fells like all big film studios are operating on this principle: “We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to tell new stories. We do, however, have an obligation to make this company money.” - Mike Eisner
Correct me if i'm wrong but I thought the full quote was “We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make a statement. But to make money, it is often important to make history, to make art, or to make some significant statement. We must always make entertaining movies, and, if we make entertaining movies, at times, we will reliably make history, art, a statement or all three."
@@redpikachu84 you’re probably right! i’ve only heard the version i commented but considering Mike Eisner’s philosophies on the disney company the longer version makes sense
He got voted out, you know that right? People need to put dinner on the table, and I don't mean the overpaid leads of the films, I mean the poor fellas who drive cars in a Michael Bay movie for 25 bucks a day. CEO of Disney is overpaid for sure. But that's because it's a business, and like any one of those in America, CEO is overpaid AF and for some reason, people are okay with that. But what about everyone else? Scales are finally tipping in a way where the movie star isn't what makes or breaks the movie, and neither is the director arguably. They're a collective effort, which doesn't work without writers, makeup artists, costume designers, sound editors, composers, etc. I think that's what they're breaking out about, that the beautiful faces and the pretentious artsy snobs are no longer considered as valuable as they once were. That films in the animated or comic book genre are beloved by the public and are praised for "thoughtfulness, coherence which is near impossible to achieve, and "the feels" they give". And yeah, people want to watch a UA-camr put makeup on her face for 20 minutes because she looks more beautiful than any movie star (And is actually being transparent about how much crap she's putting on, and how much work she has done to achieve her look) than they are about watching the most boring false image of perfection these stars' PR team is having them portray to the public. They can cry me a river, they're trying to get art to imitate life while there are people out there sharing everything they've ever experienced online. And I mean both real and fake. Hollywood? Will always be fake. The moment a PR team steps in it, they'll fuck it up yet again because it stops being relatable. You know who MARVEL fans like the most? Kevin Feige. Not Tom Holland, not Chris Evans, not Academy Award winner Brie Larson. They like a middle-aged bald man because "he's just so darn charismatic". If this doesn't tell these people in Hollywood that something is up with what they think "sells", then they're deliberately ignoring reality.
The comment about how animations are something kids watch and adults have to endure was a slap to the face to the thousands of people who worked on those films.
Right, Juan. As well as that, my most cherished memory of recent cinema I can think of, was taking my daughter who was 8 to watch Coco. As I am a guitar player as a living, I think, but it was a very bonding experience for us. Hardly something, I as an adult, had to 'endure'. With my eldest, I remember 'finding nemo' was similar, her asking me about death afterwards, the gears having gone round after the mummy fish scene. Trite it may sound, but there has been some meaningful stuff around watching movies with my kids.
The Oscars are suppose to be the crème de la crème of Cinema. It is not suppose to be a tv awards show. What the Oscars demonstrate is the state of the current culture which has no confidence and is dominated by those with an agenda. The only movies at the Oscars in 2022 that should have been there was Dune and Nightmare Alley with the rest not being fit to be there. It is a sad state of Cinema that Dune and Nightmare Alley were the only proper Hollywood films that were at the oscars. Why there is so many foreign films at the Oscars is beyond belief as they have their own category and should be staying in that.
The sheer amount disrespect they got for animation is unreal. Animators and Editors spent their heart and soul to make a great film and yet the Oscars had the audacity to disrespect them back. WHAT A JOKE
I know I'm an optimist but I really do not think that cinema *can* die. What it can do is change until it is barely recognizable, but at the end of the day it is art, which is a reflection of society, and will always be there one way or the other. Maybe we'll need the privilege of hindsight to recognize it good cinema of today, but I think art is so fundamental to the human experience that it just can't be taken away.
Agreed. Movies as art will never go away (or 'die') because we're humans, and humans can't _help_ but make art. No monopolist studio system churning out superhero movies (many of which I quite like, actually) is capable of killing the innate human drive to make art through moving pictures. Every year I see movies doing things no one's ever done before, powerful movies that affect everyone who sees them. Maybe they're sometimes low-budget, maybe sometimes the characters aren't speaking English, but why does that matter? In short, while the _American studio system_ might be slowly but inexorably eating itself alive, it's at best short-sighted and at worst Amerocentric to conclude from that that cinema is somehow 'dead', or will ever _be_ 'dead'.
At this point you're being semantic don't ya think? She clearly means the death of artistic expression for safe meaningless industrial fan-service movies in major movie studios
@@christpierre But artistic expression isn’t dying either. What makes anyone think this? There are tons of great movies and shows released every year. It’s an unfortunate reality that you may have to sift through a lot of trash to find the good stuff, but there is still good stuff to be found. It may not be as mainstream or get a massive theatrical release, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. Maybe it’s on a streaming service. That’s fine. The best thing to do is keep tabs on individual filmmakers that you like. Ones that you know are artists. For me it’s Denis Villeneuve, Martin Scorsese, Ari Aster, Robert Eggers, PTA, Guillermo del Toro, Damien Chazelle, Jeremy Saulnier, Gareth Evans, Greta Gerwig, Chloe Zhao, Alejandro Inarritu, etc. I can name many more. A24 is a studio that consistently releases top tier films with actual substance. I’m looking forward to Alex Garland’s new film “Men” in a few weeks. Scorsese also has a new film coming out later this year.
@@deathbyslipknot I completely agree with what you're saying You missed the "in major movie studios" part Also that's a great list, would add Wes Anderson and Tarantino too
He also did a short film once that won an Oscar. It made him big enough a deal to find him funding for his first feature-length film Boy. Edit: My bad. I'm talking out of my ass. It was just a nomination and it wasnt for his war short.
I think the pandemic and its effect on the rise of streaming services have a role as well; arty, higher-brow, “prestige” content is more likely to be a limited series or other form of tv show than a movie. Only big blockbusters that can guarantee huge returns in theaters, usually franchise films, are seen as worth it anymore
Absolutely agree. I just finished watching Better Call Saul, and while technically part of the Breaking Bad franchise, it does feel like art. It did inspire me, rather than simply entertain me. Maybe episodic content is the new cinema, at least where art is concerned?
That's the point the author is missing. Excellent filmmaking has not gone away, it's just logically shifted away from the big studio blockbuster arena's requirements and limitations, toward the (relative) freedom of indie productions and streaming services. More artists have a platform than ever before, able to adapt their work into more formats than ever before, and more people are able to appreciate their content than ever before. Terrible, right? :P
@@barbariandudenot the case, episodic media was designed and is most conducive to long form, meandering, episodic storytelling. think soap operas, sitcoms, police procedurals, mysteries, stuff like that where they don’t really relate. the idea of a tv show is to continue in perpetuity. maybe they’ll give more opportunity for people who have a set story in mind, but streaming services, notably disney+, are already getting greedy with their “series” which are basically just 6 hours of filler in what could easily be a 90 minute-2 hour film, because a core part of their business model is having as many hours of content as possible to potentially retain subscribers long enough for something new and “relevant” to be released. really i just dont think these things have the longevity people think they do. even succession wasnt on the air that long and felt like it just went in circles for ages until pattering out into nothing.
@@barbariandudeI think it’s a mistake to assume that a franchise can never be art. But BB/BCS was able to be art largely because of the control and vision of Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould. They had a story to tell and they told it. Similar to Star Wars in that way
@@autumnaticThe biggest problem with the film industry right now is that it is functioning like the wealth gap. The line between mainstream cinema and “Indy films” is just getting wider and wider, and communication of these smaller films is harder than ever. With that said, the creatives are there and always have been, it’s just the structuring that’s all wrong. Another sad fact, it’s harder to get great cinema in a great THEATER anymore.
Seeing The Northman's box office numbers really depresses me. I hear so many people say, "we want orignal movies" but they never go and support original movies. Not going to lie, it kind of pisses me off.
It's not surprising. A violent, Viking version of Hamlet (yes, I know the Viking tale came first, but still) with historical accuracy isn't going to appeal to a lot of people. Movies based on the ancient world or the middle ages haven't been popular for several decades. The people that movie appeals to ARE going to see it....t's just not a lot. Another problem is the budget. $70-$90 million? Good luck making that back. I would've told them to bring it in for half that.
@PretentiousCameron Once theatre audiences have been alienated they are really difficult to get back. It will take a good decade of effort to get people back again. Once people's expectations are men running around in plastic suits with steroid busting muscles and women that sound like men it is really difficult to get people back again.
@@caomhan84 I watched the movie and it’s pretty good. But the concept is very similar to the 80s Conan the Barbarian movie. A fantasy where a man tries to get revenge on the person who killed his father and ruined his life as a kid by becoming a buff savage-like warrior. It’s not the same story but it has kinda same kind of concept.
@@petermj1098 Yes, it's Hamlet. Well actually it's Amleth, which Hamlet is based off of. But plenty of stories have riffed off of this concept. But like I said, a Viking Hamlet story isn't going to set the world on fire. The people who like the director and who like ancient or medieval films will go see it. The broader public will probably ignore it.
I think another odious aspect of the Oscars is how increasingly blatant the Disney shilling is, obviously because they own the network the Oscars are shown on. It's gross and I'm not sure if it's always been that way or I'm just noticing it more, but they'll take every chance to advertise themselves.
@@blurryperson2685 It is not just oscars that are so out of touch the whole of pop culture including tv, music, movies and even video games are moving in that direction. Battlefield the video game released a game a few years back I think was about WW1 and the main protagonist was a blue haired girl running around with cybernetic limbs. I think it really pissed off those that bought the series. It caused the series to go into decline in a big way.
Yes, it's not just about money either. It's about politics. If this video is arguing that movies were once too conservative I would argue that now they are too liberal and neither extreme is good.
@@blurryperson2685 um, the general public has pretty shit taste? Like, do you want Marvel to get an Oscar, now? They are extremely popular, aren't they?
@@bighands69 first all, that’s not true. The Battlefield game that was set in WW1 followed a bunch of pro tags but none of them were what you described. Second of all, The lady you did described was in an E3 Showcase for BF5 to show the extent of character customization and didn’t even end up in the final release. Battlefield has a bunch of problems, but this isn’t one of them
I am so tired of movies in the cinema recently. I think the last month of Oppenheimer, Barbie and spider verse felt like a slight breath of fresh air in just the passion behind the projects but there is part of it which felt so desperately corporate. I’m honestly so scared for the future for artists to be able to make things that get not seen if they are slightly away from marvel sensibilities.
everytime i think of movie making, i think about how barry jenkins made moonlight on less than 2 million and won best movie and got another nomination but still found it hard to finance movies afterwards and now is making a movie with disney... its really grim
I think after a while you have to just join the system. Like black filmmakers aren’t gonna get the support they deserve so they’ll just go to big studios and direct whatever.
I am going to say it and nobody is going to like this Moonlight was not suitable for an Oscar. It was not a Hollywood movie and was something that would be seen in an art house theatre and then people would buy on video. Cinema should be reserved for special films and not low budget statement films.
i think you need to face reality, frankly-every filmmakers dream is to be able to make a movie with disney or other big studios, because the more money you have to make a film, the more possibilities you have. it’s just the reality-it can really benefit you as a filmmaker.
@@bighands69 the Oscars are supposed to celebrate the best cinematic achievements of the year. If that includes indie movies with a certain agenda then so be it. If the movie impressed enough people, especially nowadays the right people, it deserves to be celebrated. If you take out movies like moonlight your nominations would look far emptier and far more homogenic and who really wants to see that? White racist snobs, maybe. And your comments under this video sure paint you as one of those
legit, if Dune doesn't at least get nominated for the next Oscars I'll be kinda upset. Or would it have had to be nominated at the last Oscars? Oh well..
Growing up, my mom and I used to bring all the blankets into the living room and sit on the couch to watch the golden globes/Oscars. It was a tribute to film. A celebration. Before you could find any film score or any film clip in ten seconds on UA-cam or Spotify, the Oscars was a way to hear short snippets of beautiful music or see amazing acting/cinematography, especially for people like us who couldn’t afford to see more than a couple movies a year. I was disgusted when I heard they weren’t televising most of the technical awards. Those are the only ones that even mean anything anymore as they can only reward skill/artistry. But they added a “clap worthy moment” award. What the fuck?
PAUSE - I didn’t watch the oscars this year and haven’t for a while but you’re telling me they announced the winner for best score DURING COMMERCIALS?!? that used to be my favorite part of the oscars, I loved being able to celebrate the artistic skills of composers and their beautiful pieces 🥺 that makes me so sad…
They presented several awards pre-broadcast, then edited shortened versions of the speeches into the broadcast. They used editing to not present the award for editing live. The irony.
Most tv movies today and even pop "Music" is not real music and is nothing more than a set of samples and simple patterns with no arrangements in the context of music. I am going to say this and you may not like it but Rap is not music it is talking over samples and flashy patterns.
Saddest part is, Hans Zimmer is so over it (good for him though) that he didn't even show up. Don't think he even recorded a video or anything. On the other hand, my dad (who's the biggest film music fan ever, and also a big fan of Zimmer himself) said that Dune shouldn't even have won and that past works of Zimmer were much more deserving.
I've been observing my brother watching movies lately. He only ever watched modern big blockbuster movies and loves the MCU. Then all of a sudden, he started to have a sharp interest in older classics. I recommended the obvious ones to him like Alien, Terminator and Pulp Fiction. A couple months later, he now owns two Rambo shirts, a Predator action figure, a poster of Scarface and he won't shut up about how the Godfather and 2001 space odyssey were eye opening experiences for him. He never felt that ecstatic over any movie that came out in the last ten years or so. He never bothered to buy merch until this point. He still enjoys every new Marvel release, but his perspective definitely changed. Don't know if this little observation of mine contributes to anything that is being discussed here. To me, it's just so interesting to see how these older movies hold up to this day and can be admired for their inventive film making, even by someone who some elitists would call a "marvel zombie".
I was like your brother once, only used to watch mcu movies and thought other movies were shit. Then I watched a tarantino movie and it completely changed my perception about cinema.
I just want to point out that Coda is actually a remake of the French movie La Famille Bélier (which I'm pretty sure wasn't a indie movie). It's exactly the same story just... in the US.
Hollywood does this all the time. I don't understand why they can't embrace foreign cinema instead of just remaking it (and usually worse). A movie from my country won the Oscar for best foreign film some years ago and Hollywood remade it into a pedestrian, generic thriller and took away everything that made the movie great, because they can't bother with subtitles or sociocultural references of other countries.
The animation industry is facing a lot of similar problems rn. As more resources go to fewer projects, it's extremely difficult to find a constant flow of work - and that's not even touching the desire all artists have to work on something artistic and meaningful, not just some cheap movie that parents will take their children to see out of obligation and quickly forget in a year. On top of that, people aren't staying long-term at studios like they did in past decades. Yes, the gig economy has come for the animators too! It's rare to work at a major to studio for longer than a year or two, and many artists are forced to hop from project to project every six months doing freelance. That's not a recipe for a stable career, let alone a retirement. The hustle culture mentality also pushes artists past their limits on a regular basis. If you aren't working more than forty hours a week and trying to improve your skills in all your downtime, it's commonplace to get left behind by the industry because everything fluctuates from month to month. During crunch time on a major blockbuster animated movie, animators will work 80 hours a week to finish their scene. I can't begin to describe how toxic that is to a person's mental and physical health. Recently, storyboard artists started protesting a #NewDeal4Animation because they found out live action storyboarders make 2x what an animation storyboarder makes on average. It's a frightening time to be in animation college (like me, rip). I hope that all industry professionals in both film and animation can work together to unionize more and bargain for shorter hours and more pay. But things are looking grim. Netflix just shut down its animation department, which was hailed as a shiny new opportunity for artists just a few years ago. Turns out, it's cheaper to outsource animation to other third party studios both inside and outside the US. :/ Be sure to support your favorite artists and try to dig deeper for the good stuff! Quality animation is being made everyday; people just have to drop the notion of it being a "children's genre" and look for it!
Wow, it's insane that live action storyboarding is paid so much more than animation storyboarding when in animation it's WAAAAY more important, you're basically locking in cinematography and editing, there won't be coverage or editing afterwards...
I was thinking of joining animation college myself, but now I'm sacred to join. I think i can learn animation and Vfx by myself without joining collage and studying something else that will keep me financially stable and help me in my artistic ventures.
@@RyanSmith-qr7jg I can't speak for you situation, but I'm currently studying animation and vfx and in my country it's a very stable and well paid job, however that's because the living standard in Serbia is really low, and vfx and game companies work on expensive world scale projects Hollywood movies, triple A games etc. So it's both cheap for the companies and really well paid compared to other jobs here, come to think of it, I guess that's the very reason it's unstable in say the United States.
@@RyanSmith-qr7jg maybe try video-game. The industry is waay bigger and I suggested being an independent as opposed to jump straight into the big dogs. Games are also an art form with the advantage of being more interactive
That bit about how Netflix is trying to algorithmically predict what viewers will and won't like reminds me of this funny bit about how early on in the algorithm's development, Napoleon Dynamite just absolutely stumped it. Could not figure it out at ALL. Maybe it's kinda weird to say, but I can't think of a movie that better exemplifies what is at stake when people bemoan the state of the current cinematic landscape: Art that defies easy categorization, interested only in constantly surprising you. I also just wish we had more llama and tetherball representation in movies
Admittedly a much more crass/distasteful couple of examples, but I would nominate Freddy Got Fingered and Pink Flamingos also. They have had a little more benefit of time, though.
The success of Everything Everywhere All at Once at the box office is heartwarming; it’s an original movie, not a franchise, and it’s not Disney or Marvel
I personally felt the opposite. I found the movie hardly original at all, and then I understood that its probably so successful because it's the same predictable, comfortable entertainment but with some superficial differences (namely the main character being an older non-white woman) that make viewers feel good about themselves. I know the filmmakers began developing it before other recent multiverse movies came out, but by now I'm bored by a multiverse movie where the whole universe or whatever needs to be saved. It may not be Disney or Marvel (though the russo bros who did last 2 avengers produced it) but i feel A24 was still counting on the popularity of certain Disney/Marvel properties. Sorry to be negative but the overwhelming hype around that confuses me. I might just be dumb.
@@jeremyberesford6377 i think the movie had its own unique charm, and it doesnt need to be completely original to be a good watch. And i have no idea why an "older non-white" woman makes audiences feel good about themselves?, even the way you phrased it shows me your way of thinking Michele Yeoh has an amazing performance, along with other actors like Ke Huy Quan, and thats the only thing people should be talking about
@@jeremyberesford6377 " it's the same predictable, comfortable entertainment" I mean, sure there's the "multiverse" aspect of it, but frankly I don't think the writers/directer honestly cared that much about that sci-fi aspect of the film. It's very clearly to me an absurdist/existential film that is making fun of the comic book trope of multi-verse and action films to sneak in a much more challenging and depressing message. It's a story about the tensions of mother-daughter relationships and multi-generational immigrant traumas of assimilation in the US that also happens to have kung fu. Yes I did think the film was a pastiche of many other films (ones that I personally loved), but I don't consider them predictable/comfortable: "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", "Being John Malkovich", "Stranger Than Fiction", "Amelie", "Waking Life", & "Millennium Actress". In terms of the actual narrative, it's hardly a superhero movie to me.
