because there are some filmmakers who have no creative ideas. It's totally irrelevant which technology is used, the talented filmmaker will always be able to use it to the max and come up with a masterpiece, while the mediocre or plain untalented one will produce crap.
And everyone here who adds his/her voice to the complaints, should maybe take a long, hard look at the history of art. Great artists of all times always used the latest, newest, best technology available to them, no matter what kind of art they produced. No painter today refuses to use modern style paint and instead starts mixing colours the old fashioned way like they did in the medieval era. Or only paint on wooden slabs like they did at that time. Of course, sometimes you might use an older technology for a certain reason, but that's a different story.
IMO those who rant against any modern means to make art usually are those who have no idea about the way artists work. I've never heard any artist judging a work of art by the material that was used to make it. Only the result matters. If it's ingenious, creative, beautiful, interesting, then it's "real" art.
@S. Rosoff writes:
"The public is too stupid to enjoy or understand "Real Movies."
THEN writes:
"Get the balls to list the ten worst moviemakers in Hollywood. You'll find out that most people (critics and public) agree with you."
Hmm.
But yeah, I enjoy blockbusters and "real movies."
I tend to break down movies into two categories: films and flicks.
Films are for refined appreciation -- they require focus, attention, effort even. Many times watching even the best films, you are glad that they're over, because they exhaust you in going through them. You are better for having seen them, and you would recommend the experience to others, but you're probably not having fun.
Flicks are for enjoyment -- they are equivalent to carnival rides. The best ones don't ask much of you -- get on, strap in, and have a blast -- but you usually have to slog your way through the crowds and dirty footpaths to get to them. And you're not always going to get a good one. Some are reminiscent of the best rides, but are missing something. Some are just cheap knock-offs, and some are too niche in their appeal.
But sometimes all you want to do is relax and have a good time -- a dog and a beer in the backyard with friends, not stuck in some library pouring over a very limited selection of "perfect" books.
I think too often people lose sight of that legitimate, split goal of movies, that they seek to entertain at times and enlighten at others.
I just ran through a list of some of the DVDs that I have, especially some that I've recently picked up, and tried to classify them along that line between flick and film:
Inglorious Basterds
A very nice blend of flick and film, with smart dialogue, a nuanced plot, and some great blood-lust moments.
Hangover
A terrific flick. When I saw this in the theater, I laughed so hard, I almost collapsed. Sometimes you just need a good, tear-inducing, hunched over, "I'm dyin' here!" laugh, and this movie delivered, without being another cookie-cutter gross-out repeat.
Gran Torino
Very good film. Not a happy ending, very few "hoorah!" moments, but a good story told well.
Moon
FILM. I have recommended this to everyone I know who appreciates films, but I won't even bother with those that don't have the right mindset.
Watchmen
Another balanced movie, especially for those who actually READ comic books, and not just look at the pictures, so to speak. Enjoyable but deep, even if they were limited in getting it to the big screen intact.
Sherlock Holmes
Somewhat balanced, but with some definite plays to the crowd.
Up
Skewing flick, but the Pixar films have rarely been entirely plastic, like so many other big-budget animated movies (i.e., the Shrek series).
Ponyo
Another animated feature, but much more balanced. Mayazaki has always been better at having children and adults operate as equals, instead of unbelieved dreamers and idiot parents respectively, as so many family films operate.
To completely separate out anything which isn't THE most poignant, THE most refined, THE pinnacle of film, and cast them aside as utter trash is blind and foolish in my view. Find a way to appreciate those excellent flicks that do exist, and show others how to enjoy the great films of our past, our present, and our future.
Ah, CAMRA...it's because of them that I realized that the Brits are professional beer drinkers, and not amateurs like us Americans. I was in England in 2004, and attended the CAMRA-sponsored Cambridge Beer Festival (the "Firty-Thirst" Cambridge beer festival, as my T-shirt states), held on the Jesus Green at the university. Their primary issue at the time was their campaign for a full pint, in which they were lobbying Parliament to require all public houses in England to put half-pint and full-pint markers on glasses, to ensure that pub patrons do get what they paid for. I'm not sure if it succeeded, since I haven't been back since then, but it is a nice thought, anyway.
I'm not sure if there's an analogy there in relation to this discussion, but maybe it could be stretched to encompass the conditions in which a film is viewed.
Anyway, I finally got around to watching "Blow-Up" a couple of weeks ago and, beside the utter delight in seeing a very young Jimmy Page play his guitar as a very young Jeff Beck smashes his, I thoroughly enjoyed this film which is both a snapshot of a bygone era and an unconventional suspense story.
I agree wholeheartedly that a lot of bad movies are being made these days. Then again, I'm fairly certain that a lot of bad movies were released in the past. We just don't remember them. If you're like me, you have an incentive to see something like "Blow-Up," which was released before I was born. I have no desire, or no knowledge of, most of the other movies that came out in 1966. Most of the films coming out now will suffer the same fate. I suspect the good ones, like they always do, will live on in our memories.
So, while I am sympathetic to your aims here, I wonder if the problem isn't so much the quality of what is being produced, as it is the distribution system by which we're receiving these movies. Choice does seem to be rather constrained by the theater chains, and if you don't live in a major metropolitan area, you're going to have to rely on a service like Netflix to see the lesser-known films. Maybe the Internet will help, at least with building up the word-of-mouth for the smaller films. It would be nice if the theaters could be more responsive to that. Maybe digital distribution will help. I don't think anyone knows for certain.
I just think that it borders on criminal that I had to wait several months after the fact to even hear of a movie like "Once," let alone see it.
I do apologize for the rambling response, so for the sake of brevity, I think that the method of distribution is at as much of the problem as the actual films being produced.
"I believe empathy is the most essential quality of civilization" pretty much sums it up. I've been watching/reading your reviews and comments for 30 years and I couldn't ask for more. Thank you so much.
I would think that a movie like Synecdoche, New York would be one that was carbonated with CGI, although it obviously follows every other criteria you have.
Whether it is CGI or 3D or whatever technology you choose, these are really just the tools, right? It is up to the artist on how to use them. And the use of them does not automaticlaly equate to something is not carefully created from an original recipe.
Is it this a problem cinema has faced from the very beginning? A hundred years ago, were Melies' films considered carbonated with the effects of that time? Studios have always pumped out tons of cliched, unoriginal tripe. It is a business after all, and I would suggest that it is the bloated carbinated movies is what makes the "real" movies possible.
Roger, I think equating movies with food (in this case ale) makes alot of sense. The "Real Movies" you mentioned remind me of slow home cooking, fresh ingredients, just the right amount of spices, lovingly attended to, and savored slowly in moderate portions. Not the processed or the frozen fast food to be eaten just to keep the stomach full.
I have been watching alot of CGI, action movies lately and was getting really bored with them. Last night I put in Kieslowski's THE DOUBLE LIFE OF VERONIQUE, and I tell you it was like a cleaning out of my system, a purging of sorts, and it gave me alot of energy. In fact I spent an hour just watching the supplements, showing interviews with Kieslowski and his star, Irene Jacob. I felt wonderful afterwards, I felt like a human being.
Charlie Rose mentioned your name to Jeffrey Katzenberg the other night while discussing the future of 3D.
I suggest you check it out...
http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/6896
I've always hated the term "real" used in such a way. Avatar is no less real than any other movie ever made. I understand you took the concept from the beer campaign, but why not choose a term less dismissive? Keep it simple: a campaign for BETTER movies. They won't be more "real", because such a thing is impossible. Real is real. But maybe they'll be "better". Isn't that really what you want?
To dismiss CGI and, though I don't care for it, also 3D is to dismiss artists who use spray paint rather than brushes, chefs who use xantham gum rather than cream, musicians who use laptops rather than strings.
These things are merely tools, neither good or bad. They can be wasted on something like Transformers 2, or they can enrich something like Minority Report.
"Real", frankly, is an insult to millions.
I feel like people are coming off too negatively on big Hollywood movies. Certainly, most of them are poor. But I think it's easy to forget that there are plenty of fantastic big-budget, effects-heavy action films as well. The problem with a movie like Transformers 2 is not that it's a film about giant robots - It's that it's a terrible film about giant robots. CGI is not the reason for that film's poor quality, but rather it's script, performances, direction, etc.
I would point to films like The Matrix or The Dark Knight as examples of really intelligent, provocative, sublimely-crafted works of film. The nature of their subjects simply required them to be big-budget affairs. They are action-driven, to be sure, but their action is rooted in character and story-development, and thus never feels excessive or masturbatory. I am of the opinion that a film can be both genius, and awesome. That the words 'badass' and 'brilliant' needn't always describe different films.
Yes, it is unfortunate that movies like Transformers 2 attract audiences in such droves. Let's not forget, though, that The Dark Knight - without the inflated ticket prices of 3D - is the 2nd highest-grossing film of all time. Let's not give up on John Q. Viewer just yet. He can indeed recognize that one thing is better than the other. You just have to give him his medicine with a little sugar.
For a moment, let's all consider this fact: Everyone who has taken the time to read or comment on this blog posting probably watches significantly more films than the average moviegoer. With every movie we watch, our understanding of the medium grows more complex. We become more familiar with the visual language of film, we grow to recognize themes or motifs. As we watch more movies, we become better at watching them. This is why so many movies that I loved as a child turned out to be quite bad upon a second viewing. When I saw them originally, I was a less refined film-watcher than I am today.
The same is true of all art. The more paintings you look at, the more complex your perception of a painting will become. This is why people look at abstract art and think "My Kid Could Paint That". The work isn't meaningless, but it may as well be to them, because they haven't spent the time to learn how to understand it. To the average movie-goer a film like Synecdoche New York is just as incomprehensible as Film: Socialisme.
I don't disagree that Hollywood should be placing a greater importance on quality, but it seemed like everyone was jumping on them simply for making big-budget flicks - as if a large budget and special effects was synonymous with poor quality, and that's not the case. Iron Man is proof of that. The Dark Knight is proof of that. If we're lucky, Kenneth Branagh's Thor will be proof of that. And if films of that nature continue to be successful, perhaps we can expect those standout films to get made a little more often.
Maybe I'm just being optimistic, though.
Now, of course, I desperately want to attend the Cannes Film Festival sometime. Tavernier! Films from Chad! Real Movies!
This is inspirational. I've worried that all those dreary lists of films you must see before you die will fall into the same pattern since nothing interesting is coming out from theaters these days. Obviously, we are seeing mutated movies, the result of cruel studio experiments. The most common cause of death is by CGI. Any good filmaker who even dares to try this format is eventually going to be found surrounded by toxic chemicals, all of which could account for the stunned and dead look on his/her face.
I want to see that picture from Chad. Preferably sooner.
-S. Rosoff: Chill out, amigo. To an extent, I understand your point, but calling Roger a coward is a weird way to reward someone who champions the small movies you speak of.
-There has been a mild uprising of fantastic action movies. Most action movies are not good, I know, but beginning with 2006's Blood Diamond and Children of Men, a sprinkling of action movies have prevented me from realizing they're action movies until they were over. They were just good, real, movies. Last year's The Hurt Locker continued the trend. I worried about the safety of the characters and I empathized with their positions, even the less valorous characters.
-The Man Who Screamed intrigues me. It has one of those premises that I probably never would have considered unless they made a movie about it--the effects war has on the status of a pool manager in Chad. Not only thought-provoking, but mostly original AND thought-provoking premises are things that nearly all movies lack.
-Javier Bardem keeps proving that he can play anything and does. I don't know that I could name another guy that is properly decorated with acting awards for roles as diverse as a persecuted gay Cuban, a quadriplegic activist, a murderous force of nature, and now, possibly, a terminal petty criminal with a crisis of conscience.
I'm in the same boat with you and your desire for real movies. One thing I don't understand, though, is your lumping in of CGI and 3D with, for lack of a better term, fake movies. I don't think real movies and special effects have to be mutually exclusive. After all, you did give "Avatar" four stars, a movie which in my opinion, was a lesser experience when viewed in 2D (although still quite entertaining). I also recall you giving a little movie called "Dark City" four stars, another film which would have been lacking had it not been for the evocative CGI. Obviously both CGI and 3D can be abused, but it's the abuse that's the problem, not the technology. There will always be crappy movies like "Transformers 2" that use CGI as little more than a gimmick to sell tickets, but for every Michael Bay there is also a James Cameron or an Alex Proyas using the technology to enhance and further their stories. I'm all for real movies, but I don't think budget or technology have anything to do with a film's quality, and we shouldn't discount something just because it happens to take advantage of these things.
By the way Roger, which Hollywood directors working today would you say are making real movies (besides Scorsese of course)?
I don't bemoan a world in which CGI Blockbusters and "Real Movies" co-exist. Instead, I feel saddened by what CGI has pre-emtped - the epic production. Granted, money is also a factor - what would it take to make a David Lean picture today? - but when you see The General, or Abel Gance's Napoleon, or Lawrence of Arabia, or Ran, or The Last Emperor, or Ben Hur, your enjoyment is at two levels. First there's the story itself, and second is the logistical wonder and scale of the production. It is intrinsically spectacular in how it was brought to life, almost like a documentary of itself. I can't watch the exploding bridge scene in The General without thinking about the scale and bravado and the opportunity for failure that shooting that scene meant for Keaton. Now, a laughably large floating armada in the movie Troy makes me think: cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and....
Just to clarify:
The Real Movie Rules:
1. Does not follow a familiar story arc.
2. Is intensely involved with characters.
3. Invites the most civilized quality: empathy with other times, places, races, creeds, classes and prospects.
So, is 2001 a Real Movie? I think so--as long as your empathic sense is working: If you can't empathize with HAL, then (a) 2001 is not a Real Movie, or (b) you suck at empathizing. After all, the movie can't do all the heavy lifting.
Hmmm... I may need to watch The Human Centipede after all; I've sometimes felt I may be the middle segment of life's centipede (while watching Burger King/Iron Man 2 promos, for instance).
Apparently we need to start a Campaign for Real Movies in the U.S., since all the films you described are made outside the U.S.
@ebert:
Re: THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE. I'm not saying you betrayed the star system, merely that you avoided a critical judgment of a "real movie." Seems more like a betrayal of yourself (given that you're the one who uses the star system) and the audience (given that they, rightly or wrongly, assign meaning to the stars you give to a movie).
