chris_sc77

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article...y-smart-movies


Are General Audiences Too Stupid to Enjoy Smart Movies?
Or do the studios just see it that way?
BY: Brad Brevet | August 3rd 2009 at 1:01 AM

Sure, the headline could have been worded a little kinder. I could have asked if supposed "smart" movies were considered too boring for general audiences. I could have even gone middle-of-the-road and asked if audiences just don't "get" smart movies. But all of those alternatives would simply beat around the bush and avoid the real question, or what I believe is the way studios look at general movie-going audiences, but is it all their fault?

The first time I started thinking about this as a topic of conversation was when I saw more and more people using the statement, "It's good but most people won't get it," to explain why a movie is likely to underperform. I most recently saw this argument used in conjunction with Judd Apatow's Funny People and I couldn't figure out exactly what an audience member wouldn't "get" about that movie. I also started wondering what kind of ego someone has to have to make such a statement. By saying you liked a movie but others won't "get it" is to insinuate you are more intelligent or capable of reading a movie than the majority of society. So on top of proving one's arrogance this is also one of those things that causes so many people to keep quiet when they actually don't get a movie out of fear of public scorn. Personally I just don't like the "you didn't get it" argument, but that's just me.

Another instance was the shelving of Steven Soderbergh's Moneyball at Columbia Pictures. The film was set to star Brad Pitt and to be directed by Soderbergh focusing on the story of Billy Beane, the general manager of the Oakland Athletics, and his use of a sophisticated computer analysis system to piece together a team that regularly contended for the World Series despite possessing a payroll dramatically lower than big-market rivals like the New York Yankees.

Sony chief Amy Pascal shut down production only days prior to its June production start date as the budget climbed to a reported $57 million and the Internet erupted with concerns and questions that still continue even to this day with talk now of a new Vanity Fair piece said to detail how Soderbergh was screwed over by Pascal, Bryan Lourd and even Brad Pitt.

The death of Moneyball prompted Variety's Anne Thompson (now of IndieWire) to post an article headlined "Soderbergh and Mann: Too Smart for the Room?" discussing not only Moneyball but the lower-than-expected returns for Michael Mann's Public Enemies which closes saying:

Because it's only going to get tougher for smart movies for adults to get made, moviemakers who land a chance at bat need to hit these films out of the park–and connect with audiences. Now is not the time for navel-gazing and experimentation at big-budget levels. That's the deal.

Thompson isn't saying audiences are stupid, but she does allude to the trend in Hollywood that more cerebral films just can't seem to find their way into the studio system. She is also insinuating directors better get with the program and make audience-friendly features and stay away from the experimental fare… perhaps that's why Spielberg is going for a simple Oscar-bait feature with a remake of Harvey rather than kick-start his new DreamWorks deal with Lincoln?

Finally, while at Comic Con I realized it was time to pose the question in the headline to my readers when writer/director Mike Judge was in front of over 6,000 people promoting his new film Extract and the moderator said his films had a kind of "social subtext" inside of them to go along with the comedy. Judge was quick to say, "Words like 'social subtext' will kill us at the box-office." I was slightly taken aback, here was a director whose films certainly do have a social subtext inside of them and yet he was pulling away from the idea in what appeared to be an attempt to dumb down the appearance of his film. Then again, can you blame him?

What comedy are the majority of people going to run out and see? The one that stars Jason Bateman and Mila Kunis and is said to be a laugh riot filled with social subtext that makes you think as well as laugh your head off, or the latest sex comedy filled with nudity and testicle jokes? I think we all know the answer to that one. Comedies with social subtext are found on DVD and celebrated throughout time while the ones with the obligatory tit shot rake in the dollars at the box-office only to be forgotten a year later. Of course, every now and again one slips through that manages to appease the masses, but a lot of them are lost or never even given a chance to be found theatrically.

Are general audiences too stupid to enjoy smart movies? I actually think the best answer to that is a question asking how often they're given a chance to enjoy smart movies.

Keeping to the comedy theme, IFC's In the Loop opened in theaters on July 24. It is, without a doubt, one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. It opened in a grand total of eight theaters and can now be seen in a whopping 35 theaters after "expanding" this past weekend. By comparison, Universal's Bruno opened in 2,756 theaters and wasn't even one-tenth as comical. Does this mean people are too stupid to enjoy In the Loop or does it mean studios don't think people are smart enough to enjoy (or "get") In the Loop so they give them Paula Abdul using human-beings as chairs and talking penises instead.

