Old Men Mismanaging the Majors

[rinue]

We want to like Joaquin Phoenix, and so we make excuses for him. After we make fun of his music, we talk at length about what a fine actor he is, forgetting that he was only passable in Walk the Line and was downright terrible in Gladiator. There are certain characters in movies that in other times would have been played by Oliver Reed, Marlon Brando, John Wayne - possibly Michael Caine or Michael Hogan after they reached a certain age. Currently, we have no one, because working class toughs do not become actors, and acting classes never teach you to plausibly play vacantly brutal characters. Russell Crowe will do for some things, but we want a Russell Crowe crossed with Peter Lorrie. We try to convince ourselves that Joaquin Phoenix is good because we miss his brother, and because we want someone masterful playing these roles. We need these characters. We need to believe they are well executed. It is probably too late for Coldplay to come along and replace Joaquin Phoenix's Travis.

*

Last year, the only profitable movie made by News Corp was Marley and Me. (News Corp owns all the Fox subsidiaries.) If the studios are smart, they will see three things in this: one, that the current development cycle takes too long, so that films hit theaters two years after they were greenlit, which can lead to timing disasters like a bunch of downer pictures in theaters right as a recession hits. Two, that Oscar baiting by the classics divisions has gotten out of hand, so that limited-interest films are being made with budgets they can't possibly recoup, and are all released in December so they directly compete for that limited audience, which goes untended to the rest of the year. Three, that there will always be a market for simple movies that let us spend time with actors who we like, even if there are no special effects and not much happens. Hangout movies cost very little and have a broad audience; they are as resilient as horror. They are the bread and butter that lets the studio take risks on higher concepts. They are the bank. During the days of easy credit, we forgot we needed them. We do. If the studios notice this in time, they will be able to save themselves.

At the moment, their main strategy is to put spectacle back in the theater experience by putting us in 3D glasses. They are fooling themselves. There is no reason to think audiences want 3D across the board; we're pretty comfortable with flat screens, and have never had trouble believing they are immersive. 3D will never be more than a gimmick - and an expensive one. It drives off audiences with vision problems, or with heads the wrong size or shape to wear 3D glasses comfortably, and there is nothing sexy or classy about having to put on a plastic headset when you're out on a date. More to the point, the fact that a 3D movie is different from your home television is precisely the problem - any 3D movie which relies on its dimensionality will not translate well to DVD release, and any 3D movie which is just as good flat renders 3D pointless. Movie releases exist to create buzz for tie-ins and DVDs down the line; they are an ad campaign. Movie theaters exist to drive up business at nearby restaurants. Any movie release that can't be sold as a DVD and can't be part of an evening out (theater upgrades mean expensive tickets that make me forgo dinner or attend a non-mealtime matinee) has fatally misunderstood revenue streams.

Comments

[valancy.livejournal.com]

An interesting note on 3D, perhaps:

I loathe 3d, and only went to Coraline 3D because Christopher looked utterly pathetic at the thought of seeing it in 2d. It's a pity I've seen other 3d movies before; they're generally terrible, and Coraline isn't - it's wonderful in 3d. Of course, the fact that it's a wonderful movie in no small way helps. I agree 3d's gimmicky, but it's also sad, as I think everyone can't stand it now from past experience, and it's actually an utterly charming one, after decades of getting it wrong.

[rinue.livejournal.com]

I look forward to seeing Coraline in 3D or 2d (it doesn't matter much to me) because I love Henry Selick, the director, who also directed Nightmare Before Christmas, which you know I love, and James and the Giant Peach, which you may not know I love. He is a badass animator who can do otherworldly life like nobody else. He makes main characters come alive and meanwhile doodles in the margins. (Witness Tim Burton's Corpse Bride or "Vincent," which feel stiff and empty.) He is the best. And he's an animator of the old school, Ray Harryhausen type, who does everything possible with practical effects instead of defaulting to digital whenever it gets hard. He embraces constraint and lets it fuel genius. I have the ultimate respect for him, and assume that if anybody could make 3D art, it would be him.

And in fact both reviews and interviews have stressed the delicacy with which he uses 3D, the elegance of it all. The way it doesn't intrude, but fades into the background. However, I will give you by contrast the opinion of REL, who loves 3D and sees every single movie that comes out in 3D no matter what it is. She goes to 3D for the whizz-bang, for things flying out of the screen at her and for crazy perspective shifts. She was really disappointed in Coraline because while she liked it as a movie, she was horribly let down by how non-3d and non-gimmicky it was. In other words, the same thing the reviewers liked is something your base 3D audience is disappointed by.

Which points to a suspicion I have that the movie didn't need to be 3D. Everyone I knew who was excited about it didn't care that it was in 3D. They figured they'd see it that way because that was the big thing, but their excitement was for the movie (either because Selick or because Gaiman). They were pleasantly surprised that the 3D didn't kill it. (Witness the 3D section of the last Harry Potter movie, which got all whizzy and roller coaster in a fun 3D way right when things are supposed to seem grim and dangerous.) On the other hand, hardcore 3D audiences who see it because it's 3D are not satisfied - it doesn't fill what they want out of a 3D movie. I hope Coraline does very well; it deserves it. But I think it points to the ways in which 3D is a bad bet for the future of film - and for the past few years, studios have been talking about it as a magic bullet. I think you can make a profitable 3d film, but I think it will always be a niche, just like Westerns are a niche, and you can't fix movies by making them all 3D any more than you can fix movies by making them all Westerns. Or musicals.

(Sidebar example: I saw The Dark Knight in IMAX, and was distracted every time the screen went into IMAX mode (which changed film stock and aspect ratio) and it was an effort of will for me to pay attention to the plot instead of to spend the time guessing how the shots were framed for the non-IMAX wide release and speculating on which one the camera operator preferred.)

[valancy.livejournal.com]

Fascinating - and good points. I think Coraline has a few blah moments, but in general it exceeded my wildest expectations - and my expectations were quite high. I can't wait for you to see it. Maybe we can get to it next week.