June 16, 2004

I find I like watching movies on planes without the sound these days…

Of course, there are very few films that can be effectively followed without the dialogue or some fuller understanding of the layout of the story. 50 First Dates is playing on my flight to Maui as I write this and I have to say, it is pretty amazing how well the movie works in silence. It is an interesting measure of a film and of the director's ability to convey emotion.

The tools of filmmaking are now more complex than ever. And while I have to say that I do feel that a lot of the anti-CG feeling espoused by critics is silly, when it comes to big movies we seem to have hit a massive technological wall that actually is reminiscent of the integration of sound, color and the multiplex into the process of making movies. Sound was the most extreme of these events, as the ability to make films was severely impaired for years because of the limitations of recording live sound and the noise of cameras and loud production environments at the time. For a while, the camera stopped moving artfully. Color was an awkward progression as the technical limitations of the color formats and the competition for supremacy in being the primary industry format made for more than a decade of a variety of movie colors that would probably be best saved for an LSD trip. (Some of the images were absolutely beautiful, actually. But when it was, it was most often the result of fine artists adjusting to the limitations of their tools.) Multiplexes, which came into vogue around the same time as video were a great idea for getting the most out of theatrical space… and a horrible moviegoing experience that came to mirror the TV experience more and more. Films became smaller and simpler to match that experience, which is one of the reasons why the hugely successful movies of the 80s were often the big visual experiences that a small multiplex screen seemed ill-suited for. Those who choose to bash Spielberg or Lucas for being "soft" have probably gotten so used to the innovations that these men brought back to the movies, like the notion of great sound and proper light for projection and the full moviegoing experience being important that they can be forgiven for their myopia.

Digital production and projection are in a similar process as color was right now. The quality of the image is still limited for purely technical reasons. And it is already being made fine us of by some of our finest artists. Michael Mann's Collateral was shot 80% on digital cameras. The first small indie picture that is destined for some real success after being shot digitally, Open Water, is being released by Lions Gate in August. But unlike color or sound or even the multi-plex, digital cinema is the first major change in the medium that is moving towards full integration that is not being driven by the economics of the marketplace. Yes, film is slightly more expensive and digital cameras can be used far more flexibly. However, that does not make the Tom Cruise movie cheap. And if Mann wanted to shoot exclusively on film, the money would have been there for that. Likewise, with enough moxie, the maker of Open Water would have shot on film if he had to, even if only on Super 16 for a 35mm blow-up.

But there are examples of digital cinema at its best. And they are not examples of the integration of CG into our major action movies. Moreover, they do not speak to the invasiveness of effect over storytelling that the possibilities of CG have had… bad effects.

We have seen the problem over and over again this summer. It's not that CG is evil, but it is not storytelling either. It is the great answer to "How do we do that?!," but it is the wrong answer to "Why do we want to make that movie?"

I haven't seen Riddick, but you can see it in the commercials… you can hear it from the people who have seen it (the civilians, not the critics). But mostly you can quantify it really simply. This massive "sequel" to a movie that gained cult status because of everything you don't see in it, cost ten times as much as the original (someone will correct me if that number is high or low) and will be fortunate to double the domestic box office gross of it. The question should not be "Why didn't the movie make more money?" The question should be "Why didn't you make a sequel to Pitch Black?"

This could also be labeled, incongruously, "The Eric Bana Conundrum." Everyone loved Eric Bana in Chopper. So why has be been playing roles in huge movies where he plays a brooding bore? Not only is this guy capable of great charm, which he showed even as the murderous Chopper, but he was a top-flight Aussie comedian in his day. And while he does desperately need to make a U.S. comedy if he wants to continue to be seen as a major star, he could do just fine (thank you) with a dramatic role that allowed him to play the degree of complexity that Chopper did. Eric Bana could do well with a role like Paddy Considine's in In America or as a robust pirate of the Caribbean… he should be able to play almost any role that The Rock is being considered for…

But I digress…

The essence of Van Helsing was Old Hollywood movie monster fun. But part of the fun of the old monster movies was their feet being firmly kept on the ground. I'm not suggesting that they use a bat on a string for Dracula as he turns into a bat an flies away. Go ahead, sdo the children of the night. But remember why an effects-laden film like Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula was a hit that has even grown in esteem over the years and why Godzilla tanked. Coppola controlled the effects… Emmerich was controlled by the effects.

And critics aren't helping the cause very much. When The Day After Tomorrow came out, people quoted the Rotten Tomatoes tomato-meter rating as gospel. The rating is useful for a number of reasons. But it is completely worthless in terms of really understanding what the tone and range of the reviews were. I'm not just talking about reviews that seem negative or positive and are rated differently. I am talking about the tone that is really what's critical about writing criticism. The negative reviews for Texas Chainsaw Massacre were infinitely worse than the negative reviews of The Day After Tomorrow. The fact that TCM did better on the tomato-meter is somewhat irrelevant. The outrage that never came in most reviews for that absolute junker reminded me of the reviews the year before for Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle. Tepid, seemingly unwilling to boil a movie alive for doing everything wrong dramatically, but not offending the critic's personal sensibilities. I guess that is okay in this era of the critic as a personality first and as a critic second, but I don't see this as a job about embracing or rejecting genres or styles of filmmaking or the films of a particular nation or anything else so personal. That element must be present, but the ability to show some objectivity and to make the argument about the film and not about yourself… that is what I think critics need to be doing. This, of course, puts me in square opposition to those who would accuse me of turning a disagreement in personal judgment into an argument about criticism as a whole. And two or three times a year, I do stand here with my fist shaking at the heavens trying to figure out how any sane adult could fail to see what is so patently obvious to me about certain films.