@@IonizedComa Yeah, I came away from the film feeling like it reminded me of so many other movies, but like, in the best way possible. I personally don't believe there's any cultural production that is "completely original" it's all about new perspectives on older themes, and under-represented ideas/themes/narratives getting brought to the fore. And the performances! I really think the casting on this film was impeccable! So many stars in unexpected portrayals. And the actors I wasn't familiar with, I felt really connected to them in this movie. Clearly I liked it a lot.
Edit: STOP REPLYING TO THIS PLEASE OH MY FCKING GOD I feel like not enough people are talking about Everything Everywhere All At Once. It's an indie film by A24 that is super creative and not a remake of anything and honestly one of the best movies I've ever seen. Go watch it if you can to support stuff like this. Edit: ok i'm tired of receiving negative comments about my favorite movie that I don't want to defend, so if you don't like it or think it's bad that's fine. Just because you didn't connect to it doesn't mean it can't be meaningful for me. And yes I agree it is not underrated and A24 is not a small business; I was incorrect.
This studio is saving the day.. I watched more than half of their movies and they are ABSOLUTLY GREAT .. I cant praise them enough because they are a work of art .. they have been made for those who lost interest in the mainstream studios
I think about this with television all the time! Thankfully there are some pretty amazing shows out now, but there are so many regurgitations of "ripped from the headlines" series happening 6 months after the event itself. Or all the remakes that try to do what they were doing in the 80s/90s but sprinkling in diversity and politics. (Bel Air is an exception to this imo). But yes, fantastic video so far! (I'm about half way through.)
oh my god they've done a live action dramatization of every single true crime event that has ever happened lol, it's getting so tired!!! and thank you khadija
Another part of the "movie studios make safer movies during times of upheaval" idea is that audiences that are experiencing these emotionally taxing historical events are probably not as likely to watch an emotionally demanding movie compared to a safer bland movie that can let them escape into a nice fantasy for an hour or two
I don’t think it’s fair to boil it down to remake…. The adapted screenplay builds on and changes the first movie in a very effective and empowering way
I’m generally the kind of person who prefers fantasy and sci-fi and genre films to grounded drama. But I find it really telling that those two guys at the beginning’s idea of a hiring film were both about deaf people. People really seem to see social disability (key word being social, as I know many capital-D Deaf people don’t consider themselves disabled) as unworthy of their time. They don’t want to see us. We’re seen as Oscar-bait characters rather than real people.
The Sound of Metal is an beyond amazing and deserves way more praise than it got. All the deaf characters in CODA and all but the main character in the other were deaf irl. Both explored the idea that it was not a disability in a very nuanced way and embraced it. I don't know what those guys were on about, but I don't think either of these movies were using a "disability" as Oscar bait personally.
@@freegadflyathome I wasn’t saying the movie was Oscar-bait, I was inferring that that’s how the two guys seem to feel about Deaf and disabled characters.
I’m not defending the guy’s cringey comments but I don’t think that’s a fair inference. It doesn’t sound like they don’t want to see films with deaf people, starring deaf people - they don’t want to see films primarily ABOUT being deaf, and, like, the realistic experiences of deafness, of struggling with disability… which I guess I understand, if it’s their personal preference. But they seemed totally up for a genre film about superheroes of whatever, featuring a deaf lead.
Jack Nicholson says he retired when he did because Hollywood was becoming too focused on special effects and cgi and not enough on people, dialog and character study.
Directors like Denis Villenueve, Christopher Nolan, Steven Spielberg, Guillermo Del Toro, Rian Johnson, Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert fortunately act as living breathing, contradictory examples that prove that there are bright spots in the category of cgi reliant films (be they heavily reliant or otherwise). Thank God 😅
@@mikeiott7450 Nolan avoids CGI at all costs and Denis Villenueve also tries to apply only visual effects rather than computer-generated, so I wouldn't include either of those in category of cgi
@@dalano_films I’m talking about Interstellar and Tenet mostly with Nolan, because he and Villenueve dabble in CGI from time to time, but the main focus for them is story and dialogue
Yeah, but i just want a pop corn movie. Im not interested in character study or "the human condition" i want a couple of hours of escapism. If i want reality ill turn on the news.
independent films will always be where it's at, because that's where artists reside. we just need more A24s and NEONs to bring them into the mainstream. a couple indie oriented companies can't compete by themselves, we need more of them, to widen their reach. i see that being the only way to bring the film industry out of this slump. fantastic video!
It’s ironic that Kael wrote her essay in the late 70s/turn of the 80s, which is widely considered to be like the golden age of American prestige cinema today. On the one hand, it’s a great reminder that the vast majority of films made in that time weren’t ‘The Deer Hunter’ or ‘Godfather II’, and there were in fact a ton of movies that nobody remembers now (lots of weird romcoms and clones of more famous films and bad exploitation movies and TONS of junk movies set in World War 2). On the other it’s a good reminder that movies like Star Wars and even JAWS were considered junk by a lot of serious film people at the time, and for several years after
The Deer Hunter was the cream of that period as was the Godfather and to get that sort of cream lots of milk needs to be produced. We have not had anything like the The Deer Hunter in the last 15 years. When was the last Pulp Fiction, Usual Suspects, La Confidential, Unforgiven or even No Country for Old men. The last Cohen Brothers film was it True Grit? Tarantino is the only guy left making movies the rest are making stuff for TV. I am so disappointed with David Fincher and his move into tv movies.
Yes, ''art'' movies are forgotten because their tropes are used over and over again, that is, not a hamburger, but it is still food. Star Wars, Marvel, universal monster and some sword and sandal are remembered because it was movies of parents, children, grandchildren. The 10 commandments is basically another Maciste (marvel of his time) but in the end art is forgotten and pop culture becomes ''art''. In 80 years it will be ''The idiots who complained about marvel'' also that Maciste and Universa in the era of silent and black and white movies tried to make the MCU but with many mistakes, it is the reason why the many Universal movies are forgotten and only about 11 are remembered, but only 5 are a shared Universe.
@@bighands69 I mean we’ve gotten Drive, Bladerunner 2049, Grand Budapest Hotel, Nightcrawler, Wolf of Wall Street, Parasite, Ex Machina, and so much more in like the last 15 years. Quality films are still being made.
@@bighands69 P T Anderson, Steven Soderbergh, Kelly Reichardt, Paul Schrader, Richard Linklater, Sean Baker, Safdie Brothers, Guillermo del Toro, … there's still plenty of directors making ambitious interesting challenging films. The industry is in a bad state so some of them have to work with streaming platforms. It's disappointing that some don't get released in theaters but we still get the chance to view great films, and to rewatch them whenever we want in better quality than ever possible before.
In the Oscars they always nominate movies that were never released in my country, or if they were, no one noticed. I happen to live two blocks from a movie theater, in a low middle class district, and the only movies they show there are blockbusters. I remember having to go to another movie theater in a wealthy district, one of the oldests here, just to see Whiplash and The Grand Budapest Hotel (one screening only per day). And it's worst for local productions, having to compete with Marvel. Movie distribution is fucked up as well.
Geez even Whiplash and Grand Budapest Hotel?? I mean they are considered art movies but they're the more mainstream types. But yeah it's sad, Marvel basically engineered its blockbusters to outweigh any other type of movie in importance ...
It’s the same here in my country, but worse, because not one cinema in the whole country bothers to show any indie or non-mainstream movies. I’d have to wait until the movies become accessible to download. And it’s sad because as someone who enjoys movies, I can’t talk to my friends about the movies I watch, and often get called wired or “trying to be different” for my taste in movies. Cause all everyone talks about is either Marvel, action blockbusters, or rom-come
the movie distribution is soo bad, especially recently!! while marvel screenings get about 20 screenings per day in a mainstream cinema, films like last night in soho, spencer and the french dispatch get 5. I had to go to early screenings as there were big time gaps. nowadays, I have to go to an independent cinema as they have more frequent screenings but not everyone has that access, which sucks.
Same in my country. I remember years ago they showed the trailer of The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the cinema and I got so excited because I hoped they were finally showing something I liked. When I called to book the seats they told me they had scraped the movie from the schedule lmao. Rip. I haven't seen a movie in cinema for almost 5 years now because there is literally no movie that appeals to me, literally 0. They barely even show the movies that are nominated for Oscars lol, it's all superhero stuff, animated, some other franchise or the latest action movie.
It's exactly the same in my country. To the point where I'm wondering if we are from the same place, if not, things are worse than I thought, because it means culture it's not accesible; if it's hard to find a Wes Anderson film, I can't imagine how much more difficult it is to try to watch a foreign lesser known one.
Something to add on Netflix and other streaming sties: one of the reasons they were able to do a good amount of their quantity instead of quality method is because of they originally had a "new media" guideline that allowed them to not pay the production crews as much as a typical Hollywood studio production. So, many of these shows that were coming out of Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. were inherently cheaper products to make. Now that was one of the many reasons why the IATSE union (that covers production crews) threated to strike and used that as a bargaining chip in renegotiating their contracts, so it's possible that streaming sites will reconsider their quaintly over quality method (or at least not produce as much as before)
@@athenajaxon2397 Trevor Noah speaking about the films that are usually nominated for Oscar’s made me so angry, they all want to be loved by the audience and are so cringe
@@athenajaxon2397 It's like Enchanted vs. Shrek. Both are self-aware and parodies of Disney's brand of fairy tales, but Enchanted is "we mock it because we love it," while Shrek is winking at the audience & pointing and laughing at Disney.
Ricky Gervais said it best at the Golden Globes: “No one cares about movies anymore. No one goes to cinema, no one really watches network TV. Everyone is watching Netflix. This show should just be me coming out, going, “Well done Netflix. You win everything. Good night.” But no, we got to drag it out for three hours.”
This is not new and has been building over the last decade with the nominations being dominated by activist politics. This year 2022 is the proud activist culmination of years of work and media presentation. And the sad part is a slap was the best thing about the whole process. They will probably take the ratings boost as being a sign of the political activist movies being popular.
As someone who has tried to keep up with the 90s and 2000s movie industry to figure out how to get big as a filmmaker (meaning: I could get enough money to get by just for creating), this truly enlightens me how such a "get rich or die trying" scheme was bad for my mental health, especially when art and film classes I took made me believe I was almost ill-suited to be a filmmaker in the first place (never mind that all they seek from you is to be able to learn and replicate techniques useful to the art, television, and film industry...) My only hope is that my true film debut doesn't come from hunger, but from a true place in my heart and soul.
As someone who's currently going to college for feature film animation, I really feel this. I find myself flip-flopping between longing to create films that are meaningful and pressuring myself to make my skillset as marketable as possible. I sometimes wonder if it was a mistake to entwine my art with my future career and employment, but I truly don't know what else I could do - on some level, I wouldn't want to be doing anything else. But it is a struggle, financially and spiritually. I feel starved for good art and animation, but I don't want to starve either.
ahahaha this comment is so relatable as someone who is attending an art school as a film major. after interacting and going through stuff with the my peers i actually recently discovered that i despise the industry and the people within it, the whole culture of it, and i don’t want to be a filmmaker much anymore. i wanted to tell stories that meant a lot to me, something that could change at least one person’s life for the better-but what i discovered is that the film industry’s culture now is so unwelcoming towards those who want to do something that matters to you. you have to throw that away and make what you don’t want to, and as you said, replicate basically the mainstream film techniques and whatnot. i recently decided it was wrong for me to go down the art path as a career and i’ve changed my major completely now. it was an eye opening experience actually, i realized so many truths about the film and art industries.
@@keeptaiwanfree that is heartbreaking to read. I'm so sorry. As an aspiring filmmaker, this is hard to think about. Good thing I have another backup plan of wanting to be a mental health counselor lol.
i was a filmmaker once, & a writer, & a musician, & a journalist, & you quickly find that the world isn't what you thought. you can touch people's lives in a multitude of ways, but you pretty much have to do it locally & find or form your own community. unless you have daddy's money or nepotism of some sort, the mainstream has no place for you. it doesn't have to be a dark depressing thing - you just have to shift expectations. the people that are lapping mainstream dross up aren't the type of people that would resonate with real vision anyhow.
Henri Langlois nailed it when he said "When you feed people crap they lose their tastebuds." Once the corporate profit machine started to get its claws in the movie industry in the late 70s, it's been a long slow process of gradual decline, and many didn't even notice until it was too late. Still some great movies were mixed in with the crap, but fewer and fewer films with any substance or resonance -- god forbid any art -- have made it through. Because today's studio execs only care about profit. Darryl Zanuck was not thinking "big profits" when he made The Grapes of Wrath. He wanted to capture something great on film for future generations. And also be entertaining. And if he broke even at the box office, all the better. He'd be laughed out of Hollywood with this attitude today.
one thing i think is worth mentioning is how this """death""" of cinema in the united states creates a wave that crosses borders in its crash. last year, around the time the last spider man movie came out, movie theaters here in brazil had pretty much filled up their entire schedules with screenings of it, even a movie like the remake of westside story could not compete with it (which is pretty ironic considering that it was made by spielberg), so it is not hard to imagine how that affects the screening of brazilian movies in our own theaters
I feel like the point about economic upheaval is greatly undervalued. It is not only about what the studios wants, getting butts in seats with something that isn't challenging to the viewer and that is almost guaranteed to be a success. It's also about what kinds of movies people want to watch. When people are already struggling in their day to day lives, the kind of escapism they are looking for isn't necessarily the kind that challenges them morally or makes them feel anything beyond adrenaline, and slightly sadness that eventually turns into joy when the main character wins at the end of the movie. I think it speaks more to general zeitgeist of emotions than it does to the further effect of capitalism and corporatism on the film industry.
So true. Like even think about pre 9/11 films like fight club, office space and the first Matrix movie. Products of a time when the economy was 'stable' and people were wondering if this American beauty facade was all there was to middle class society.
While this is a great point, I think audiences are more than willing to watch more complex movies if they are offered. When the movie Marriage Story was released I remember it made quite a buzz despite it being so raw and complex in its depiction of a failing marriage and this was in the middle of the pandemic so I doubt people were in high spirits (I know I wasn't). Obviously people won't chose that kind of complex/thoghtful movie every chance they go to the cinema or log in netflix, but the fact that the option is barely there in the first place has far more to do with corporations not wanting to risk losing money than with people not wanting to watch those movies.
I often think about how the success of the MCU reflects a retreat into myth from a public faced with an all-too-confusing world where we are the baddies. The American exceptionalism gets reinforced without them having to really address any issues about America's role in geopolitics.
I understand your point, but I personally cannot understand this impulse. When my life gets difficult or depressing, the absolute worst course of action I can think to do is to just give up and watch some mindless blockbuster totally devoid of humanity. It's almost like the equivalent of grabbing KFC and watching Jerry Springer. If your partner dumps you, do you make a strawberry daquiri and blast Kesha? Hell no! You pour a whiskey and throw on Elliot Smith. Isn't it more natural to reach for real stories about real people experiencing challenges and suffering like your own? It makes you feel less alone, right? Or does that make me a masochist?
My bf and I have recently taken to watching movies from the 80s and 90s, where most effects are practical, the stories weren't just repeats (for the most part) and people cared enough to put in effort. I think there are a few director and execs within studies that truly want to make good movies, but when 90% is bs, it's hard to find
Very cathartic to watch. As a film student currently the current state of cinema is something that has deeply frustrated me, and I didn't know how to word it without coming off as snobby to even some of my fellow peers who don't seem to have as much of an issue with it.
I'm not a film student (yet), but I completely agree. I get really annoyed with what's popular right now, what's making all the money and getting all the attention.
@@johannascott1593 To me any and all moves by studios just feel so calculated and ultimately cynical. Then the responses from my circle of friends and families being absolutely hyped just makes me in turn more cynical
There's a fine line between being disappointed with cinema's current state and being an elitist ass. In my opinion as long as you're respectful and don't call people stupid for liking certain movies you're good in my book.
@@sophitiaofhyrule I try to be mindful of that line. There's plenty of pop culture I enjoy. I try to make clear my issue is with overall trends rather than any individual project. It's hard sometimes because the people that surround me aren't really the film analyst type so sometimes my opinions can be read as '"snobbish"
The film industry has “died” about three times over its lifetime, if we are talking pure commercialism movies for entertainment sake the golden age of cinema, the 1930s-mid 40’s over 7,500 films were made and VAST majority of them were stinkers. In the late 40s to mid 60s the studios took more care in what they were putting out namely due to less people going to the cinemas because of…television. We see then the New Wave take over, introducing a depth the films that was subtle before, the emotions more obvious or idiosyncratic to their parents ideals, this is also the wave that introduces the films which appeal to the literal and inner child, romanticizing/revitalizing epic stories on a grand scale (I.e. Spielberg/ Lucas creating Indiana Jones and revamp of 30s/40s adventure films like Sierra Madre), Gen X filmmakers see this and respond in kind with further gritty films that show the consequences of romanticism of adventure (I.e Tarantino with a visually bloody action film in Kill Bill still a homage to king fu and western movies/tv in the 60s). I will say film as the theatrical release will take awhile for the pendulum to swing back but instead now with streamers instead of film we are getting “prestige tv” high budget story adaptations with intricate plots and film level cinematography starring movie stars who a decade ago wouldn’t be caught dead on a tv show. With that I will say movies aren’t dead, they’re just tv right now but it will come back, audiences can only take so many drawn out stories with bad endings.
No it never died. It went into periods of decline and quality always brought it back out again. The issue now is that the cultural expectation is that movies are nothing more than thrill fests of steroids' and plastic suits. Modern theaters now are dominated by young male audiences with very small numbers of women and older adults attending. The irony is that the industry has focused its self on the segment of the market with the least amount of disposable income. And are then surprised that they are indecline. Wonders will never cease.
The last movie I saw that truly stayed with me was JoJo Rabbit. It's rare for a film these days to make me laugh, cry, and truly care about the characters as much as I did during that movie. The last truly creative household name movie studio (that I know of) to really innovate and change the movie experience was Pixar.
I disagree actually because I think that lately, Sony Animation is pretty on par with Pixar with the release of Into The Spiderverse and more recently, The Mitchells vs The Machines. Spiderverse singlehandedly shook the animation world and now we're seeing its aftereffects with studios starting to get bolder with animation styles and letting creative people tell their stories. Also hard agree on Jojo Rabbit, it's such an excellent film
@@disconsolate3235 I recently saw Everything Everywhere All At Once, and it was beyond my expectations. I can't find a single point to disagree with in your comment. It's nice to see some risk taking, studios having a little faith in the audience's appetite for unique and artistic ideas is nice.
@@maxcovfefe I did a few days ago as well! It was fantastic and as soon as I left the theatre I wanted to watch it again. Films like that revitalise my hope for cinema because if every so often we get an everything everywhere all at once or a jojo rabbit, It all feels worth it
Pixar....hmmmm. After I catch up on all the great live action films I haven't seen (Tarkovsky, Rohmer, Goddard, Antonioni, etc.) I'm definitely going to sit down and start in on the cartoons and puppet shows.
Something I don’t hear a lot of people say when it comes to Marvel being one of the biggest franchises, is that a lot of it is pro militarism. Studios are basically dictating to us what they believe in and it’s unfair because sometimes I feel like the general public does not have a choice. That’s the worst part of the praise that marvel gets. With that being said I am becoming more and more excited about some new movies that are coming out. I’m a big fan of romcoms and I feel like we have some on the way that are just extremely unique. I’ve been to many screenings for independent movies as well and I’ve been impressed by quite a few of them. Edit: I came back to read this and I just realized how many typos this had. Yikes.