@rutt moxx:
You're right. I should have said "intelligent, literate members of the public." The uninformed masses don't care what ebert or anyone else has to say about movies.
P.S. @ebert:
Because of your tireless championing of him, I watched all three of Ramin Bahrani's films (and his execrable short). He is pretty much talentless. He's just cruising through one ethnic poverty tour after another (Pakistani, Mexican, African). He's a slick hustler trading on racial stereotypes, in my opinion.
I know that's unkind, but would the wealthy elite who enjoy his films be as interested in his work if he were white? I'm reminded of that scene in ME, YOU, AND EVERYONE WE KNOW, where the gallery owner asks of an artist, "Is she of color?" And the assistant replies, "No. But she's a woman." I guess being male, Bahrani only has one card to play. And play. And play.
Wake me up when he makes a film one tenth as interesting as anything by Scorcese, Spike Lee, Lars von Trier, Katheryn Bigelow, Leos Carax, Ondi Timoner, Mira Nair, Carl Franklin, etc. Bahrani looks like he struggles to frame a shot! His DVD commentary blarney about shooting each scene "100 times" is so patently ludicrous. He's so pretentious! How can you stand this tool? Tyler Perry can at least frame a shot!
Why champion Bahrani's work? Really, he's not very good. Maybe you see some nascent talent that's not visible to me, and you're hoping to encourage him? Bahrani says nothing about the human condition, and everything about how white rich liberals enjoy a poverty tour. Maybe his films just rub me the wrong way (like how you gave BLUE VELVET one star, haha) and later I'll realize I was wrong, and I'll start worshipping him as the second coming of Cassavetes? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps!
Ebert: Man, you're harsh.
I'm curious. How many stars would you give "The Human Centipede?"
I just saw "Girl with a dragon Tatoo." It might not be there tomorrow. A lot of these movies might only be playing for a week.
I remember, Robert Altman said, in an interview, when being asked about his movie and why it was so dark or something like that "The Player", he said something like "it was worse than that" (that the reality was worse than what he showed in the movie, which was a movie producer killing another man to steal his ideas for a script).
CGI can't be used to make "real movies"?
Roger, please explain to me how Toy Story, Waking Life, The Lord of the Rings, Sin City, Zodiac, Sweeney Todd, Wall-E, Watchmen, Sita Sings the Blues, District 9, and, yes, The Hurt Locker (it has credits for "CG Supervisor" and "CG artist") aren't "real" movies.
Ebert: I didn't mean to imply that CGI isn't permitted in real movies. I was thinking more of a CGI-fest like "Robin Hood."
Everyone here is all too happy to jump on the bandwagon and bash the American studio system, yet our last couple Best Pictures have been undisputably American pictures and undisputably Real. The Hurt Locker and No Country for Old Men are extraordinarily elegant films made by Americans for an American audience. The very same executives being criticized here for making the trash have to make that trash to cover their losses on great films like these because, unfortunately, nobody goes to see them. The movie industry embodied in the Academy recognizes these achievements, but no-one else does. Just because we don't have a state-funded cinema that allows a privileged few to produce whatever self-indulgent drivel they feel like doesn't mean that brave film-makers in this country aren't laying it all on the line to make good movies.
Many of the so-called real beers that are now available in our liquor and grocery stores are still owned by Anheuser-Busch. Just because they have to sell Budweiser to make their quarterly earnings doesn't they're drinking it after the board meetings. I think it's a testament to our film industry that some executives are willing to stomach the losses to make films like these, rather than just taking a handout from their government with very little to lose.
Dear Roger;
The comments seem mournful.
Here's a question for the readers. Did you see "The Hurt Locker"? Where? In a theater? Probably not. It was the lowest grossing Best Picture Oscar winner in history.
Then there's "Avatar".
Movie making is a business. We are getting the films we are buying tickets for. So put your hand on the TV remote and praise Netflix because the age of "real" movies died in "The Hurt Locker".
But Elmore Leonard is working with TV. His new show "Justified" is better than most movies. And it's "real" or at least home brewed.
But then you're probably not watching that either.
A campaign for real movies is a great idea. Count me in as well. It is better than flaking out on my friends for watching movies without empathy and pointing out how cheeky and fake everything is and reminding them how all the movies with real love are all classics which none of them ever watch with me. I did get two of my friends to watch Ikiru and it bugged the hell out of me because they were texting through out the whole film. So, yeah, they completely missed the point. I really can't imagine how a person can live on fake movies, and not just movies, but music, food, and even flat out flattery and politeness for a whole day. Movies with real empathy is nourishing. A good call Roger!
Hello, Roger.
For this relief, much thank;
It's impossible for me to watch these movies and I'm thankful for this synopsis.
If there is a petition, allow me to add my name. If there is a contract, allow me to sign on the dotted line. In a post-Avatar world where even the actors in mass produced trash are becoming irrelavent, real movies about real people are tragically difficult to come by. I should like to join your initiative, your call for Real Movies. And so, I shall do my part-- I shall patronize only those movies that deal with humanity and human-ness. Because what are we but human?
S. Rosoff on May 20, 2010 3:41 AM
I do have to sort of agree with S Rosoff’s assessment that great directors can go astray. It must be quite a temptation to get distracted by money, fame, praise; and quite honestly, awards. It would be interesting to see what would occure in filmmaking if the Academy Awards were suspended for five years. It, of course, isn’t going to happen. However, I suspect films would actually get better. Mr Scorsese is an example. He did a fine job with "The Departed" and it seemed to me that it meant so much to him to win that award, too much (if you know what I mean.*) Scorcese’s sense of worth seemed to be at stake, and that belies the fact that “Who’s that Knocking at my Door” and “Mean Streets” were stunning achievements that would never win awards (and I wish I had the vocabulary to really express what I mean, but anyone who wants to know what a real movie looks like should see them.) There’s a risk-taking and a lack of calculation that is entirely independent of the desire for broad-range recognition. A gifted artist making great art that is true to his own unique vision—because he was guided by his creative instincts and gifts more than any other consideration.
*I think Woody Allen had the right idea when he kept to his regular routine of playing clarinet with his band the night “Annie Hall” won Best Picture.
Hello Roger, how are you? Would quickly like to write that I am a huge fan and never miss a post. Could not agree more with you and everybody else. Everyday after science class, me and a buddy would hit up the cpl to borrow some movies, and although I knew a little bit more about quality domestic movies, he knew much more about foreign films (we chose movies and gave them to each other to see). From the few films I've seen, it seems that foreign directors are willing to go for it more, willing to create something of substance, a real movie like you say, and create something not for the mass audiences.
For a film critic it must be hard to find 'real movies'. You see so many movies that the 'real' ones must feel few and far between. Maybe there is a benefit in being able to pick and choose, or just plain walk out of the rental place or theatre when there is nothing worth while. You know, kinda bide your time and wait it out. You can't really do that, can you? For example, I haven't seen Robin Hood and I don't really feel the urge to see it, but I suppose you are kind of obligated to see it and many other movies because people are expecting to read your review.
We are spoiled here on your website. I already have a short list of solid choices that I've taken from your writing. I usually rent two new movies a week. So the list is plenty long enough to keep me up to my eyeballs in real-movies. Not only do we get real-movies, we get really-good-real movies.
'Goodbye Solo' for example. A top-notch film. You just know you are in the hands of an artists within the first two minutes of the film. What were the chances of me seeing that wonderful movie if I hadn't read about it here? Almost 0%. It would have been sheer luck.
So for me, as a movie lover, I feel I am in the midst of a real-movie explosion. Why? Because I have a new found access that wasn't there before. I have a resource in this website which gives me titles. This website also links to other resources that give me even more titles (the foreign correspondents for example). I have a new appreciation for film festivals, having visited Ebertfest for the first time this year. I have the urge to find a few more and make them part of my regular schedule. Even if I don't go, I now know which ones I can look at online to 'steal' their lineup for my own must see movie list. Lastly, this website gives me ideas on where to actually rent or buy these movies. Netflix, etc.
So all-in-all, my access to good movies has increased manyfold. All on account of following a film critic on the internet. It's been like wondering into a warm pub on dark chilly night in merry ol' England. Being greeted by the fire and finding a toasty snug of a table near the window, hearing the rain drops beat against the glass behind the laughter of the patrons banter. What's that before us? Behind the Banger n' mash, the dollop of mustard? Why it's a sturdy pint of real beer, poured personally by our host. All I have to do now is drink it. For this relief, much thanks Roger!
Yes, Roger, Real Movies all the way! As a young person trying to further understand the art of cinema, real films always bring a breath of fresh air to my hopes of pointing out that movies are art, not just fun. Most people in my generation (if not almost all generations) seem to belittle critics and rather listen to commercials to decide which films to watch. I actually find the modern methods used by Hollywood to get money to be dangerous not only to film as an art, but also as an industry. The whole idea of hedging bets that only a few movies will gross enormous amounts of cash can be a terrible move if the films are actually terrible and no one goes to see them. Two films which come to mind are Speed Racer and Prince Caspian, which both did far worse than expected (and I wasn't very impressed by those average movies, either.) From viewing more and more films, the trends I'm finding in modern CGI epics are somewhat scary. Movies like Transformers 2 took a fun toy franchise with a mythology which could be manipulated for a good movie and turned it into absolute junk, and then the Alice in Wonderland remake which had me floored at how, with absolute disregard, Tim Burton turned such a timeless children's book into mindless and sometimes annoying CGI and banality. I watched the original Disney Alice in Wonderland before going to the new film, and I had no nostalgic feelings for that movie because I did not like it as a child. The original was complete animated perfection while the new film was completely average and guessable. I really do not understand why Burton would try to kill such a great book, but that's for another time. I think a smarter form of economic marketing would be for the movie industry to spread its money into more movies instead of in a few. District 9 comes across as an example of a film which was very well done and looked phenomenal, yet was made on a $30 million budget. Additionally, District 9 garnered many Academy nominations, including Best Visual Effects, which Transformers 2 did not get. With all of these advances, it should be cheaper to produce CGI movies and the spare money should be used on more experimental and real films. If this were to happen, then Hollywood could credibly take back its title as the reigning champion of cinema and give Bollywood and the rest of the world a run for its money.
That was the first part of my message. The second will be somewhat of a rebuttal. There is a place for more archetypal films to be created, and the medium does not always have to be this 'real movie' idea. There are still plenty of classic books to be put to film, and they could all be revolutionary in their own special way. Some books and tales which come to mind are many of the Indo-European mythologies. These pieces are timeless, and we know the stories and endings, yet they could turn out to be very intelligent and good films. One of my dream films would be "The Odyssey" turned into a 2-part epic probably totalling over 5 hours with many existential elements and an "Apocalypse Now" type of feel during much of his voyage. Such a movie, if done correctly, could do no wrong. Other stories which need true film justification are Beowulf, Siegfried (I know Fritz Lang did a good version for the time period, which I have seen, but a new version would be nice), and the Epic of Gilgamesh. From how you are defining 'Real Movies,' you seem to be saying one's which push the medium by covering new territory, philosophies, and ideas are the only types of "Real Movies." Of course those kinds of movies are good, but why can't films such as "Star Wars" and "The Matrix" be considered "Real Movies?" CGI or 3-D are not the enemy in creating great cinema, they are simply tools for developing movies. If used properly, they can create flourishing worlds and environments we never thought of existing (films such as Avatar, Peter Jackson's King Kong, and Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith are examples of CGI epics of capturing and immersive environments,) or simply be used as a tool to create what needs to be there (such as films like Contact.) The real reason why good CGI films are few and far between is because of the timidity of Hollywood and studio executives. So, the fight should not be for "Real Movies," but rather simply for "Good Movies." I know that from looking at your review's that you are a fan of science fiction films, so you hopefully understand what I'm saying. That's my case and I hope it brings something new and informative to the discussion table.
Roger,
"I believe empathy is the most essential quality of civilization."
In my opinion, you have summed up in a single sentence the essence of your entire career as a film critic.
And the reason why I love movies, too.
And I'd go further than that. I would suggest that you have defined the basic distinction that exists between liberals (however misguided we might sometimes be) and the extreme, rabid right today. The utter lack of empathy that seems to underlie the malevolence, hypocrisy and phony rage of the Limbaughs, O'Reillys and their ilk disturbs me greatly.
Perhaps the dearth of Real Movies is just a symptom of a larger problem -- an irreversible coarsening of society. A refusal to embrace our common humanity. Or so it seems to me.
I crave to see more movies like The Hustler, The Rain People, The Verdict, and The Wrestler. These are not only Real Movies as you define them (original stories filmed without special effects); they are also movies that present us with Real Characters.
Fast Eddie Felson, the hustler, is so wonderfully charismatic and energetic; it's impossible not to cheer, even worship him, as all the barroom fellas do. And yet he is a wasted entity, a man driven to be champion of a pointless game that is dominated and corrupted by petty thugs. We cheer his victory at the end, and yet we know it's a small victory, at best.
In The Rain People, Natalie Ravenna runs out on her husband and goes on an odd, unpredictable road trip after learning she's pregnant. We don't judge her for running away, for deserting not only her husband but also the injured football star, Killer. In fact, we pray for her to break free of all these old and new entanglements. Moreover, we feel her devastation when she learns, in a terrible twist, that no one can escape responsibility. When she learns this lesson, we are forced to learn it with her. And it makes us mad as hell that childhood has to end.
Frank Galvin, the washed-up lawyer in The Verdict, uses other people's tragedies to pursue his own salvation. His cause is noble: to win a horrific malpractice case. But his need for redemption is desperate and selfish and ultimately irresponsible, for if he were to lose the case, he would ruin his clients' financial lives. Yet, we cheer for Galvin and pray for his victory because we know that his selfishness and irresponsibility are small compared to the venality of the world he inhabits. He deserves salvation as much as the bad guys deserve to lose.
Randy the Ram is the lovable yet irredeemable wrestler. He is a pig as a father and husband; yet he is a warm and wonderful guy who will play with neighbor kids and entertain customers at a deli counter. He is one of those paradoxical figures who treats strangers better than his loved ones or himself. And so while we can't fully understand this man and his motives, we can laugh at his jokes and cry over his self-destruction.
