(reprinted from the main page for your convinience. Feel free to fire salvos.)
For every 'Raiders' we see in the summer slate, there's dozens of 'Another 48 Hours', 'M:I 2', and 'Anaconda' type films to fill the void.
The summer is when the studios release their crowd pleasers geared towards the teen market and families and parents who use the theaters in lieu of daycare or actually spending time with their kids.
Sure, some transcendent films have emerged but the percentages are horribly in favor of the mindless "style over substance" movies. Names like Bay, West, DeBont, and even better class acts like Tony Scott and John McTiernan would not be part of the world of cinema were it not for junk food films.
Which, by the way... I love.
There's been a lot of debate over 'Pearl Harbor', and while the arguments over its quality as a crowd pleaser are certainly valid (Michael Bay is considered by some to be the AntiChrist), the arguments over the film's goals and place in history are a little far fetched. Even if Bay and Bruckheimer had said "This is our bid for an Oscar!", we should know better. Of the popcorn (or some would say, HACK) directors who cut their teeth on films we all hated, only the occasional Curtis Hanson slips through. It's not that Bay isn't capable of making an Oscar™ worthy film, it's just... well... he isn't capable of making an Oscar™ worthy film. The more I think of 'Pearl Harbor' the more I realize it's exactly what I expected. Maybe that's why I don't see the need to bash it with the same energy I would something like 'Dr. T. and the Women', which was a REAL filmmaker taking a giant crap on film and exposing it so we all could take a whiff. 'Pearl Harbor' a music video director whose cinematography is 100% revolved around Cliff's Notes™ larger than life action spectacles filled with one and a half dimensional characters that happen to be personified by A level stars.
Because we're huge film buffs raised on classics from David Lean, Martin Scorsese, and the fun and inventive work of Spielberg, Cameron, and Raimi does it mean we can't find things to enjoy from ALL kinds of films? Why be snobby to the point of being film curmudgeons instead of film fans? That attitude would surely put us in early graves, wouldn't it? That attitude would have kept me from finding little bits of goodness in films like 'Deep Rising', 'Happy Gilmore', and the recent Mummy films.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.
Just because we've been treated to things like 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'Jaws', 'Aliens', and 'Blade Runner' in the past does not mean we should expect that from every summer crop. There's a reason we treasure them so much. Because they're rare.
The film industry didn't just become a machine processing crap. It's been there all along. The thing is, as we grow older and become more attuned to what's good or not we often ignore the fact that most of what we liked as kids is dreck. Also, some people think because a film is old, or in black and white it is automatically good.
Not true by a long stretch. While it may make them seem more knowledgeable or lofty because of their connection to what came before, people are fighting a losing battle comparing everything to the "classics". Forget apples and oranges, it's like comparing Apple IIe's to Silicon Graphics Workstations. Both are the products of hard work and while one is smaller and representative of tighter sensibilities and less resources, they each provide a need and are only as good as what the end user (viewer) wants from it...
The summer movie style of filmmaking is only a few decades old and oftentimes when something a little higher on the quality scale is released, it gets shunned (Out of Sight, Fight Club). Also, 8 times out of 10 the highest grosser of the crop is far from the best film (M:I 2, Men in Black), and there really NEEDS to be a summer crop bookended by the customary Disney release, customary Bruckheimer release, and Dreamworks competition on both fronts. It isn't even about leaving your brain at the door anymore, it's about filling that part of your cinematic diet. It baffles me when people cannot enjoy a film like 'Pearl Harbor' AND a film like 'Schindler's List' or 'Paths of Glory'. The warning signs are available in every direction that these films are not the stuff that will change the world.
There's no "Look Closer" campaign focused on critical ravings. The fact that the filmmakers are responsible for 'Armageddon' and 'The Rock' is plastered across the planet's face. It stars Ben Affleck, for God's sake!
There is a difference from summer movies a great deal of the time. It's when the studios try their damndest to make enough money to finance the next year and the personal prestige projects. Sure, a gamble like 'American Beauty' can lead to box office gold, but if we've learned anything from this business it's that Hollywood follows a formula, and even though the profit margins on the 'The Mummy Returns' and 'Pearl Harbor' are sometimes minuscule, the 200 million dollar grosses sure look good on paper.
The summer is a time of relaxation, fun, and looseness.