@@tvsonicserbia5140 literally everything about it lol. it was funded by the pentagon at one point. if you're looking for specifics though: - tony stark canonically built his empire by selling his weapons to the military. he is literally a war profiteer, specifically benefiting off of causing havoc in the middle east - the avengers act as a sort of para military led by tony stark who often work for and are contracted by the US government - captain marvel was literally a soldier in the air force - widows are russian spies. actually a lot of villains allude to russia, the cold war, and anti communist rhetoric
Hollywood is so smooth at creatong propaganda that people in the whole world will eagerly watch 100+ movies per year about skinny white people "saving the world", talking about values, praising the US military and the US police...and they won't call it propaganda. People even get angry or laugh when you call those movies that way.
Theres also a third aspect of cinema that you didn't mention: youtube itself. It is very easy for aspiring film makers with no budget to put experimental Artistic things out there, like daisy brown or crypt tv if you love horror, or lizzie bennet diaries and Carmilla if you like classic literature retellings. Or just look at video essayists like yourself, the defunctland fastpass video has a lot of comments like "it is my sleepover and I get to pick the movie". Its one of the reasons why I barely watch movies or netflix anymore, I can find more than enough entertainment/art here which resonates more with me than blockbusters.
I highly recommend the first season of dad (search for dad arg or dad feels for the channel) its a surreal horror comedy and its very good. The channel itself has evolved past the narrative arc and has a bunch of in character live streams and music, but the narrative is collected in a playlist there! I can also recommend diminish, it's a fictional story about a guy who plays a video game his sister made before dying. The channel night mind has a lot of highlights of series like that, its worth checking out!
@@nautil_us thank you so much! An aggregator like night mind is just what I needed. I'll check out the out there series too! In-character live streams, what an interesting medium!
Also video games which are quite frankly an underrated type of format that many people look over. Not only you able to experience being the main character or multiple characters BUT YOU CAN CHOOSE YOUR OUTCOME (depends on the type of game). Some of my favorite video games are the type of simple themes and messages that aren’t available in your local movie theater but executed in a way that’s cinematic . And they vary into all different types of animation which is refreshing and clearly big movie studios have noticed the popularities of these games and want to release them with higher quality that is available to the world for a quick buck from game nerds. Such as Uncharted that was released earlier this year and albeit not a great movie. And let’s not forget musicals which has bled into big blockbusters too because ORIGINALITY 🪄 can’t wait for Wicked with Ariana Grande being Glinda… (No shade to Ari just would’ve liked someone else for the role personally who isn’t already a major celebrity, though her voice is nice)
Netflix is not dominated by blockbusters it is dominated by trashy video store level movies that have stupidly high budgets. People need to realize when you are watching a movie with a $100 million budget you are not actually seeing that $100 budget on screen. SO much of it ends up being cut out and a wasted effort. I was talking to an actor not that long ago that told me his work on a production could have made a movie in its own right as there was so much shooting and scenes were not put on screen and that he only had a few minutes of screen time and got paid an enormous amount of money.
I remember the 80s to 2000s. Movies were fun and memorable and MOVIE STARS existed. Modern films are either "look cool CGI" or "look at this overcomplicated story that must be explained for me to understand"
It is so upsetting to look up a movie for tickets and it's only one theater is showing it. That happened to me with the movie The Outfit. It came out this year and every time I ask someone about, their answer is they never heard of it.
The Outfit is a more direct to video type production. In years gone by it never would have been a major cinema film. In saying that Reservoir Dogs was also a direct to video production.
@kshamwhizzle my point was that BoP was an awesome fun movie for its genre that actually achieved some story telling, character development etc which Ive really missed in recent superhero movies. I watched Suicide Squad right after and found it so unbelievably awful. Just lazy, gimmicky, and exactly like every other superhero franchise of the last few years. Very evident how it pandered to the lowest common denominator of (male?) viewer, packed itself full of big names that required screen time according to their price tag. You can tell one movie was made in order to make the studio money whereas BoP was made to explore the character of Harley Quinn (and make some money).
I've been hearing about the death of cinema forever but it never seems to die. People are always going to want good stories. I find a great deal of creativity and great storytelling on television now, and it gives you a lot more time to devote to telling a story.
Well, this does seem to be temporary every time, even if it lasts for an entire decade. It happened in the 1950's. It's happening now from 2018 or 2020 onwards I guess.
That's the thing about film. Every decade has some timeframe that people like to label as "the dark age of cinema." In the late 90s it was Disaster films that became the death of cinema, then in the 2000s it was those shitty parody movies. Don't get me wrong, a lot of shitty films came out during all these timeframes, but there's also been some inspiring and creative films that came out during these eras too. In the Late 90s we still got ingenious films like The Truman Show, Good Will Hunting, Men in Black, etc. And in the 2000s we got some phenomenal films like Children of Men, No Country For Old Men, Pan's Labyrinth, etc.
This video is particularly delicious when paired with a glass of CJ the X’s latest video and both remind me of something I saw recently, but can’t remember if it was a tweet or something I read in a book… basically that there are two kinds of films - ones you walk out of energised and excited but ultimately forget about, and ones that make you feel uncomfortable, maybe you don’t even enjoy them at the time, but ultimately they shape your way of thinking going forwards
I definitely feel as though there's more of a spectrum than what you've presented here. There are plenty of films that I've left the theater hyped and raving about that have stuck with me. Films that I not only remember, but enjoy talking about and critically analyzing with friends. I think of Black Panther, Get Out, Endgame, Arrival, Kung Fu Hustle, etc. Then I think of films that made me uncomfortable, or that were clearly meant to be art, that I ultimately remember very little about or still don't care for: The Lobster, The 400 Blows, In The Mood For Love, Blue, The Godfather, Ex Machina, etc. Then there are uncomfortable films I remember vividly and enjoy very much. Hype-in-the-moment ones that are forgettable, or that I hated after thinking about them. Movies of both kinds that I might forget about but then remember really well later on in a conversation. Films that need a rewatch to really understand. Movies and their effects are as varied as the people who watch or make them. From this and the CJ the X vid, I just keep feeling like the idea of a dichotomy between "truly artful" films and popular schlock is and always has been short-sighted. Folks have been talking about the Death of Cinema since talkies, but unique art keeps coming out of both big studios and small creators. While I do agree that the ways in which big companies' capitalist greed restricts the kinds of stories that get told and the kind of world that audiences get to see, I also know that there are people creating some wonderful, insightful things even within that system. This convo also feels like shaming creators who previously wouldn't have been allowed into the industry for making money the way that only white men were previously allowed to do (or ignoring the really good work they're doing). Just like the nuance of combating climate change includes having to take in to account allowing for previously exploited countries to industrialize, there needs to be space for a more complex conversation around art in film.
@@Arosukir6 sometimes it's easier to dismiss art films as pretentious and boring because of how insecure one is about their inability to understand them. Thing to remember is that they're just movies, not a mensa exam.
I think this kind of dichotomy suggests that films has to cover uncomfortable themes to be considered art, which I don't think is that case. Plenty of memorable, artistically rich movies are ones that leave you energised after, and continue to the more you think about them. The goal in both kinds of movies is obviously to emotionally move the audience somehow, but the bigger differences to me are the means and the intent - genuine use of cinematic elements/storytelling vs a reliance on fanservice, and expressing an emotion for the sake of showing the audience a new perspective vs to keep your film in the pop cultural zeitgeist for long enough to sell more merch.
I agree with people criticising the dichotomy here - I think it's a flawed way of categorising films, but even in that sense it's a useful lens for thinking about films that *don't* fit in these two boxes, and whether that's a good thing or not (in the case of films that made you uncomfortable, and were ultimately forgettable... probably the latter). "The Red Turtle" was that for me - just seemed so vapid and ultimately said nothing (to me). I think that's an unpopular opinion, judging by reviews and accolades... I can no longer explain why I didn't like it, because I don't remember it. And I think CJ the X's video demonstrates pretty well the potential for "long term value" from so-called popcorn movies. I was flicking through my copy of "Starting Point" and came across this Miyazaki: "My attitude is that I make candy to sell wholesale to the candy store. Of course this candy must taste good; I would run into trouble if my candy didn't sell as well as the other candy in the store. For this, my candy must be colorful" (and so on) "A message is like the nourishment that should be obtained from meals, but movies are a time for candy. It would be a problem if people spent all their time on candy while cutting out their meals, but I don't think it's necessary to get our calcium intake from candy." Nevertheless, he goes on to say... "I do endeavor to make films that express my own ideas about what is important and what is wrong with the world we currently live in." (1995) I think this (and Miyazaki's filmography...) really demonstrates how films can be made with "attractiveness to the audience" in mind, while still being deeply meaningful to a lot of people.
I watch all the movies for the oscars every year (including technical categories and the shorts) and watching the oscars is a ritual for me. I'm always grouchy about who wins certain categories but it's always been exciting to watch. This year I felt so sad at the end and it was horrible. It wasn't fun to see and argue about. It just ... sucked
Same. If you dont watch all the movies, then how are you going to be mad when the wrong one wins? That's 75% of the fun of watching the oscars for me (the 25% is moments like Will Smith slapping Chris Rock).
The wrong people are talking about whats cinema. Everything everywhere all at once is NOT cinema. Its not oscar worthy. "Carlitos way" is cinema "Scarface" is cinema "Catch me if you can" is cinema Saving private ryan. All these movies are true cinema. The movie "nope" is fucking ridiculous. You guys have no fucking clue. Let me guess you guys also loved the new thor movie.
@@dewmontain123 what are you talking about those movies aren’t even fresh ideas just movies about people’s stories nope is phenomenal because it’s a new creative idea Jordan peele came up with himself everything everywhere all at once is a idea they made together of a movie of a fresh new idea your opinion sucks
THANK YOU. and I always feel like this "CINEMA IS DYING" line of thinking is incredibly US-centric tbh, people talk as if good movies weren't being made outside of North America
Its like when people say “music is dying”, when they don’t really listen to much modern music beyond the top 40(which has always had shitty forgettable songs). Art doesn’t die it’s just shy. If you look in the corners of rooms you can pull it out.
I am at a point, where the entertainment does not entertain me anymore but feels like just another commercial. I am so tired of large franchises, remakes, cinematic universes and series that run for season after season after season. Not because I generally object to them, but because most of them seem to be mostly concerned with displaying a popular character or IP in a cool way. You are supposed to watch and like the movie/series/tie-in-game because it belongs to an IP not because it is meaningful in its own right.
her idea that movies are becoming "less democratized" to make is odd. in the golden age it was nigh impossible to make a feature film outside the studios. now, at least materially, everyone has a camera, there's tons of powerful and accessible editing software and sound libraries, and you can collaborate with people across the world and self-distribute online. it may be harder to get a film in theaters or attract a decent budget, but were those things ever realistically within reach for most filmmakers? at least now many cost barriers to entry have fallen down.
This is a take that gets thrown around a lot and I can’t say I agree. While it’s true that technology has increased the ease of filmmaking for the general population, I believe the increase in difficulty of selling a film and making a profit has risen much more. Independent and grindhouse cinema has always existed. I recently rewatched The Lords of Flatbush and was struck by how amateurish the cinematography was. That movie made millions. Hollywood Shuffle was made by Robert Townsend for literally nothing and got distribution and made millions. If you want to go back to the studio system days, look at Ingagi. In the past the drive-in circuit and later vhs created an extreme demand for content that increased the likelihood of a movie getting sold despite the quality. It took more labor and logistical creativity but the rewards were clearer. Now the ease of making a film is precisely what has made it harder: because anyone can do it, it is harder to stand out (or even get someone’s attention) and more difficult to parlay early efforts into success.
@@Sky-Liam what you're saying is all true but my point isn't whether it's easier or harder to earn money from a film. i don't doubt that it's harder now. my point is just that, as you say, "technology has increased the ease of filmmaking for the general population", which, at least on some level, means equality of access.
That’s fair, so I guess that just comes to which semantics we’re discussing - it is vastly easier to “make films” today but harder to be a filmmaker deriving income from your works and getting them seen on a large platform (which I think it more what the author is talking about).
@@Sky-Liam except she says "their creation is becoming less accessible by the day". i guess you're right in that she actually means distribution, but Spielberg having trouble getting his movie into theaters doesn't necessarily mean that producing films is materially or technically inaccessible for people like you and me. i think her argument conflates corporate/studio patronage with the basic ability to make movies despite the two being completely different things.
@@DreBourbeau I think you're conflating the two. Just because we all technically own cameras and could make movies off our I-Phones if we really wanted to doesn't make the industry any more accessible than it ever was. Disney owns damn near every property that's worth owning and the only multi million dollar films that get made nowadays are form the same handful of studios that own everything. There's no more risk-taking its all soulless and procedural.
UA-cam and online discourse are a part of this. the only films that get covered and discussed widely by the most popular content creators, are the American blockbuster zeitgeist films. instead of being weighed against Titane or Parasite, something like No Way Home or Infinity War is weighed against Star Wars, another Disney IP. the aesthetic spectrum has been shrunk, the "range" of quality that a film can aspire to has been reduced, the overton window has been pushed down. in the rare occasions when "high-brow" films are discussed, there is a strange undercurrent of almost categorical disdain or skepticism, there is no attempt at thematic or filmic analysis, and it ends up resembling the sound byte at the beginning of this video. I watched Critical Drinker's "review" of Midsommar, which has more views than any other review of the film, and it made me realize that the most visible critical opinions are now those that champion competency (i.e., Infinity War/No Way Home) and deride or misunderstand genuine artistry. and these do function as reviews that affect whether the audience watching these videos will give these films a shot. they also function as advertising. it's not just that studio blockbusters are the only films that are given a berth at theaters. in the public consciousness, they are the only films that exist. and this is part of the reason why channels like yours are so important.
I'm glad I've never watched a video by the Critical Drinker. The titles tell me they're not my cup of tea, and this comment just confirmed it. Perhaps it can be considered part of the New Studio system as well. If marketing is becoming more important than the films themselves, these UA-cam reviews are free marketing, mostly focused on blockbusters, accelerating the death of cinema.
Absolutely. Makes me think of Eternals only being compared to other MCU movies. “It’s the worst of all of them” or even “it’s mid tier marvel” or whatever, you get it. It’s so unfair - especially for filmmakers like Chloe. (Note: I’m not really a marvel fan and am not saying that eternals was high art, just how online reviews are often just comparing other movies from the same corporations. It feels like audiences care more about the studios than the actual movies and feels unprecedented. One of the comments above seemed to confirm this: “marvel fans don’t care about marvel bc of [insert actor names], they care because of Kevin Feige.”)
@@gayhomosexuallll The comparison of Marvel = fast food is appropriate here. You don't compare a big mac to an actual nice burger, you compare it to a whopper or wendys or whatever. It's a tacit admission of the point in the video that franchise movies are product first, art second.
2019 gave me so much hope for cinema in the age of the MCU. I saw almost all of the Oscar BP nominees in theatre and they were all great in their own way. The pandemic killed that momentum. 😔
True. Personally for me, it was the 2019 , 2017 and 2012 movie years of which I was most excited for the Oscars, as I had watched almost all the movies nominated.
Dunkirk is a remake of a film named Dunkirk. Inception is a combination of Femme Fatale and Dreamscape. His more original films were when his brother was still writing for him.
I think the filmgoers are to blame for these "cash-grab" driven films. Most of the audience will only watch films that are heavily advertised to them (Marvel, Disney, etc.) and not seek out content on their own. I also think that this is caused by the popularity of streaming services. Studios will not lose any money if they release a bad film since the viewers already paid for their service, and if the viewer finds the film bad, then they will just move on to an older, more popular film, or re-watch their favorite sitcom. Before companies started taking advantage of the Internet for advertisement, most people probably picked a film with an appealing poster and title.
I noticed that when you compare the first "blockbusters" and the average ones these past 2 decades or so the difference is amazing. Those movies were also made to appeal to a big audience and the average moviegoer and yet have way more effort in every single aspect, especially story, characters and script than the average blockbuster nowadays which is mindnumbingly bad.
TL;DR: even if we could try harder, I don't think movie-goers are the culprit. Anecdotal, but: In the closest 6 cinemas in my area (all others are more than an hour away), MCU movies and the latest Disney flick will play up and down with 6 playtimes per day every day. Any other movie is played like 3 times, max. 5 times a week, often sometime at noon or very late in the evening. It requires lots of planning and sometimes even trying to get half a day off to go see a movie other than the stuff that is heavily commercialised, that is funded by the military or that produces lots of toys and collectibles. As a result, I don't go to cinemas anymore and barely watch any movies at all. Could I try harder? Sure. Do I have time/energy/money to do so? No. We're being manipulated into watching specific movies, and I hate it. I haven't had a satisfying movie-going experience in years, even ignoring the pandemic.
oh man…this is honestly a really interesting conversation after having seen everything everywhere all at once because, as I have read small snippets from interviews that the Daniels (the directors) have done, their film was sort of a response to the way the world as it is right now is very overwhelming. so much is happening all the time and there’s all this *noise* - which can make us feel insignificant or like nothing really matters. but the film is, in my opinion, an argument for acknowledging the intensity of living in a time like ours but also sitting with those feelings and accepting them. and that maybe it doesn’t have to be a negative thing (and more to the point of the film, we can still be kind to one another). Daniel Kwan in particular identifies as a maximalist film maker - so it’s really interesting to see how he mixes the idea of spectacle and “loud” nuance (he mentioned in a tweet that there’s this assumption that nuance in film making has to be quiet/subtle- not sure if that’s the exact wording but it’s something along those lines) in a film that also has a profound message about a number of things (the struggles of immigrant families in pursue of the American dream, being openly queer, complexities of mother-daughter relationships) but most focally, that even in all the noise, we can find meaning and joy. When I think of the film industry now, I really hope that maybe this approach - a maximalist lens with heart and genuine stories to tell - will be something we can see more of.
If someone ever complains about theaters only showing franchise movies, ask if they went to see Everything Everywhere All at Once or The Northman in spring of 2022.
Northman may have flopped in theaters, but that's an at home movie, anyway. It killed it in bluray/VOD sales, so it still made good money. Theaters dont matter for making money like they used to. Some movies are better watched at home and Everything Everywhere is one of them. It does not require a theater experience.
@@aSmallGreenDot people nowadays don't watch movies in the theaters because they have streaming platforms, the Internet or physical copies for the movies they want to watch. If you go to the cinema it's for the "cinematic experience", either the franchise you follow religiously or some big spectacle you need to see. You would be surprised by how many people skipped the Northman because they "would watch it someday" but watched whatever Marvel put out at the time because it guaranteed a good time. People don't even want to risk watching a bad movie anymore.
The broadcast was a messy joke. However, the new International voters that have been invited to the Academy are making some exciting changes in the nominations (maybe not so much when it comes to the winners). Seeing nominees like Jessie Buckley for The Lost Daughter and especially international movies being nominated outside the international film category!!!! is very inspiring and promising. There are so many things that are wrong with the Oscars (mainly because of ABC and the contract they have for the show) but I think it's also fair to say that there are so exciting changes happening as well. People not wanting to see the films, thinking they're boring, that everything getting made these days are reboots and spinoffs or that MCU movies deserve more nominations..... well, that's a whole problem I don't even want to talk about lol
Most of those internationals are not movies they are glorified TV entertainment that does not have the magic of the movies. Introducing foreign voting will be the death of American Cinema which is the birthplace of the art.