These four characters have depth and realness to them that most movie protagonists don't have. They are not figures used to drive plot forward. They are profound characters, who have stories built around them. They are authentic. Everything they say and do is authentic. There isn't a single moment of BS in any of these movies. And so when these characters win, we feel elated; and when these characters lose, we feel destroyed inside. The complexity of these movies is not found in their visual styles or their storylines, but in the emotional diversity that they provoke within us. These are not cheap emotions, either, like the kind experienced watching horror or action flicks. They are emotions that stir self-reflection and thought; they are, in a sense, intelligent emotions.
That's what Real Movies are to me.
I'm still catching up on movies from the last Cannes film festival, some of which STILL aren't available on DVD. There is demand for good films and a market for them even(In my OP). I think that theaters and Hwood are keeping out quality films , they put out a couple guaranteed blockbusters(b/c they are marked and hyped so well) a few okay films, and the rest is just garbage filler that is done knowing it's garbage only made to keep theaters free of any competitive films made overseas or outside the hwood system.
They must spend vast amounts of $s for these films to be profitable- it basically has turned filmmaking into a contest for who can get the most airtime in MSM outlets.
Also, the general public thinks Tim Burton is an art house director, they think art means quirkiness rather than seriousness, and they also think those intereted art as fools since all everyone should care about is making money. When I told my roommate I went to see White Ribbon, he asked me were I found the time for this even though he spent the weekend pimping out his car.
Mr. Ebert,
Your Great Movies section is missing Melville's "Army of Shadows".
Whenever I hear someone like S. Rosoff who thinks that people who don't appreciate "real movies" are "stupid", I can't help but wonder if he is desperately trying to compensate for something.
Matters of preference in entertainment are a poor way to assess a person's intelligence. Does S. Rosoff also cluck with disapproval when he sees someone eating a cheeseburger, and declare that his more refined palate makes him smarter?
If I want to know how smart someone is, I'll ask him if he knows how to do calculus, write a coherent essay, and apply Newton's Laws of Motion to an everyday situation. I would NOT ask him for a list of his favourite movies.
Any idiot can clap for a movie. It doesn't make you smarter than anyone else. If you and I have different tastes in movies, maybe it just means we are looking for different things. Don't tell me you're smarter than me because I look for entertainment rather than enlightenment in my movies. Maybe I have other sources of enlightenment, like books.
You expand the vocabulary. The Shining, which I just saw, seemed more carbonated than inspired. Good films seem apiece, most movies seem cobbled.
Last weekend I was in LA visiting some friends who are making it as screenwriters. One of them, a former playwright, told me that he was chasing action flicks pretty much 100% of the time and that the word "drama" was a dirty word in town. "No one wants you to pitch drama anymore. It's been left to TV." he said. "Sure, they'll make them, but only when it's from one of the big guys."
Funny timing, your writing about this. My girlfriend and I were discussing something like this just the other week. I mentioned films like Precious and An Education, both of which I thought were short of being Great films (with a capital "G", anyway), although many critics called them so, but which I certainly thought were very good films. This somehow lead me to some kind of a realization:
Why can't very good films such as those lead the standard in "good" films (in a perfect world, average films, rather than current "average" films like, say, Hot Tub Time Machine or Iron Man 2, which, although they aren't bad, aren't really in any way above par), and only truly Great films (capital "G" again) represent the great annual movie-going experiences, thus winning at the Oscars and resulting in their production becoming more commonplace?
I suppose the reasons are obvious ($), but I really don't think it takes that much ambition to improve the general standard of movie-making to a level where films like Precious and An Education are average. I'm being optimistic, yes, but there must be thousands of excellent screenwriters out there with wonderful scripts and the ability to produce again and again who are robbed of success (or perhaps have the sense to not even bother groping for success in mainstream Hollywood) because their stories don't guarantee green in the ticket machine. And what burns me up even more is that my two previous examples aren't deep, difficult art films -- they are, in terms of style and approach, mainstream movies! Even Precious, which I expected from its reputation to be quite a jarring experience, was, rather to my surprise (despite its occasionally disturbing content), quite an approachable film. In fact, I would even call it a very entertaining film. Entertaining! The opening title even says "A Lee Daniels Entertainment Production". Not "A Lee Daniels Depressing, Shocking, Deep and Enigmatic Art Production". These films have the goods (and the intent!) to be mainstream entertainment, but for their unfair label as movies for snobby liberal intellectuals only. In addition to all this, if the general standard of filmmaking improved, then Great movies would be produced more often as well. I mean films in the standard of, to give a few relatively recent examples, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, My Winnipeg, Pan's Labyrinth, etc., which rank, IMHO, among many of the oft-cited "Great" films of the past (think AFI lists and the like).
Anyway, I suppose my point is that "Real Movies" as the norm is possible. They can and often are entertaining and approachable in most of the same fundamental ways the mainstream opiate movies are. I think most of the people who give these films a chance end up moved and affected, and will come back for more "Real Movies". I've seen it happen. The problem is the reputation of the films, which is a more deeply rooted cultural problem. Many people don't think the lack of this quality in cinema is a real problem, I imagine. Thus their willingness to go and see whatever crap is out there and support the studios in their thoughtless, ruinous profiteering. I suppose it all goes back to what Herzog says about inadequate images in culture (quoting from memory): "It is not acknowledged that it is a problem of the same magnitude (as energy problems, environmental problems, nuclear weapons, overpopulation, etc.) that we do not have adequate images." Our images -- our movies -- are poisoned. They affect our tastes; we crave more opiates, and so it's a vicious spiral. Bad movies breed bad movies, and in our Campaign for Real Movies, that is what we're up against. And if film is poisoned, so is culture. Culture affects the way we think and behave, and so it affects nothing less than our destiny.
There is truly a black cloud looming over every once legitimate form of expression, cinema included. It is most likely nothing more than a crackpot theory, but I wholeheartedly believe that the human race peaked in the 1970s. One could turn on the radio to the socially conscious, musically astute lyrics and compositions of The Who, Led Zeppelin and Sly and the Family Stone. The novel still existed. Films of artistic competence and relevance were nestled within the mainstream along with the uniform junk. The cinemas were places of entertainment and escape as they are today, but there were real people telling real stories on par with their audience, rather than showering them with a steaming vat of calculated garbage cooked up by a soulless brigade of dehumanizing suits. This may sound like the guileless ramblings of a sentimental fool, but since the 1980s, since man has become one with machine, it appears the people have lost any sort of interest in their race. The mass produced "art" of the incumbent generation has become as mechanical as the iPods its viewed upon. This is a time for reform if there ever was one. I have been on about this issue for years, so naturally I was more than intrigued when I concluded your latest article. You have influence beyond compare Roger, you have the resources and we have the drive to prevent this rancid, prosthetic culture from further twisting the blade in its side. Again, this rant will probably appear pretentious and naive, but we're desperate for a little rain, Roger.
I guess the major difference between us (you and I) and, say, half of my friends is that they view the cinema as a hang-out. You get a bad meal, a place to hang out, you maybe see a movie and if you're lucky get to make-out a little. Who knows, you might score a big one later tonight. Whereas I go in to experience - not enjoy - something on a screen that someone, somewhere, toiled at anywhere from a few months to a few decades ago.
I don't know if people *want* "real movies" anymore. The movie industry's been, from the ground-up, about show business. And it seems that more and more people want "awesome", "epic" and "badass" movies - things to knock 'em dead - than movies about, you know, a girl finding out her sexual identity in 1920's Paris.
The term 'real movie' is sort of slippery, anyways. My brother's as much a movielover as I am, but considers The Big Lebowski lacking because he "learned nothing from it". Similarly, I find movies like Half-Nelson lacking because there's very little to see there. We're living a day in the life of someone I don't particularly care about, and that degrades it, for me.
Kind of a subjective subject, if you ask me.
Oh, you've given me a wonderful idea. Why don't we start a real ale/film club? There are bars in most bigger cities (Pony Bar in NYC, the various FrogPubs in Paris, LOTS in London) that usually have room for parties. We could organize a world-wide evening of real ale tasting and real movie watching!
Roger: Just when I thought I'd seen it all, you name-check CAMRA. Well played, sir.
I know it's been 15 years, but you can't have forgotten Dogme 95. Sure Lars and the gang were punking the industry for a little publicity, but at its core Dogme 95 was a manifesto for real movies. (and The Celebration, Dogme #1 is on my top ten list of faves of the last couple of decades).
Follow the 10 Commandments of Dogme and you will have the basic receipe for "real" movies. Certainly everyone starting in the industry, and many of the veterans, could benefit from the Dogme discipline.
I spent last weekend on a film review panel of mostly independent documentaries. I continued to be appalled at how cookie cutter and predictable most modern docs are. Add the overwhelming and cloying music, the staged interviews and the desperate attempts to please the Public TV/History Channel crowds, and we have the sub campaign for "real" movies even in the specialized world of the supposedly real movies.
Real as in honest?
I think you could make the same case for contemporary popular music. There seems to be a total aversion today to anything that is authentic, be it psychological, emotional or spiritual. It's as if most people are completely unable to make the distinction between false, superficially constructed product and actual art. Some of the most popular music of the 60s and 70s was also real music; the same can't be said for contemporary music. If the overriding motivation of the creators is to produce calculated formula because they know it's going to make them a lot of money then there's no chance of authenticity because it's of no value to them. And nobody seems to miss it. It doesn't bode well for the future of human affairs when empathy, truth, complexity and diversity are no longer considered of value to the culture.
Why are people lamenting the obscure status of personal movies? I don't really like the term "real movie"; it reminds me of Sarah Palin's "real Americans". What Mr. Ebert is talking about are PERSONAL movies; ie- movies which exist on a small scale and deal with personalities. That's a particular niche of movies, no more or less "real" than summer blockbusters.
The problem I see is that the personal movie is, by its nature, going to attract a smaller audience. People here seem to want personal movies to supplant blockbusters, so that people run out to see them in droves. Personal movies aren't dying, or being suppressed, or being exiled. Instead, they're exactly where they've always been: hovering around the fringe, calling out to the interested minority.
Do I really need to explain why blockbusters make so much more money? It's not because filmgoers are idiots, and it's not because of some odious conspiracy by theatre owners. It's because most people watch movies for light entertainment most of the time, and they often go in groups. I'm a father, and usually when I go to the movies, I take the kids. The last time I saw a movie, I took my two sons and one of their friends. Do you think they want to see "A Serious Man"? No, they want to see Iron Man.
Every single time I've watched a personal movie, it was on home video. EVERY SINGLE TIME. That probably won't change in the foreseeable future; the movie theatre is where you go to have fun. If you want to promote independent personal filmmaking, don't lobby the movie theatres; lobby Blockbuster. When I've seen good personal movies, it was because the manager at our local Blockbuster is a film buff and he recommends them to me.
Well this may be a bit off topic but there has been something very new. For the first time ever, scientists have created actual artificial life. This real life Frankenstein is a single cell of yeast with a complete set of artificial DNA that functions and looks exactly like a natural cell of yeast. Scientists could genetically engineer a cell to meet goals of creating an extremely high yielding biofuel, or create a cell that could suck up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Things are looking much brighter tommorow :)
In the same post from S. Rosoff we find:
"The public is too stupid to enjoy or understand "Real Movies." If a movie has too much talking in it, out come the Blackberries and iPhones."
and
"Get the balls to list the ten worst moviemakers in Hollywood. You'll find out that most people (critics and public) agree with you."
Please explain how the public is too stupid to enjoy Real Movies, but would readily agree that the worst moviemakers are the ones that produce the only movies they can understand. Perhaps there is a critical difference between "the public" and "most people (critics and public)" that I am failing to grasp.
Drew Boggemes writes: "There is truly a black cloud looming over every once legitimate form of expression, cinema included. It is most likely nothing more than a crackpot theory, but I wholeheartedly believe that the human race peaked in the 1970s."
_______________________
Isn't it funny how mankind's golden age always coincides with your own youth?
My 1970s was clearly different from yours. Racism was much worse back then; I remember being mocked by white kids calling me "Ching Chong" because of my Asian descent. I remember the energy crisis. The Arab-Israeli war of 1973. The culmination of the Vietnam fiasco. Disco music. Islamic revolution in Iran. Hollywood churning out movies about disasters, Charles Bronson, Dirty Harry, and mindless idiocy like Cannonball Run (a film so deplorable that it actually glorifies drunk driving) and Smokey and the Bandit. Mindless TV shows like The Six Million Dollar man, and endless game shows.
Oh wait, you lived through the same 1970s. Maybe you just don't recall it as clearly as I do.
Mr. Ebert, Mr. Rosoff is obviously a close-minded elitist who's more concerned with having the "right" tastes, than with honestly exploring your honest and humble film recommendations. His liberal use of the so-called term "wealthy elite" clearly speaks of his high-minded pseudo-intellectual opinions. In addition, he has a strange fixation on your use of the star rating system, when anyone who reads your work on a regular basis has found out by now that the star rating is only a perfunctory affair, and that Mr. Ebert's real task is to tell what the movie is about and provide an honest judgment of how it goes about it. Star ratings are for the trades and for sites like Rotten Tomatoes.
In addition Mr. Ebert, Mr. Rosoff has not shown you the due respect afforded to such an esteemed member of the film community as yourself and your attempt to respond to his confused ramblings shows admirable restraint. In conclusion, Mr. Rosoff does not speak for the rest of us movie lovers.
In this battle of blog poster vs. film critic, film critic wins.
Speaking of real movies, I've been going through my Kurosawa collection. The amazing thing is, I find his wartime propaganda films more real than a lot of the movies released to the megaplexes. Luckily, living in San Francisco, I have the opportunity to see a lot more independent or foreign films than most markets.
Morgan Sidky asks: "Why can't very good films such as those lead the standard in "good" films (in a perfect world, average films, rather than current "average" films like, say, Hot Tub Time Machine or Iron Man 2, which, although they aren't bad, aren't really in any way above par), and only truly Great films (capital "G" again) represent the great annual movie-going experiences, thus winning at the Oscars and resulting in their production becoming more commonplace?"
____________________
Does it really need to be pointed out that not everyone agrees on what makes a "good" film?
