Please forgive the rambling ... I haven't quite articulated what I wanted to here. This will be an issue I will revisit. (Okay, I have already touched up this post a number of times...)
I just read this review of Secondhand Lions (the upcoming film with Robert Duvall and Michael Caine) in National Review. Now, I do not, primarily, go to National Review for my film reviews. Of course not. That would be ridiculous. But I was there to read Victor Davis Hanson's most-recent piece, I also just saw the preview for Secondhand Lions, so I read it.
It's a good review, and an interesting take on the film. But the final paragraph ends with the sentence, "This is the kind of story that Hollywood should be telling." and that got me going.
Now please don't write to me and say, "But it was National Review!! What did you expect?" I know all that.
I feel like making a point here. A personal point.
This is the problem I have with social-issues conservatism.
A sentence like "This is the kind of story that Hollywood should be telling" is too broad. To say something like that, you have to be consciously ignoring aspects of reality. Hollywood DOES tell stories like that! They already DO.
But making films that the whole family can go see, that can promote a version of family values, is not ALL that Hollywood should be doing. I don't want every movie out there to be rated G. I don't want every movie to have some social agenda, some uplifting purpose. I don't want a movie to be a pamphlet. If that were the criteria, then genius films such as Midnight Cowboy would never be made. Sophie's Choice would be out because the woman was immoral, living in sin, drinking her life away, sleeping with 2 men at the same time. Taxi Driver would be out. Too violent. No real uplifting lesson at the end.
Yes, children should have plenty of good old high-quality G-rated films to see. Yes. Films that teach lessons, films that are well-done.
Like Bug's Life. Wonderful movie. I loved The Rookie. I actually own The Rookie. You don't need to have an R-rating to make a high-quality thought-provoking movie.
But I, as an adult, do not want to have every single issue forced into a G-rated frame.
Hollywood should be making all KINDS of stories, because America is a huge nation, filled with people who have all different kinds of interests. And so Hollywood DOES make all kinds of stories, because America is a huge nation, filled with people who have all different kinds of interests. They make action movies. They make chick flicks. They make challenging issue films. They make comedies. They make teen-romance movies. They make war movies. And they make family films. Some fall flat on their faces because they suck, quite frankly. It is just as easy to make a terrible "family film", no matter what uplifting social message is in it.
Not everybody WANTS to go see something like Secondhand Lions, and so Hollywood should not spend all of its time trying to pander to the people who do. It's a big country out there. Lots of room for lots of different kinds of movies.
I love The Rookie, as I've said. But I also thought Requiem for a Dream was great, albeit WILDLY upsetting. Hollywood doesn't have any MORE of a responsibility to make a movie like Secondhand Lions than it does a Requiem for a Dream. Sometimes I'm not in the mood to be uplifted, thank you very much. Sometimes I like a little bleakness, a little "there is no hope", a little "that's the way life is, kid, deal with it." That is an aspect of the human condition, too.
I don't think Hollywood has the responsibility to uplift us. Some people love uplifting films, comedies, and so that's the movies they go see. Good for them! I'm glad Hollywood doesn't feel that it is its duty to constantly crank out bleak nihilistic "Requiem for a Dream" re-runs. I'm glad that there are myriad choices for me to make. I can go see "Blue Crush." I can go see "Pirates of the Caribbean". I can go see "Adaptation." I can go see "Bring it On".
There are lots of stupid action movies, yeah, a lot of cardboard-cut-out plots, but there are also many other choices. I saw American Splendor. I'm going to see Lost in Translation tonight.
Hollywood has the responsibility to try to make good films. And that's IT. They win some, they lose some.
I fully admit that "Bring it On" is one of my favorite movies...
Posted by: Betsy at September 19, 2003 3:09 PMI'm tired of that argument. Some council recently named "CSI" as one of the worst shows on TV because of its plotlines. Hello? The show is on at 10pm, I think it's pretty clear it isn't meant for children.
If they want sanitized entertainment, head on over to those vandals at "Clean Films". Where you can get a "no profanity" and no "graphic violence" version of "Saving Private Ryan", for those who don't want to know that war can be bloody and soldiers tend to curse a lot.
As an adult, I prefer reality.
Posted by: Bill McCabe at September 19, 2003 4:18 PMBring It On rocks.
Posted by: red at September 19, 2003 4:31 PMI personally think that Hollywood doesn't even have the responsibility to make good movies. I think that if we all support the 1st Amendment, then Hollywood should make whatever type of movie they think they need to in order to make a profit.