Is it the public's fault they don't cross state lines to seek out one of the 35 art house theaters showing In the Loop and instead head out to enjoy a talking penis at the multiplex down the road? I guess we could fault audiences for going to see Bruno at all, but I think that would be taking the argument too far, especially since Sacha Baron Cohen has proven to be a comedic talent worth keeping an eye on… just not this time.

As for the question posed by my headline I can't say for sure whether or not the majority of moviegoers are too stupid for smart movies, but I will say the studios definitely treat them as if they are. I would even point to films such as State of Play, a movie I am sure many would describe as an adult themed "smart" movie, but even that one resorts to cliched plot twists in the end, abandoning quality story-telling for the quick catch to hook audiences into telling their friends, "You won't ever guess how it ends." Too bad it didn't work, but then again, not many of the proposed "smart" movies this year did work for most people and those that did aren't getting any kind of release.

The Hurt Locker, which is just as smart as it is thrilling, has so far managed to find its way into only 523 theaters since its June 26 release date. Moon, a much talked about sci-fi film starring Sam Rockwell, has reached 252 theaters. Even Woody Allen's Whatever Works only found its way into 353 theaters. Compare that to the 4,293 theaters Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was seen in and the current estimate of 3,500 theaters for G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and I really don't know what else to say.

The way Mike Judge quickly played down the phrase "social subtext" scared me a bit, because if a filmmaker of Judge's wit was afraid of what such a phrase would do to his box-office potential then what chance do quality movies stand when it comes to being made and seen by the masses? Nowadays it's all talk of effects and visuals with only a select handful of stories being able to merge the eye candy with true story-telling. I fear there will come a day when all the best films will be shown On Demand while the theaters are filled with nothing but CGI-filled 3-D visual extravaganzas shown in IMAX theaters with D-BOX seating meant to visually assault the audience into submission.

Sure, everyone loves action films and fantastic effects, but I can't begin to tell you how much fun it was walking out of In the Loop after laughing my ass off with an audience of a couple hundred others and even seeing Apatow's Funny People in one of the Seattle area's better theaters was a treat as compared to seeing it at home for the first time.

Are general audiences too stupid to enjoy smart movies? Sooner or later we may not have a choice… at least not theatrically.

Where do you stand? Do studios treat audiences as if they are stupid, and if so, is it for good reason? Are supposed "smart" movies just not living up to their potential and hurting the chances for more? Or, and I really hope this isn't the case, are general movie-going audiences just not interested in serious subject matter when it comes to their movies, even if it is part of a comedy or action thriller?

RagingBull80

Without even reading the article, yes.

Hokeyboy

I don't know if "general audiences" are necessarily stupid. I would, however, suppose that general audiences enjoy stupid movies that make them feel smart. Exhibit A would be melodramatic junk like Forrest Gump, in which a Magical Mystical Retard tells them to shut off their brains and float through life, faux-erudite New Age shithead advice that comes across as some shining Great White Epiphany.

Exhibit B would be any movie that includes tons of smirky pop-culture references that "general audiences" can chuckle along with and say, "Hey I know where that's from!!" Shrek movies are a prime candidate (or almost any Dreamworks Animation movie up until recently). "HEY!! He just said "Where's the beef!!! I remember that commercial!!" etc.

Exhibit C would be turd

RagingBull80

I absolutely agree with this.

I think it has as much to do with studios as it does with the consumers. But then again, studios wouldn't have to pander if it weren't for the general mass.

Superman07

That article completely avoids the point it's trying to make. In fact, it's guilty of the same point it is making. What is a "smart" movie? Why won't somebody "not get it"? And how does that make somebody "stupid"? I may not like comedy x, but that doesn't mean I don't get it. I can get it all day long, but if that's not my sort of humor then what of it?

Groucho

I think this is less to do with audiences watching the films, but rather in selecting films to watch. Most audiences want to see light entertainment when they go out to see films, they don't want to think. This doesn't mean that when presented with a more "cerebral" film that they won't "get it".

chris_sc77

Fixed.

Its when stuff like this makes damn near $300 that it makes me long for a magical mystical retard movie.

Blu Man

Yes. I thought "The Dark Knight" would change that, maybe "Avatar" will help.

