Bi-fur-cated. Hollywood is bifurcated. It's not some new psycho-sexual fad. What the heck is bifurcated or bifurcation? Bifurcation is a noun meaning the division of something into two parts or two paths.
So how is Hollywood divided into two parts? Is Hollywood going down two different paths? Is it the old good versus evil, the white hat versus the black hat? Is it wax on or wax off? Is it the old battle between production versus exhibition? Nope. Hollywood is divided by small films and big films with little middle ground.
It's always been this way, but lately it has gotten more pronounced.
The upcoming summer films is a perfect example of the big films. Here's what I am talking about: Indiana Jones IV, Iron Man, Sex in the City, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, Mamma Mia, X-Files, Hellboy II, Incredible Hulk, Get Smart, Chronicles of Narnia II, Speed Racer and The Dark Knight. All of these films are considered 'tent poles' or 'franchises'. Simply put, the studios making these films are resting most of their fiscal year on their success. All of these films are either sequels, comic books or remakes. There is not a lack originality here, but the budgets are north of $150 million. If they made money in the past, they'll make money this summer. At least that is the hope and that hope is the life blood of the industry rests on these films. Hollywood, the studios and everyone who works out there is counting on it.
As for the 'small' films, all you had to do was see the Oscars this year. There were no blockbusters nominated for the major awards. Did SpiderMan 3 win? How about Shrek 3 or Transformers? The nominations and awards went to No Country for Old Men and Juno as well as others. These are the films distributed by the 'boutique' divisions of the big studios - Fox Searchlight, Miramax, Focus, Paramount Vantage and others. The films distributed by these companies are small in budget, small in marketing budget and don't make the multiplexes on a regular basis.
These films are almost vanity projects. The budgets runs around $20 million and they'll take in about $40 million. Essentially they break even, but stars like working in them, directors like making them and the studio likes keeping those folks happy. If they make some bucks along the way, great. When it comes Oscar time, they usually garb more than their share of kudos.
Yet what does this mean for Hollywood? It means it is bifurcated. There are two paths for movies. They are either big budget extravaganzas or critically acclaimed little films. There is no middle ground. The middle ground has been ceded to cable, direct to video and the internet. As moviegoers our option is - the franchise film or "independent" film.
Is this bad? I don't think so. Hollywood is simply adapting to the changing marketplace and at least their is more to chose from. What it does mean, is when I write an article on Hollywood, I get to use a big word folks seldom use and sound smarter than I am.
Garen has been sitting in the dark for over 30 years as an film exhibitor, consultant and reviewer. You may have seen him on NE Cable or some other Boston station. More likely you heard him pontificating about films on NPR, TKK, RKO, New Hampshire Public Radio, or any number of other stations he's been on, but one thing is certain, he loves, and knows, film.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 18
There are precious few good movies being shown right now. Now notice I did not say, "being made." I'm sure they're out there, but they aren't making it to the audience. If you want a family film you're left with farting chipmunks and if you want something with some maturity you get psychopaths with bad haircuts.
I'll tell you what I mean by a good movie by giving some examples, and let's make the distinction up front; these are not GREAT. The seventies gave us this picture of revolutionary cinema that we think must be recreated every single year. We are forever toiling in the shaddow of Appocalypse Now and Taxi Driver. That's where we get films like There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men, this impulse to relive a thirty year old revolution over and over. And the eighties gave us the fetishizing of bad movies, making the saturday kid's matinee into the industry standard, voila: Michael Bay's career. And of course the more agressively awful the schlock the more aggressively principled the arty projects.
But good movies, entertaining stories made by competant professionals, become rarer and rarer because of this polarization.
But there were three this year that I saw:
1. Mr. Brooks: Kevin Costner and William Hurt manage to act through the cliche's and neither the writing nor directing were good or bad enough to call attention to themselves.
2. Charlie Wilson's War: Aaron Sorkin and Mike Nichols collaborated and came up with an entertaining script. Which they gave to a stellar cast and the whole project sa comfortably in its niche as a Washington D.C. drawing room comedy/drama
3. Juno: Not quite up to its reputation but undeniably entertaining.
Every summer the big EFX releases begin because the indudstry is counting on the summer day attendance when most of the school kids are out of school. And they go with what they think are "safe" films, ones that have an audience already built in, that's why they release so many sequels and titles we're already familiar with as the summer vacation time begins. This summer is no different.
And every Fall films with a more character-driven focus are released because TPTB know that it is those films that will be getting the big award nominations.
From my POV, what's going on in Hollywood right now is simply a reflection of what's going on in our society. The chasm between the rich and middle & lower classes is widening (thanks to bushco and his failed policies) as is the difference between big budget high-concept films and the more focused character-driven films. The chasm there is widening too. Investors are afraid of our financial climate right now... as many of us are.
When the Hollywood PTB greenlight a film they must make sure they can see a return on their investment because they are focused on improving their quarterly performance for their stockholders, not to mention that making films is an incredibly expensive proposition. When they put money into films that are character-driven the audience doesn't come out to support the work... as in the case of some films like CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR, LIONS FOR LAMBS, and all those other films released last year that focused on the Middle East. They had big stars, complicated stories to tell, and were mostly character-driven, but the audience doesn't seem to want to learn anything when they go and drop their hard-earned $$ on a first-run film.
And hey, that's completely understandable. Sometimes people just want to go see a movie for a fun wild E-Ticket ride... and honestly, what's wrong with that?
And BTW, I really didn't like NO COUNTRY or THERE WILL BE BLOOD and I believe they did not earn their Oscars. Both were painful and pointless films, thought the story of BLOOD was endlessly fascinating as was Day-Lewis' performance.
I enjoyed the article, Garen.