Sunday, August 6, 2023

Film History #8 (The Future)

Moving forward as the world keeps advancing and the pace picks up more, innovation will continue to drive the making and distribution of film even farther.

Where the past was dominated by large studios like large factories, which gave way to independent-minded directors, and later, small independent films, the change from film stock to digital video makes it possible for anyone to make films nowadays.

 The Old


The New 

This democratization of filmmaking creates an environment where more is possible with less money. This creates more players in the arena. And with more online platforms to watch movies, it makes it more possible to reach an audience – even a small one.

In some ways, this can create a whole series of niche markets, where you don’t need a large audience, just enough to support what you’re doing.

While slow storytelling techniques are interesting and revealing, like in Les Rendez-vous d'Anna, a remarkable film that touches on some real human issues through the deliberate, plotless actions of one person as she navigates her life, the mass of viewers have been systematically trained over many years for quick cuts, surface level stories and slick visuals. That’s not to say, slow stories don’t have a following. They do. It is not of the blockbuster variety, but that’s okay in this modern filmmaking environment. So, there is one form that is working and ongoing within the world today Slow cinema - Wikipedia.

And innovation will lead to socially relevant films or even action films that contain elements relevant to our times, like The First Purge, which has a strong warning for our gun and media obsessed culture. It also is a terrifying story about how people will turn on each other with the proper incentives The First Purge - Wikipedia.

Masking itself in the action/horror genre with some generic politics tossed in, the movie hits a lot of the buttons that create visceral excitement for an audience while also making you wonder: Could this really happen? That’s one of the things that can happen when everything is available to be used. No censorship here and we wouldn’t want it, but the outcomes in the movie are scary in a very real sense.

The best way to sum up the changes is that walls have not only come down, but the entire edifice and structure of older filmmaking is going away. This leaves the path wide open to try anything.

And after studying for several weeks many different films and movements, you start to realize that for decades most audiences see is only a small portion of what is possible. Now, experimentation is fluid and rapid in technology and distribution. Also, the desire to please an audience that is well schooled in visual language on screens big and small is paramount. How can this be done? It’s almost like trying to feed a beast with a ferocious appetite.

In 20 years, one could guess most films will be watched at home on giant screens with full sounds systems to rival that of actual theaters. You’ll never need to leave your home. All that will be left to actual brick and mortar buildings will be the largest of screens of all, placing a premium on the movie going experience by offering a high-end experience. In some ways, the ways old theaters were cheap and accessible might go away.

There will be more genre bending franchises and stories will become more and more extreme to keep people watching. Of course, experimental film movements like slow cinema will exist, but again, the mass of people (where most of the money lives) won’t be interested in those kinds of films. The mass of audiences is like addicts who need their fix of quick-cuts, flashy visuals, and stories that say just enough without going deeper.

There also might be a callback to an earlier time, trying to make classic stories in a new way, or trying to replicate old techniques. This could happen where it concerns visual effects. Even with CGI, there is something inherently fake about special effects that calls attention to itself in movies. Perhaps working with more practical effects will come back.

One thing is certain, there will be more and more films available. This will thin the audiences out and the larger companies and brick and mortar buildings will struggle to survive. The content will be around, ready to watch on phones, computers, televisions, and big screens. We’ll be drowning in content. 

###

 

 

 

 

Saturday, August 5, 2023

Film History #7 (Low Budget)

When it comes to “low art” films that are not considered masterpieces or even solidly professional products, they can offer something useful for the greater cinematic universe: risk.

When a filmmaker makes something on the “small” side and that word is in quotes because even cheap movies cost a lot of money. But when that happens and a director is operating under the radar instead of a large studio, they can take more chances with the material. Sometimes, many times, they have no choice but to take chances and find creative ways to make and finish a movie because the financing isn’t available.

But working this way with a certain amount of freedom is more liberating than tightly controlled film products with enormous budgets like in the Marvel cinematic universe.

One thing about watching the Alligator (1980) movie is that it shows what’s possible on a smaller scale. Granted, the story, characters, and situations are not unique, but the homegrown quality of the film has its charms, like the alligator itself, which is not seen for most of the film. This is like another much more famous film, Alien.


Vs

 

And when the alligator is seen, it is not a bad representation of the creature. The director is shrewd in how and when and how much to show of the reptile. This is strategic and keeps the viewer interested in what’s going to happen next – not because the effects are amazing, but rather, seeing how the director employs what he must use. There is a bit of a Mystery Science Theater quality to all of this.

The interest in the film is how well everyone can pull it off. It’s not the acting or the writing, so it has to be the creature and how they use it.

This brings us back to risk. It takes risks to do this. Why produce another rip-off of Jaws? Because there might be something in the effort and because it could make some money leading to other projects. According to Wikipedia, Alligator cost $1.7 million to make and took in $6.5 million Alligator (film) - Wikipedia. Not bad for a bad movie.

But here is where the idea of risk comes in. If you’re a prospective director or producer, you have a template that works before you, something you can experiment with and make successful. You can take chance on different material because you know it’s possible and manageable.

When you think about it this way, you begin to realize how foreign an idea it would have been back in the golden age of Hollywood when everything was such a huge production – even the B films. In the world of Alligator, while it’s still professional, it is not the same as those earlier films. It feels and looks like something different.

Another point about these “low art” films is how they get to the point. They bring tension, thrills, even if they are crude. They don’t fiddle around with questions like “Are you happy” in Chronicles of a Summer or present a relationship film like Faces, which is homegrown and low-tech, but also highly pretentious when you think about it. No, a film like Alligator knows what it is and delivers with all its crudeness, bad acting and rubber reptile.