This was excellent! The connections back; and differences between previous situations within film history was fascinating. I hope given time and changes we will see more control returned to directors and less reliance on blockbusters only. Unfortunately I do not see it happening until Disneys monopolisation is stopped and they are fractured apart.
we do not need to see more control returned to directors. More to other artists in the film-making process sure. Make it actually collaborative. But directors aren't immune to making petty fiefdoms.
I meant, Scorsese isn’t wrong. Marvel Fanboys™️ hurt feelings be damned. I’m tired of having fewer and fewer choices in the variety of films that big studios put out. Superhero movies aren’t my thing but I don’t mind that they exist. I’ve even enjoyed particular films like The Dark Knight and The Watchmen. But do we need 50 superhero films a year? The reboots and remakes are even worse. Very few pull it off and rarely is anything new or interesting said. I like your optimistic outlook. There are still weird, interesting, thought provoking, innovative films being made.
I feel you, girl... that funeral prologue is just morbidly apt. I've stopped watching the Oscars myself starting in 2021, and I've watched FAR more old movies or YT vids at home than films in theaters. And it's just heartbreaking that I can't even look at the cinema with the same fondness that I used to in my early youth from mid-teens to mid-young adulthood (as in, before 2015). I want to believe that the kind of cinema I grew up watching still has a place in my heart and always will but with the way things are going, that prospect is depressingly waning. Hopefully, there will be a rebirth - I haven't lost all hope, but it has yet to emerge and take hold.
@lrigsnart6821Ant-Man still did good and is well received, and I’ve always wondered about those guys’ vision for Solo, but nobody were eager for a Solo film anyway. James Cameron made a complete script for a Spider-Man film, but never made into production.
Get money in the hands of the audience, that's how you revive cinema. Audiences are risk averse too, especially when they can barely afford to go to the theatre more than a handful of times a year.
If you ask me audiences will always have a place in their heart for both commercial adventure and low key cinema. They will always love fantasy and reality at the same time so you can't cancel one for the other. Therefore weather it's popcorn or art house, if you ask me, I will always love both. Filmmakeing is not the same when one exists and the other doesn't.
I still trust the unpredictability of art to keep some kind of originality in cinemas. It is undeniable that art has always struggled to find money but, at a certain point, people will get sick of Marvel movies hopefully. Also, it is ridiculous how not even Scorsese can express his frustration with the market without getting discredited.
@@ShadowSonic2 Its called criticism. You take it in like any grown up is supposed to and learn from some of it even you don't nescessarily agree with it. So yes loads of people involved in the Production worked their butts off day and night for over a year on these films. There is no question about that. However despite all that, you are still subject to criticism like any other industry. That is and always has part in parcel of life. The fact so many people nowadays are losing the ability to take in criticism is the reason this art form amongst many others is in this huge mess it is in from a purely creative and artist standpoint. It is why we keep getting absolute amateur level Screen Writers in Hollywood that have very little to no credits at all.
@@taliamason7986 Funny, it sounds more like you can't take criticism because you think tye Marvel people aren't allowed to do the same thing to Scorsese
You know what, after watching people comment on how Netflix's Princess Switch three sequels were proof that Netflix would green light *anything* for the sake of releasing large quantities, this made perfect sense. They do have a different business model than big studios- and big studios just wanna secure the bag. Creativity is definitely dead.
Netflix are about to reverse their high volume content strategy with the recent decline in their stock price. They have already cancelled several of their productions that were planned. I think they thought they could do lots of political content and people would just pay up for it. Now they are realizing that people are less willing.
Honestly, it's not the movies being "artless" or something (the blockbuster superhero movies definitely have a ton of it) The real problem is the horrible bureaucracy, elitism and corruption in the industry. Artists get paid jackshit and writing is second to cool set pieces. "There are to movie stars". You might've heard that before. Actors nowadays are just actors: Crazy, out of touch people who deceive you. Movies themselves didn't die, but cinema (as in the people and the process) did die. Cinema simply got too profitable. The big companies jumped in, abusing and manipulating the status quo to be what it is now: Entertainment, "dumb fun". Cinema became a mass product and now it's very difficult to NOT make a mass product. "Art" is too subjective for the majority so it's easier for them to digest something "simple"
While I think this video essay makes a lot of good points (even though they're points that have been made a number of times already), and it's always fun listening to this creator, I wish such essays (video or otherwise) made a clearer difference between cinema (the artform as a whole) and US cinema. It's not that we haven't seen some of the same things happening in Europe, but this notion of "The end is nigh", even if it's relativised (and rightly so), still seems quite culturally myopic. The video touches on the fact that a big part of the problem is distribution, but it still tends to revert to a very US-centric view. And the notion of the Academy Awards ever rewarding high art is one that I'd definitely contest. As long as I've watched them, they've rarely rewarded the most exciting films with any consistency.
What if there was NEVER a time where all of the movies were arthouse masterpieces, only a few truly good movies came out per year and the vast majority was "artless junk" Well that has always been the case, and it still is today
@@Astolfo2001 I don't think so. Plenty of terrible movies were getting made in 90s and early 2000s. Let's not forget how Hollywood was dumping romcoms every now and then to the point they destroyed the genre. It's the streaming services keeping those genres alive which were destroyed by traditional studio system. Let's not put the cinema to such a high pedestal. It's ever changing and older cinema wasn't so free but heavily bottlenecked. It kind of sucks the young adult or teen fantasy genre has kind of died out. Most enduring one was clearly Harry Potter.
As a movie lover, I feel like audiences' expectations of the viewing experience have changed drastically in the past 10 years. Nowadays, most people go to the cinema for pure excitement and entertainment. For them, it is like going to a theme park. In the past, audiences still expected to see movies with artistic merits; back in the time, going to the cinema could feel like going to an art gallery. Independent movies, such as Lost in Translation, Black Swan, and Good Will Hunting that were box office success and were being nominated for Oscars, are not likely to achieve box office success if being made in the current days.
I think it is he opposite. What is remaining are only people that want excitement. Those that wanted good art entertainment do not go to the cinema anymore. When the norm has been set with steroid freak men in plastic suits that becomes the expectation of the audience. People just do not want to go anymore.
That makes sense though, right? The more expensive things get, the less willing the public will be to spend on movies they dont know for certain will provide a fun and enjoyable experience. Especially if it's a family outing. Why on earth would anyone want to spend 20-50 dollars to sit in a dark room with a bunch of (likely) noisey strangers to see a movie that they could easily buy on dvd/blu-ray in a few months and watch over and over again for free in the comfort of their own home? You'd only pay to go to the theaters if you know it'll be worth your penny. Movies have to make use of their big screens, hq sound systems, and large crowds in order to grab attention.
@Edwin There's room for it all. That's the wonderful thing about movies, people can find different things to enjoy about a wide variety of movies..it's not just about being thoughtful..it's about having a heart, and appreciating the genre you're operating in; respecting both your audience and the material. If you're going to make Porky's , for instance, don't be embarassed. Make the best damn version of Porky's you can make, even if it's just raunchy dumb fun. The idea of "pure' and "thoughtful" are just terms for people to gatekeep what people should and shouldn't be enjoying...and have , for decades, led to great, wonderful art , music, and film..to be ignored, and derided. It's nonsense. There's a great deal of beauty, and wonder to be had out there, and it'd be a shame to just sit and wait for the next Citizen Kane while missing out the gems that get ignored because of it.
Im so glad that the Oscars in 2023 were honestly pretty solid. No huge spectacle, no undeserved wins (outside of like one or two), and respect for animation. Let’s hope this is starts a positive trend.
Oh my God, remember those Entertainment Weekly Oscar guides? I used to study those like a textbook. 95-2007 were my peak Oscar obsession years. Now, the Oscars will pass by and some years I didn’t know they were on.
Lets not kid ourselves into thinking the Oscars were anything more than actors throwing an expensive party to celebrate themselves and act like they are the only thing in the industry that matters
Successful maybe but pretty sure the original was highly criticzed and gain a lot of controversy from the deaf community, many considred to be offensive because they got the sign language wrong. The producers of the original movie was the one who actually approached the Americans to do a remake and reminded to not repeat the same mistake that the original head which is fine. It's the type of remake I want, take a bad movie with a great concept and executed it better in the remake and they did.
@@800Ms-k6n Your opinion doesn't invalidate my original statement, nor does it bring any relevant information to the discussion at hand, so I'm just confused as to why you felt the need to interject in the first place.
@@teraphIl1000 well CODA is now a lot more successful than the original. People know the that movie more than the original. The original movie was also to be considered a small film anyways
Banger essay. This synthesizes things I learned during my film degree in an impressively short period of time. The film industry certainly is in an interesting time of confusion and I too am hopeful that the pendulum will swing toward less formulaic approaches.
I always treated the Oscars like an all-star game in sports: the players I expected to make the team didn't, but I appreciated the spectacle. And, occasionally, the person who deserved to make it actually did.
ah i remember the death of cinema, imagine, a single genre dominating and making all the money, everyone wanted to make one, and it was basically one genre all the time, and i couldnt stop asking, is that it? is this what cinema is? epics, or wait, sorry, i meant the bible movies, no, sorry, i think i really meant the monster movies... or was it the western? no no, im pretty sure it was the slasher films... then again there was no king as big as the rom coms... ah, sorry, i got it now, its the super hero movies, yeah, they are the ones that will kill cinema...
Except only a few movies in those genres truly "dominated", no bible or romance movie is making consistent billion dollars. Now go look at the list of top film sales, and see how dominated by superhero movies it actually is
You're missing the elephant in the room: Social media. Who needs "thought-provoking" films when we're being bombarded by the world's issues every hour of every day? We don't need to leave the comfort of our home to hear about war, or discrimination, or economic devastation, or child exploitation. What we do need is a reason to shut everything out and enjoy ourselves for a few hours at a time, and that's why people will crawl over each other to watch a few Spidermen working together.
There's enough shallow escape on social media for a thousand lifetimes. And news is not art, FFS. Not all artistic, creative films are dreary and depressing. What a strange assumption to make.
Yup. This is something that I wish got addressed more. The media landscape has changed drastically in the past 10 years…to the point where we can’t escape being rapidly flooded with new images, short-form videos, memes, etc. on a scale never seen before, which is making us increasingly jaded to the impact that the tools and building blocks of cinema used to have. I’m not saying good movies can’t be made anymore, but the experience of film watching itself has become IMO more cheapened, less special/magical, since we’re already being oversaturated with a whole range of content on social media, streaming services, the Internet, etc.
I've never actually understood the distinction between art and entertainment until now, and it's put a lot of things into perspective now. Thanks for the amazing video!
Ive been seeing the effects of this, there’s an independent theatre in my town that shows artsy films and occasionally shows big blockbusters, but they don’t have the money to show them as soon as they come out, so everyone goes to the big cinemas in the nearby cities and the theatre has been really struggling to make any money
From my own personal analysis "spectacle" movies have always been more successful than "artful" movies from the past 80 years, every so often you get a movie that's both but that's more exception than rule. What I am getting at is that there will always be either movie route, the issue that people aren't looking for the more artful movies/ original screenplays they are present and many have already been released this year alone. Those that claim death of cinema are not really looking outside of what is pushed through mainstream marketing. Most indie movies do not get The Batman level marketing and because of that most aren't aware that movies like Everything everywhere all at once exist. Maybe it is an over-simplification but I can think the biggest issue "artful"/ indie movies face is that they lack strong marketing.
Honestly with the world kind of falling apart right now, people aren't in the right mind space to think when they're watching a movie. We're all addicted to the numbness of comfort movies and tv.
This is an incredible video idea. I know Batman is a part of the DC franchise, but I had a similar thought and feeling after watching Batman. Whilst I came out of the cinema absolutely enamoured with all the artistic choices in the film, the references to old detective style movies in the plot and the acting, my boyfriend’s friends all came out and said it was ‘boring’. At that point it was clear that whilst Batman still had its action packed moments, a lot of viewers are used to constant ‘moments’ and sensory shock, and in that sense Batman was a bit of a different ‘superhero’ movie. I love the dark vibe the joker film and Batman had without the borderline OTT level of action, but it didn’t surprise me that the excitement wasn’t there for some people. However, I don’t necessarily disagree with their taste on a broad scale - they way they felt about Batman is similar, for example, to how I feel about Victorian literature: I can appreciate their merits, but I simply don’t enjoy consuming them - not enough happens
When you talked about alien and how it made people feel something, made me feel hopeful when I watched good time and uncut gems. Those movies filled me with so much anxiety and dread, but we’re SOOOO artisticly satisfying
A 26 minute video about the 2022 Oscars and no mention of the slap?! So refreshing, somebody needs to inform every media organization on the planet that there was indeed an entire award ceremony and dozens of films to talk about in between the bouts of narcissism that they all seem to be hyper-focused on.
It's worth noting that while a lot of Scorsese's criticisms were on the right track, it's hard not to notice his emphasis on "the unifying vision of an individual artist", which smacks of the older dictatorial auteur driven cinema, rather than an acknowledgement of its collaborative nature (which of course was always the case despite what some insist). It makes it seem less like an issue with the house of mouse slowly devouring the entirety of creative industries and ips, and more about who is in control. I have more issues with the sorts of films made today than I do love, but I would like to see the definition of art that includes what is reserved for being called "cinema" but excludes them. Seems like the classic case of "thing i don't like isn't art".
@@bighands69 The sad thing is, all the MCU clones keep forgetting that you need to focus on making good movies that link up and not just focus on the link up. The Conjuring movies did it right.
Thank you for the video, and the reference to the fact that Disney sucks in 60% of the box office. When I tell people that, they think I’m lying. It’s disgusting. We need to bring back antitrust laws.
this is very funny to me, because while I agree with most of what you said, this last month has probably been the most I've gone to the theatre in quite a long time. The Northman, The Batman(while it is a franchise/remake/blockbuster, I felt it was tasteful and put in caring hands), Everything Everywhere, and I've personally seen a spike in Bollywood films airing in my area (midwest america). Idk, i think that rebirth is coming sooner than later or at least I hope so.
Even though The Batman, The Northman, and EEAAO were successful, they feel closer to art while still being spectacle than the even more formulaic stuff that this video addresses. Also, those are probably not Bollywood movies at your theaters. A number of South Indian movies especially in the Telugu language (Tollywood), have been more commercially successful movies than Bollywood (Hindi language cinema) recently. This is probably because of a movie desert across India for a number of years. And most of those movies are big budget blockbusters that were delayed and now have all come out at once. Totally rejuvenated Telugu movies' box office inside and outside of India. Unfortunately, the box office has been in a desert now that all the big spectacles are out of the way, and there's a long wait ahead for the next blockbusters. The more artistic, medium budget films _in theaters_ going out of style has been disappointing. Indian movie theater audiences up till the pandemic kept the theaters running, but after the pandemic driving people to settle for streaming for everything except big budget stuff has caused a lot of India to head the same direction as Hollywood.
@@wasabiithink9601 well yeah but that’s cause focus features and universal completely and utterly fucked up the marketing, and sold it in the absolute worst way possible. “Teeheehee quirky TikTok about director showing actors in the movie” (we watch these actors commit literal crimes against humanity in the movie)
7:00 well you have people like Orson Welles, Hitchcock, John Ford, Howard Hawks, Elia Kazan, Billy Wilder, Nicholas Ray, Otto Preminger, John Huston making some of the best films ever in the height of the studio era. As good (or even better) than the films of "new hollywood".
fells like all big film studios are operating on this principle: “We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to tell new stories. We do, however, have an obligation to make this company money.” - Mike Eisner
companies used to exist to provide a good or service and now they only exist to generate a profit
Correct me if i'm wrong but I thought the full quote was “We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make a statement. But to make money, it is often important to make history, to make art, or to make some significant statement. We must always make entertaining movies, and, if we make entertaining movies, at times, we will reliably make history, art, a statement or all three."
@@redpikachu84 you’re probably right! i’ve only heard the version i commented but considering Mike Eisner’s philosophies on the disney company the longer version makes sense
He got voted out, you know that right?
People need to put dinner on the table, and I don't mean the overpaid leads of the films, I mean the poor fellas who drive cars in a Michael Bay movie for 25 bucks a day.
CEO of Disney is overpaid for sure. But that's because it's a business, and like any one of those in America, CEO is overpaid AF and for some reason, people are okay with that.
But what about everyone else? Scales are finally tipping in a way where the movie star isn't what makes or breaks the movie, and neither is the director arguably.
They're a collective effort, which doesn't work without writers, makeup artists, costume designers, sound editors, composers, etc.
I think that's what they're breaking out about, that the beautiful faces and the pretentious artsy snobs are no longer considered as valuable as they once were.
That films in the animated or comic book genre are beloved by the public and are praised for "thoughtfulness, coherence which is near impossible to achieve, and "the feels" they give".
And yeah, people want to watch a UA-camr put makeup on her face for 20 minutes because she looks more beautiful than any movie star (And is actually being transparent about how much crap she's putting on, and how much work she has done to achieve her look) than they are about watching the most boring false image of perfection these stars' PR team is having them portray to the public.
They can cry me a river, they're trying to get art to imitate life while there are people out there sharing everything they've ever experienced online. And I mean both real and fake. Hollywood? Will always be fake. The moment a PR team steps in it, they'll fuck it up yet again because it stops being relatable.
You know who MARVEL fans like the most? Kevin Feige. Not Tom Holland, not Chris Evans, not Academy Award winner Brie Larson. They like a middle-aged bald man because "he's just so darn charismatic". If this doesn't tell these people in Hollywood that something is up with what they think "sells", then they're deliberately ignoring reality.
And theyre not even doing that well 😩
This year's Oscars was very weird. It felt like it was made by people who not only hated movies, but hated the people who liked watching those movies.
The comment about how animations are something kids watch and adults have to endure was a slap to the face to the thousands of people who worked on those films.
Right, Juan.
As well as that, my most cherished memory of recent cinema I can think of, was taking my daughter who was 8 to watch Coco. As I am a guitar player as a living, I think, but it was a very bonding experience for us.
Hardly something, I as an adult, had to 'endure'.
With my eldest, I remember 'finding nemo' was similar, her asking me about death afterwards, the gears having gone round after the mummy fish scene. Trite it may sound, but there has been some meaningful stuff around watching movies with my kids.
The Oscars are suppose to be the crème de la crème of Cinema. It is not suppose to be a tv awards show.
What the Oscars demonstrate is the state of the current culture which has no confidence and is dominated by those with an agenda.
The only movies at the Oscars in 2022 that should have been there was Dune and Nightmare Alley with the rest not being fit to be there.
It is a sad state of Cinema that Dune and Nightmare Alley were the only proper Hollywood films that were at the oscars.
Why there is so many foreign films at the Oscars is beyond belief as they have their own category and should be staying in that.
@@bighands69 ok this is a bad take
@@bighands69 horribly myopic and elitist take, mate.
Two words can sum up modern cinema…Nostalgia and Franchises.
Intellectual Property laws as well, since they’re the third one in the top three words that summarise modern cinema.