RocShemp

^ So you don't like Pixar movies, chris_sc77? Or you do? I don't get it.

RocShemp

I would love to see that as a TV Guide synopsis for the movie.

MrE

Perhaps the real question is: Are "smart" filmmakers too stupid to make movies general audiences will enjoy?

Hokeyboy

I think it's the genius of Pixar that they can make movies that entertain the general masses as well as titillate the pseudo- and non-pseudo intellectuals alike.



Except for chris_sc77 and Armond White, that is.

Draven

When shows like "American Idol" and "Two and a Half Men" rule the airwaves (where people DO have a choice of what they watch), I don't think it's any surprise that movies like TF2 are huge blockbusters.

slop101

Some of my friends who are very smart (Ivy League educated), say that after a long hard day of using their brains at work and/or with their family, they just want a movie where they literally have to do no work to enjoy - and I think that's the issue here.

People's lives are becoming so complicated, that they don't want their entertainment to be complicated also. Which also explains the success of the Wii, as opposed to more "hard-core" games, also music and books - pretty much all entertainment. There are dumb audiences out there, but when smart people don't want to put in the work to enjoy something like The Wire (which does take some effort from the viewer), then smart entertainment will remain a niche.

Rob V

I think most people are too stupid to operate a car or use the self checkout at Home Depot -- so yes, they are too stupid to "get" a movie's subtext.

Ash Ketchum

And me.

dugan

"You critics only praise boring indie films and documentaries. You have NO IDEA what people outside your ivory tower enjoy. Those overrated films that you critics praised to the skies were all unwatchably boring crap!"

I don't know what "general audiences" are, but obviously some people are too stupid to enjoy smart movies.

Tarantino

Of course not. They're not two hours long and they're not rated R.

notkevinbacon

I agree. Pixar does a fantastic job of creating films that can be enjoyed on multiple levels by a wide range of audiences and generations. A big part of their success is not only talented and bright writers/directors/animators, but it's also very evident the amount of care and time that goes into each of their projects and the worlds they create.

I think it is important to define what a "smart" film is.

The idea of a "smart" movie to me is not necessarily films that are perceived as difficult to understand or foreign or black/white or the other stereotypes that some may associate with the term. I don't believe that they require twisting narratives, big words, non-traditional story arcs and the like. In fact, sometimes it seems that "message" movies end up being some of the dumbest films of all (cliched but appropriate example Crash). Smart films are generally movies to me that, at the very core, adhere to the reality and stakes that the film establishes in it's world.

As members of a film forum, I'm willing to bet a lot of folks here might get more enjoyment out of critical discussion of films (themes, structure, script, direction, etc) then the general public, but that doesn't mean that the general public is stupid. Some people see the event movies because that's what they are... event movies. It's like people who go to Cedar Point once a year to ride the new coaster, you pay your money, get in line and then go for a ride. The ride was fun or it wasn't, but you probably aren't going to discuss the ins and outs of it too far beyond that on your way home. Sometimes all that is important is that constant visceral stimulation of loop da loops or giant fucking badass robots.

Sure, this year has felt a little bit bland so far, but as long as I can catch an Up, Drag Me to Hell and a Hurt Locker every year I'm happy. They can't all be winners and it's no surprise that as special effects replace acting, and screenwriting and as BO pull becomes more and more something general audiences are aware of movies will feel somewhat more mass produced or "manufactured" than developed, nurtured and well, magical.

It's not like this is a new trend, but it seems the business of Hollywood has become more and more transparent in this internet age.

DthRdrX

I think it has more to do with laziness then intelligence, similiar to children in school who refuse to do classwork. Most of them can do it but don't want to use their brain.

al_bundy

I don't follow AI as close as my wife, but the top 6 contestants usually have more talent and singing ability than most of the bands i used to listen to going back to the 1970's. Adam Lambert sang KISS better than the guys from KISS during the finale

RichC2

This thread needs to be longer and more explicit.

Groucho

No thanks. I just want to sit back and enjoy the ride.

Supermallet

I find it hilarious that this thread on this subject was started by someone who pre-judges films based on their length and rating (and who routinely rejects every Pixar film out of hand). Talk about not getting it.

Drop

I think audiences enjoy smart films, as long they don't realize it. No one likes pretentious art, and so it's hard not to pre-judge those films.