Dustin Hoffman says the cinema is at it's worst.

Don't forget Ishtar.

 

I think Hoffman costars in a new indie film coming to DVD Tuesday called Choir boys or something similar to that

 

Yeah, actually the comparison that came to mind with me for Nightcrawler was another less well known Scorcese/DeNiro classic, The King of Comedy. Jake Gyllenhall was like an update on Rupert Pupkin, a character who lives entirely in his own mind and will do anything to get to the top.

 

Well of course "Winter Soldier" does (something I pointed out about 10 posts ago) but those,films didn't exactly invent the genre (they owe a strong debt to John Frankenheimer who practically invented the genre with Richward Price in 1960's). it doesn't mean the bar is set low (the fact that the film makes any attempt when most films --dramatic, suspense or doesn't even try--isn't setting the bar low (you're using the fact that the genre tries anything ambitious against it damning the genre for doing precisely the things that you rail against other genre films for NoT doing) in commenting on our current situation. It's not like they or even the 70's paranoid political/conspiracy thrillers invented the genre either nor what they had to say was that original to begin with but the fact the makers choose to subvert the tropes of the genre to effectively tell a story.

All films borrow for what came before and make it relevant to current audiences.

Actually "Jaws" and "Empire" for better or worse did, indeed, change the movies. Not every movie is designed to comment on society just as films from the 40's and 50's (often cited as the golden era of films by many) managed to comment on society at large within the form of entertainment. Subtext is everything. Craft is an important element and these films are all well crafted accomplishing many things at once while at the same time proffering some element of commentary.

 

Well, I'd argue that with genres being too different from one another and films being so different from one other throughout the decades that a "best of a genre" makes a lot more sense then a "best of film". If you don't you'll have genre biases. It would be considered blasphemous to consider films of a certain genres "best of film". The problem is trying to make an objectified list of "standards" of what makes a good film and what makes a bad film. That doesn't work. All good films shouldn't fit into the same mold. In fact they don't. Like it or not what makes a film good or bad is still subjective. I don't care who's comes out the woodwork claiming certain films are bad.

People in this thread can shake each other's hands congratulating each other all the want over being "right" in regards to good or bad films and what genre of films are always better than others. It wouldn't make them right. That's because their artificial standards are just trying to objectify their tastes. Their tastes aren't any better than anyone else's.

 

While I do see your point and agree somewhat, you seemingly diffuse your own stance by highlighting the (endless) "subjective vs objective" debate, which would render any given "best of" list relatively useless (genre or otherwise). But I would also say that whether or not certain types of films can be ranked "as films" next to traditional classics like The Godfather probably depends on who you ask. Certain critical people might point to something like Terminator 2 or The Matrix and say that those "action" movies had huge impact on film as an "art form" and can easily be placed side by side in the canon with traditional film "classics".

Personally, I think it's relatively obvious that one would take things like genre and date of release into consideration when "ranking" any kind of art and the fact that there are different styles or genres in a general medium doesn't necessarily mandate some need for compartmentalization. In this regard I have no qualms stacking The Beatles next to Mozart or Woody Allen next to Shakespeare or Picasso next to Van Gogh as "artists" and I would point to the fact that they excelled in a given "style" to indicate what made them important as "artists" (as opposed to masters of a given genre or style).

To take what I'm saying back to the realm of film, for me the Marvel films remain sometimes-great genre movies that don't really have much to contribute to the medium in a significant way because they pander to formula and generally lack genuine authorship. Even if/when there's an "auteur" at the helm the Marvel directive frequently overtakes any sense of independent spirit (in my opinion). Comparatively speaking, a movie like Terminator 2 has a distinct style and sense of authorship which is what made it more progressive and important as a "work of art", not just as an "action film".

 

Either I'm not really following what you're saying here or I'm not sure you followed what I was saying. I was never saying the 70s paranoia thrillers invented anything--I was using the Winter Soldier as an example of a Marvel film that gained clout when it was generally just another somewhat formulaic superhero movie. Nor was I really knocking the "craft" on display in any given Marvel film--these are literally half a billion dollar films so obviously they are made well. I was saying that the mandates of the Marvel "studio system" frequently take precedent over the need to infuse the films themselves with a genuine sense of artistry or "soul", and that in my opinion the early Spielberg films displayed a stronger creative balance of singular passion and commercial interest.

 

It's possible I lost the thread. I was pretty darn tired whe I first replied.

As far as soul goes--I agree that these lack the vision of a specific director but the vision here is more tied to the storyline thst they have to adhere to so they can tie in all the films I to the Marvel Universe. It doesnt allow much wiggle room for creativity from a director which is why all of these guys are directors for hire at this stage.

 

I do think you have a point in that the Marvel "Universe" is arguably the vision, and I also think that a lot of genuine heart and soul went into the creation of these comic books in the first place. But by virtue of their director-for-hire template and big budget mandates, the movies themselves just leave me feeling a little colder and emptier than the earlier generation of blockbusters. That, plus I just don't think the Marvel films have a lot of merit as works of "art" (in spite of craft) while I do think that many of the Spielberg/Lucas films do qualify as "works of art" for a number of reasons.

 

A guy's gotta work. It's not like he has so much power in Hollywood that he can control these trends, so commenting on them may be the best course of action for him. He could certainly refuse all but the most interesting roles, but like all performers, I'm sure he wants to stay in the spotlight as consistently as possible.