As an engineer, when looking at technology I do not recognize performance in an absolute sense, because there is no such thing. Instead, if someone wants something that performs well, the first question you must ask is: "against what goal?" Take cars for example: aar enthusiasts are like movie enthusiasts. They often ASSUME that the goal of a car is speed. When they describe the "performance" of a car, they invariably mean its ability to go fast. They sneer with contempt at "grocery getters", yet millions of people want a car for precisely that: to get groceries and go to work. For them, "performance" is how well it does that job, not how fast it races down the track.
The same lesson can and should be applied to movies. When people have different goals, then the idea of defining a single metric of "good" or "bad" looks foolish or perhaps more accurately, arrogant. It assumes that your goals are shared by everyone.
Mr. Ebert has always been quite good at judging a film not against some universal imagined goal, but against whatever goal it seems to set for itself. "The Mummy" is not to be assessed in the same way that you would assess "A Serious Man". One cannot judge films as if there is only one standard.
Mr. Ebert, I think you should count your blessings rather than poo-poo main stream films. We are getting a lot of great films. The internet is spurring tons of new ways of distributing films. Why can't Transformers 2 coexist with Man Push Cart? The idots can see their movie and people like us can see ours. Who knows, maybe one of the idiots will wander into the wrong theater. That's what happened to me and how I got sold on the more engaging films.
Also it's getting dirt cheap to make a movie.
Real Movies... which means what,exactly?
By now you've got enough comments in the hopper to show that there are as many kinds of "Real Movies" as there are moviegoers.
It's all a matter of point of view.
There are those who believe that movies went to Hell when sound was introduced.
Others hold firmly to the notion that color destroyed "pure cinema".
Still others maintain that the introduction of widescreen photography was only the latest technical distraction, diverting audience attention from the absence of coherent story values.
And so on, right down the line: every technical advance is a heresy against the "purity of Cinema". Eliminate enough things , and pretty soon you realize that the last Real Movie ever made was "Fred Ott's Sneeze".
There's nothing new about any of this.
I've been a fan of detective/mystery/crime fiction all my life. My tastes are pretty wide in this area; I learned early to appreciate many of the variations in the field (admittedly some more than others). But when I got into the critical area of the field, I learned that there were those who were adamant about how their particular favorite style was superior - not just to all other forms, but to the exclusion of all other forms. This attitude often asserted itself in struggles between advocates of "Classic Detection" and those of the "Hardboiled School", with each side maintaining that their side was the One And Only True Voice Of Crime Fiction. It's the original "flame war", and it predates the Internet by decades.
When I read the highly choleric Mr. Rosoff's screed against you, for having the temerity to actually hold views that differed from his ... "It seems to me I've heard that song before...", from the song of the same name. Every creative field has its Rosoffs, always has had and always will have. I learned early on not to take it seriously, and I'm guessing you did too.
If you were to send out reporters on a house-to-house canvass of the city, asking everyday people to define a "Real Movie", you'd get more different kinds of answers than you could handle.
Some would agree that the serious cinema that you advocate would fit the bill.
Others (likely older ones) would opt for Old Hollywood, the Dream Factory/Studio System.
Others (likely younger ones) would go for CGI-FX, the kinds of things that look most impressive on a massive screen.
Each group feels that their favorite form of film represents the best possible use of the medium.
The ones to watch out for are the hardline purists (present in all three groups) who feel that the forms they dislike ought to be purged from public view.
Sidebar:
Somewhere down the line, you ought to do a piece on the way some readers of yours take a proprietary view of what you write - and respond with shock and indignation when you put up a comment that differs from what they think your view should be.
I can just imagine what the comments on that would look like.
5 More Rules for Real Movies:
1) Immediate moratorium on actors' and actresses' salaries. No more paying Cameron Diaz $15 million for a mediocre performance. Revert to the casting strategies of Ozu and Bergman in which a troupe of unfamiliar faces become familiar not through star power but through
2) No more superhero pictures. Sorry Aquaman, Flash, Wonder Woman, Kamen Rider, The Tick, and Quail Man--you're just going to have wait until the next batch for your big screen treatment.
3) Be ambitious. Fail if you have to (c.f. Lynch, Blue Velvet, Kaufman, Synechdoche, New York). Take the $400 million you could spend on making Spiderman 7 and chop it up among FORTY film students from ten countries and see what you get. I would personally pledge to see each film and purchase them on DVD/Blu-Ray if they were successful.
4) Return to making intelligent, sophisticated films for adults that could nevertheless reasonably receive a "PG" or even "G" rating. This has nothing to do with piety or morality--I would call Ang Lee's Lust, Caution, which received an "NC-17," one of the best films of the decade. Ozu's 秋刀魚の味 (Sanma no aji) manages to address without ever presenting anything on-screen I would feel uncomfortable showing to my nine year old cousin, Josie. Ditto Kubrick's 2001 and Bergman's Fanny and Alexander, among others.
5) Beauty. For Aquinas, this means wholeness, balance, and radiance. For Norinaga Motoori: spontaneity, sorrow, evanescence. Iron-Man 2 gives us neither--but a lot of things, presumably, blow up. Pretty much the cinematic equivalent of smashing a transistor radio with a sledge hammer. As Bob Dylan sang, "Give strength to the things that remain." We must abandon the infantile nihilism of our escapist cinematic culture and try to present things of permanent value to viewers.
BONUS: Don't shy away from cinematic presentations of the Sacred. Try to imagine Journal d'un curé de campagne being shown at a contemporary film festival. (For those of you who think religion and cinema make strange bedfellows, consult The Pontifical Council for Social Communications's excellent 1995 list of "Some Important Films"--the source of my discovery of The Lavender Hill Mob, for instance).
My theory is that CGI and 3D interfere with the way directors used to think about putting films together. They force a new way of thinking, and that leads to movies that are full of empty calories.
There's a language of film rooted in the way shots are framed and the way things are cut together. I don't know very much about that language, and most people never think about it. I had to confront it, when I took a class where we had to write papers about movies without talking about dialog. If we wanted to argue that something was being conveyed, we had to use the shots and editing.
It seems to me that if you're going to have an army of animators producing your scenes, they're going to come out pretty differently than if you have a director and a cinematographer figuring out what to do with the camera organically, while the movie is being made. It's just a different kind of thought process.
Years ago, I saw some really great 3D at an IMAX theater. The film was called "Wings of Courage", and it wasn't great as a film, but the 3D was amazing. It was immersive -- this wasn't a movie that could be shown in a normal theater, or in 2D.
The thing is, there wasn't a frame, because your whole field of vision was filled, and cuts that forced you to refoucus were jarring. Those things radically changed that language of cinema. Directors use frames to hide and reveal things, and in this new medium (immersive 3D, which is different from the schlock they're producing now), that's impossible. Watching these films is more like watching a play.
The tradeoff, though, was that it could create a really intense feeling of proximity to the actors. I thought that was pretty exciting, and something that could definitely be explored. No one ever did, as far as I know.
The thing is, no one who makes big movies seems to think about cinema as cinema. You could tell when you watched "Wings of Courage" that no one rethought the basic rules of the medium, and how the radical technical changes they were imposing might change them. They don't think about the stuff Hitchcock learned in Germany.
Quentin Tarantino is incredibly fluent in that language, as good as anyone ever, but he's kind of an oddball.
But I don't think the problem is 3D or CGI. I think it's the corporate culture that produces the big Hollywood films. The values and intentions of the people who make those films shine through. I'm not sure there's anything they can do about that. I'm not sure it would be good if they could cover that stuff up, anyway.
Huzzah! And may I also add that in addition to Real Movies, I would like Real Movie Theaters, where at one could see said Real Movies on screens that aren't torn or poorly patched, and while sitting in nice seats, and where explosions from across the hall don't intrude on the quiet bits. Typically I have to go over one hundred miles to find such an experience.
On my birthday a couple of weeks ago, I took the day off work, spent half the day with family, and the other half going to the movies. Looking at your reviews as a guide (in part), I went to see The Book of Eli, and The Ghost Writer. I was surprised how both carried a similar, but deadly, theme in the power of books.
I thoroughly enjoyed both movies, yet for different reasons. But in retrospect, I could see "Book of Eli" taken as carbonated, and "Ghost Writer" as a Real film.
I cannot help but wonder if Real Films are treated as the exception, and not the rule in Hollywood. A Ream Film demands patience with itself and the audience. For most well-delivered Real Films, patience is rewarded. But these days, how many are willing to wait for anything at the cinema? So many movies these days are treated like TV commercials, where the first scene MUST grab the audience's interest and attention in a spectacular way. If it doesn't, then it's doomed for a limited release.
What does this say about us, the moviegoer? Is our demand of Real Films equal to our impatience for having things now? And is this the reason there's so many carbonated beverages out there?
I will say this about the two films I saw.
For me, The Book of Eli was more than just a carbonated offering, but a really good Root Beer float, with vanilla, whipped cream, and a Maraschino cherry on the top.
The Ghost Writer was a stout Guinness ale, rich with iron, and took longer to digest as well as to sip. (So yes, I had a really good birthday.)
But I am curious about what you said in your Robin Hood review:
"Little by little, title by title, innocence and joy is being drained out of the movies."
Have you found further evidence of this at Cannes?
(aside from Robin Hood)
Thanks for your time,
and God Bless.
John
I am completely in favor or Real Movies as described by Roger, a reel public intellectual. Some of my Best Friends are Real Movies.
I hope that once the novelty of CGI wears off and it recedes into the background where technology properly belongs, story can once again trump spectacle. I hope that starts happening sooner rather than later.
But I don't wish to be a Luddite about it. I thought CGI added beautifully to "Sherlock Holmes" without hogging the stage. No, "Sherlock" was not a Real Movie, just an enjoyable popcorn seller, but it's my example.)
3D, on the other hand, is the quadrophonics of the period. It added little to "Alice" and without it I'd have no desire to revisit so thin a story as "Avatar." I wouldn't miss 3D if it slinked away again. Been there, seen that. Let's get to the entree.
But there are great technologies out there, and I fear for the continued existence of movie theatres. And I'm afraid I'm contributing to their decline by having a home entertainment system with HD, Blu-Ray, and five-speaker capability. I'm skipping more and more first-run movies and waiting for the DVD. I'd rather see classics at home than in a theatre filled with teens and their cellular phones.
One more salute to technology. I was watching "Mockingbird" on a HD movie channel the other day. In the final shot where Atticus, with Scout on his lap, sits watching an unconscious Jem, I could see for the first time a framed portrait on the mantle. It was of a pretty young woman with her hair in Mary Pickford curls. Whoever it was, of course it was meant to represent Atticus's late wife. As the final scene faded to black, the entire Finch family was together. It was very touching, and in all the times I've seen the film I'd never noticed it before.
This quote matches my opinion on the Texas textbook issue.
"The truly stupid and the truly powerful have one thing in common. They try to change the facts to their views instead of changing their views to the facts. This can be a problem if you happen to be one of the facts they are trying to change."
---The 4th Doctor
@ebert:
Yes, probably too harsh. I guess there's a fine line between passion and vitriol sometimes. I probably shouldn't have listened to Bahrani's DVD commentaries, which do his films no favors. I remember John Pierson once mocking Robert Rodriguez for having mastered the art of "aggressive humility." Bahrani unfurls his relentless capacity for this gift on his commentaries.
As for THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE, 3 stars. I suppose I reacted to it in the way you reacted to ANTICHRIST. It did shock me--and it showed me something I hadn't seen before. And although it's fairly clear the film is intended as a bit of tongue-in-cheek provocation, it churns up all kinds of interesting questions about ethnicity/gender/the body. In an era of cookie-cutter films (both on the major and indie level) it's a definite standout. An unforgettable film, I think, even if it's far from a perfect one.
Re: Michael Wong "Any idiot can clap for a movie. It doesn't make you smarter than anyone else. If you and I have different tastes in movies, maybe it just means we are looking for different things. Don't tell me you're smarter than me because I look for entertainment rather than enlightenment in my movies. Maybe I have other sources of enlightenment, like books."
People of any intelligence level can like any movie. Ask them why they liked it, and then you can probably get an idea of their intelligence level. For example, I'd trust the intelligence of somehow who said they really liked Iron Man 2 (a movie I didn't like) because they found Robert Downey Jr.'s character unique, the villains intriguing, the comic book mythology respected, and/or the dialogue funny than someone who liked it because Scarlett Johanson was hot and there were explosions or, God forbid, they just liked it because "it's the hip in thing right now."
Hi Roger,
In my 7 years attending Ebertfest, I find I always love the smaller films. I buy copies on DVD and give to friends and family. They are all flawed in some way, but are totally uncarbonated. This year I loved Trucker,recent years: Canvas, Come early Morning, Frozen River.
I teach workshops in a few small film festivals that focus on totally independant and mostly amateur/beginning filmmakers. Despite flaws in storytelling and production technique, I see many short films or "micro-budget" features that overflow with joy of filmmaking or deep empathy with their subjects, often both.
You have many friends out there who believe as you do and many filmmakers trying to find that vision in their own work. Most of those filmmakers will not have the opportunity, skills or talent to rise to the level of a Ramin Bahrani, but some will.
As you once famously said, "movies are not what they're about, they're about how they're about what they're about." I think it's silly to criticize films simply because either a lot of money was spent on them or they star a big name or feature a lot of computerized gimmickry.
However, the "how" part of this is a pretty broad subject - are we talking just technical expertise or are there deeper issues involved, perhaps even approaching the quality of "empathy" - how it's created and sustained?
If we are, and I think this is the point of your entry above, then to say that the only "real" movies are those that deal with "reality" unadorned by star power or CGI is misleading. A great movie, or Great Movie, is great because it connects to the audience in ways unapproachable by any other medium. Consider Star Wars - yes, full of computer generated effects but fundamentally driven by deeply ingrained mythic elements instantly recognized, albeit unconsciously, by a mass audience.
In the interest of making this short, I'll cut to the point - what we need, as an audience, is not less concern for our need to be entertained; rather, respect for each of us as individuals possessing an astounding ability to empathize with even the unspeakable. Again, as you once said, "movies exist to cloak our desires in disguises that are acceptable."
I'm on board for this campaign. I'm tired of overuse of CGI. I just watched the Jean Cocteau Beauty and the Beast and the effects in that are incredible and draw me into the world of the movie more than any recent CGI I can think of.
"In common defense (pun intended) Shemp said, 'while it is good to know where evil is, it is still evil and should be avoided.'"
