71–80 of 88 posts
When did people lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of film on the silver screen is entertainment? Where do authors like OP get the idea that I want to go to the movies to have politics shoved down my throat? And that there is some kind of obligation for those in charge to forgo their primary motivations of artistic expression and/or profit in the interest of some totally arbitrary target of "representati…
Hollywood has always been all about escapism. In the 1930's - the golden era of film - most of the offerings were aspirational and inspiring, not Grapes of Wrath gloom and doom, which was a lot of people's actual daily experience. There's a reason the mainstream entertainment doesn't make non fantasy films - it's because they are a for profit business and there's no money in it. The recent Churchill film, which was v…
Enforcement of the Hays Code was responsible for weird trends in the movie industry for a long time, starting in the 1930's - American movie makers actually made successful movies about darker subjects and had more women in leading roles until that point. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=933011...
All about rear ends on seats, whatever it takes to keep the punters buying tickets, popcorn and drinks (the latter two being immensely profitable...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When did people lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of film on the silver screen is entertainment? Where did people get the idea that the primary purpose of film on the silver screen is entertainment? Film has always been art: the purpose of art is to provoke thought, hold up a mirror to society and, of course, entertainment (among others): the ratio of ingredients can change, but it's never been solely…
> Where are this generation's "Mr Smith goes to Washington"? "Gone with the Wind"? "Apocalypse Now"? Films like this stood out as original or thought provoking when released, but now films that emulate those classics are everywhere. They have become commercialised to the point of formula. The courtroom drama movie, the period drama set against the backdrop of conflict, the war is hell story. There's one out every oth…
I remember gummo, searching for the wrong-eyed jesus, american honey, chop shop, land of plenty and winter bones. I am pretty sure three of them will pass the test of time.
(I am not american nor living in america so I don't know the movie scene as well as the european one)
Some recent examples: - Florida project - 3 billboards outside Ebbing Missouri - La La Land (to a degree) - Manchester by the Sea - Straight Outta Compton - Creed 2015 and more recent, set in the USA, nominated for awards at Oscars, protagonist is poor
It seems poverty actually had a pretty solid representation at the Oscars this year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is incredible that you cite artistic expression for your case. It is likely the money making side that makes it difficult to do anything truly new because the predominantly affluent (and yes, white) masses may be skittish about it. You should think about its broader impact on society, because while you have the time and resources to complain about not being entertained enough (incredible in this age of over entert…
> there are people's stories not being told precisely because you would prefer entertainment to something that challenges your views on what is even entertaining. > Not only that, but who says these movies can't be entertaining?? Brilliant! Except, erm, which one of the top 50 grossing films is telling somebody's story? And are we sure that affluent people are really going to the cinema much? Also, different people g…
I don't believe it. I googled for fun and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films... only Titanic and Finding Dory qualifies :|.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Art is a two way street. Besides, EVERYTHING you do has a responsibility, an echo. Whether you accept it or not doesn't change. You can make a joke about Holocaust and say "hey, the purpose is to entertain" and expect not to offend people? I think it's a good thing these issues are brought up.
> Art is a two way street. Besides, EVERYTHING you do has a responsibility, an echo. The parent is not disagreeing imo, just that an artist feels their art/message is their primary responsibility and a financiers primary responsibility is making money. Just as someone else's responsibility might be showcasing poverty or delivering a political message. Most of these basis are covered as the "art" market is very large.…
Cinema is entertainment but the side effect of making people think is undeniable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is incredible that you cite artistic expression for your case. It is likely the money making side that makes it difficult to do anything truly new because the predominantly affluent (and yes, white) masses may be skittish about it. You should think about its broader impact on society, because while you have the time and resources to complain about not being entertained enough (incredible in this age of over entert…
But that's the point he's trying to make. A movie about poverty will probably not be a pleasant movie to watch. So don't shove it down people's throats. Also, the masses are not "predominately affluent", so not sure why you'd choose to describe them like that. The "white" part is unnecessary as well but that's a whole different discussion.
When did people lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of film on the silver screen is entertainment? Where do authors like OP get the idea that I want to go to the movies to have politics shoved down my throat? And that there is some kind of obligation for those in charge to forgo their primary motivations of artistic expression and/or profit in the interest of some totally arbitrary target of "representati…
Black panther proved for the first time that you could put $200m behind a movie with a predominantly black cast, market it to mainstream America and still make $1b in revenue. Marvel/Disney's primary motivation was still profit. There's no way they would've green-lighted(greenlit?) that movie if they thought they would lose money on it.
So it's not about representation just for representation's sake. But rather celebrating the fact that representation is no longer held back due to a lack of profit.
When did people lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of film on the silver screen is entertainment? Where do authors like OP get the idea that I want to go to the movies to have politics shoved down my throat? And that there is some kind of obligation for those in charge to forgo their primary motivations of artistic expression and/or profit in the interest of some totally arbitrary target of "representati…
There were lots of things that people praised Black Panther for, but the one you point to wasn't what any significant subset were praising it for, in fact...
> while conveniently ignoring decades of black cinema.
Breaking out of the black cinema stereotype that films featuring predominantly black casts are a niche good for black audiences while films featuring predominantly white casts are mainstream products for everyone is, for instance, one of the major things Black Panther has been celebrated for.
When did people lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of film on the silver screen is entertainment? Where do authors like OP get the idea that I want to go to the movies to have politics shoved down my throat? And that there is some kind of obligation for those in charge to forgo their primary motivations of artistic expression and/or profit in the interest of some totally arbitrary target of "representati…
I think you're missing the reason why people are excited about Black Panther. It actually has more to do with the motivation of profit than representation. Obviously there have been several decades of positive black cinema but the audience for those movies was always intended to be strictly "urban". And their small budgets reflected the assumption that studios thought only a small subsection of America would be inter…
Each of these movies did great and reached a wide demographic. As did Black Panther. The only difference is that Black Panther's marketing propogated this ridiculous myth that it was the first black superhero movie. (Sorry, Wesley Snipes, Will Smith, and Halle Berre... you're down the memory hole.) Or, even more absurd, that it is the first all-black cast that has done well at the box office.
Just shows how powerful marketing is.
More power to them... I've lived through several iterations of "'brand-new' microfiber technology that make cleaning up spills a snap!" I suppose I can live through endless repetitions of "the very first movie with a real-live black person in it!" Whatever....