Aka "corporate products"
That's 3 words. 😆
I’m very refreshed that you touched upon the 2022 Oscars without even bringing up the Will Smith slap
That's the only thing that I know about this year Oscar. Heck, if there are no slapping I wouldn't know Oscar was held that day
The what?
Agreed. it was probably not previewed by a test audience.
And then you did
for real, everybody cares about two men being dramatic and angry with each other (justified or not) and nobody cares about those who did good
The sheer amount disrespect they got for animation is unreal. Animators and Editors spent their heart and soul to make a great film and yet the Oscars had the audacity to disrespect them back. WHAT A JOKE
Almost every awards show is utter trash. Online polls are way better.
Yep especially animes they don't get nominated very offen
@@swethas4708 the year boss baby won over a silent voice i lost alll hope
@@IonizedComa that is when I started to boycott the Oscars
@@swethas4708 Anime's wouldn't be nominated even if the Oscars were honest
cinema isn’t just entertainment, it’s art too and this gets forgotten wayyyy too much
This is goddamn true
I know I'm an optimist but I really do not think that cinema *can* die. What it can do is change until it is barely recognizable, but at the end of the day it is art, which is a reflection of society, and will always be there one way or the other. Maybe we'll need the privilege of hindsight to recognize it good cinema of today, but I think art is so fundamental to the human experience that it just can't be taken away.
Agreed. Movies as art will never go away (or 'die') because we're humans, and humans can't _help_ but make art. No monopolist studio system churning out superhero movies (many of which I quite like, actually) is capable of killing the innate human drive to make art through moving pictures. Every year I see movies doing things no one's ever done before, powerful movies that affect everyone who sees them. Maybe they're sometimes low-budget, maybe sometimes the characters aren't speaking English, but why does that matter?
In short, while the _American studio system_ might be slowly but inexorably eating itself alive, it's at best short-sighted and at worst Amerocentric to conclude from that that cinema is somehow 'dead', or will ever _be_ 'dead'.
I feel the same, i think that people who say that cinema is dead are exaggerating.
At this point you're being semantic don't ya think? She clearly means the death of artistic expression for safe meaningless industrial fan-service movies in major movie studios
@@christpierre But artistic expression isn’t dying either. What makes anyone think this? There are tons of great movies and shows released every year.
It’s an unfortunate reality that you may have to sift through a lot of trash to find the good stuff, but there is still good stuff to be found. It may not be as mainstream or get a massive theatrical release, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. Maybe it’s on a streaming service. That’s fine.
The best thing to do is keep tabs on individual filmmakers that you like. Ones that you know are artists. For me it’s Denis Villeneuve, Martin Scorsese, Ari Aster, Robert Eggers, PTA, Guillermo del Toro, Damien Chazelle, Jeremy Saulnier, Gareth Evans, Greta Gerwig, Chloe Zhao, Alejandro Inarritu, etc. I can name many more. A24 is a studio that consistently releases top tier films with actual substance. I’m looking forward to Alex Garland’s new film “Men” in a few weeks. Scorsese also has a new film coming out later this year.
@@deathbyslipknot I completely agree with what you're saying
You missed the "in major movie studios" part
Also that's a great list, would add Wes Anderson and Tarantino too
“If you wanna get an Oscar, make a WW2 movie.”
“If you wanna make money, make a superhero movie”
- Taika Waititi,
(who has done both)
which was the ww2 film?
o wait, jojo rabbit's technically a war film, isn't it?
@@zephyr6927 funny how 1 minute later you got it. hahahaha.
He also did a short film once that won an Oscar. It made him big enough a deal to find him funding for his first feature-length film Boy.
Edit: My bad. I'm talking out of my ass. It was just a nomination and it wasnt for his war short.
To be fair Jojo rabbit was amazing and Thor Ragnarok is one of the best MCU movies 😂 he's allowed to do that
I think the pandemic and its effect on the rise of streaming services have a role as well; arty, higher-brow, “prestige” content is more likely to be a limited series or other form of tv show than a movie. Only big blockbusters that can guarantee huge returns in theaters, usually franchise films, are seen as worth it anymore
Absolutely agree. I just finished watching Better Call Saul, and while technically part of the Breaking Bad franchise, it does feel like art. It did inspire me, rather than simply entertain me. Maybe episodic content is the new cinema, at least where art is concerned?
That's the point the author is missing. Excellent filmmaking has not gone away, it's just logically shifted away from the big studio blockbuster arena's requirements and limitations, toward the (relative) freedom of indie productions and streaming services. More artists have a platform than ever before, able to adapt their work into more formats than ever before, and more people are able to appreciate their content than ever before. Terrible, right? :P
@@barbariandudenot the case, episodic media was designed and is most conducive to long form, meandering, episodic storytelling. think soap operas, sitcoms, police procedurals, mysteries, stuff like that where they don’t really relate. the idea of a tv show is to continue in perpetuity. maybe they’ll give more opportunity for people who have a set story in mind, but streaming services, notably disney+, are already getting greedy with their “series” which are basically just 6 hours of filler in what could easily be a 90 minute-2 hour film, because a core part of their business model is having as many hours of content as possible to potentially retain subscribers long enough for something new and “relevant” to be released. really i just dont think these things have the longevity people think they do. even succession wasnt on the air that long and felt like it just went in circles for ages until pattering out into nothing.
@@barbariandudeI think it’s a mistake to assume that a franchise can never be art. But BB/BCS was able to be art largely because of the control and vision of Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould. They had a story to tell and they told it. Similar to Star Wars in that way
@@autumnaticThe biggest problem with the film industry right now is that it is functioning like the wealth gap. The line between mainstream cinema and “Indy films” is just getting wider and wider, and communication of these smaller films is harder than ever. With that said, the creatives are there and always have been, it’s just the structuring that’s all wrong. Another sad fact, it’s harder to get great cinema in a great THEATER anymore.
Seeing The Northman's box office numbers really depresses me. I hear so many people say, "we want orignal movies" but they never go and support original movies. Not going to lie, it kind of pisses me off.
It's not surprising. A violent, Viking version of Hamlet (yes, I know the Viking tale came first, but still) with historical accuracy isn't going to appeal to a lot of people. Movies based on the ancient world or the middle ages haven't been popular for several decades. The people that movie appeals to ARE going to see it....t's just not a lot. Another problem is the budget. $70-$90 million? Good luck making that back. I would've told them to bring it in for half that.
@PretentiousCameron
Once theatre audiences have been alienated they are really difficult to get back. It will take a good decade of effort to get people back again.
Once people's expectations are men running around in plastic suits with steroid busting muscles and women that sound like men it is really difficult to get people back again.
@@caomhan84 I watched the movie and it’s pretty good. But the concept is very similar to the 80s Conan the Barbarian movie. A fantasy where a man tries to get revenge on the person who killed his father and ruined his life as a kid by becoming a buff savage-like warrior.
It’s not the same story but it has kinda same kind of concept.
@@petermj1098 Yes, it's Hamlet. Well actually it's Amleth, which Hamlet is based off of. But plenty of stories have riffed off of this concept. But like I said, a Viking Hamlet story isn't going to set the world on fire. The people who like the director and who like ancient or medieval films will go see it. The broader public will probably ignore it.
@kshamwhizzle did you go see it
I think another odious aspect of the Oscars is how increasingly blatant the Disney shilling is, obviously because they own the network the Oscars are shown on. It's gross and I'm not sure if it's always been that way or I'm just noticing it more, but they'll take every chance to advertise themselves.
Perhaps but I'd argue the Oscars is so out of touch with what the general public likes which is why generally no one cares about them anymore.
@@blurryperson2685
It is not just oscars that are so out of touch the whole of pop culture including tv, music, movies and even video games are moving in that direction.
Battlefield the video game released a game a few years back I think was about WW1 and the main protagonist was a blue haired girl running around with cybernetic limbs. I think it really pissed off those that bought the series. It caused the series to go into decline in a big way.
Yes, it's not just about money either. It's about politics. If this video is arguing that movies were once too conservative I would argue that now they are too liberal and neither extreme is good.
@@blurryperson2685 um, the general public has pretty shit taste? Like, do you want Marvel to get an Oscar, now? They are extremely popular, aren't they?
@@bighands69 first all, that’s not true. The Battlefield game that was set in WW1 followed a bunch of pro tags but none of them were what you described. Second of all, The lady you did described was in an E3 Showcase for BF5 to show the extent of character customization and didn’t even end up in the final release. Battlefield has a bunch of problems, but this isn’t one of them
I am so tired of movies in the cinema recently. I think the last month of Oppenheimer, Barbie and spider verse felt like a slight breath of fresh air in just the passion behind the projects but there is part of it which felt so desperately corporate. I’m honestly so scared for the future for artists to be able to make things that get not seen if they are slightly away from marvel sensibilities.
everytime i think of movie making, i think about how barry jenkins made moonlight on less than 2 million and won best movie and got another nomination but still found it hard to finance movies afterwards and now is making a movie with disney... its really grim
And The Underground Railroad. :)
I think after a while you have to just join the system. Like black filmmakers aren’t gonna get the support they deserve so they’ll just go to big studios and direct whatever.
I am going to say it and nobody is going to like this Moonlight was not suitable for an Oscar. It was not a Hollywood movie and was something that would be seen in an art house theatre and then people would buy on video.
Cinema should be reserved for special films and not low budget statement films.
i think you need to face reality, frankly-every filmmakers dream is to be able to make a movie with disney or other big studios, because the more money you have to make a film, the more possibilities you have. it’s just the reality-it can really benefit you as a filmmaker.
@@bighands69 the Oscars are supposed to celebrate the best cinematic achievements of the year. If that includes indie movies with a certain agenda then so be it. If the movie impressed enough people, especially nowadays the right people, it deserves to be celebrated.
If you take out movies like moonlight your nominations would look far emptier and far more homogenic and who really wants to see that?
White racist snobs, maybe. And your comments under this video sure paint you as one of those
It really bothers me how much horror/sci fi/etc get looked over in the Oscars.
legit, if Dune doesn't at least get nominated for the next Oscars I'll be kinda upset. Or would it have had to be nominated at the last Oscars? Oh well..
@@thatsdisco Dune won a lot of Oscars! All of them in the technical categories and not broadcasted.
Remember when The Shining and Alien were considered cinematic achievements?
Animation too.
Most of it was pulp trash.
Growing up, my mom and I used to bring all the blankets into the living room and sit on the couch to watch the golden globes/Oscars. It was a tribute to film. A celebration. Before you could find any film score or any film clip in ten seconds on UA-cam or Spotify, the Oscars was a way to hear short snippets of beautiful music or see amazing acting/cinematography, especially for people like us who couldn’t afford to see more than a couple movies a year. I was disgusted when I heard they weren’t televising most of the technical awards. Those are the only ones that even mean anything anymore as they can only reward skill/artistry. But they added a “clap worthy moment” award. What the fuck?
A24 is the way to go
PAUSE - I didn’t watch the oscars this year and haven’t for a while but you’re telling me they announced the winner for best score DURING COMMERCIALS?!? that used to be my favorite part of the oscars, I loved being able to celebrate the artistic skills of composers and their beautiful pieces 🥺 that makes me so sad…
They presented several awards pre-broadcast, then edited shortened versions of the speeches into the broadcast. They used editing to not present the award for editing live. The irony.
Most tv movies today and even pop "Music" is not real music and is nothing more than a set of samples and simple patterns with no arrangements in the context of music.
I am going to say this and you may not like it but Rap is not music it is talking over samples and flashy patterns.
Best part is it was to “save time” but this year’s Oscars was one of the longest Oscars in years.
@bighand: Why are all of your takes in this comment section so hilariously ignorant and stupid? It's almost impressive.
Saddest part is, Hans Zimmer is so over it (good for him though) that he didn't even show up. Don't think he even recorded a video or anything. On the other hand, my dad (who's the biggest film music fan ever, and also a big fan of Zimmer himself) said that Dune shouldn't even have won and that past works of Zimmer were much more deserving.
calling sound of metal boring is honestly a crime
Yes
Oh my god I know! That movie is amazing
Knew Rogan was stupid but had no idea it was to that degree
Who were the two speaking? That's a crime.
that movie made me bawl my eyes out and sit in silence for like 30 min with my bf to process it because we were THAT touched by it
I've been observing my brother watching movies lately. He only ever watched modern big blockbuster movies and loves the MCU. Then all of a sudden, he started to have a sharp interest in older classics.
I recommended the obvious ones to him like Alien, Terminator and Pulp Fiction.
A couple months later, he now owns two Rambo shirts, a Predator action figure, a poster of Scarface and he won't shut up about how the Godfather and 2001 space odyssey were eye opening experiences for him.
He never felt that ecstatic over any movie that came out in the last ten years or so. He never bothered to buy merch until this point.
He still enjoys every new Marvel release, but his perspective definitely changed.
Don't know if this little observation of mine contributes to anything that is being discussed here. To me, it's just so interesting to see how these older movies hold up to this day and can be admired for their inventive film making, even by someone who some elitists would call a "marvel zombie".
Exactly. Sometimes, people just aren't exposed to other movies. It is not their fault, really.
I was like your brother once, only used to watch mcu movies and thought other movies were shit. Then I watched a tarantino movie and it completely changed my perception about cinema.
Older classics... "Alien, Terminator and Pulp Fiction" - I may need to have a lie-down.
Your brother is still into blockbusters babe just older ones. Except for pulp fiction which is a high-mid budget at best.
@@eoa363 same man, that comment made me howl
I just want to point out that Coda is actually a remake of the French movie La Famille Bélier (which I'm pretty sure wasn't a indie movie). It's exactly the same story just... in the US.
Womp womp
Hollywood does this all the time. I don't understand why they can't embrace foreign cinema instead of just remaking it (and usually worse). A movie from my country won the Oscar for best foreign film some years ago and Hollywood remade it into a pedestrian, generic thriller and took away everything that made the movie great, because they can't bother with subtitles or sociocultural references of other countries.
And the French movie La Famille Belier is actually a sort of remake from a german movie released in the 1996 called Beyond Silence
And the three versions are the same sentimental crap!
Khamoshi the musical by sanjay leela bhansali
The animation industry is facing a lot of similar problems rn. As more resources go to fewer projects, it's extremely difficult to find a constant flow of work - and that's not even touching the desire all artists have to work on something artistic and meaningful, not just some cheap movie that parents will take their children to see out of obligation and quickly forget in a year. On top of that, people aren't staying long-term at studios like they did in past decades.
Yes, the gig economy has come for the animators too! It's rare to work at a major to studio for longer than a year or two, and many artists are forced to hop from project to project every six months doing freelance. That's not a recipe for a stable career, let alone a retirement.
The hustle culture mentality also pushes artists past their limits on a regular basis. If you aren't working more than forty hours a week and trying to improve your skills in all your downtime, it's commonplace to get left behind by the industry because everything fluctuates from month to month. During crunch time on a major blockbuster animated movie, animators will work 80 hours a week to finish their scene. I can't begin to describe how toxic that is to a person's mental and physical health.
Recently, storyboard artists started protesting a #NewDeal4Animation because they found out live action storyboarders make 2x what an animation storyboarder makes on average. It's a frightening time to be in animation college (like me, rip). I hope that all industry professionals in both film and animation can work together to unionize more and bargain for shorter hours and more pay. But things are looking grim.
Netflix just shut down its animation department, which was hailed as a shiny new opportunity for artists just a few years ago. Turns out, it's cheaper to outsource animation to other third party studios both inside and outside the US. :/ Be sure to support your favorite artists and try to dig deeper for the good stuff! Quality animation is being made everyday; people just have to drop the notion of it being a "children's genre" and look for it!
Wow, it's insane that live action storyboarding is paid so much more than animation storyboarding when in animation it's WAAAAY more important, you're basically locking in cinematography and editing, there won't be coverage or editing afterwards...
I was thinking of joining animation college myself, but now I'm sacred to join. I think i can learn animation and Vfx by myself without joining collage and studying something else that will keep me financially stable and help me in my artistic ventures.
@@RyanSmith-qr7jg I can't speak for you situation, but I'm currently studying animation and vfx and in my country it's a very stable and well paid job, however that's because the living standard in Serbia is really low, and vfx and game companies work on expensive world scale projects Hollywood movies, triple A games etc. So it's both cheap for the companies and really well paid compared to other jobs here, come to think of it, I guess that's the very reason it's unstable in say the United States.
@@RyanSmith-qr7jg maybe try video-game.
The industry is waay bigger and I suggested being an independent as opposed to jump straight into the big dogs.
Games are also an art form with the advantage of being more interactive
Sucks that animation is still stigmatised when it's one of the very best artforms out there, second only to music.
I think it's worth noting that _"Coda"_ is, actually, another *remake* . From a french movie, _"La famille Bélier"_ (2014).
That bit about how Netflix is trying to algorithmically predict what viewers will and won't like reminds me of this funny bit about how early on in the algorithm's development, Napoleon Dynamite just absolutely stumped it. Could not figure it out at ALL. Maybe it's kinda weird to say, but I can't think of a movie that better exemplifies what is at stake when people bemoan the state of the current cinematic landscape: Art that defies easy categorization, interested only in constantly surprising you.
I also just wish we had more llama and tetherball representation in movies
love your videos btw!!!
Admittedly a much more crass/distasteful couple of examples, but I would nominate Freddy Got Fingered and Pink Flamingos also. They have had a little more benefit of time, though.
Not only could they not figure it out, they put out a reward for anyone who could write an algorithm that fixed it.
So stupid. I don't useally want to watch something just like what I've already watched.
They do, however give Fincher carte blanche to do as he pleases. Studios don't do that.
The success of Everything Everywhere All at Once at the box office is heartwarming; it’s an original movie, not a franchise, and it’s not Disney or Marvel
I personally felt the opposite. I found the movie hardly original at all, and then I understood that its probably so successful because it's the same predictable, comfortable entertainment but with some superficial differences (namely the main character being an older non-white woman) that make viewers feel good about themselves.
I know the filmmakers began developing it before other recent multiverse movies came out, but by now I'm bored by a multiverse movie where the whole universe or whatever needs to be saved. It may not be Disney or Marvel (though the russo bros who did last 2 avengers produced it) but i feel A24 was still counting on the popularity of certain Disney/Marvel properties. Sorry to be negative but the overwhelming hype around that confuses me. I might just be dumb.
@@jeremyberesford6377 agreed bro, that movie sucked ass
@@jeremyberesford6377 i think the movie had its own unique charm, and it doesnt need to be completely original to be a good watch.
And i have no idea why an "older non-white" woman makes audiences feel good about themselves?, even the way you phrased it shows me your way of thinking
Michele Yeoh has an amazing performance, along with other actors like Ke Huy Quan, and thats the only thing people should be talking about
@@jeremyberesford6377 " it's the same predictable, comfortable entertainment" I mean, sure there's the "multiverse" aspect of it, but frankly I don't think the writers/directer honestly cared that much about that sci-fi aspect of the film. It's very clearly to me an absurdist/existential film that is making fun of the comic book trope of multi-verse and action films to sneak in a much more challenging and depressing message. It's a story about the tensions of mother-daughter relationships and multi-generational immigrant traumas of assimilation in the US that also happens to have kung fu. Yes I did think the film was a pastiche of many other films (ones that I personally loved), but I don't consider them predictable/comfortable: "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", "Being John Malkovich", "Stranger Than Fiction", "Amelie", "Waking Life", & "Millennium Actress". In terms of the actual narrative, it's hardly a superhero movie to me.