Perhaps, but why not point it out? It exists but it shouldn't. To not point it out and disregard it completely would only bring the world down.
Just one man’s opinion. But I believe Mr Ebert’s premise has a sort of inverted logic to it. He suggests that the solution lies in starting from the bottom and then hoping that the trickle up theory kicks in. It is plausible that this occurrence may take place, but I would rather bet on the next Ice Age arriving first. His objectives are clear enough, and worthy enough. Yet, the goals faced by anyone who is actually willing to take on this challenging uphill climb requires an all-too resilient hero. Just as an intellectual exercise, imagine being the writer/director of the film “Dead Man,” a film and its maker that not only meet the asserted criteria, but also went far beyond any reasonable call of duty. The resourceful hero of our saga manages to wrangle up Johnny Dep, Robert Mitchum, John Hurt, Gabriel Byrne, Lance Hendrickson, Crispen Glover, Iggy Pop, Billy Bob Thorton, and the list goes on. AND he manages, somehow, to get Neil Young to use his guitar to provide the film’s soundtrack. Throwing all caution—and formulas—to the winds our hero then films his vision in Black and White. There is nothing predictable in this film, nothing formulaic or contrived: it’s a unique film, one might even say strange. Now, having done all that, the critic gives your film a one and a half star rating. Nineteen ninety-six was an incredible year for independent films. Possibly the best year ever for great Indies receiving a wide audience. Lone Star, The Apostle, and Sling Blade being other masterpieces.
I think the more reliable way to reach the objective’s goal is to work from the top down. And it only requires the very same tweaking that you and Mr Siskel mentioned many times. The first place to start is with the script. NEVER, EVER, start a movie without a well-written script that makes sense. Is that too much to ask? What are these people thinking when they are willing to spend fifty million dollars on a movie and all they have to work from is a half baked script? I read someone, probably you, say that Alfred Hitchcock had the scripts to his movies committed to memory before he even began filming. That juxtaposed with the prevalent notion so many filmmakers seem to have that they are such geniuses—or perhaps they believe their audience are such idiots that, to use the phrase from Treasure of the Sierra Madre, “Scripts! We don’t need no stinking scripts.” No. You do. You really do. And since at least the eighties, they’ve been proving that fact consistently.
[Don’t you ever wish you had a flunky? I know I do, sometimes. I just spent an hour looking up Lone Star, for crying out loud. (Couldn’t remember the film’s name.) You’ve said you never had an assistant, but I think you might be forgetting Sally Sinden. I remember receiving a nice handwritten letter from her in 1993.]
Why do people dislike movies with unhappy endings?
First off, we have to define an unhappy ending as one in which things don't turn out all right for the protagonist, whom the audience identifies with. The whole point of an unhappy ending is to show that there are consequences for an incorrect choice that the protagonist has made during the course of the movie.
Since the audience identifies with the protagonist, it is almost as if the audience has made that incorrect choice, or at the very least understands, accepts, perhaps even supports it, and that choice is, in the end, rewarded with some kind of failure and penalty. The audience is meant to learn from this failure--the audience goes from sympathising with the flawed protagonist to being punished for their sympathy. It is manipulative and most people, on a gut level, just don't much appreciate the sensation.
In a happy ending, the audience may be forced to acknowledge that the protagonist is flawed, but since everything turns out all right in the end, there's no need for the audience to change. Obviously, despite his/her flaws, the protagonist is 'good enough' and so are the audience members by extension.
With an unhappy ending the audience members are forced to acknowledge that the protagonist was not 'good enough' and neither are they, and unless they make some key changes to their world-view, they too will suffer an unhappy ending. The only way to escape these feelings is to either fail to sympathise with the protagonist, in which case you feel nothing for the movie and get nothing out of it except for a wasted 2 hours, or perhaps to actually enjoy being emotionally ambushed. Or you have to accept that the purpose of watching that film was not 'amusement' but rather self-enlightenment.
Unfortunately, I think it's pretty clear that the number of people in the world out for amusement vastly outnumbers the number of people out for self-enlightenment.
I went to see The Secret of Kells recently, and while I thought the story was good-not-great (the animation was fantastic), at least it was not a "cookie-cutter" movie. I mean, how many animated movies do you know about the making of an illuminated manuscript? Yeah, same here.
What annoyed me were the previews before the film--all for animated movies (i.e. computer animated), all featured in 3D, and all sequels. The two I remember were for the latest Shrek movie and the latest Toy Story movie.
If someone uses 3-D like Herzog is using it, or like James Cameron used it, that's one thing, but if it's being used purely as a gimmick (as it is in the two films mentioned above), then I have an issue with it. One of the golden rules of writing is to "remove every extraneous word." What we have in movies today is too much extraneous material.
Still, I have hope. As long as great storytellers exist, as long as great humanists exist, real movies and real art will continue to be made.
From one observer's vantage point:
(I) It seems odd to blame a film critic for the overall state of cinematic affairs, given that he or she can only exert so much sway over the public's viewing habits--no matter how trusted that critic may be.
(II) It seems odder still to task that critic with leading cinema enthusiasts on some kind of nebulous charge up San Juan Hill, in order to regain the proper bearing and champion only the cinema's loftiest, most daring works--despite the incontrovertible fact that other, perhaps lesser, films may still offer genuine satisfactions that can't always be dismissed just because those films haven't achieved the critical approval of one hyper-zealous film enthusiast (who, frankly, doesn't sound like he'd be much fun at a party).
(III) At some point or another, doesn't it become each of our personal responsibility to write and e-mail the studios what we feel about the films they are producing and distributing? Further, if we hear that our friends or co-workers are going off to see a film we know in our heart is a pile of crap, isn't it our responsibility to try to tactfully talk them into seeing something better?
(IV) I've just been handed a note from a Dr. Frankelman, who's been tracking this thread. He suggests that S. Rosoff start taking the ENTIRE pill at bedtime and not splitting it into halves. The Doctor admits the prescription will not last as long, but he really feels that you're nearing a tipping point.
The Human Centipede
There’s a scene in “Lawrence of Arabia” where Lawrence is perplexed by the casualty rate among the Arab soldiers. It doesn’t make sense. There are far too few survivors of clashes with the Turks. Fizel clears the issue up for Lawrence by telling him that what happens to the captured soldiers is, “worse than you can imagine, I hope.”
I agree with Fizel. One would hope that a civilized mind, a mind worthy of being considered decent, a mind worthy of being human would not wish to imagine these things, let alone revel in them. Is that what we’re talking about with this movie, that it is sick, depraved, degrading, and says something about the people who seek out this material as being something less than brutish?
Segue into CGI. It occures to me that CGI is much like "The Human Centipede". A human being, for argument's sake, is essentially a good thing. Yet, what filmmakers do with it is akin to what the mad doctor does to his victims--in our case, what the filmmakers do to us victims in the audience. The logic seems the same. If one human being is good, then three of them stitched together must be far better. Therefore instead of CGI being a useful asset in a filmmakers tool kit, it becomes a monster, devouring everything around it: by this I mean distracting us from enjoying the movie due to the incredibly annoying unnecessaries of having these CGI's strung via "calculated gastronomical invasivity" (lower cap cgi.) Together, like one long chain of DNA the computer generateds have been allowed to run amoke.The lads in the special effects department are having loads of fun, unfortunately they are the only ones.
At least the Mad doctor is mad. What's the director's excuse for his monstrocity?
It's time to regain control of yourself and your movie. CGI The Movie Centipede!
More penetrating ("real") movies these days are documentaries - Silverdocs festival in Silver Spring MD at the AFI always has gems, and frequently the film-makers are there to talk about them. Whether it's Michael Reynolds (the Garbage Warrior), Werner Herzog talking about assembling Grizzly Man from 200 hours of footage (with considerable assistance from Discovery Channel personnel), or a trio of Russian women who made a film about a beauty pageant in a women's prison in Siberia, there are stories that amaze. And Characters in them.
I think the decline in interesting fictional films results from a decline in novels - because the publishing industry in its consolidation and greed has narrowed the entry-points for interesting stories to reach readers, people are more anaesthetized into reading drivel. Hence, the lower threshold for watching drivel - loud fast-moving violent drivel.
I love fiction, but it's in a sad state right now.
@my critics:
I suppose I'm quite proud to carry the torch of cinematic elitism and pretentiousness, but only as a counterbalance to the mindless masses who ensure Michael Bay and Brett Ratner lengthy, prosperous careers in Hollywood.
Believe me--studios don't care about "entertaining" anyone. They care about stuffing their films with product placement, setting up intricate foreign finance deals, and exploiting merchandising tie-ins. Any entertainment you might derive from their product is incidental.
It's tragic and hilarious that one would defend awful corporate product because "it's entertaining." Lots of terribly destructive things entertain people: cocaine, alcohol, heroin, reality TV, etc. Are those things good simply because they entertain the poor saps who are addicted to them? Do they add value to our society?
I listed my 10 worst living filmmakers in an earlier comment. Now I list 15 of the best, and my favorite films of theirs. I dare/challenge you (especially if you think I'm a horrible, mean-spirited snob) to check out some of their work:
1. Kelly Reichardt (WENDY AND LUCY)
2. Ondi Timoner (WE LIVE IN PUBLIC)
3. Michael Haneke (THE WHITE RIBBON, CACHE)
4. Pedro Almodovar (TALK TO HER, BAD EDUCATION)
5. Mohsen Makhmalbaf (KANDAHAR)
6. Lars von Trier (ANTICHRIST, THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS)
7. Werner Herzog (AGUIRRE: THE WRATH OF GOD)
8. Spike Lee (25th HOUR, WHEN THE LEVEES BROKE)
9. Harmony Korine (TRASH HUMPERS)
10. Shane Meadows (THIS IS ENGLAND)
11. Leos Carax (LOVERS ON THE BRIDGE)
12. Gaspar Noe (ENTER THE VOID)
13. Catherine Breillat (A MA SOEUR!)
14. Mira Nair (MONSOON WEDDING)
15. John Hillcoat (THE PROPOSITION)
And there are so many more! There is an amazing world of film out there. Why not fight for it? Studio films are definitely not an endangered species. "Real movies" are.
Remember, art is the canary in the coal mine when it comes to culture. World history might have unfolded differently had other nations taken action when the Taliban began destroying statues, banning music, forbidding painting, etc. Don't ignore the warning signs. Any nation can succumb to fanatics. In 1900 it would have been inconceivable that Germany would descend into the madness of Nazism. What will America be like in 2033?
Everything is connected. Keeping real films alive means keeping culture alive. I don't want to live in a country that is controlled by giant corporate monopolies with racist, sexist, homophobic, colonialist, fascistic hierarchical power structures... BUT PERHAPS WE ARE THERE ALREADY.
I hope not.
Your writing is always a revelation and I enjoy reading your work. I am in Cannes for the first time this year and feel honored to be watching the same movies with you! Thanks!
Call me a pedant, but when you say "It was drawn up by gravity from a cooled cellar..." I have to wonder if in the UK, aside from driving on the left, they also have gravity that pushes up.
Ebert: An excellent point.
The Campaign for Real Ale explains: "The most common means of dispensing real ale is the beer engine - a tall handpump on the bar, which operates a simple suction pump. When the handle is pulled a half pint is drawn into the glass."
This entire page is written with wit and sagacity: http://www.camra.org.uk/page.aspx?o=180651
@S. Rosoff
I find your opinions interesting. Do you have a blog?
Roger, this call is all very well and good, but let me relate just some of my experience of working as a projectionist for the big chain theaters. My city, Columbia, SC, has an arthouse/indie non-profit theater (The Nickelodeon, home of the Indie Grits festival, big ups), yet the big chain would routinely book at least one auditorium of ours with something smaller, or foreign. (For instance, during my tenure there, we played SIN NOMBRE, THE CONSTANT GARDENER, VOLVER, MOON and a good many other limited release films. While it's true that these aren't exactly "indies", they certainly are specialty products. And let me tell you, no one came to see them. They might do ten people a show on weekends, but even that's pushing it.
I don't think it's the lack of willingness on the part of theaters to put these films in their auditoriums - the chain I worked for always tried to get us the small stuff - as much as it is the general movie-going public's complete disinterest in seeing anything other than the stuff they're comfortable with. As further proof, let me just say that the Nickelodeon showed most of the very same small movies we would get, and they had sold out performances of each (granted, only 60 seats in the auditorium, but that's 6 times the people that came to our much nicer, bigger theater). It's the audiences who want to see crap, so I say keep giving them crap. I'll watch some of it, but mostly I'll just stay home and watch DVDs or Netflix Streaming.
I reject the distinction. The presence of CGI or even 3-D does not indicate a lack of substance, any more than its absence indicates the presence thereof. CGI made Lord of the Rings filmable, it enhanced such small-scale movies as DISTRICT 9, MOON, THE IMAGINARIUM OF DR. PARNASSUS, and eXistenZ, and 3-D is a technique still being explored.
I think any attempt to divvy things up into categories of worthiness- so that a "real" movie is automatically worth paying more attention to than a fake one- ultimately overlooks the actual craft involved. CGI in movies doesn't just generate itself procedurally from a single keystroke- someone has to approve design concepts, build mock-ups, choose angles, work with lighting and composition, edit shots, all like in a "real" movie. It may seem closer to animation than live action filmmaking, but is animation less real?
It reminds me too much of the gap book critics place between "literary" fiction and "genre" fiction- it's a generalization that does a disservice to the latter because it treats any work in the latter as less worthy from the start. Any film, whether it uses CGI, 3-D, digital video or any other modern technique, deserves evaluation on its own merits. No more, no less.
Nic Hautamaki wrote: "Why do people dislike movies with unhappy endings?"
_________________
Is this a serious question? I would have thought the answer to be obvious.
Let's take an example: in real-life, a "child disappearance" story usually ends with the line "searchers found the body of ..."
Hollywood could be gritty, and realistic, and emulate that harsh reality. Or it could do something escapist, and give us the rescue that we wish would happen in real-life.
Real-life does not furnish us with these happy endings as often as we'd like, so we look to Hollywood to provide them. Is that so wrong?
Sometimes, we want a movie to tell us about life. Other times (particularly when we're shelling out sixty bucks to pay for movie tickets and popcorn and drinks for our families), we want a movie to take us on a vacation from life.