That being said there do need to be sensible laws to ensure that young minds don't see all of the trash. Unfortunately, the most important thing that should keep young minds from seeing the crap is the parents. And as we all know, too many of them are ignorant.
Posted by: ....a moment with Easycure at September 19, 2003 6:22 PMWell, the movie ratings system is so screwed up anyway. I am glad that big-wigs like Roger Ebert consistently address it in his reviews.
Trying to squeeze everything into a PG-13 rating, because it is more commercially marketable, ends up in disasters like Coyote Ugly. My feeling is is that you need to accept that you are making a film for adults, and adults only. But that's a courageous choice that few studios are willing to make. For example: 8 Mile. That is CLEARLY a rated-R film. Eminem's fans run the gamut from little kids to adults ... but they were courageous enough to put the R stamp on that film. They were courageous enough to basically say to all the 12 and 13 year olds out there who are eminem FREAKS: "This film is not for you." I applaud that. If they had tried to downgrade all of the issues in the film, so that it would fit into a PG-13 label, it wouldn't have worked as well. (full disclosure: I loved that movie.)
Adults deserve to see adult-oriennted-only material.
And yes, a lot of parents are ignorant.
Posted by: red at September 20, 2003 10:55 AMSheila-
I SO agree- the reflexive Hollywood bashing is one reason I'm not a Republican- or a Lieberman voter, for that matter.
And Bring it On rules. So does Coyote Ugly :)
Posted by: Stephen Silver at September 20, 2003 8:42 PMI'm going to sue Hollywood for conditioning me to the point where I can't tolerate any dialog in a film without large heapings of gratuitous sex and violence.
Posted by: Jim Moran at September 20, 2003 10:19 PMSteve:
doesn't Bring it ON rule??? why is that such a satisfying movie? i try not to question it.
Jim,
Other than "Bend it Like Beckham", I can't remember the last film I saw that didn't have a generous helping of sex and/or violence.
Posted by: Bill McCabe at September 21, 2003 7:05 PMHa ha. I can't speak for Bring it On (I never saw it) but there's another film I've noticed that most people seem to love, for whatever reason. Center Stage. I love this movie. I don't know what it is. Maybe the dancing?
At any rate, ever since I started working for a children's book publisher, I've noticed that people seem to have this want or need to make sure every single story you tell a child has a lesson in it -- and not just a lesson, but THE lesson, the most important lesson the teller feels SHOULD be distributed. It's more an ego trip for the author (or, in a movie's case, the director,) than it is an actual important lesson. In short: it's an agenda. The author's agenda. And why do we need more movies and books with agendas? Inserting a valuable moral into a narrative doesn't make the book worth reading, just as inserting a moral into a script doesn't make the movie worth seeing.
Great post, Sheila.
Posted by: Jaime Lyn at September 23, 2003 4:03 PMjaime:
absolutely!!
I learned this when i would tell my nephew Cashel a bedtime story. he liked to hear stories told off the top of our heads. any time I tried to make it have some sort of lesson, he would lose interest. Then my brother would tell him a story, and it would be entitled something ridiculous like, "The Slowest Car in the World" or "The Dog who Couldn't Bark" - and Cashel was enraptured!!
The books I loved when I was a kid were amazing stories as well as ... having some sort of higher purpose. Like ... Wrinkle in Time. or The Mixed Up Files of Mrs. Basil e. frankweiller ... the Narnia books - So many others! They don't condescend to kids ... they don't try to push some agenda, like "Weekends Spent with My Two Daddies" - but dealt in universals. Love your neighbor ... there is something greater than your SELF - whatever!
There was a great piece in the NY Times recently - sunday book review - reviewing 4 children's books which had come out, all having to do with grandparents. But these books were clearly meant for the enjoyment of the grandparents reading them ... like, showing how "cool" the grandparents were ... etc. To make the grandparents feel better about themselves. (What a looking-glass world!) Meanwhile, kids usually just want to hear a good yarn!
And: I absolutely LOVE Center Stage. what an addictive movie. If you like Center Stage, then you've got to see Bring It On. It's the same deal, only with cheerleading. so much fun!!!
Posted by: red at September 23, 2003 4:13 PMBeing a film (and all round art) junkie, I agree--"should" should never never be a word used in dictating what ART in general--should, ever be.
Art ultimately is a pretty subjective adventure--for me it seems infinite in it's possibilities to move us, teach us, tease and release us!!!
I happen to love very indie, unusual, left of center, films, but I also love the classics and more conventional creations---it was an interesting review up until that last line--but yeah--the "should" got me too--as well it should have.
Posted by: Kat at September 26, 2003 1:32 PM