@@IonizedComa Yeah, I came away from the film feeling like it reminded me of so many other movies, but like, in the best way possible. I personally don't believe there's any cultural production that is "completely original" it's all about new perspectives on older themes, and under-represented ideas/themes/narratives getting brought to the fore. And the performances! I really think the casting on this film was impeccable! So many stars in unexpected portrayals. And the actors I wasn't familiar with, I felt really connected to them in this movie. Clearly I liked it a lot.
Edit: STOP REPLYING TO THIS PLEASE OH MY FCKING GOD
I feel like not enough people are talking about Everything Everywhere All At Once. It's an indie film by A24 that is super creative and not a remake of anything and honestly one of the best movies I've ever seen. Go watch it if you can to support stuff like this.
Edit: ok i'm tired of receiving negative comments about my favorite movie that I don't want to defend, so if you don't like it or think it's bad that's fine. Just because you didn't connect to it doesn't mean it can't be meaningful for me. And yes I agree it is not underrated and A24 is not a small business; I was incorrect.
This studio is saving the day.. I watched more than half of their movies and they are ABSOLUTLY GREAT .. I cant praise them enough because they are a work of art .. they have been made for those who lost interest in the mainstream studios
I wish it played in movie theatres more than literally one time
It's my girlfriend's new favorite movie
Just the best movie of the year in my humble opinion.
This little woke genius in the video won't tell you why most people are tired of modern hollywood.
I think about this with television all the time! Thankfully there are some pretty amazing shows out now, but there are so many regurgitations of "ripped from the headlines" series happening 6 months after the event itself. Or all the remakes that try to do what they were doing in the 80s/90s but sprinkling in diversity and politics. (Bel Air is an exception to this imo).
But yes, fantastic video so far! (I'm about half way through.)
hiiii khadija!!!
ty for the reminder that we all need to watch Bel Air 👀
better call saul!
oh my god they've done a live action dramatization of every single true crime event that has ever happened lol, it's getting so tired!!! and thank you khadija
Not enough children twerking for you?
Remember when Disney's creative philosophy was "we don't make movies to make money, we make money to make movies"?
Cause they sure don't.
not true..
Soul, Moana, Encanto
@@jordancole5671 three movies out of a bunch of shitty ones
@@jordancole5671 Now count all the dogshit they release. None of those hold a candle to their older animated movies
Another part of the "movie studios make safer movies during times of upheaval" idea is that audiences that are experiencing these emotionally taxing historical events are probably not as likely to watch an emotionally demanding movie compared to a safer bland movie that can let them escape into a nice fantasy for an hour or two
My problem with this is that escapist cinema can be original and good, it doesn't have to be Mediocre at Best Superhero Origin Story 47.
Don't know if anyone mentioned it here but it's worth noting that CODA, the film that won best picture this year is also a remake
WSS should have won
Remake of what?
@@joshuagregoire9504 la famille bélier - a french movie
I don’t think it’s fair to boil it down to remake…. The adapted screenplay builds on and changes the first movie in a very effective and empowering way
@@hatimb00
Coda is not a new type of film there as been countless movies over the years based on the concept.
I’m generally the kind of person who prefers fantasy and sci-fi and genre films to grounded drama. But I find it really telling that those two guys at the beginning’s idea of a hiring film were both about deaf people.
People really seem to see social disability (key word being social, as I know many capital-D Deaf people don’t consider themselves disabled) as unworthy of their time.
They don’t want to see us. We’re seen as Oscar-bait characters rather than real people.
Did you watch the film? These two men have no idea.
The Sound of Metal is an beyond amazing and deserves way more praise than it got. All the deaf characters in CODA and all but the main character in the other were deaf irl. Both explored the idea that it was not a disability in a very nuanced way and embraced it. I don't know what those guys were on about, but I don't think either of these movies were using a "disability" as Oscar bait personally.
@@freegadflyathome I wasn’t saying the movie was Oscar-bait, I was inferring that that’s how the two guys seem to feel about Deaf and disabled characters.
I’m not defending the guy’s cringey comments but I don’t think that’s a fair inference. It doesn’t sound like they don’t want to see films with deaf people, starring deaf people - they don’t want to see films primarily ABOUT being deaf, and, like, the realistic experiences of deafness, of struggling with disability… which I guess I understand, if it’s their personal preference. But they seemed totally up for a genre film about superheroes of whatever, featuring a deaf lead.
@@thegeekclub8810 Oh ok, sorry for the misunderstanding 🙂
So glad you mentioned A24, Neon and Annapurna, their original-indie successes and also the perils they face. A very solid and nuanced analysis.
Jack Nicholson says he retired when he did because Hollywood was becoming too focused on special effects and cgi and not enough on people, dialog and character study.
Knowing hollyweird they were probably happy to push him out the door when you get a certain age your damaged goods sadly
Directors like Denis Villenueve, Christopher Nolan, Steven Spielberg, Guillermo Del Toro, Rian Johnson, Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert fortunately act as living breathing, contradictory examples that prove that there are bright spots in the category of cgi reliant films (be they heavily reliant or otherwise). Thank God 😅
@@mikeiott7450 Nolan avoids CGI at all costs and Denis Villenueve also tries to apply only visual effects rather than computer-generated, so I wouldn't include either of those in category of cgi
@@dalano_films I’m talking about Interstellar and Tenet mostly with Nolan, because he and Villenueve dabble in CGI from time to time, but the main focus for them is story and dialogue
Yeah, but i just want a pop corn movie. Im not interested in character study or "the human condition" i want a couple of hours of escapism. If i want reality ill turn on the news.
instantly ferociously upset by the podcast audio in the beginning how r these people real
independent films will always be where it's at, because that's where artists reside. we just need more A24s and NEONs to bring them into the mainstream. a couple indie oriented companies can't compete by themselves, we need more of them, to widen their reach. i see that being the only way to bring the film industry out of this slump. fantastic video!
@lrig snart "that prioritise creative risk over money" That answers that.
I hope international films become more popular. I mean, films like he who is without sin? It needs more recognition 😭
It’s ironic that Kael wrote her essay in the late 70s/turn of the 80s, which is widely considered to be like the golden age of American prestige cinema today. On the one hand, it’s a great reminder that the vast majority of films made in that time weren’t ‘The Deer Hunter’ or ‘Godfather II’, and there were in fact a ton of movies that nobody remembers now (lots of weird romcoms and clones of more famous films and bad exploitation movies and TONS of junk movies set in World War 2). On the other it’s a good reminder that movies like Star Wars and even JAWS were considered junk by a lot of serious film people at the time, and for several years after
The Deer Hunter was the cream of that period as was the Godfather and to get that sort of cream lots of milk needs to be produced.
We have not had anything like the The Deer Hunter in the last 15 years. When was the last Pulp Fiction, Usual Suspects, La Confidential, Unforgiven or even No Country for Old men.
The last Cohen Brothers film was it True Grit?
Tarantino is the only guy left making movies the rest are making stuff for TV. I am so disappointed with David Fincher and his move into tv movies.
Even the exploitation movies of the 70s have had a much larger impact in culture and art than most studio projects made in the 70s.
Yes, ''art'' movies are forgotten because their tropes are used over and over again, that is, not a hamburger, but it is still food.
Star Wars, Marvel, universal monster and some sword and sandal are remembered because it was movies of parents, children, grandchildren.
The 10 commandments is basically another Maciste (marvel of his time) but in the end art is forgotten and pop culture becomes ''art''.
In 80 years it will be ''The idiots who complained about marvel'' also that Maciste and Universa in the era of silent and black and white movies tried to make the MCU but with many mistakes, it is the reason why the many Universal movies are forgotten and only about 11 are remembered, but only 5 are a shared Universe.
@@bighands69 I mean we’ve gotten Drive, Bladerunner 2049, Grand Budapest Hotel, Nightcrawler, Wolf of Wall Street, Parasite, Ex Machina, and so much more in like the last 15 years. Quality films are still being made.
@@bighands69 P T Anderson, Steven Soderbergh, Kelly Reichardt, Paul Schrader, Richard Linklater, Sean Baker, Safdie Brothers, Guillermo del Toro, … there's still plenty of directors making ambitious interesting challenging films. The industry is in a bad state so some of them have to work with streaming platforms. It's disappointing that some don't get released in theaters but we still get the chance to view great films, and to rewatch them whenever we want in better quality than ever possible before.
In the Oscars they always nominate movies that were never released in my country, or if they were, no one noticed. I happen to live two blocks from a movie theater, in a low middle class district, and the only movies they show there are blockbusters. I remember having to go to another movie theater in a wealthy district, one of the oldests here, just to see Whiplash and The Grand Budapest Hotel (one screening only per day). And it's worst for local productions, having to compete with Marvel. Movie distribution is fucked up as well.
Geez even Whiplash and Grand Budapest Hotel?? I mean they are considered art movies but they're the more mainstream types. But yeah it's sad, Marvel basically engineered its blockbusters to outweigh any other type of movie in importance ...
It’s the same here in my country, but worse, because not one cinema in the whole country bothers to show any indie or non-mainstream movies. I’d have to wait until the movies become accessible to download.
And it’s sad because as someone who enjoys movies, I can’t talk to my friends about the movies I watch, and often get called wired or “trying to be different” for my taste in movies. Cause all everyone talks about is either Marvel, action blockbusters, or rom-come
the movie distribution is soo bad, especially recently!! while marvel screenings get about 20 screenings per day in a mainstream cinema, films like last night in soho, spencer and the french dispatch get 5. I had to go to early screenings as there were big time gaps. nowadays, I have to go to an independent cinema as they have more frequent screenings but not everyone has that access, which sucks.
Same in my country. I remember years ago they showed the trailer of The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the cinema and I got so excited because I hoped they were finally showing something I liked. When I called to book the seats they told me they had scraped the movie from the schedule lmao. Rip. I haven't seen a movie in cinema for almost 5 years now because there is literally no movie that appeals to me, literally 0. They barely even show the movies that are nominated for Oscars lol, it's all superhero stuff, animated, some other franchise or the latest action movie.
It's exactly the same in my country. To the point where I'm wondering if we are from the same place, if not, things are worse than I thought, because it means culture it's not accesible; if it's hard to find a Wes Anderson film, I can't imagine how much more difficult it is to try to watch a foreign lesser known one.
Something to add on Netflix and other streaming sties: one of the reasons they were able to do a good amount of their quantity instead of quality method is because of they originally had a "new media" guideline that allowed them to not pay the production crews as much as a typical Hollywood studio production. So, many of these shows that were coming out of Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. were inherently cheaper products to make.
Now that was one of the many reasons why the IATSE union (that covers production crews) threated to strike and used that as a bargaining chip in renegotiating their contracts, so it's possible that streaming sites will reconsider their quaintly over quality method (or at least not produce as much as before)
That is very interesting I never knew that. Good to know everyone is being paid better now.
The most recent Oscar’s just felt like people who had so much contempt for film
Yeah they're trying so hard to be "self-aware" but instead came off mean-spirited
@@athenajaxon2397 Trevor Noah speaking about the films that are usually nominated for Oscar’s made me so angry, they all want to be loved by the audience and are so cringe
@@athenajaxon2397 It's like Enchanted vs. Shrek. Both are self-aware and parodies of Disney's brand of fairy tales, but Enchanted is "we mock it because we love it," while Shrek is winking at the audience & pointing and laughing at Disney.
Ricky Gervais said it best at the Golden Globes:
“No one cares about movies anymore. No one goes to cinema, no one really watches network TV. Everyone is watching Netflix. This show should just be me coming out, going, “Well done Netflix. You win everything. Good night.” But no, we got to drag it out for three hours.”
This is not new and has been building over the last decade with the nominations being dominated by activist politics.
This year 2022 is the proud activist culmination of years of work and media presentation. And the sad part is a slap was the best thing about the whole process. They will probably take the ratings boost as being a sign of the political activist movies being popular.
As someone who has tried to keep up with the 90s and 2000s movie industry to figure out how to get big as a filmmaker (meaning: I could get enough money to get by just for creating), this truly enlightens me how such a "get rich or die trying" scheme was bad for my mental health, especially when art and film classes I took made me believe I was almost ill-suited to be a filmmaker in the first place (never mind that all they seek from you is to be able to learn and replicate techniques useful to the art, television, and film industry...)
My only hope is that my true film debut doesn't come from hunger, but from a true place in my heart and soul.
As someone who's currently going to college for feature film animation, I really feel this. I find myself flip-flopping between longing to create films that are meaningful and pressuring myself to make my skillset as marketable as possible. I sometimes wonder if it was a mistake to entwine my art with my future career and employment, but I truly don't know what else I could do - on some level, I wouldn't want to be doing anything else. But it is a struggle, financially and spiritually. I feel starved for good art and animation, but I don't want to starve either.
You start to realize the best place for filmmakers is on television because cinema isn’t like it was in the 90s and early 2000s
ahahaha this comment is so relatable as someone who is attending an art school as a film major. after interacting and going through stuff with the my peers i actually recently discovered that i despise the industry and the people within it, the whole culture of it, and i don’t want to be a filmmaker much anymore. i wanted to tell stories that meant a lot to me, something that could change at least one person’s life for the better-but what i discovered is that the film industry’s culture now is so unwelcoming towards those who want to do something that matters to you. you have to throw that away and make what you don’t want to, and as you said, replicate basically the mainstream film techniques and whatnot.
i recently decided it was wrong for me to go down the art path as a career and i’ve changed my major completely now. it was an eye opening experience actually, i realized so many truths about the film and art industries.
@@keeptaiwanfree that is heartbreaking to read. I'm so sorry. As an aspiring filmmaker, this is hard to think about. Good thing I have another backup plan of wanting to be a mental health counselor lol.
i was a filmmaker once, & a writer, & a musician, & a journalist, & you quickly find that the world isn't what you thought. you can touch people's lives in a multitude of ways, but you pretty much have to do it locally & find or form your own community. unless you have daddy's money or nepotism of some sort, the mainstream has no place for you. it doesn't have to be a dark depressing thing - you just have to shift expectations. the people that are lapping mainstream dross up aren't the type of people that would resonate with real vision anyhow.
Henri Langlois nailed it when he said "When you feed people crap they lose their tastebuds." Once the corporate profit machine started to get its claws in the movie industry in the late 70s, it's been a long slow process of gradual decline, and many didn't even notice until it was too late. Still some great movies were mixed in with the crap, but fewer and fewer films with any substance or resonance -- god forbid any art -- have made it through. Because today's studio execs only care about profit. Darryl Zanuck was not thinking "big profits" when he made The Grapes of Wrath. He wanted to capture something great on film for future generations. And also be entertaining. And if he broke even at the box office, all the better. He'd be laughed out of Hollywood with this attitude today.
one thing i think is worth mentioning is how this """death""" of cinema in the united states creates a wave that crosses borders in its crash. last year, around the time the last spider man movie came out, movie theaters here in brazil had pretty much filled up their entire schedules with screenings of it, even a movie like the remake of westside story could not compete with it (which is pretty ironic considering that it was made by spielberg), so it is not hard to imagine how that affects the screening of brazilian movies in our own theaters
I feel like the point about economic upheaval is greatly undervalued. It is not only about what the studios wants, getting butts in seats with something that isn't challenging to the viewer and that is almost guaranteed to be a success. It's also about what kinds of movies people want to watch. When people are already struggling in their day to day lives, the kind of escapism they are looking for isn't necessarily the kind that challenges them morally or makes them feel anything beyond adrenaline, and slightly sadness that eventually turns into joy when the main character wins at the end of the movie. I think it speaks more to general zeitgeist of emotions than it does to the further effect of capitalism and corporatism on the film industry.
Yes! Thank you for bringing this up. I feel like a lot of movie industry critiques don't talk about this.
So true. Like even think about pre 9/11 films like fight club, office space and the first Matrix movie. Products of a time when the economy was 'stable' and people were wondering if this American beauty facade was all there was to middle class society.
While this is a great point, I think audiences are more than willing to watch more complex movies if they are offered. When the movie Marriage Story was released I remember it made quite a buzz despite it being so raw and complex in its depiction of a failing marriage and this was in the middle of the pandemic so I doubt people were in high spirits (I know I wasn't).
Obviously people won't chose that kind of complex/thoghtful movie every chance they go to the cinema or log in netflix, but the fact that the option is barely there in the first place has far more to do with corporations not wanting to risk losing money than with people not wanting to watch those movies.
I often think about how the success of the MCU reflects a retreat into myth from a public faced with an all-too-confusing world where we are the baddies.
The American exceptionalism gets reinforced without them having to really address any issues about America's role in geopolitics.
I understand your point, but I personally cannot understand this impulse. When my life gets difficult or depressing, the absolute worst course of action I can think to do is to just give up and watch some mindless blockbuster totally devoid of humanity. It's almost like the equivalent of grabbing KFC and watching Jerry Springer. If your partner dumps you, do you make a strawberry daquiri and blast Kesha? Hell no! You pour a whiskey and throw on Elliot Smith. Isn't it more natural to reach for real stories about real people experiencing challenges and suffering like your own? It makes you feel less alone, right? Or does that make me a masochist?
My bf and I have recently taken to watching movies from the 80s and 90s, where most effects are practical, the stories weren't just repeats (for the most part) and people cared enough to put in effort.
I think there are a few director and execs within studies that truly want to make good movies, but when 90% is bs, it's hard to find
Very cathartic to watch. As a film student currently the current state of cinema is something that has deeply frustrated me, and I didn't know how to word it without coming off as snobby to even some of my fellow peers who don't seem to have as much of an issue with it.
I'm not a film student (yet), but I completely agree. I get really annoyed with what's popular right now, what's making all the money and getting all the attention.
@@johannascott1593 To me any and all moves by studios just feel so calculated and ultimately cynical. Then the responses from my circle of friends and families being absolutely hyped just makes me in turn more cynical
@@TheSneezefreak Let people enjoy things. How can you get mad at people for being hyped about a movie?
There's a fine line between being disappointed with cinema's current state and being an elitist ass. In my opinion as long as you're respectful and don't call people stupid for liking certain movies you're good in my book.
@@sophitiaofhyrule I try to be mindful of that line. There's plenty of pop culture I enjoy. I try to make clear my issue is with overall trends rather than any individual project. It's hard sometimes because the people that surround me aren't really the film analyst type so sometimes my opinions can be read as '"snobbish"
The film industry has “died” about three times over its lifetime, if we are talking pure commercialism movies for entertainment sake the golden age of cinema, the 1930s-mid 40’s over 7,500 films were made and VAST majority of them were stinkers. In the late 40s to mid 60s the studios took more care in what they were putting out namely due to less people going to the cinemas because of…television. We see then the New Wave take over, introducing a depth the films that was subtle before, the emotions more obvious or idiosyncratic to their parents ideals, this is also the wave that introduces the films which appeal to the literal and inner child, romanticizing/revitalizing epic stories on a grand scale (I.e. Spielberg/ Lucas creating Indiana Jones and revamp of 30s/40s adventure films like Sierra Madre), Gen X filmmakers see this and respond in kind with further gritty films that show the consequences of romanticism of adventure (I.e Tarantino with a visually bloody action film in Kill Bill still a homage to king fu and western movies/tv in the 60s). I will say film as the theatrical release will take awhile for the pendulum to swing back but instead now with streamers instead of film we are getting “prestige tv” high budget story adaptations with intricate plots and film level cinematography starring movie stars who a decade ago wouldn’t be caught dead on a tv show. With that I will say movies aren’t dead, they’re just tv right now but it will come back, audiences can only take so many drawn out stories with bad endings.