Of course, we each have different limits to the stupidity we're willing to tolerate for the sake of escapism. GI Joe was far beyond my personal limit; the "sinking ice crushes the underwater base" scene nearly gave me an aneurysm. Does it really take a science advisor to tell the writers that ice floats?
"It's tragic and hilarious that one would defend awful corporate product because "it's entertaining." Lots of terribly destructive things entertain people: cocaine, alcohol, heroin, reality TV, etc. Are those things good simply because they entertain the poor saps who are addicted to them? "
One of these things is not like the others! One of these things just doesn't belong!
If you want to prove something is harmful- well, there's this whole thing called "empirical evidence" that's all the rage. Given the vague boundaries of what you're railing against (is it just bad movies, or bad big-budget movies, or all big-budget movies, or all escapist big-budget movies, or...), it's hard to prove that they're having any unified effect, any more than Frederic Wertham could prove that comics were corrupting American youth in the early fifties.
S. Rosoff wrote: "Remember, art is the canary in the coal mine when it comes to culture. World history might have unfolded differently had other nations taken action when the Taliban began destroying statues, banning music, forbidding painting, etc. Don't ignore the warning signs. Any nation can succumb to fanatics. In 1900 it would have been inconceivable that Germany would descend into the madness of Nazism. What will America be like in 2033?"
___________________
Wow. In 3 days you've gone from baseless accusations of stupidity to even more baseless warnings about the fall of society and the coming of the Fourth Reich. "Oh no, if people keep watching summer blockbusters, we'll all become Nazis!" THEY'RE JUST MOVIES. Repeat this a few times until you calm down.
Ironically enough, your melodramatic statements about the downfall of society due to bad movie-making be roundly mocked if they were spoken as dialogue by a character in a movie. Your character would be derided as an exaggerated and unbelievable caricature of the pretentious art snob.
Actually, on second thought, perhaps Kevin Spacey could successfully play this character, as an anti-social misanthrope whose love of film serves as his window onto (and scapegoat for) the world and everything in it.
I can guarantee that S Rosoff LOVES the sound of his voice. And, S Rossof, sir, you are beyond pretentious.
I can guarantee that S Rosoff LOVES the sound of his voice. And, S Rossof, sir, you are beyond pretentious.
Today I went to the goodwill and bought the following movies for $1 (vhs):
Treasures of The Twilight Zone: A collection of special episodes and rare footage, containing the academy award winning influential film:
An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge
Dreams--Bergman
The Sercrets of Women--Bergman
Chutney Popcorn--Nisha Ganatra (winner of many independent film awards)
The Last Emperor--Bertolucci
The Mummy
The Wolfman
Bride of Re-Animator
The Castle
Tart
How I would love it if Hollywood would start taking more risks. I'm sick and tired of movies these days being used solely as forgettable entertainment. I want to be able to reflect and ponder on a movie months after I see it, not forget it the minute I step out of a theater.
Roger, a question:
Can (and do) average Joes buy festival passes for Cannes- or is it only/mostly for film industry folk? How much do passes cost in USD?
Ebert: A quite limited number of tickets go on sale every morning for that day. If you have credentials they accept, you can buy a Market Pass for about 400 Euros. My recommendation: Go to a festival actually set up for the public, like Locarno, Karlovy Vary, Venice, Deauville, etc. Remember that Toronto is hugely important, and quite friendly to the public. And there are great American festivals all over.
Because before thirty years ago no films were escapist entertainment? Because every A-list feature from the '40s and earlier was a true original?
I have only to think of the sequel to Casablanca or the franchises of The Pink Panther or The Thin Man to realize that this Campaign for Real Movies is predicated on the false assumption that bad movies that rehash cash-cow tropes are a modern phenomenon.
To pine for the days of those memorable features from the Golden Age of Hollywood we must force ourselves to forget all the unmemorable flicks cashing in on the latest craze.
@k treece & others:
Yes, I'm beyond pretentious--I totally agree. And of course I love the sound of my own voice, as do you. We are both "guilty" of that offense, or we probably wouldn't be commenting here.
As I explained in an earlier post, my stance is one that I've taken out of necessity. My pretentiousness is a bulwark against the vapidity of current corporate cinema.
I can't compete with Hollywood's money, or their advertising onslaughts, or their marketing acumen. All I have are my words, my intellect, and my *informed* taste--and I will use those things to fight a corrupt, decaying system that wishes to denigrate an art form.
And to those cretins who don't believe that films have the power to successfully advance despicable ideologies and aid in the corruption of susceptible minds, please consider TRIUMPH OF THE WILL and JEW SUSS (the 1940 Nazi version). And yes, of course TRIUMPH OF THE WILL was a triumph of technical innovation--that only makes it more despicable!
Spare me your blarney about how films can "uplift" us but don't have negative effects. Of course they can, and do. That's what makes them so complex and fascinating. THAT'S WHAT MAKES THEM DANGEROUS AND ALIVE.
And please, do you honestly feel that mainstream Hollywood cinema does a good job of presenting issues of race and gender? If so, you are insane! Look around you. Then watch an idiotic piece of garbage like THE PROPOSAL. Do you not see a disconnect between contemporary American life and what is on that screen?
Consider how bits of overt racism creep their way into corporate product so smoothly (eg. TRANSFORMERS 2 and the gold-toothed, proudly uneducated, "ebonics"-spouting robots. What were they supposed to be? White Bostonian robots? PLEASE).
If you don't fight for art, if you don't support "real movies" (to use Ebert's terminology), then one day you will wake up saying, "Duh, I wonder why there's no more movies around except TRANSFORMERS 6 in 3D on every screen.... and why do I work a 60 hour workweek.... but make less then I did ten years ago... and why does the world hate America... and why are we still at war..... and why has my soul rotted and fallen out of my head?"
There will be one answer: because you failed. BECAUSE YOU FAILED.
Don't fail. Be a "soldier of cinema" (like Herzog says, yeah!) Learn to distinguish between corporate entertainment and art (and yes, there is a distinction--if you don't think there is, then you're in trouble already).
Books that are helpful for the battle ahead:
1. "Herzog on Herzog"
2. "Spike, Mike Reloaded" by John Pierson
3. "Who the Devil Made It" by Peter Bogdanovich
4. "Trier on Von Trier"
5. "Cinema of Outsiders" by Emanuel Levy
6. "Oxford History of World Cinema"
7. "The Great Movies" by Roger Ebert
8. "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" by Peter Biskind
9. "Final Cut" by Stephen Bach
10. "Francis Ford Coppola" by Michael Schumaker
and that's just the start!
Frankly, I don't see the problem.
Look through the film output of any given year in the 2000s, and you'll find A LOT of brilliant, character-driven, smart, "real" movies.
Sure, along with them you will find ten times as many stuff that ranges between barely interesting and utter c**p. But hey, Sturgeon's Law, remember? 90% of EVERYTHING is c**p.
Since nobody forces us to see the c**p: as long as those 10% good stuff continue to get made, everything's hunky-dory in my book. And among others, Roger here does a darn good job in sorting out which is which (occasional misfire not withstanding - you are still wrong about "Brazil", Roger).
Besides, isn't it part of the fun to go exploring every once in a while? To just subject yourself to a movie you don't know anything about, relishing the excitement of finding out, and the joy on those rare occasions you find a real gem ALL ON YOUR OWN? Plus, if you're young like me, there is a ton of movie history out there that's yet to be discovered. And eventually it will be, thanks to the age of the DVD, where nothing is ever gone, now matter how old or obscure.
Two more things:
1.) The few of you who want to urge Roger into "purging" the movie world from unworthy wastes of celluloid (especially the incredibly arrogant Mr. "S. Rosoff" in one of the first comments): get a life. Good film criticism is about promotion of the good, not about futile bashing of the bad and the ugly. If a film is bad, say so once, tell us why, then forget it. Plus, the Michael-Bay-fans of this world don't know who Roger Ebert is, and even if they do, they sure as hell don't listen to him. Would you rather want Roger to waste his remaining years battling windmills instead of guiding us towards the good stuff?
2.) Don't be so quick with the CGI bashing, lest your campaign might turn into Dogma 95, a.k.a. "movies for people who hate the movie magic", a.k.a. "I'd rather watch family home videos".
"Hollywood could be gritty, and realistic, and emulate that harsh reality. Or it could do something escapist, and give us the rescue that we wish would happen in real-life.
Real-life does not furnish us with these happy endings as often as we'd like, so we look to Hollywood to provide them. Is that so wrong?
Sometimes, we want a movie to tell us about life. Other times (particularly when we're shelling out sixty bucks to pay for movie tickets and popcorn and drinks for our families), we want a movie to take us on a vacation from life."
I agree. There's nothing wrong with escapism. There should be room in the film industry for escapist flicks as well as more gritty movies.I just wish more escapist movies were better executed but then again lots of indy style films are badly done too so poor quality is certainly not exclusive to escapist entertainment.
Since the release of "sex, lies, and videotape" in 1989 I think access to Real Movies has been remarkable. It seems there are more independent film makers now than any time I can remember and you can make feature films with off-the-shelf equipment (as Spike Lee has done). Art-house theaters, netflix, online services...access is plentiful. I'm not too sure what Mr. Ebert is clamouring for? That these films aren't more popular?
"In a happy ending, the audience may be forced to acknowledge that the protagonist is flawed, but since everything turns out all right in the end, there's no need for the audience to change. Obviously, despite his/her flaws, the protagonist is 'good enough' and so are the audience members by extension.
With an unhappy ending the audience members are forced to acknowledge that the protagonist was not 'good enough' and neither are they, and unless they make some key changes to their world-view, they too will suffer an unhappy ending. The only way to escape these feelings is to either fail to sympathise with the protagonist, in which case you feel nothing for the movie and get nothing out of it except for a wasted 2 hours, or perhaps to actually enjoy being emotionally ambushed. Or you have to accept that the purpose of watching that film was not 'amusement' but rather self-enlightenment.
Unfortunately, I think it's pretty clear that the number of people in the world out for amusement vastly outnumbers the number of people out for self-enlightenment."
I have no issue with unhappy endings and depending on the film I sometimes prefer them but I've never felt that they are superior to happy endings or necessarily always more real or appropriate, even for non-blockbuster movies. Some of the best and/or most emotional endings I've seen have been happy endings.
Roger, if there is such a hunger for "real" movies, independent movies, and foreign films in America, why has no one tried to exploit this? Why hasn't anyone built a chain of multiplexes around the country that would show only "real", independent, and foreign films? If there was such a big audience out there, I think someone would have tried to cash in on it by now
Eww, ewww, I think I just figured this human centepede thingy out. Haven't seen the movie and never will, but the mythological archetype is right there, Dudes. It is, like you know, a brilliant metaphor for what is occuring in contemporary culture. The centepede "itself" is about a particular cable news channel. Ya see it's like this, the information comes to them and whatever is good is taken out. So like, then, the next consumer--the news viewer--is required to settle for what is "offered". And then, Dude, it's, like, the viewers then take out whatever good they find and pass the rest along to us. Yukk.
How is THE HOUSEMAID a "real movie" if the criteria include "Each movie would be different. There would be no effort to force them into conformity with commercial formulas"?
Im Sang-soo's movie is a remake, of a 1960 Kim Ki-young film with the same title (one I happened to see and greatly enjoy Saturday). Your piece on Im's HOUSEMAID from last week didn't mention that fact either. But Kim's film is one of the seminal classics of early Korean sound cinema -- the industry didn't really get up and running (for obvious reasons) until the mid- to-late 1950s. To Im's audience, remaking THE HOUSEMAID would be just one step short of remaking CASABLANCA.
I point this out not simply to play "nyaa-nyaa" but to point out that in any culture, we are aware of our own commercial formulas, because we're surrounded by the general run of movies but are blind to the parallel formulas in other countries. And this foreign films often get praised for not being formulaic, when in reality, they are.
Ebert: A good point, but--having seen only the current version, it is itself a Real Movie, just as Altman's "The Long Goodbye" was in some remote sense a "remake."
"And to those cretins who don't believe that films have the power to successfully advance despicable ideologies and aid in the corruption of susceptible minds, please consider TRIUMPH OF THE WILL and JEW SUSS (the 1940 Nazi version). And yes, of course TRIUMPH OF THE WILL was a triumph of technical innovation--that only makes it more despicable!"
So all mainstream Hollywood movies are just as morally corrosive as TRIUMPH OF THE WILL?
Let's forget for a moment, of course, that TRIUMPH OF THE WILL was deliberately trying to sell the Nazi ideology whereas most blockbusters are just looking to make back their investment, that it played to an audience that was already receptive to that ideology (having voted the bastards in), etc.
Simply saying "These movies are bad because TRIUMPH OF THE WILL!" and then calling us all cretins is not really the best case you can make. You have to actually prove that THESE films, not Reifenstahl's, are causing measurable and quantifiable harms.
Your argument is intellectually incoherent. You do not support a thesis statement with evidence. You don't even have a thesis. Again, what is the line between acceptable entertainment and unacceptable? What specific boundaries are you drawing? And what INHERENT quality of big budget movies makes them all horrible and toxic? Sure, you can make an individual case against, say, TRANSFORMERS 2, or THE PROPOSAL, or SHREK 4, but are all of those no worse than, say, THE DARK KNIGHT, or IRON MAN, or Pixar's output? Does it all suck equally, or is it in fact possible to craft something good even if you're saddled with studio demands for a franchise? Can you really honestly say that there is no difference whatsoever between these films?
You need definitions, boundaries, some kind of intellectual framework, not WHARRGARBL. Seriously, have you had any formal education, because they should have taught you this sort of thing.
Rolls,
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I couldn't think of a better analogy for MSNBC.
S. Rosoff wrote: "If you don't fight for art, if you don't support "real movies" (to use Ebert's terminology), then one day you will wake up saying, "Duh, I wonder why there's no more movies around except TRANSFORMERS 6 in 3D on every screen.... and why do I work a 60 hour workweek.... but make less then I did ten years ago... and why does the world hate America... and why are we still at war..... and why has my soul rotted and fallen out of my head?"
________________________
Gee, how did the French revolutionaries ever overthrow their monarch without movies? Methinks you have a grossly exaggerated notion of the impact of summer blockbusters.
You wrote earlier that "Any nation can succumb to fanatics", but I have news for you: YOU ARE A FANATIC.