 

I think you can just make it part of the ongoing conversation to clarify your point. We all read things with our own perspectives, and discussion is how we come to understand the intent of what we're all saying to each other.

I haven't read the interview (no link posted?), but I agree with Hoffman in the sense that the BLOCKBUSTER now rules, which has marginalized the more dramatic, character-driven films he established himself with in the 70s. In the sense that the Hollywood production machine has been perfected, where the most poorly written, flatly acted and indifferently directed films come out as polished and professional looking as an intelligently scripted, smartly performed and insightfully directed one -- well, that's something worth mulling over, I think.

Is good "cinema" being produced today? Yes, absolutely. Is there an overall equilibrium between production value and content across the board in Hollywood productions? I think you'd have to do a lot of 'splaining to qualify answering "yes" to that question, but I also don't think the 50s or 60s or 80s (or even the beloved 70s) were necessarily any different in that regard. Retrospective assessment always leaves out the bulk of the bad stuff and focuses on the good. So while the landscape has changed, the underlying tension between art and commerce has not.

 

Great - he's still a hypocrite. An actor of Hoffman's fame could find endless work - might not be for the paycheck he wants, but there's no shortage of filmmakers who'd love to work with him.

Hoffman's 78 years old - unless he managed his money really poorly, he doesn't "have to work". Most guys his age are retired, so if he hates the current state of movies so much, he should do the same.

If he bemoans all these "terrible movies" and yet he continues to act in them, that makes him a hypocrite, plain and simple...

 

I don't think it's that black and white, but instead of critiquing Hoffman's perspective, I'd prefer to discuss the point he's making, which I believe brings up some interesting issues.

 

yes, issues that we are already aware of...

 

You make a good point here with the merchandising, when studios select the right kind of movies, they get the additional merchandising. When was the last time anyone saw "On Golden Pond" tee shirts and lunchboxes? How many lunchboxes do you sell when you put a T-Rex on one. BTW, I do own a small red lunchbox with a T-Rex on it.

I think the biggest change in movies over the past 25-50-years is the audience demographic. When I walk into a theater today, I see almost no presence of middle-aged patrons, ditto for seniors. That would lead me to believe that the studios are purposely making movies for the teen and young adult market, which is now their primary demographic. Since this demographic enjoys video games which are all CGI and explosions, it would make sense that is what will attract the younger audiences.

Add to that, the general behavior of people in movie theaters talking and texting like they are sitting in a McDonald's and this is not just the young people!

Growing up, we used to have only three, non drive-in theaters, in the entire city and there was usually a movie at one of these that I would like to see. Now, I have a AMC theater with 10-screens in a shopping center just a 5-minute drive away and I'll pull up to the front of the theater to see what is playing and I will usually end up driving away because there is nothing that I want to see.

How about the price of tickets and just one trip to the concession stand for popcorn and a soda, a movie going couple today would spend $30 to $40 for just that. That's a lot to cough up on some no-name comedy or drama, that will be on video in a few months anyway. More people own TV's that are much larger, the home theater systems are much better, more powerful subs for the low frequency effects, why leave home?

Oh yes, the concession stand prices, blame this on the "blockbuster" movies also. In days past, the income from the sale of a movie ticket was usually a 50/50 split, with half of the income going to the theater and half to the distributor. When the blockbuster's swoop in, most if not all of the income for the first few weeks, goes to the distributor. The only income the theater derives from the patron is from the concession stand profits, hence $7 boxes of popcorn and sodas, thank you Mr. Lucas and Mr. Spielberg!

Before VHS tapes came out, there was no way to see old movies, once they ended their runs. You could hear about the classics, but there was no way to see them or perhaps to re-see a favorite movie from the past. In the 70's, "dollar" movie houses popped up everywhere. The movie was a buck, so were the candies, soda's and the popcorn. I saw "Gone With The Wind" at a dollar theater near my house.

 

I agree, but at some point (sadly) it's kinda like this:



Some industry friends of mine and I went to see Mission:Impossible at the Dome a few days ago, and I was appalled that their regular ticket prices for a Friday afternoon matinee were $16.50. And we got screwed on the parking -- they tacked on $3.50 for a validated parking ticket (for which we had already paid $3) because we went 10 minutes past the limit, talking together on our way back to the car. Ain't going there again.

 

It sucks to get old and realize that your generation is no longer dominant.

 

Bored old people are a big demographic that movies are aimed at. Who else goes to the theaters now? Excluding the big block busters that do business in their opening weeks, old people are the only people in the theater when I see a movie.

 

I have to say going to the cinema is at it's worst!

 

just buy the home video problem solved! but I do understand the want for some to go to the movies but with all the money and BS involved I'd rather stay home...and it can be a life threatening situation these sick days!!!!

 

yea, who were once young...LOL!

 

Maybe it depends on where you live, and what kind of movies you are going to see. My point is that many of us tend to live within our own little world, believe that the way we see the world is how it is like everywhere, and that everyone has the same experiences.

 

Yeah, but old people live everywhere. It also probably depends on the type of movies that I go to see.

 

No, they don't. And, younger people don't live everywhere. That's my point. Many people seem to think that everywhere, and everyone is alike. That's not true.

 

Nevermind. There's nothing wrong with the industry. Just the painful bemoaning of "old people". (I hear China is a big new market)