Give it a shot, people.
For every 'Raiders' we see in the summer slate, there's dozens of 'Another 48 Hours', 'M:I 2', and 'Anaconda' type films to fill the void.
The summer is when the studios release their crowd pleasers geared towards the teen market and families and parents who use the theaters in lieu of daycare or actually spending time with their kids.
Sure, some transcendent films have emerged but the percentages are horribly in favor of the mindless "style over substance" movies. Names like Bay, West, DeBont, and even better class acts like Tony Scott and John McTiernan would not be part of the world of cinema were it not for junk food films.
Which, by the way... I love.
There's been a lot of debate over 'Pearl Harbor', and while the arguments over its quality as a crowd pleaser are certainly valid (Michael Bay is considered by some to be the AntiChrist), the arguments over the film's goals and place in history are a little far fetched. Even if Bay and Bruckheimer had said "This is our bid for an Oscar!", we should know better. Of the popcorn (or some would say, HACK) directors who cut their teeth on films we all hated, only the occasional Curtis Hanson slips through. It's not that Bay isn't capable of making an Oscar™ worthy film, it's just... well... he isn't capable of making an Oscar™ worthy film. The more I think of 'Pearl Harbor' the more I realize it's exactly what I expected. Maybe that's why I don't see the need to bash it with the same energy I would something like 'Dr. T. and the Women', which was a REAL filmmaker taking a giant crap on film and exposing it so we all could take a whiff. 'Pearl Harbor' a music video director whose cinematography is 100% revolved around Cliff's Notes™ larger than life action spectacles filled with one and a half dimensional characters that happen to be personified by A level stars.
Because we're huge film buffs raised on classics from David Lean, Martin Scorsese, and the fun and inventive work of Spielberg, Cameron, and Raimi does it mean we can't find things to enjoy from ALL kinds of films? Why be snobby to the point of being film curmudgeons instead of film fans? That attitude would surely put us in early graves, wouldn't it? That attitude would have kept me from finding little bits of goodness in films like 'Deep Rising', 'Happy Gilmore', and the recent Mummy films.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.
Just because we've been treated to things like 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'Jaws', 'Aliens', and 'Blade Runner' in the past does not mean we should expect that from every summer crop. There's a reason we treasure them so much. Because they're rare.
The film industry didn't just become a machine processing crap. It's been there all along. The thing is, as we grow older and become more attuned to what's good or not we often ignore the fact that most of what we liked as kids is dreck. Also, some people think because a film is old, or in black and white it is automatically good.
Not true by a long stretch. While it may make them seem more knowledgeable or lofty because of their connection to what came before, people are fighting a losing battle comparing everything to the "classics". Forget apples and oranges, it's like comparing Apple IIe's to Silicon Graphics Workstations. Both are the products of hard work and while one is smaller and representative of tighter sensibilities and less resources, they each provide a need and are only as good as what the end user (viewer) wants from it...
The summer movie style of filmmaking is only a few decades old and oftentimes when something a little higher on the quality scale is released, it gets shunned (Out of Sight, Fight Club). Also, 8 times out of 10 the highest grosser of the crop is far from the best film (M:I 2, Men in Black), and there really NEEDS to be a summer crop bookended by the customary Disney release, customary Bruckheimer release, and Dreamworks competition on both fronts. It isn't even about leaving your brain at the door anymore, it's about filling that part of your cinematic diet. It baffles me when people cannot enjoy a film like 'Pearl Harbor' AND a film like 'Schindler's List' or 'Paths of Glory'. The warning signs are available in every direction that these films are not the stuff that will change the world.
There's no "Look Closer" campaign focused on critical ravings. The fact that the filmmakers are responsible for 'Armageddon' and 'The Rock' is plastered across the planet's face. It stars Ben Affleck, for God's sake!
There is a difference from summer movies a great deal of the time. It's when the studios try their damndest to make enough money to finance the next year and the personal prestige projects. Sure, a gamble like 'American Beauty' can lead to box office gold, but if we've learned anything from this business it's that Hollywood follows a formula, and even though the profit margins on the 'The Mummy Returns' and 'Pearl Harbor' are sometimes minuscule, the 200 million dollar grosses sure look good on paper.
The summer is a time of relaxation, fun, and looseness.
Give it a shot, people.