A fanatic is someone whose beliefs become exaggerated out of proportion to reality. That's you. If you want to make the world a better place, get into politics or volunteer at a charity. Don't rant about movies which don't meet your aesthetic standards and then puff up your chest with the self-aggrandizing fantasy that you're saving the world.
@Evan Waters:
I don't need any boundaries or framework. Haven't you read your Deleuze & Guattari?
I never claimed that all Hollywood cinema is as "corrosive" as TRIUMPH OF THE WILL. You misinterpreted my statements, and then spent your entire post fighting against your own words.
Here are some things to mull over:
1. How much petroleum does it take to make garbage like TRANSFORMERS 2? Are you aware America is, and has been, at war over oil recently? Could most mega-budget Hollywood films actually be considered pro-war films?
2. America's current ideology is rampant capitalism without moral responsibility. Mainstream Hollywood cinema endorses this ideology. Do you feel that this kind of capitalism has lead America to a good place?
3. Are you aware that mainstream Hollywood cinema tends to advance stereotypical, dated views of minorities? What is the current ethnic makeup of this country? Do you see that reflected in mainstream Hollywood cinema? If not, wouldn't that be cause for concern, or at least debate?
4. I don't need to distinguish between TRANSFORMERS 2 and IRON MAN--any more than I would need to distinguish between a Whopper and a BK Big Fish at Burger King. I might like one more than the other, but they are both fast food. Should we have more people fighting for Burger King's products? Or more people fighting for healthy food? I used to find health nuts vaguely irritating, but it turns out they're right, y'know?
5. As for personal attacks (the final line of your post), why bother?
6. In the end, art always wins.
@michael wong
Oh yes, absolutely, I am a fanatic. That isn't news to me.
But how harmful is my fanatic zeal for "real cinema" when compared with America's fanatic capitalist zeal--of which current Hollywood cinema is a reflection?
You write, "If you want to make the world a better place, get into politics or volunteer at a charity." I completely agree. But I don't see how those things are at odds with arguing passionately in favor of "real cinema." I would, in fact, suggest they are intricately connected.
You also write, "Don't... puff up your chest with the self-aggrandizing fantasy that you're saving the world."
Never have I made such a claim or indulged such a fantasy. I am just a lone person posting my thoughts on Roger Ebert's blog. My chest remains un-puffed.
I'm not sure "the world" needs saving. But "real cinema" is certainly an endangered species.
I supposed I'm just the crazy tree-woman, sitting high in the branches, trying to stave off the inevitable bulldozers. It's not a bad place to be. And I have a great view.
Nope, nope, still no thesis. And just citing philosophers doesn't count- you have to be able to make a basic coherent argument on your own.
1. "Real" movies use petroleum too. If the budget of TRANSFORMERS 2 were put to work on a bunch of little films, the drain on resources would be the same, just spread out. In any case, the film industry is far from the main reason we're having problems with this. And Iraq had as much to do with Bush Jr.'s ego as actually getting oil (which we haven't actually managed- Halliburton got fatter but without having to actually produce.)
2. This has nothing really to do with "real" cinema either. A "real" film can be just as anti-progressive as a 3-D CGI action fest- heck, it has the opportunity to be coherently so, while most blockbusters, by necessity, avoid clear posturing and take soft positions. (Of course, some filmmakers, studio and indie alike, just don't go much into politics or economic theory. David Cronenberg stays far away from the studios and he's as apolitical as you can get.)
3. This is a specific problem that does merit addressing. Here's the thing, though- it has nothing to do with real cinema either. If we took away all the CGI technology in Hollywood, and imposed a strict cap on how much each production is allowed to spend, casting offices would still have a tendency to whitewash properties and stereotypical roles would still be written. There's no inherent relationship between the two- those two ghetto Transformers being CGI does not mean they would have been not racist as guys in robot costumes or stop motion models. (Case in point- Marlon Wayans in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS.)
4. Here's the thing- we can measure the nutritional value and lack thereof of food on objective scales. A fish sandwhich has this many calories, this much of it is fat, has this much cholesterol, etc. We can *objectively* say it's bad for you or not. But how, objectively, is IRON MAN 2 bad for me? Describe the pathology.
5. It's not a personal attack. In school you get assigned essays to write, and you hopefully get taught that you need to have a thesis statement and supporting paragraphs, and that you need to be coherent and clear and not just copy what others write (even if you do the proper citation.) You are doing none of this, but you hold yourself up as intellectually superior anyway.
6. Yes. And sometimes art happens in big budget Hollywood movies. If you took your blinders off you might catch some.
S. Rosoff, you have been challenged repeatedly by numerous people to present something ... ANYTHING in the way of evidence to support your wild accusations about popcorn movies destroying society, and you have not even tried to do so. Instead, you merely repeat the assertion, using various types of metaphor and imagery.
Do you know how an academic supports an assertion? It doesn't seem that you do. You even admit that you are a fanatic, yet you continue to think that your statements (literally buttressed with nothing but your fanatical personal opinion) should be taken seriously.
You sound like the right-wing Christians who routinely rant about "liberal Hollywood" destroying, also without a shred of evidence. Like you, they just list things they dislike about the movies and assume that this constitutes evidence for their wild hypothesis.
If Mr. Ebert wants to encourage people to watch what he calls "real movies" because of his personal aesthetic and his hope that this will encourage the creation of more such films, more power to him. But this notion you're pushing about saving society from tyranny or reversing America's right-wing attitude through movies is completely absurd.
You are aware that Hollywood's blockbusters are shown throughout the world, right? Why isn't EVERY nation as irrationally right-wing as America? Why doesn't EVERY nation think idiotic things like "universal health care is the first step toward tyranny?" You obviously haven't ever asked yourself that, because you don't think like an academic. Where an academic would start with a correlation and then try to establish causal relationships, you don't even bother with the correlation.
As a beer brewer and craft beer drinker, "real ale" is all fine and dandy, but I would not want to limit myself to such simplistic brewing techniques. Craft beer lets me try something with a new creative taste that no one has created before.
I guess I'd be the same with movies.
@ Evan Waters
1. Are you talking about non-union indies? modified indies? Are you conscious of the difference between the petroleum requirements of a union film vs. a non-union film? A lot of indies are non-union.
2. If you think Cronenberg is apolitical, then I think you're misreading his work. He's rabidly political (no pun intended). His politics are those of postmodernism, body horror, and mechanization--to name just a few.
3. I never posited that there's a direct relationship between CGI and racism, although that might be an interesting area to explore.
4. IRON MAN 2 is harmful because it's a waste of your time. Seriously. Life is short. Don't waste two hours on IRON MAN 2.
5. What have I copied without citation? Nothing. As for theorists, get back to me when you've read A THOUSAND PLATEAUS and SIMULATIONS and then I'll talk. The idea of trying to explain Deleuze & Guattari or Baudrillard to someone whom I assume (from their writing here) hasn't read them is just too daunting for me. I will merely point out they are very liberating as theorists. No, an argument does not have to advance in the classical sense anymore. You might wish it to, but leaps of madness, hybridity, chaos, are now part of the curriculum. It's 2010, not 1980.
6. There is no art to be found in *contemporary* American mainstream studio cinema. I live and work in Hollywood. Believe me when I tell you that. I know it's tempting to argue, but it is honestly the truth. There is a great deal of talent and creativity and craft, but no art. (Of course it all depends how one defines art--Ebert doesn't see art in videogames. Do you?)
@Michael Wong:
Why would you expect rational academic discourse from someone who has asserted--quite seriously--that they are a fanatic? Shouldn't you expect fanaticism? Are you saying you will only engage with me on your own (privileged academic) terms?
Look, I've kept my argument (and it is an argument--a very clear one--just one that you don't agree with) focused on America, because Hollywood is the primary site of production of these problematic films. I don't wish to chase bees around the corners of my lawn. I would rather focus on the beehive.
But to answer your question off the top of my head, I suspect viewers in other countries may be better at contextualizing Hollywood product as something alien (either in terms of language or culture) to them--and therefore it penetrates their consciousness less. That's certainly the case in Europe. In Europe, the populace is also better at understanding the distinction between art and entertainment. Poor art education in public schools, starting in the Reagan years, contributed to an American public that undervalues art--or strives to justify entertainment as art.
How fascinating that neither you nor Evan Waters have addressed my list of 15 great filmmakers, or my list of 10 great books about film. Where are your lists???
I must admit, I like S. Rosoff. His passion is quite infectious!
My own situation could be summarised thus: the last thing I watched was Avatar because I heard about it, but before then the last thing I watched was... er... uh...
I was a casual movie-goer before University, but disconnected almost entirely due to a combination of overpriced, character-less, conveyor belt multiplexes popping up all over the place so that I can't even find one of those quiet, warm independent cinemas with reasonable prices AND the unholy rise of formulaic CGI children's movies. All these 'real movies' mentioned in the article and various comments, I wish I'd known about them then. More importantly, I wish I'd known WHERE I could go to watch them without travelling several miles.
Not that I am not watching ANYTHING, mind you - the past few years have seen me enjoy a glut of Japanese animation. Only 10% of it is worth an intelligent viewer's time, but that 10% is providing me with some highly original, witty, moving, and exciting stories about humans and humanity. Check out 'Only Yesterday', 'Mind Game', or 'The Wings of Honneamise'. For anime TV series, 'Planetes', 'Princess Tutu', 'Mushishi', 'Monster' and others. Call me back to Hollywood when they make the good stuff accessible again.
Finally, thanks Mr. Ebert on another fascinating article.
"Poor art education in public schools, starting in the Reagan years, contributed to an American public that undervalues art--or strives to justify entertainment as art."
Nobody who can write that sentence has even the slightest historical or sociological knowledge about America, or the history of art in America and public attitudes thereto. None. At all. Such a person is just spewing out presentist prejudices masquerading as ideas.
1. Do you think it's bad that unions protect workers' rights?
2. I don't read that as political, more sociological. It's not about public policy.
3. If there's no relationship, then why is CGI inherently bad?
4. That is circular reasoning. I don't think the two hours I spent were wasted- I was entertained, I had a few laughs, I heard some good AC/DC music, on the whole I think it was a positive experience.
5. No, you're not copying, you're just saying "read this!" like it's an argument instead of a distraction.You can't make coherent arguments on your own, so you want us to do homework. That's not how it works.
6. Bull crap. There's art in UP, there's art in WALL-E, there's art in SPEED RACER (Hell it's practically a tone poem), there's art in SHUTTER ISLAND, there's art in AVATAR- mostly of the visual nature, but I'm not sure how that wouldn't qualify- not all of it works, not all of it is good, but it does sneak in there. What is the overlapping, Hawksian dialogue in the IRON MAN films if not a freedom to improvise and let the actors create their roles? What is the strange, ramshackle plot of UP if not genuine whimsy on the part of the writers? You think Sam Raimi didn't run into trouble with Universal over DRAG ME TO HELL's semicomic tone? You think opening THE DARK KNIGHT without even a studio logo was easy? Seriously, every day there are filmmakers, even within the studio system, making nonlogical, creative decisions. It's a struggle to get them past the moneymen, but when they do, it's worth it.
S. Rosoff wrote: "Why would you expect rational academic discourse from someone who has asserted--quite seriously--that they are a fanatic? Shouldn't you expect fanaticism? Are you saying you will only engage with me on your own (privileged academic) terms?"
________________
Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying. If you don't support your claim using actual evidence, then it's worthless.
Academic methods are not arbitrary; they exist because no intelligent person takes a claim seriously unless it can be argued using evidence and reason.
All you're providing so far is a heaping helping of personal opinion with a side dish of insufferable snobbery.
@Denny:
Thank you. I'll check out some of your recommendations.
@Victor Morton:
I looked at your blog, "Rightwing Film Geek," so I can see why you'd take umbrage at my bashing of Reagan. You're technically right in that poor art education didn't start with him. But he didn't help matters and I honestly believe that his policies on education helped point this country in the wrong direction.
@Evan Waters:
1. Your question re unions suggests that you do not live in Hollywood. You gotta see it in person to realize that out here, unions do many good things, but conserving resources ain't one of them.
2. Expand your definition of "political." The body is a political (and politicized) site.
3. Movies that rely heavily on *overt* CGI tend not to be "real movies." Not always, but they do trend that way.
4. Yes, well, some people find that abusing valium or beating their spouse relaxes and entertains them. I don't see the connection between your enjoyment of IRON MAN 2 and its inherent worth. I know it bugs you when I suggest reading certain theorists but you might want to check out Laura Mulvey's "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" if you haven't already.
5. My argument is pretty clear at this point. But if you feel otherwise, why not check out some of those theorists? Don't view it as homework--view it as exploring new lenses through which to view contemporary film.
6. We must agree to disagree. There is no art to be found there. There is creativity, talent, skill, passion, technical brilliance, etc. But no art. SPEED RACER might have aspired to the level of art, but it failed to reach it. The funny thing is, most directors and producers will (some publicly, some privately) admit this in Hollywood. I would be very surprised if the creative team behind SPEED RACER believed they had succeeded in creating a work of art. (And yes, of course I realize they might say all kinds of stuff to the press while promoting their movie, but seriously--SPEED RACER as art? That's a tough sell.)
Besides, the Wachowskis are reclusive self-styled "auteurs," so that example is quite a bit different from most studio product--it was a rare example where the studio had to bend to the filmmakers. Still, I don't think it's art. I think BOUND inches closer to art, but even that's just a semiotic genre mishmash. I just think there's too much popcorn in the Wachowski family DNA to yield viable art. Of course I hope they make a great indie and prove me wrong. I always want to be surprised by brilliant films. I am rooting for them.
I gotta confess that I thought AVATAR was rubbish. I've met Cameron. He's a smart cookie. He achieved his goal (make loads of money, invent new technology, receive adulation while acting cranky) but I don't think art was in the equation. And I don't think he accidentally made some great work of art either.
There's a corporate sheen to all of Cameron's work--he is himself, of course, in psychoanalytic terms the very "evil corporation" that is so often at the center of his films. That corporation is Cameron's id. His ego fights it, relentlessly. But look at his films--the corporation is the one that is always out of control, sneaky, conscienceless, trying to slip one past the "good people" (ie the workers, ie the ego). Is he aware or unaware that his films reflect his own psychological battles--battles that the audience can obviously relate to? Cameron's success is the result of massive intelligence, discipline, sacrifice, politicking, hard work, and extensive planning and market research. There's really no difference between Michael Bay and Cameron, except one is a lot more intelligent than the other and delivers higher quality product. But it's all product.