No it never died. It went into periods of decline and quality always brought it back out again. The issue now is that the cultural expectation is that movies are nothing more than thrill fests of steroids' and plastic suits.
Modern theaters now are dominated by young male audiences with very small numbers of women and older adults attending.
The irony is that the industry has focused its self on the segment of the market with the least amount of disposable income. And are then surprised that they are indecline.
Wonders will never cease.
@@bighands69 I'm begging you, please go outside and touch some grass
The last movie I saw that truly stayed with me was JoJo Rabbit. It's rare for a film these days to make me laugh, cry, and truly care about the characters as much as I did during that movie. The last truly creative household name movie studio (that I know of) to really innovate and change the movie experience was Pixar.
I disagree actually because I think that lately, Sony Animation is pretty on par with Pixar with the release of Into The Spiderverse and more recently, The Mitchells vs The Machines. Spiderverse singlehandedly shook the animation world and now we're seeing its aftereffects with studios starting to get bolder with animation styles and letting creative people tell their stories. Also hard agree on Jojo Rabbit, it's such an excellent film
@@disconsolate3235 I recently saw Everything Everywhere All At Once, and it was beyond my expectations. I can't find a single point to disagree with in your comment. It's nice to see some risk taking, studios having a little faith in the audience's appetite for unique and artistic ideas is nice.
@@maxcovfefe I did a few days ago as well! It was fantastic and as soon as I left the theatre I wanted to watch it again. Films like that revitalise my hope for cinema because if every so often we get an everything everywhere all at once or a jojo rabbit, It all feels worth it
Jojo rabbit? Seriously?
Pixar....hmmmm. After I catch up on all the great live action films I haven't seen (Tarkovsky, Rohmer, Goddard, Antonioni, etc.) I'm definitely going to sit down and start in on the cartoons and puppet shows.
Something I don’t hear a lot of people say when it comes to Marvel being one of the biggest franchises, is that a lot of it is pro militarism. Studios are basically dictating to us what they believe in and it’s unfair because sometimes I feel like the general public does not have a choice. That’s the worst part of the praise that marvel gets. With that being said I am becoming more and more excited about some new movies that are coming out. I’m a big fan of romcoms and I feel like we have some on the way that are just extremely unique. I’ve been to many screenings for independent movies as well and I’ve been impressed by quite a few of them.
Edit: I came back to read this and I just realized how many typos this had. Yikes.
What's pro military in Marvel?
@@tvsonicserbia5140 literally everything about it lol. it was funded by the pentagon at one point. if you're looking for specifics though:
- tony stark canonically built his empire by selling his weapons to the military. he is literally a war profiteer, specifically benefiting off of causing havoc in the middle east
- the avengers act as a sort of para military led by tony stark who often work for and are contracted by the US government
- captain marvel was literally a soldier in the air force
- widows are russian spies. actually a lot of villains allude to russia, the cold war, and anti communist rhetoric
Hollywood is so smooth at creatong propaganda that people in the whole world will eagerly watch 100+ movies per year about skinny white people "saving the world", talking about values, praising the US military and the US police...and they won't call it propaganda. People even get angry or laugh when you call those movies that way.
@@tvsonicserbia5140 ozbiljno pitaš to?
@@lwrcasekinnie the first 2 iron man films were funded by the military but as soon as Marvel made bank the they need the military anymore 😆
Theres also a third aspect of cinema that you didn't mention: youtube itself. It is very easy for aspiring film makers with no budget to put experimental Artistic things out there, like daisy brown or crypt tv if you love horror, or lizzie bennet diaries and Carmilla if you like classic literature retellings. Or just look at video essayists like yourself, the defunctland fastpass video has a lot of comments like "it is my sleepover and I get to pick the movie". Its one of the reasons why I barely watch movies or netflix anymore, I can find more than enough entertainment/art here which resonates more with me than blockbusters.
Other than the ones you mentioned, can you share some more of your favorite creators? Would much appreciate it
I highly recommend the first season of dad (search for dad arg or dad feels for the channel) its a surreal horror comedy and its very good. The channel itself has evolved past the narrative arc and has a bunch of in character live streams and music, but the narrative is collected in a playlist there! I can also recommend diminish, it's a fictional story about a guy who plays a video game his sister made before dying. The channel night mind has a lot of highlights of series like that, its worth checking out!
@@nautil_us thank you so much! An aggregator like night mind is just what I needed. I'll check out the out there series too! In-character live streams, what an interesting medium!
Also video games which are quite frankly an underrated type of format that many people look over. Not only you able to experience being the main character or multiple characters BUT YOU CAN CHOOSE YOUR OUTCOME (depends on the type of game).
Some of my favorite video games are the type of simple themes and messages that aren’t available in your local movie theater but executed in a way that’s cinematic . And they vary into all different types of animation which is refreshing and clearly big movie studios have noticed the popularities of these games and want to release them with higher quality that is available to the world for a quick buck from game nerds. Such as Uncharted that was released earlier this year and albeit not a great movie.
And let’s not forget musicals which has bled into big blockbusters too because ORIGINALITY 🪄 can’t wait for Wicked with Ariana Grande being Glinda…
(No shade to Ari just would’ve liked someone else for the role personally who isn’t already a major celebrity, though her voice is nice)
Netflix is not dominated by blockbusters it is dominated by trashy video store level movies that have stupidly high budgets.
People need to realize when you are watching a movie with a $100 million budget you are not actually seeing that $100 budget on screen. SO much of it ends up being cut out and a wasted effort.
I was talking to an actor not that long ago that told me his work on a production could have made a movie in its own right as there was so much shooting and scenes were not put on screen and that he only had a few minutes of screen time and got paid an enormous amount of money.
I remember the 80s to 2000s. Movies were fun and memorable and MOVIE STARS existed. Modern films are either "look cool CGI" or "look at this overcomplicated story that must be explained for me to understand"
It is so upsetting to look up a movie for tickets and it's only one theater is showing it. That happened to me with the movie The Outfit. It came out this year and every time I ask someone about, their answer is they never heard of it.
The Outfit is a more direct to video type production. In years gone by it never would have been a major cinema film.
In saying that Reservoir Dogs was also a direct to video production.
Watching Suicide Squad vs Birds of Prey back to back really drove home how much production intent impacts movie quality
@kshamwhizzle exactly! Margot Robbie actually also produced Birds of Prey 💕🥰
Both are terrible
@kshamwhizzle my point was that BoP was an awesome fun movie for its genre that actually achieved some story telling, character development etc which Ive really missed in recent superhero movies. I watched Suicide Squad right after and found it so unbelievably awful. Just lazy, gimmicky, and exactly like every other superhero franchise of the last few years. Very evident how it pandered to the lowest common denominator of (male?) viewer, packed itself full of big names that required screen time according to their price tag. You can tell one movie was made in order to make the studio money whereas BoP was made to explore the character of Harley Quinn (and make some money).
@kshamwhizzle absolutely agree! I do think BoP will age well while SS is already irrelevant
Suicide Squad was so gratuitously gory, I have never seen so much blood and violence in any other movie
I've been hearing about the death of cinema forever but it never seems to die. People are always going to want good stories.
I find a great deal of creativity and great storytelling on television now, and it gives you a lot more time to devote to telling a story.
Exaclty this gives me so much hope as someone who's getting into this industry
Well, this does seem to be temporary every time, even if it lasts for an entire decade. It happened in the 1950's. It's happening now from 2018 or 2020 onwards I guess.
It's like books, there'll always be something new to scrounge up in time, its been that way for hundreds of years
i agree, television has been putting out some really good shit
That's the thing about film. Every decade has some timeframe that people like to label as "the dark age of cinema." In the late 90s it was Disaster films that became the death of cinema, then in the 2000s it was those shitty parody movies.
Don't get me wrong, a lot of shitty films came out during all these timeframes, but there's also been some inspiring and creative films that came out during these eras too. In the Late 90s we still got ingenious films like The Truman Show, Good Will Hunting, Men in Black, etc. And in the 2000s we got some phenomenal films like Children of Men, No Country For Old Men, Pan's Labyrinth, etc.
This video is particularly delicious when paired with a glass of CJ the X’s latest video
and both remind me of something I saw recently, but can’t remember if it was a tweet or something I read in a book… basically that there are two kinds of films - ones you walk out of energised and excited but ultimately forget about, and ones that make you feel uncomfortable, maybe you don’t even enjoy them at the time, but ultimately they shape your way of thinking going forwards
I definitely feel as though there's more of a spectrum than what you've presented here. There are plenty of films that I've left the theater hyped and raving about that have stuck with me. Films that I not only remember, but enjoy talking about and critically analyzing with friends. I think of Black Panther, Get Out, Endgame, Arrival, Kung Fu Hustle, etc.
Then I think of films that made me uncomfortable, or that were clearly meant to be art, that I ultimately remember very little about or still don't care for: The Lobster, The 400 Blows, In The Mood For Love, Blue, The Godfather, Ex Machina, etc.
Then there are uncomfortable films I remember vividly and enjoy very much. Hype-in-the-moment ones that are forgettable, or that I hated after thinking about them. Movies of both kinds that I might forget about but then remember really well later on in a conversation. Films that need a rewatch to really understand. Movies and their effects are as varied as the people who watch or make them.
From this and the CJ the X vid, I just keep feeling like the idea of a dichotomy between "truly artful" films and popular schlock is and always has been short-sighted. Folks have been talking about the Death of Cinema since talkies, but unique art keeps coming out of both big studios and small creators.
While I do agree that the ways in which big companies' capitalist greed restricts the kinds of stories that get told and the kind of world that audiences get to see, I also know that there are people creating some wonderful, insightful things even within that system.
This convo also feels like shaming creators who previously wouldn't have been allowed into the industry for making money the way that only white men were previously allowed to do (or ignoring the really good work they're doing). Just like the nuance of combating climate change includes having to take in to account allowing for previously exploited countries to industrialize, there needs to be space for a more complex conversation around art in film.
@@Arosukir6 sometimes it's easier to dismiss art films as pretentious and boring because of how insecure one is about their inability to understand them. Thing to remember is that they're just movies, not a mensa exam.
Reqieum for a Dream cough, cough
I think this kind of dichotomy suggests that films has to cover uncomfortable themes to be considered art, which I don't think is that case. Plenty of memorable, artistically rich movies are ones that leave you energised after, and continue to the more you think about them. The goal in both kinds of movies is obviously to emotionally move the audience somehow, but the bigger differences to me are the means and the intent - genuine use of cinematic elements/storytelling vs a reliance on fanservice, and expressing an emotion for the sake of showing the audience a new perspective vs to keep your film in the pop cultural zeitgeist for long enough to sell more merch.
I agree with people criticising the dichotomy here - I think it's a flawed way of categorising films, but even in that sense it's a useful lens for thinking about films that *don't* fit in these two boxes, and whether that's a good thing or not (in the case of films that made you uncomfortable, and were ultimately forgettable... probably the latter).
"The Red Turtle" was that for me - just seemed so vapid and ultimately said nothing (to me). I think that's an unpopular opinion, judging by reviews and accolades... I can no longer explain why I didn't like it, because I don't remember it.
And I think CJ the X's video demonstrates pretty well the potential for "long term value" from so-called popcorn movies.
I was flicking through my copy of "Starting Point" and came across this
Miyazaki:
"My attitude is that I make candy to sell wholesale to the candy store. Of course this candy must taste good; I would run into trouble if my candy didn't sell as well as the other candy in the store. For this, my candy must be colorful"
(and so on)
"A message is like the nourishment that should be obtained from meals, but movies are a time for candy. It would be a problem if people spent all their time on candy while cutting out their meals, but I don't think it's necessary to get our calcium intake from candy."
Nevertheless, he goes on to say...
"I do endeavor to make films that express my own ideas about what is important and what is wrong with the world we currently live in."
(1995)
I think this (and Miyazaki's filmography...) really demonstrates how films can be made with "attractiveness to the audience" in mind, while still being deeply meaningful to a lot of people.
I watch all the movies for the oscars every year (including technical categories and the shorts) and watching the oscars is a ritual for me. I'm always grouchy about who wins certain categories but it's always been exciting to watch. This year I felt so sad at the end and it was horrible. It wasn't fun to see and argue about. It just ... sucked
Now THAT’s dedication, sis
Same. If you dont watch all the movies, then how are you going to be mad when the wrong one wins? That's 75% of the fun of watching the oscars for me (the 25% is moments like Will Smith slapping Chris Rock).
I thought the group of winners was pretty good… I don’t get it
I think the slap really just was the cherry on the cake in terms of how bad it was.
I think this year had genuinely the worst best picture line up, because there were so many other amazing films like Red Rocket and Pig
Films like Everything Everywhere All At Once and Bullet Train have increased my hopes for more variety and unique storytelling on the big screen.
Highly recommended the Northman guys.
rrr
The wrong people are talking about whats cinema. Everything everywhere all at once is NOT cinema. Its not oscar worthy.
"Carlitos way" is cinema
"Scarface" is cinema
"Catch me if you can" is cinema
Saving private ryan. All these movies are true cinema. The movie "nope" is fucking ridiculous. You guys have no fucking clue. Let me guess you guys also loved the new thor movie.
@@dewmontain123 hoes mad.
@@dewmontain123 what are you talking about those movies aren’t even fresh ideas just movies about people’s stories nope is phenomenal because it’s a new creative idea Jordan peele came up with himself everything everywhere all at once is a idea they made together of a movie of a fresh new idea your opinion sucks
It's not the death of cinema, it's the decline of hollywood
THANK YOU. and I always feel like this "CINEMA IS DYING" line of thinking is incredibly US-centric tbh, people talk as if good movies weren't being made outside of North America
This
this
@@procopias7571 exactly
Its like when people say “music is dying”, when they don’t really listen to much modern music beyond the top 40(which has always had shitty forgettable songs).
Art doesn’t die it’s just shy. If you look in the corners of rooms you can pull it out.
I am at a point, where the entertainment does not entertain me anymore but feels like just another commercial. I am so tired of large franchises, remakes, cinematic universes and series that run for season after season after season. Not because I generally object to them, but because most of them seem to be mostly concerned with displaying a popular character or IP in a cool way. You are supposed to watch and like the movie/series/tie-in-game because it belongs to an IP not because it is meaningful in its own right.
I agree. Hollywood really needs to take more meaningful risks at this point.
her idea that movies are becoming "less democratized" to make is odd. in the golden age it was nigh impossible to make a feature film outside the studios. now, at least materially, everyone has a camera, there's tons of powerful and accessible editing software and sound libraries, and you can collaborate with people across the world and self-distribute online. it may be harder to get a film in theaters or attract a decent budget, but were those things ever realistically within reach for most filmmakers? at least now many cost barriers to entry have fallen down.
This is a take that gets thrown around a lot and I can’t say I agree. While it’s true that technology has increased the ease of filmmaking for the general population, I believe the increase in difficulty of selling a film and making a profit has risen much more.
Independent and grindhouse cinema has always existed. I recently rewatched The Lords of Flatbush and was struck by how amateurish the cinematography was. That movie made millions. Hollywood Shuffle was made by Robert Townsend for literally nothing and got distribution and made millions. If you want to go back to the studio system days, look at Ingagi.
In the past the drive-in circuit and later vhs created an extreme demand for content that increased the likelihood of a movie getting sold despite the quality. It took more labor and logistical creativity but the rewards were clearer. Now the ease of making a film is precisely what has made it harder: because anyone can do it, it is harder to stand out (or even get someone’s attention) and more difficult to parlay early efforts into success.
@@Sky-Liam what you're saying is all true but my point isn't whether it's easier or harder to earn money from a film. i don't doubt that it's harder now. my point is just that, as you say, "technology has increased the ease of filmmaking for the general population", which, at least on some level, means equality of access.
That’s fair, so I guess that just comes to which semantics we’re discussing - it is vastly easier to “make films” today but harder to be a filmmaker deriving income from your works and getting them seen on a large platform (which I think it more what the author is talking about).
@@Sky-Liam except she says "their creation is becoming less accessible by the day". i guess you're right in that she actually means distribution, but Spielberg having trouble getting his movie into theaters doesn't necessarily mean that producing films is materially or technically inaccessible for people like you and me. i think her argument conflates corporate/studio patronage with the basic ability to make movies despite the two being completely different things.
@@DreBourbeau I think you're conflating the two. Just because we all technically own cameras and could make movies off our I-Phones if we really wanted to doesn't make the industry any more accessible than it ever was. Disney owns damn near every property that's worth owning and the only multi million dollar films that get made nowadays are form the same handful of studios that own everything. There's no more risk-taking its all soulless and procedural.
UA-cam and online discourse are a part of this. the only films that get covered and discussed widely by the most popular content creators, are the American blockbuster zeitgeist films. instead of being weighed against Titane or Parasite, something like No Way Home or Infinity War is weighed against Star Wars, another Disney IP. the aesthetic spectrum has been shrunk, the "range" of quality that a film can aspire to has been reduced, the overton window has been pushed down. in the rare occasions when "high-brow" films are discussed, there is a strange undercurrent of almost categorical disdain or skepticism, there is no attempt at thematic or filmic analysis, and it ends up resembling the sound byte at the beginning of this video.
I watched Critical Drinker's "review" of Midsommar, which has more views than any other review of the film, and it made me realize that the most visible critical opinions are now those that champion competency (i.e., Infinity War/No Way Home) and deride or misunderstand genuine artistry. and these do function as reviews that affect whether the audience watching these videos will give these films a shot. they also function as advertising. it's not just that studio blockbusters are the only films that are given a berth at theaters. in the public consciousness, they are the only films that exist. and this is part of the reason why channels like yours are so important.
Ah, critical Drinker, what a waste, and that specific atrocious video
It scares me that The Critical Drinker has over a million subscribers.
I'm glad I've never watched a video by the Critical Drinker. The titles tell me they're not my cup of tea, and this comment just confirmed it. Perhaps it can be considered part of the New Studio system as well. If marketing is becoming more important than the films themselves, these UA-cam reviews are free marketing, mostly focused on blockbusters, accelerating the death of cinema.
Absolutely. Makes me think of Eternals only being compared to other MCU movies. “It’s the worst of all of them” or even “it’s mid tier marvel” or whatever, you get it. It’s so unfair - especially for filmmakers like Chloe. (Note: I’m not really a marvel fan and am not saying that eternals was high art, just how online reviews are often just comparing other movies from the same corporations. It feels like audiences care more about the studios than the actual movies and feels unprecedented. One of the comments above seemed to confirm this: “marvel fans don’t care about marvel bc of [insert actor names], they care because of Kevin Feige.”)
@@gayhomosexuallll The comparison of Marvel = fast food is appropriate here. You don't compare a big mac to an actual nice burger, you compare it to a whopper or wendys or whatever. It's a tacit admission of the point in the video that franchise movies are product first, art second.
2019 gave me so much hope for cinema in the age of the MCU. I saw almost all of the Oscar BP nominees in theatre and they were all great in their own way. The pandemic killed that momentum. 😔
Was this when Parasite won? So many great films that year!
