They Don't Make 'Em Like They Used To

Rebel Without A Cause

Again, sorry for the long time between posts. I know, I know. Weeds are growing around here. I've been busy making money and losing sleep, people. No time to make fun of Gwyneth Paltrow and Tom Cruise. Which just means my priorities are WAY out of whack.

But back to the salt mines.

At this year's TCM Classic Film Festival, I overheard many people waiting on line commenting along the lines of "they sure don't make them like they used to." I totally agree and thought I'd write why that's true, and why its ok that this is true. I'm not sure we'd really want them to be made like they used to. At least, not all of them.

By "them" or "'em," this crowd (and many others) mean movies of course. Twenty-first century movies do not greatly resemble movies from 30-40 years ago, and bear even less resemblance to the "classic" studio system movies made during the 1940s and 50s. 

I don't see many first release movies anymore. Too much to do, too little time. It seems almost quaint now that some people can spare three hours (an hour to go to the theater and back, and two hours at the movie), to watch an entire movie, beginning to end, no interruptions or bathroom breaks. And pay hurricane-driven scarcity prices for styrofoamy popcorn in the process. Who are these people who can do that? Though, I still love the Paramount Theater Summer Classic Film Series, and see as many as I can. Hey, I'll gladly devote the time to watch something like Casablanca or Lawrence of Arabia or Singin' In the Rain for the millionth time, in an elegant surrounding, with other people who love those movies (and don't talk on their phones). Tomorrow I'm going to a double feature of From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. That's how its done, son. Anyway, that's what drew me to the TCM Festival. But I don't go to new movies in part because not much interests me. Take a look at what gets released. The fourth or fifth sequels to comic book movies. Extremely formulaic and trite romantic comedies. Gross-out horror movies. Disaster movies. Judd Apatow comedies (fat guy, hot girl, improbable hookup where fat guy comes of  age, lots of dick jokes). Tom Cruise's semi-annual "butch" movies (in the last few years, he's been a spy, a future world astronaut, another spy, a Wehrmacht officer, still another spy, and a rock star..honey, you need to give it up). Or incredibly pretentious, insufferable independent movies where nothing really happens. Like some French existentialist couple arguing over socks, then smoking cigarettes and drinking absinthe while ridiculing Americans. Starring Gwyneth Paltrow and Sean Penn, obvs.

Good movies still exist of course. Most of the recent Oscar winners are outstanding. Pretty much anything Clint Eastwood or Martin Scorcese or Wes Anderson touch turns out well. I really loved Silver Linings Playbook. Nearly every Pixar movie is outstanding. I'm leaving out many others. But I'd still rather just watch the Blues Brothers. Or Animal House. Or Sound of Music. Or the Quiet Man. Or any of hundreds of movies made between the late 1930s and the 1980s. Why is that?

Ostensibly, movies today are so much better than movies then, in nearly every way. The sets are better, the special effects are better. The acting is far better. Compare today's best performers (Christian Bale, Tom Hanks, Daniel Day-Louis, Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett, Natalie Portman) with the matinee idols. No question, today's stars are far better and more convincing actors. Though maybe not as glamorous, and certainly they work with far less compelling material. The photography is better. The sound is far better. The costumes, locations, directing. All better.

What's not better, and what in most instances pales in comparison, is the stories. And writing.

There's really only a handful of stories in the world. We just recycle and reset these stories over and over and over. The trick isn't to find a new story so much as to tell it differently. Hollywood used to do that very well. Not so much now. Style takes great precedence over substance.  Every movie consists of just enough plot to where the explosions or the sex or the killings make sense. But no more plot or dialogue than that. Today's movies seem formulaic. Focus group tested to hit just the right themes that appeal to the most likely audience members. Remember that great scene in The Player, where Peter Gallagher (and his trained eyebrows) reels off movie ideas with little to no thought? Movie ideas that you could totally see being made today, that is. That really shows how today, movies are just business, with creativity and originality representing drawbacks, not advantages. Everyone knows how Spiderman 5 will do...making something original by someone original represents too much of a financial risk these days.

And the dialogue...often dreadful. I think at one point in one of those miserable Star Wars prequels, a love scene literally consisted of Natalie Portman saying "stop it" as Anakin Skywalker tried to kiss her, followed by her giving in. They exaggerate characters through outlandish statements, which must pack extra punch because time devoted to characters talking takes time away from characters blowing up things or chasing each other or getting down by the fire. Which is what your average Racine, Wisconsin assistant tire center manager and his cheese store clerk wife want to see. Those tag lines have to substitute for plot and signal the audience about what kind of character they're seeing. As opposed to, you know, just following a story and having that reveal itself over a couple of hours. And, in the immortal words of Cole Porter, anything goes. The Production Code stifled creativity and expression, of course, but in many ways it forced movie makers to convey themes in a more subtle way. Brick's possible homosexuality in Cat On a Hot Tin Roof. Holly Golightly's occupation as a prostitute in Breakfast at Tiffany's. And so forth. One could argue this required more subtlety, greater nuance. Now, with no such inhibitions, filmmakers seem to revel in depicting the graphic or obvious. The audience no longer must connect the dots and figure out what's really happening. The movie splays it out for all to see. No thinking involved.

Say what you will about the studio system. They were also concerned with making money. The stories of producers' creative interference were legendary. But the studio system made some revolutionary movies. On the Waterfront. Sunset Boulevard. The Godfather. Bonnie and Clyde. And so on. Those guys knew they couldn't just repackage the same movie and make it over and over again. They were willing to take risks. Not all of them paid off. But those that did often achieved spectacular creative and artistic heights. And made a hell of a lot of money in the process.

Today's filmmakers though do face more challenges than during "the good old days." In many ways, they can't "make 'em like they used to" because the audience has changed. Americans grew up. We have money now. Even into the 1960s, most people lacked significant disposable income. Most people didn't attend college, travel abroad (or at all), there were three or four TV channels tops, and society was far more structured and separated than today. Homogeneity ruled the day. Audiences were simpler then. Movies like Stagecoach or Roman Holiday gained extra traction because few Americans in the 1930s had ever seen Monument Valley. Or in the 1950s had actually seen Rome. Or flown on an airplane. Or talked on a long-distance call longer than two minutes. People are in many ways more sophisticated and knowledgeable now. We've grown up, and even though the average American's intelligence may be wanting, American experience is not. So Frank Capra movies, with their relatively simple and wholesome themes, played so well to 1930s and 40s audiences but maintains their stature more out of nostalgia than contemporary appeal. Can you imagine Some Like It Hot today? The whole premise would be ridiculed.

I can go on with other criticisms. Often obvious and blatant direction and editing, such as flash cuts, long pans, or hand held cameras, which call attention to themselves rather than enhance the story. Movies that conspicuously rely on awesome top hits or classic rock songs, hellbent on driving soundtrack sales. Miscast stars ruining movies they obviously don't belong in, just to drive ticket sales. But you get the idea.

Actually, they do make 'em like they used to today. On television. Specifically on cable. That's where you find literate, intelligent, challenging dramas like the Sopranos, Mad Men, Breaking Bad. These shows take creative risks, they require their audiences to "keep up," they have the luxury of telling stories over a greater time so they can imbue the characters with greater depth, and they can introduce new plot elements as the show develops. If you want to see high quality dramas, watch cable.

NEXT-Are you living the #BallerLifestyle?