Now, in Crawl (2019), it’s possible to see how far the craft of filmmaking has come since 1980. Still low budget by today’s standards, but one could argue much better executed than Alligator. And yet, another story that is not high art, but basically an action flick in a crawl space with CGI alligators.

The film works, but again, the characters do some implausible things, and the likelihood of survival is nil, but that’s not why we watch. We watch it because the movie is like a rollercoaster ride, and we are getting on for the thrills. Forget about reality, this movie is about fun, to see if they can make it out alive, and it costs much less than a Marvel movie.

But a cheaper film can also have a message like The Conjuring – this one in the horror genre – that tells a supernatural story, but also touches on America’s past with slavery.  


Again, this is where these less expensive films can take risks because there is less money at stake. If they deliver what the audience needs to be entertained, then they can make money, and more films can be made.

That might explain why 28 Days Later – a film about an epidemic – did so well. It was terrifying and also very real as anyone who just lived through the pandemic can attest.



It’s also worth noting that audiences desire results. Historically, making money keeps things going and that means finding ways to interest audiences and keep them coming back. When money is in short supply, one could argue, there is less time to be too cute or clever. You must reach the bottom line and that is entertaining people even if the effects are less than perfect.

A healthy film eco-system depends on big budget films, but also more independent movies as well. One can inform the other. What’s interesting is that a film like Crawl, if it was made in 1980, would be considered high-end entertainment.


Thursday, August 3, 2023

Film History #6 (Race Relations)

Film, whether it’s a light comedy or a serious documentary, always stands for something, or many things. Since the start of classic Hollywood or even the silent era when we see the pseudo-documentary short reel showing workers leaving a factory, we are privy to so much information. How the people dress and walk and look all informs an idea or opinion about what is happening in our mind. The mere act of watching reveals social, political, cultural, and economic issues in the crude short film.

Sometimes this is obvious like when the “N” word is used in The Defiant Ones and 48 Hours – clearly two films with messages to convey that are wrapped up in entertaining packages. Sometimes it’s more subtle like when one man helps another out of clay pit and the black man lets the white man stand on his back as he climbs out of the muck. More than just a metaphor, right? That’s life on screen in a fictional world made real and true for us.



Take the idea farther and they are both in the pit struggling together. In many ways, seeing the image that way makes a 1958 film relevant for our own times as well, since we are all struggling together in this world, which some would describe as a pit. That might sound dramatic, but a question remains: Are we going to help each other out of our depression and reach for something higher?

For The Defiant Ones, a film right in the mix of the Civil Rights Movement, the story quickly establishes the frustration and animosity between the two lead characters: one white and the other black.

Words like spade, honky, and the “N” get thrown around without pause. This is jarring for the time and the attitude toward the black man – however dignified he is – clearly shows contempt. In this way, the film deals directly with race relations as these fighting words between two men and those around them are used like weapons.



Like this but also much worse is 48 Hours which provides more humor but also more pain as Nolte’s character casually tosses off language that would make a caring person repulsed. Words like “boy, jive, darker people, charcoal colored, and the ‘N’ word are freely weaponized language. And what’s more, this film, which came out in 1982, feels much more akin to our own acting standards. The characters are completely grounded and believable in way that Curtis (doesn’t feel rough enough) and Poiter (feels a bit too refined) are not. They’re good and the message gets across, but watching Nolte and Murphy go back and forth makes one wince. In that way, the different messages – subtle and obvious – land like the punches both actors throw in their street fight.

What is disturbing is how entertaining this film was (still is) when it first came out back in the 80s. Nolte was already established, but it helped catapult Murphy into stardom, and also further promoted the success of a the cop buddy movie – even though I wouldn’t call these two buddies for most of the film.

(Personal confession: When I was young and saw this film, laughed at all the comedic lines and found the banter exciting. But now, the world of this film with the violence depicted by the criminals and the brutal language of the captain and the cutting cursing of Nolte just repels me. I still enjoyed the film, but not for the same reasons. In some ways, it feels more closely related to the French Connection with Hackman and Nolte two guys cut from same cloth. Or, maybe Nolte’s character is Hackman’s more evolved?)

Cates

Vs

Doyle


Except for the forced resolution when Jack finds Reggie in the bar, and he apologizes for his previous actions, and soon they are firing guns together.


This feels false after so much hateful language. But this is an action comedy after all, so there has to be a way out of the pit into something higher.

For The Defiant Ones, after Cullen survives brutal language, fighting with Joker, almost getting lynch, and finally being led to his crave in a swamp, the ending of the film is not so clear. After being on the run, the law finally catches up with these two misfits, who are no longer chained, but still together leaning on each other in that final shot.


They look exhausted. And the fight they had within them at the start of this adventure has gone away. All they seem to have left is each other. It ends there. No words. No smiles. Just two men beaten by each ot her, society, the system, and yet, now together with renewed understanding. It's like the image wants to say: "I guess we're stuck with each other."

In 48 Hours, the ending feels different. There seems to be a light at the end of this story. Reggie money will be safe with Jack. Heck, Jack might even get a loan for a new car. In this way, the resolution filtered through a comic lens seems to all is well there is money involved. Again, this ending feels forced. Would Jack really be so apologetic to Reggie earlier?

At the end, both films suggest a kind of acceptance between the men, although The Defiant Ones takes longer. And it makes sense that it would have to happen in films that run less than two hours. But honestly, the best parts, the most truthful, happen at the start when conflict ensues and there is a real struggle between these characters (bonded by chains of the past and the present) before the standard resolution comes to end the story.