Did you ever read the J. Hoberman line (and I paraphrase): "I would consider it a revolutionary act if someone dropped a reel of ERASERHEAD into STAR WARS"? Well, it would be just as revolutionary if someone dropped a reel of ERASERHEAD into AVATAR. Lynch is the real thing. Cameron, not so much. AVATAR reminded me of TWILIGHT (and BEVERLY HILLS CHIHUAHUA too--a very similar film in a lot of ways, some obvious and some not).
I looked at your blog, "Rightwing Film Geek," so I can see why you'd take umbrage at my bashing of Reagan.
Love that implication, that this is ideological. I assure you that had you said "Poor art education in public schools, starting in the Carter years..." I would have come to the exact same conclusion. I dislike fact-free posturing ass-hattery from whatever source.
You're technically right in that poor art education didn't start with him.
The word "technically" adds nothing -- I am simply "right."
Further, that's only one front on which your original statement was wack and betrayed a historic ignorance that becomes more shocking with every "holier than thou posting" of yours. It also presupposes:
(1) production of art rests on mass-public support of it (which is true of "entertainment," but not of "art," if one is to draw a radical distinction between the two as you did elsewhere in the post to which I was reacting);
(2) public support rests on public education (equally dubious -- mass public education is a 20th-century phenomenon in the US, and not much older than that anywhere else in the world);
(3) the specifically American conflation of "entertainment" and "art" (and highbrow sniffing thereat, such as you're trying to mimic now) is older than ... um ... the movies and has continued unabated right up to the present (see Dwight MacDonald on the various form of culture);
(4) the presumed American hostility to "art" ... again, this was being noted by Tocqueville (an early-19th century Frenchman, if that helps) and in various forms, such as identification of "art" in the popular mind as something those effete Euros do, it has never not been part of the American cultural psyche;
(5) the fact I cite in (2) -- the absence of any but the most rudimentary mass education beyond puberty throughout the 19th century -- is relevant to the phenomena of (3) and (4) being unrelated to public-education.
But he didn't help matters and I honestly believe that his policies on education helped point this country in the wrong direction.
A claim that is completely irrelevant to the point being made on the subject at hand.
If (and it's a mighty big "if"), art education has gotten worse in any definable period of time, it would have had little or nothing to do with national political leadership. Education in the US is basically run by the states and nearly all specific decisions about what to fund or not fund or offer or not offer are made by local school boards that (again) have nothing directly (and little indirectly) to do with Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter or any other president.
@Victor Morton:
Let me dissect your response:
1. You claim that I'm dragging ideology into the discussion. Yet your blog is titled "Rightwing Film Geek." Do you not see that *you* are the one dragging ideology into the equation? Am I really supposed to not address the fact that "Rightwing" is the primary term you use to describe yourself on your blog? COME ON.
I'm also well aware that you are attempting to carve out a ludicrous niche with your "Rightwing Film Geek" pose. Why would you--an otherwise rational individual--do such a thing? Because you want readers to visit your blog, and you want attention. But your niche is a ridiculous one and the title of your blog is an insult to people with a brain in their skull. (and for the record, "Leftwing Film Geek" would be equally idiotic). Why would any thinking person chose to view (or pretend to view) film solely through the prism of one ideology? Sounds fascistic.
2. I assume you're using words like "ass-hattery" and "wack" to avoid mounting a credible argument or taking part in any kind of discussion. You've just tumbled into a "Rightwing" frenzy of gnashing teeth, name-calling, and rabies-mouth. Also, even an old, toothless man in a nursing home would tell you that the word "wack" is outdated.
3. I added the word "technically" for the following reason: While it is accurate that arts education in America began to decline before Reagan, during Reagan's presidency it took a COMPLETE AND UTTER MISERABLE NOSE DIVE. Reagan was HORRIBLE for this country. How can you possibly defend him? Have you ever been to an inner city? Have you ever spoken to a public school teacher? Did you sleep through the 1980's?
4. You are missing the forest for the trees. My point is simply that better arts/humanities education tends to produce people who value the arts and humanities more. Does this not make sense to you? Have you not read or heard of the numerous studies that back this up?
5. If you think education doesn't have anything to do with white house politics and policies (which is an amusing claim coming from you) then you've lost your marbles. You do realize how much money is at stake here, right? You really think the greedy politicos in DC have no interest in those dollars? Again, how many educators have you talked to?
6. I have no doubt that the conflation of art and entertainment is an American constant. I take that as a given. My point is that it need NOT be that way. At the moment, films designed *solely* for corporate profit (which you read as "for audience entertainment") are the ones mainstream Hollywood is interested in producing. Is that because they think audiences want/deserve slop like PRINCE OF PERSIA or IRON MAN 2 or SATC2?
No. It's because the executives at those companies are desperately trying to keep their jobs (I don't blame 'em, but I don't like 'em). They don't care about you (the audience) or even the studios they work for--they care about their paychecks. If they thought they could make money from it, I'm sure a studio would start remaking Al Jolson movies. Does this really seem like a good situation? Those same craven executives who only greenlight remakes and sequels end up getting fired anyway, no matter what films they make.
7. I've noticed that you also hold a very limited view of mass education. What does poor public education mean in other countries? The students who comprise the Taliban often get a pretty poor education. Does that affect us in any way?
8. The mass education of the public in this land is not a 19th century invention, or whatever nonsense you claim (yes, I know, Jefferson, blah blah, public schools). YOU ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT. The first mass education occurred several hundred years before that in New England. Take a second and Google it. See? Now, did those systems work? No. But does our current public school system work? Er, no. (and by "work," I mean, do the job that it claims to do, and was established to do). So you've got yer dates muddled by hundreds of years.
9. Look, I'm a liberal who voted for Obama. You are the "Rightwing Film Geek." You'll never see things my way, and vice versa. I know you're probably bummed out that Obama is in the White House (and Bush is in the trashcan of history as a lunatic idiot), but that's just the way it is. Sorry for your loss.
Y'know, I though about posting an in-depth response, pointing out S. Rosoff's lies (yes, lies, such as "*you* are the one dragging ideology into the equation"); pulling out the charts (the basic facts of which are known to everyone who knows anything about US politics) that show neither education funding absolutely nor the DoE budget declined at all during the Reagan years; noting that S. Rosoff drops the most relevant point, that there can in principle be no link between art (as distinct from mass entertainment) and a thing that didn't exist for most of the human history of art (mass public schooling); laughing at his all-caps claim that [I AM] FACTUALLY INCORRECT and citing as proof (and therefore proving he doesn't know what he's babbling about) a system of paid church schools that provided, to all but the richest, merely an elementary-level education in the larger towns of a mostly-rural country; and citing the percentage of high-school graduates in 1900 (8%) and the dates of compulsory school-attendance laws (in most states, 1850-1890 re elementary school, the 20th century re high school) to show that, yes, no matter what he think, mass public education is recent (and art is not).
I could do all that, but after reading (1) again, I decided "why the heck bother." Anyone who actually knows anything about US history (i.e., the only people I care about) can read the exchange and see who knows what he's talking about and who doesn't.
But let's get one things crystal clear, S. Rosoff. I came to this post only from a Catholic blog. I rarely read this site and I believe my comment to Mr. Ebert above about the two versions of THE HOUSEMAID was my first. (You'll note BTW, that I addressed him respectfully, and got a respectful acknowledgement back, which I chose not to follow up even though I considered it, in the whole, unconvincing). Don't you *dare* assume anything about my motives or self-presentation. You don't know me. You don't why I do anything. And I don't need to defend my existence or persona here (which was completely a-ideological until you brought it up, and don't you dare lie) to anyone except in principle Mr. Ebert. Least of all, to you. Don't you *dare* call me a hit-count whore.
Understand?
@Victor Morton:
Ah, giving up so easily. Makes me wonder how much you really care. Anyway, I don't wish to waste my time getting into an ideological spat with you either.
The fact that you "rarely read this site" and "came to this post only from a Catholic blog" tells me what I need to know. Why wouldn't you visit this site all the time? Along with AICN and Deadline Hollywood, it's one of the best film-related sites on the web.
As for calling you a "hit-count whore" (your phrase, not mine)... Blogger, know thyself.
Surely the "Rightwing Film Geek" is not so devoid of humor and self-knowledge that he can't admit he is seeking attention for his blog? I'm not saying that's the sole reason you have a blog, merely that you've found a unique angle to work. That you took my statement as such an affront is quite odd. Are you saying you hope to have no readers for your blog? Are you saying "Rightwing Film Geek" is a title/attitude designed to minimize attention?
Look, we probably hold completely opposite views when it comes to politics, religion, society, etc. Let us prance happily off into the sunset, agreeing that we don't much care for each other's opinions... Or perhaps we could recenter the discussion on film. I am now sitting down to watch David Gordon Green's UNDERTOW.
I was thinking about this journal post all the way through watching Shrek 4. *sigh*
Blogger, know thyself ... [you] can't admit [you are] seeking attention
And now you're adding diagnosis-by-modem to your charming qualities of lying, imputation and fact-free posturing. Lovely.
Ah, giving up so easily.
I am not giving up. I have learned to hold you in utter contempt. I have nothing to say to you on any subject at all ever. You have nothing to say to me on any subject at all ever.
Ebert: You just had something to say to me. Now I am replying. Case closed.
To add to your comments, I would say that Real Movies are those that realize the full possibilities of film by inviting the viewer to focus on that which is not normally given consideration by most. i.e. NOT sex, violence, action, flippant visual stimulation, and those movies that would hold us hostage, rather than gently lead us to slumber and weeks of dreaming and background processing, to paraphrase Mr. Kiarostami.
I’m thinking of this a bit late, but this might be the place to restate my one man campaign to remake Greed. In the right hands, it could be a meritorious artistic achievement, Oscar worthy, and even profitable. Consider for a moment a film (two films, actually) being made by someone like Scorsese or Spielberg with a cast that includes someone like Decaprio, who isn’t obsessed with money, a man who is an artist. A film about Strohiem’s clash with the studio and the drama surrounding the filming surely has all the elements of a real movie—and most importantly an entertaining one. And what is even better is that while the film about the making of Greed is made they can remake Strohiem’s 4 hour version as he intended it. (No script is required. No confusion about what the set would look like. (Strohiem’s film was pretty stark after all.) And the black and white remake could rival that of Raging Bull. ) Now you’ve got two movies you can sell, while you are making film history. Someone really ought to seriously consider the project. This would in fact be real movie and not a a prohibitively expensive venture, either. No special effects, no two hundred million dollar budget, just a “real movie.”
I'm very glad to see that you've addressed this subject, and not for the first time I'm sure. And I have an anecdote that you might find relevant.
A few years ago, I was reading the Grove edition transcript of Michaelangelo Antonioni's "L'Avventura," or "The Adventure." This is one of your top 100 films of the previous century, but most of the "When Harry Met Sally" crowd would not survive the opening credits, as "disciples" of Antonioni can imagine. It is unapologetically serious.
In the notes at the end of that transcript is an interesting anecdote. The cast and crew were filming on a remote island in the Med when their film company declared bankruptcy. The filmmakers ran out of money for this film with long, quiet, thoughtful scenes of ennui and despair.
Antonioni did not abandon the project. He hastily made promises and told everyone he was going ashore to find money. He said something so unusual it seems almost inappropriate. I remember his quote to this very day: "I believe in this film," he told his cast, and went to find another producer.
Can you imagine the likes of Michael Bay, or even Spielberg, telling that to a crew today, for any reason? Can you imagine Jerry Bruckheimer or any of his technically adept but doltish hacks reassuring ANYONE with that kind of passion: I believe in Transformers 3... I believe in this film National Treasure 2... We must finish this currently-untitled Angelina Jolie comedy-thriller because I believe in it, DAMN YOU!!!!?
Of course not.
It has dawned on me that I have not paid for a movie ticket since the third Bourne movie. And why should I? Why should I pay to see a film that the artists involved weren't compelled to make?
Unfortunately, most big name movies in hollywood are made by feeding several 'marketing parameters' into a computer, that spits out screenplay.
Wow, Mr. Ebert, this subject hit some nerves. Also, I think your blog has been hijacked by the S. Rosoff fanclub...or following...or whatever.
Anyway, I agree with you. Give me a real movie any day of the week.
I just read the review for Knight and Day.
I thought the trend toward CGI was either going to mature into a non-distracting asset to filmmaking or go the way of the Hoola Hoop. I was wrong on both counts. Very wrong. Recently, I purchased some used books through eBay. They have guidelines for the sellers. They are encouraged to sell books that have a limited amount of markings on the pages. Ten percent or less is hoped for.
Is there any kind of agreement amongst critics on some type of CGI guidelines? I’m thinking of something along the lines of a three star movie being reviewed as such. However, a three star Movie(with a CGI warning)is understood to be a less favorable opinion of the film.
CGI is a threat to creativity. There is little doubt about that. Take for instance what has happened to the original Star Trek television show. I haven’t seen them, but I see the boxes claim to have “improved” the special fx. The charm of the show and what really made it work was the interesting characters and most of the storylines. Seeing someone walk around with a snazzied up Etch-a-Sketch box was part of the charm. It showed inventiveness and resolve to get the project completed. I loved it. Star Trek was about characters and the maker’s resourcefulness. The Star Trek movies weren’t as good because they had the funds for CGI and elaborate sets.
I have a deep admiration for Cinderella Man. I can’t remember a recent movie that reminded me as much about the Golden Age of filmmaking. It was all about an interesting story and characters. Really, I think it could be cited as a model for Independent filmmakers with a limited budget and a good, solid script to work with.
A real eye opening blog, with some great responses too, especially the one that compared the top grossing blockbusters of 1975 and of 2009. I recently finished a book on 70’s cinema and felt a pang of regret that on the whole, large scale productions aren't as adventurous as they we're 25 years ago. Though I take solace in the fact that there are still many great films out there year in year out, even if they are on a smaller more intimate scale.
"It makes no difference as to the name of the God, since love is the real God of all in the world." -- Apache