Movies are now being made based on the effects and the notion of how marketable they are and critics are often going along with the foolishness, off-handedly using the "Well, it's an effects movie," defense as though they were giving a thumbs up to the storyline in a porno movie because "no one was watching it for the story." True enough. But mainstream movies are not porn. The model for the porn industry would be current television, which operates for short-term gratification and raises the bar on every idea that seems to grab hold, so that you will eventually see Fear Factor: Abu Ghraib and The Casting Couch, a show where young actresses can earn bit parts in movies by being the best at servicing producers, agents and studio execs. (Servicing a journalist is an immediate disqualification.) If you think I'm being silly, note that we already have a version of Big Brother on Playboy TV and a version of The Osbornes/Anna Nicole/Newlyweds on Showtime called Family Business.

But the CG effect is becoming the new overpriced movie star of Hollywood. It is not new news. Jim Carrey in a cheap comedy (all other costs under $60 million) is a steal at $25 million. Jim Carrey in an expensive drama or even in a comedy that costs more than $125 million starts to become a question mark. Jim Carrey didn't change. He is still a movie star and a fine performer. But the days of Ace Ventura are over. The economies of scale are completely different.

Ashton Kutcher in The Butterfly Effect was a genius move by New Line, regardless if the film was watchable. He drew a crowd to a relatively cheap movie and they made a lot of money. Ashton Kutcher in a bad movie that costs five times what Butterfly Effect cost with a $15 million payday for Mr. Punk'd is a loser. He will draw that opening weekend audience to almost anything right now. But you have to have a movie too.

CG is a maturing tool… but there aren't a lot of new tricks left in the book. The Day After Tomorrow opened to massive numbers because the idea was strong, the effects supposed that idea and Fox sold it absolutely perfectly. And at over $300 million worldwide, it will barely eke out a profit. Troy, a better movie, will lose money, no matter how many times people misreport otherwise. Riddick will depend on Vin Diesel's foreign numbers.

But I keep getting away from what I really want to say here… on big films that appropriately going to use CG, there has become a tendency to focus on the CG gag instead of getting the script to really work. Spectacle is having and will continue to have a harder and harder time overcoming story flaw

Because in the end, people still go to the movies for the same reasons they sat around the fire thousands of years ago, grunting together long before Jean-Jacques Anaud was born. Studios have to learn to stop spending lots and to start spending smart or they will soon find themselves as dead as dinosaurs… even if Jurassic Park IV comes around to revive them again.

READER OF THE DAY: THE CURT ONE writes: "In Moore's defense, there was a fair amount of discussion when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out in early May asking why previous reports of prisoner abuse is US and UK newspapers (sans pictures) had not brought the same level of attention. (Google on "charles hanley prisoner abuse" for some of that; Charles Hanley is with AP and reported on the issue last November.) So it may not be all that unreasonable for Moore to have thought that he would have been ignored."

But PARANOIA MIKE feels that something far more nefarious is happening in the pages of The Hot Button: "I enjoyed reading your rant, not because I bought your paranoia about Mike, but about how desperately you want to trash the movie; you remind me of those types that love movies to be neutral and "objective", maybe in an ideal world where the Bush machine doesn't have millions and millions of dollars from their corporate buddies to inundate the airwaves, sorry buddy but desperate times call for desperate measures, and that's what Mike is doing in my opinion. You have to be up on everyone's face, is the only way the left can get heard in this country.

I won't even comment on the real tired ass argument put forward by loonie right wingers, that he plays with facts, that only shows your true colors. I will say this it was amusing to see this reaction, you know he is doing something to the powers that be when I read stuff like this:)"

And LAW BOY writes: "How on earth can a movie save the face of the US, when it comes to the world community? I might have misinterpreted the first reader of the day, but there seemed to be some indication in there that this COUNTRY needs THAT film. Which of course comes across totally friggin ridiculous, because no film can save the silliness going on between the US and Europe. We are clearly and descriptively, the NEW WORLD and the OLD WORLD now. Our separation on just about everything, except US pop culture, has more to do with world aggravation towards the US than anything else possibly.

However I hold my own wacky theory, that Europe cannot believe they are overshadowed by this relatively NEW country. It has to be aggravating to countries a thousand years old or more, but again just my wacky theory.

Have a nice day, and Moore sure does have a fucking set on him doesn't he? Dear sweet lord, someone needs to stop reading his press."

E ME: Weather's fine… wish you were e-mailing…