Nowadays the big movies are directed by indie film directors (all white men by the way) who have one film or maybe some music videos or perhaps just a few commercials and TV episodes to their credit. Then they get plucked out by producers and studio heads (all white men--noticing a pattern?) to direct these big budget blockbusters. Now why small directors are favored over more seasoned directors is clear to me: they're easier to control and perhaps eager to please. It's a formula that works for everyone who's in the system.
So you're a director whose last film cost as much as a dinner bill for these producers. Not only do you get to helm a franchise movie for a beloved old-school franchise but you get like $150 million dollars to do it! That's awesome!
But the problem is that these directors are going from $5 million dollar movies or less to huge blockbusters. People like Colin Trevorrow, Gareth Edwards, James Gunn, Marc Webb among many others just don't have the skills to balance special effects, with necessary fanservice and strong characterization. It's not that they aren't talented but they are just not as prepared to handle something so big.
Let's look at Steven Spielberg, who is the king of master filmmaking. He started the summer blockbuster with Jaws in 1975. That was after doing several TV episodes and TV movies. When he was given Jaws, it was a micro-budget movie with some buzz (but not too much). Spielberg didn't jump from his TV work to Raiders of the Lost Ark. He slowly built his skills, figured out how to milk the most money out of tiny budgets and directed his actors with an eye for character detail. Basically he used Jaws and other early hits to practice and really learn what made good films before he he took on huge blockbusters. If Steven Spielberg uses $150 million to make a movie, he's earned it and will make an exciting, memorable film.
It's not all these young directors' fault, however. We now live in a nostalgia-obsessed culture, where money shots and trailer-ready moments are now what's important to studios and marketing teams. They want films that have YouTube-ready action beats and one-liners, without caring to actually earn those moments.
Look at Jurassic World (a movie that I just cannot bring myself to like or defend)--this movie is full of scenes made for the purpose of getting an audience reaction. "That was awesome!" "OMG!" The movie shows a lot of things that look cool on the surface--like the now "iconic" raptor-whispering scene or Chris Pratt on the motorcycle with the raptors--but don't make any sense on a narrative, thematic or emotional level.
You might say, "it's just a summer blockbuster!" And okay, yeah. But these moments don't have a long shelf life. Why are we still watching Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Psycho, When Harry Met Sally, Halloween, Pulp Fiction after all these years? Because they became iconic organically and have a long shelf life. If anyone is watching Jurassic World or The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in 20 years, I'll eat my own hat. (I don't wear hats.)
What's the solution? Give these guys projects with mid-sized budgets so they can play around and also learn. Make films with diversity behind and in front of the camera so that films look less generic. MAKE MOVIES WITH SMALLER BUDGETS! Honestly, that would solve a lot of Hollywood's problems. And really they should stop cashing in on nostalgia because then the films would be judged on their own merits and not on the memories of the past.
Like what you read? Please like my blog at Facebook.com/MathurMarquee. Also, follow me on Twitter @HippogriffRider. Agree? Disagree? Sound off in the comments below!
No comments:
Post a Comment