Cinematic innovation comes in waves. The term ""New Wave" has been used to describe many (sometimes unrelated) movements of stylistic evolution in a number of countries. France, America Taiwan, Australia, England, Brazil, Japan... Each of these countries possesses its own group of "New Wave" film makers. This term (which applies also to a number of musical genres) has come to mean, if anything: change.
This term has lead me to think of film as a large body of violent water. A whirlpool of crashing sound and light waves. For film craft to evolve it seems necessary for conventions to be swiftly destroyed and replaced soon after their creation, for two waves to collide and produce something new and unique. Adaptability is the name of the game.
This is why the Hollywood studio system is often percieved as a threat to the creative future of American Film. Studios are business, and as businesses they are interested in one thing and one thing only: money. Making a film costs money (lots of money), and when a studio puts money into a film, they expect to get it back. Typically, the chances of getting their money back are higher if the film appeals to a wide audience. This means that content must be normalized. Abstracts ideas are dulled down until they are passively swallowed by the masses .This method inhibits films from communicating on a personal level. The film works instead at a public level. It is less art, and more commodity.
Adaptability, experimentation, flexibility... these are not words that typically surround "Hollywood Executive". After all, you can not advertise an idea that does not already exist. How can we convince people to spend $9.95 on a film that might not even have a happy ending? Hollywood seems to be trying to contain this whirl pool of cinema. Freezing it down into manageable cubes.
So here's the problem we are left with: Is the Hollywood studio system really preventing cinematic growth by emphasizing repition and ? How can we continue to fund ambitious, innovative films in a system that does not support irregularity? If obscure pictures received the funding of mainstream Hollywood features, how would film transform? How can we make independent film more widely available while still maintaining a sensible and productive business?
This term has lead me to think of film as a large body of violent water. A whirlpool of crashing sound and light waves. For film craft to evolve it seems necessary for conventions to be swiftly destroyed and replaced soon after their creation, for two waves to collide and produce something new and unique. Adaptability is the name of the game.
This is why the Hollywood studio system is often percieved as a threat to the creative future of American Film. Studios are business, and as businesses they are interested in one thing and one thing only: money. Making a film costs money (lots of money), and when a studio puts money into a film, they expect to get it back. Typically, the chances of getting their money back are higher if the film appeals to a wide audience. This means that content must be normalized. Abstracts ideas are dulled down until they are passively swallowed by the masses .This method inhibits films from communicating on a personal level. The film works instead at a public level. It is less art, and more commodity.
Adaptability, experimentation, flexibility... these are not words that typically surround "Hollywood Executive". After all, you can not advertise an idea that does not already exist. How can we convince people to spend $9.95 on a film that might not even have a happy ending? Hollywood seems to be trying to contain this whirl pool of cinema. Freezing it down into manageable cubes.
So here's the problem we are left with: Is the Hollywood studio system really preventing cinematic growth by emphasizing repition and ? How can we continue to fund ambitious, innovative films in a system that does not support irregularity? If obscure pictures received the funding of mainstream Hollywood features, how would film transform? How can we make independent film more widely available while still maintaining a sensible and productive business?
This is not a new problem. Infact, its been around for a while. Film buffs have been discussing the crippeling effect of the studio system for quite some time.
Scott, you address a complex set of issues in a sophisticated way (though there is a little editing to do still}, and you pose some interesting questions, though they may be rhetorical: are there satisfactory, pragmatic answers? Or is the hope of anything different mere idealism in the face of the "psychopathic" corporate interests? I'll keep checking in...
ReplyDelete