True. Personally for me, it was the 2019 , 2017 and 2012 movie years of which I was most excited for the Oscars, as I had watched almost all the movies nominated.
@@MR-cb7pe
Parasite is not a good movie it is ok but nothing special. It is trendy in current climate to like Korean entertainment.
Black panther is hardly good.
@@bighands69 Parasite is an excellently crafted film, you just want to be contrarian.
This is why I love Christopher Nolan movies. Altought sometimes flawed, he always tries something new and different
I don’t see much flaws in his movies to begin with. They’re all at least a solid 8 or 9
Same with Jordan peele aswell look at nope
Dunkirk is a remake of a film named Dunkirk. Inception is a combination of Femme Fatale and Dreamscape. His more original films were when his brother was still writing for him.
Agree to disagree on this
I think the filmgoers are to blame for these "cash-grab" driven films. Most of the audience will only watch films that are heavily advertised to them (Marvel, Disney, etc.) and not seek out content on their own. I also think that this is caused by the popularity of streaming services. Studios will not lose any money if they release a bad film since the viewers already paid for their service, and if the viewer finds the film bad, then they will just move on to an older, more popular film, or re-watch their favorite sitcom. Before companies started taking advantage of the Internet for advertisement, most people probably picked a film with an appealing poster and title.
I noticed that when you compare the first "blockbusters" and the average ones these past 2 decades or so the difference is amazing. Those movies were also made to appeal to a big audience and the average moviegoer and yet have way more effort in every single aspect, especially story, characters and script than the average blockbuster nowadays which is mindnumbingly bad.
You can't blame moviegoers, they have no options.
People don't have the time or energy too!
TL;DR: even if we could try harder, I don't think movie-goers are the culprit.
Anecdotal, but: In the closest 6 cinemas in my area (all others are more than an hour away), MCU movies and the latest Disney flick will play up and down with 6 playtimes per day every day. Any other movie is played like 3 times, max. 5 times a week, often sometime at noon or very late in the evening. It requires lots of planning and sometimes even trying to get half a day off to go see a movie other than the stuff that is heavily commercialised, that is funded by the military or that produces lots of toys and collectibles. As a result, I don't go to cinemas anymore and barely watch any movies at all. Could I try harder? Sure. Do I have time/energy/money to do so? No. We're being manipulated into watching specific movies, and I hate it. I haven't had a satisfying movie-going experience in years, even ignoring the pandemic.
@@sophitiaofhyrule Wrong. There are plenty of options. The audience doesn't give a shit.
oh man…this is honestly a really interesting conversation after having seen everything everywhere all at once because, as I have read small snippets from interviews that the Daniels (the directors) have done, their film was sort of a response to the way the world as it is right now is very overwhelming. so much is happening all the time and there’s all this *noise* - which can make us feel insignificant or like nothing really matters. but the film is, in my opinion, an argument for acknowledging the intensity of living in a time like ours but also sitting with those feelings and accepting them. and that maybe it doesn’t have to be a negative thing (and more to the point of the film, we can still be kind to one another). Daniel Kwan in particular identifies as a maximalist film maker - so it’s really interesting to see how he mixes the idea of spectacle and “loud” nuance (he mentioned in a tweet that there’s this assumption that nuance in film making has to be quiet/subtle- not sure if that’s the exact wording but it’s something along those lines) in a film that also has a profound message about a number of things (the struggles of immigrant families in pursue of the American dream, being openly queer, complexities of mother-daughter relationships) but most focally, that even in all the noise, we can find meaning and joy. When I think of the film industry now, I really hope that maybe this approach - a maximalist lens with heart and genuine stories to tell - will be something we can see more of.
ohh i love this and absolutely adore this film 💜💜
If someone ever complains about theaters only showing franchise movies, ask if they went to see Everything Everywhere All at Once or The Northman in spring of 2022.
Yeah but thats not the normality
Northman may have flopped in theaters, but that's an at home movie, anyway. It killed it in bluray/VOD sales, so it still made good money.
Theaters dont matter for making money like they used to. Some movies are better watched at home and Everything Everywhere is one of them. It does not require a theater experience.
Yes, I saw both of them. They're in my top 4 movies of this year.
@@RevRyukin7 what do you mean an "at home" movie?
@@aSmallGreenDot people nowadays don't watch movies in the theaters because they have streaming platforms, the Internet or physical copies for the movies they want to watch. If you go to the cinema it's for the "cinematic experience", either the franchise you follow religiously or some big spectacle you need to see.
You would be surprised by how many people skipped the Northman because they "would watch it someday" but watched whatever Marvel put out at the time because it guaranteed a good time.
People don't even want to risk watching a bad movie anymore.
The broadcast was a messy joke. However, the new International voters that have been invited to the Academy are making some exciting changes in the nominations (maybe not so much when it comes to the winners). Seeing nominees like Jessie Buckley for The Lost Daughter and especially international movies being nominated outside the international film category!!!! is very inspiring and promising. There are so many things that are wrong with the Oscars (mainly because of ABC and the contract they have for the show) but I think it's also fair to say that there are so exciting changes happening as well. People not wanting to see the films, thinking they're boring, that everything getting made these days are reboots and spinoffs or that MCU movies deserve more nominations..... well, that's a whole problem I don't even want to talk about lol
Most of those internationals are not movies they are glorified TV entertainment that does not have the magic of the movies.
Introducing foreign voting will be the death of American Cinema which is the birthplace of the art.
This was excellent! The connections back; and differences between previous situations within film history was fascinating. I hope given time and changes we will see more control returned to directors and less reliance on blockbusters only. Unfortunately I do not see it happening until Disneys monopolisation is stopped and they are fractured apart.
we do not need to see more control returned to directors. More to other artists in the film-making process sure. Make it actually collaborative. But directors aren't immune to making petty fiefdoms.
Why is this Disney's fault? Why not target WB and Universal?
I meant, Scorsese isn’t wrong. Marvel Fanboys™️ hurt feelings be damned. I’m tired of having fewer and fewer choices in the variety of films that big studios put out. Superhero movies aren’t my thing but I don’t mind that they exist. I’ve even enjoyed particular films like The Dark Knight and The Watchmen. But do we need 50 superhero films a year? The reboots and remakes are even worse. Very few pull it off and rarely is anything new or interesting said. I like your optimistic outlook. There are still weird, interesting, thought provoking, innovative films being made.
I feel you, girl... that funeral prologue is just morbidly apt. I've stopped watching the Oscars myself starting in 2021, and I've watched FAR more old movies or YT vids at home than films in theaters. And it's just heartbreaking that I can't even look at the cinema with the same fondness that I used to in my early youth from mid-teens to mid-young adulthood (as in, before 2015). I want to believe that the kind of cinema I grew up watching still has a place in my heart and always will but with the way things are going, that prospect is depressingly waning. Hopefully, there will be a rebirth - I haven't lost all hope, but it has yet to emerge and take hold.
Ironically Ricky Gervais in 2020 getting that big wakeup call at the start of 2020 for their Oscar's served as the start of the end.
@lrigsnart6821Ant-Man still did good and is well received, and I’ve always wondered about those guys’ vision for Solo, but nobody were eager for a Solo film anyway. James Cameron made a complete script for a Spider-Man film, but never made into production.
Wow!! I put 2015 also as the cut off date when hollywood movies generally became unwatchable. Nice to see someone putting the same date. Really.
Get money in the hands of the audience, that's how you revive cinema. Audiences are risk averse too, especially when they can barely afford to go to the theatre more than a handful of times a year.
If you ask me audiences will always have a place in their heart for both commercial adventure and low key cinema. They will always love fantasy and reality at the same time so you can't cancel one for the other. Therefore weather it's popcorn or art house, if you ask me, I will always love both. Filmmakeing is not the same when one exists and the other doesn't.
I still trust the unpredictability of art to keep some kind of originality in cinemas. It is undeniable that art has always struggled to find money but, at a certain point, people will get sick of Marvel movies hopefully. Also, it is ridiculous how not even Scorsese can express his frustration with the market without getting discredited.
What, people who like and have worked on those Marvel movies aren't allowed to fire back when Scorcese says anything?
@@ShadowSonic2 Its called criticism. You take it in like any grown up is supposed to and learn from some of it even you don't nescessarily agree with it. So yes loads of people involved in the Production worked their butts off day and night for over a year on these films. There is no question about that. However despite all that, you are still subject to criticism like any other industry. That is and always has part in parcel of life. The fact so many people nowadays are losing the ability to take in criticism is the reason this art form amongst many others is in this huge mess it is in from a purely creative and artist standpoint. It is why we keep getting absolute amateur level Screen Writers in Hollywood that have very little to no credits at all.
@@taliamason7986 Funny, it sounds more like you can't take criticism because you think tye Marvel people aren't allowed to do the same thing to Scorsese
@@ShadowSonic2 If someone criticizes you and you criticize them back, it just means you are salty
@@nikolpavlova268 It's called fair play
You know what, after watching people comment on how Netflix's Princess Switch three sequels were proof that Netflix would green light *anything* for the sake of releasing large quantities, this made perfect sense. They do have a different business model than big studios- and big studios just wanna secure the bag. Creativity is definitely dead.
Netflix are about to reverse their high volume content strategy with the recent decline in their stock price.
They have already cancelled several of their productions that were planned. I think they thought they could do lots of political content and people would just pay up for it. Now they are realizing that people are less willing.
Honestly, it's not the movies being "artless" or something (the blockbuster superhero movies definitely have a ton of it)
The real problem is the horrible bureaucracy, elitism and corruption in the industry. Artists get paid jackshit and writing is second to cool set pieces.
"There are to movie stars". You might've heard that before. Actors nowadays are just actors: Crazy, out of touch people who deceive you.
Movies themselves didn't die, but cinema (as in the people and the process) did die.
Cinema simply got too profitable.
The big companies jumped in, abusing and manipulating the status quo to be what it is now: Entertainment, "dumb fun". Cinema became a mass product and now it's very difficult to NOT make a mass product.
"Art" is too subjective for the majority so it's easier for them to digest something "simple"
While I think this video essay makes a lot of good points (even though they're points that have been made a number of times already), and it's always fun listening to this creator, I wish such essays (video or otherwise) made a clearer difference between cinema (the artform as a whole) and US cinema. It's not that we haven't seen some of the same things happening in Europe, but this notion of "The end is nigh", even if it's relativised (and rightly so), still seems quite culturally myopic. The video touches on the fact that a big part of the problem is distribution, but it still tends to revert to a very US-centric view.
And the notion of the Academy Awards ever rewarding high art is one that I'd definitely contest. As long as I've watched them, they've rarely rewarded the most exciting films with any consistency.
This is a great essay. I’ve heard the discourse time and time again but it’s always nice to hear again from someone with a new take
What if there was NEVER a time where all of the movies were arthouse masterpieces, only a few truly good movies came out per year and the vast majority was "artless junk"
Well that has always been the case, and it still is today
It's just that the bad has outweighed the good when it comes to modern (2013-present) hollywood.
Sturgeon’s Law!
Honestly that makes a lot more sense.
@@Astolfo2001 ofcourse it is. 🙄
@@Astolfo2001 I don't think so. Plenty of terrible movies were getting made in 90s and early 2000s. Let's not forget how Hollywood was dumping romcoms every now and then to the point they destroyed the genre.
It's the streaming services keeping those genres alive which were destroyed by traditional studio system. Let's not put the cinema to such a high pedestal. It's ever changing and older cinema wasn't so free but heavily bottlenecked.
It kind of sucks the young adult or teen fantasy genre has kind of died out. Most enduring one was clearly Harry Potter.
As a movie lover, I feel like audiences' expectations of the viewing experience have changed drastically in the past 10 years. Nowadays, most people go to the cinema for pure excitement and entertainment. For them, it is like going to a theme park. In the past, audiences still expected to see movies with artistic merits; back in the time, going to the cinema could feel like going to an art gallery. Independent movies, such as Lost in Translation, Black Swan, and Good Will Hunting that were box office success and were being nominated for Oscars, are not likely to achieve box office success if being made in the current days.
You're telling me people want to have fun? This is insanity! How dare they want something entertaining and exciting?
I think it is he opposite.
What is remaining are only people that want excitement. Those that wanted good art entertainment do not go to the cinema anymore.
When the norm has been set with steroid freak men in plastic suits that becomes the expectation of the audience. People just do not want to go anymore.
@@sophitiaofhyrule want fun? Watch porn then.
That makes sense though, right? The more expensive things get, the less willing the public will be to spend on movies they dont know for certain will provide a fun and enjoyable experience. Especially if it's a family outing. Why on earth would anyone want to spend 20-50 dollars to sit in a dark room with a bunch of (likely) noisey strangers to see a movie that they could easily buy on dvd/blu-ray in a few months and watch over and over again for free in the comfort of their own home? You'd only pay to go to the theaters if you know it'll be worth your penny. Movies have to make use of their big screens, hq sound systems, and large crowds in order to grab attention.
@Edwin There's room for it all. That's the wonderful thing about movies, people can find different things to enjoy about a wide variety of movies..it's not just about being thoughtful..it's about having a heart, and appreciating the genre you're operating in; respecting both your audience and the material. If you're going to make Porky's , for instance, don't be embarassed. Make the best damn version of Porky's you can make, even if it's just raunchy dumb fun. The idea of "pure' and "thoughtful" are just terms for people to gatekeep what people should and shouldn't be enjoying...and have , for decades, led to great, wonderful art , music, and film..to be ignored, and derided. It's nonsense. There's a great deal of beauty, and wonder to be had out there, and it'd be a shame to just sit and wait for the next Citizen Kane while missing out the gems that get ignored because of it.
babe wake up new broey deschanel video just dropped
Im so glad that the Oscars in 2023 were honestly pretty solid. No huge spectacle, no undeserved wins (outside of like one or two), and respect for animation.
Let’s hope this is starts a positive trend.
Oh my God, remember those Entertainment Weekly Oscar guides? I used to study those like a textbook. 95-2007 were my peak Oscar obsession years. Now, the Oscars will pass by and some years I didn’t know they were on.
Lets not kid ourselves into thinking the Oscars were anything more than actors throwing an expensive party to celebrate themselves and act like they are the only thing in the industry that matters
It used to be about the movies being made and for those that loved movies it was great fun. It used to mean something winning an oscar.
I think it's interesting to note that CODA, while being a relatively "small" film, is a remake of a successful film.
Successful maybe but pretty sure the original was highly criticzed and gain a lot of controversy from the deaf community, many considred to be offensive because they got the sign language wrong. The producers of the original movie was the one who actually approached the Americans to do a remake and reminded to not repeat the same mistake that the original head which is fine. It's the type of remake I want, take a bad movie with a great concept and executed it better in the remake and they did.
@@800Ms-k6n And?
@@teraphIl1000 and? Well the original movie isn't as big well known as CODA anyways
@@800Ms-k6n Your opinion doesn't invalidate my original statement, nor does it bring any relevant information to the discussion at hand, so I'm just confused as to why you felt the need to interject in the first place.
@@teraphIl1000 well CODA is now a lot more successful than the original. People know the that movie more than the original. The original movie was also to be considered a small film anyways
Banger essay. This synthesizes things I learned during my film degree in an impressively short period of time. The film industry certainly is in an interesting time of confusion and I too am hopeful that the pendulum will swing toward less formulaic approaches.
I always treated the Oscars like an all-star game in sports: the players I expected to make the team didn't, but I appreciated the spectacle. And, occasionally, the person who deserved to make it actually did.
ah i remember the death of cinema, imagine, a single genre dominating and making all the money, everyone wanted to make one, and it was basically one genre all the time, and i couldnt stop asking, is that it? is this what cinema is?
epics, or wait, sorry, i meant the bible movies, no, sorry, i think i really meant the monster movies... or was it the western? no no, im pretty sure it was the slasher films... then again there was no king as big as the rom coms... ah, sorry, i got it now, its the super hero movies, yeah, they are the ones that will kill cinema...
Finally someone who knows history, thanks for commenting, I really hope people understand your comment.
YEEEES! the endless rom coms lol hahaha
You forgot sci-fi. 🤣
Pffff. I remember when Talkies killed cinema by introducing sound, it was all downhill from there.
Except only a few movies in those genres truly "dominated", no bible or romance movie is making consistent billion dollars.
Now go look at the list of top film sales, and see how dominated by superhero movies it actually is
You're missing the elephant in the room: Social media. Who needs "thought-provoking" films when we're being bombarded by the world's issues every hour of every day? We don't need to leave the comfort of our home to hear about war, or discrimination, or economic devastation, or child exploitation. What we do need is a reason to shut everything out and enjoy ourselves for a few hours at a time, and that's why people will crawl over each other to watch a few Spidermen working together.
There's enough shallow escape on social media for a thousand lifetimes. And news is not art, FFS. Not all artistic, creative films are dreary and depressing. What a strange assumption to make.
@@maryvallettakeith6146 What a strange assumption to make that all people have the same idea of what "art" is.
Yup. This is something that I wish got addressed more. The media landscape has changed drastically in the past 10 years…to the point where we can’t escape being rapidly flooded with new images, short-form videos, memes, etc. on a scale never seen before, which is making us increasingly jaded to the impact that the tools and building blocks of cinema used to have. I’m not saying good movies can’t be made anymore, but the experience of film watching itself has become IMO more cheapened, less special/magical, since we’re already being oversaturated with a whole range of content on social media, streaming services, the Internet, etc.
One exercise I suggest people do is watching Old Siskel and Ebert episodes, because it make you realise just how much get forgotten with times.
I've never actually understood the distinction between art and entertainment until now, and it's put a lot of things into perspective now. Thanks for the amazing video!
Ive been seeing the effects of this, there’s an independent theatre in my town that shows artsy films and occasionally shows big blockbusters, but they don’t have the money to show them as soon as they come out, so everyone goes to the big cinemas in the nearby cities and the theatre has been really struggling to make any money
Movies like Nightmare alley (2021), The Northman, Dune and The Batman restored my faith.
I wasn’t blown away by the Batman like others were.. but I appreciate it.
The Batman is an ok film, but it doesn’t have anything special.
Then if you like those films you should watch the lighthouse (A24) same director as the northman
@@alexhami185 fr i felt the grounded / realistic stuff had been done by Nolan.. and the 'Waynes are evil' had been seen in the telltale series
The old dune was fine, the new one was too sterile.
From my own personal analysis "spectacle" movies have always been more successful than "artful" movies from the past 80 years, every so often you get a movie that's both but that's more exception than rule. What I am getting at is that there will always be either movie route, the issue that people aren't looking for the more artful movies/ original screenplays they are present and many have already been released this year alone. Those that claim death of cinema are not really looking outside of what is pushed through mainstream marketing. Most indie movies do not get The Batman level marketing and because of that most aren't aware that movies like Everything everywhere all at once exist. Maybe it is an over-simplification but I can think the biggest issue "artful"/ indie movies face is that they lack strong marketing.
Honestly with the world kind of falling apart right now, people aren't in the right mind space to think when they're watching a movie. We're all addicted to the numbness of comfort movies and tv.
This is an incredible video idea. I know Batman is a part of the DC franchise, but I had a similar thought and feeling after watching Batman. Whilst I came out of the cinema absolutely enamoured with all the artistic choices in the film, the references to old detective style movies in the plot and the acting, my boyfriend’s friends all came out and said it was ‘boring’. At that point it was clear that whilst Batman still had its action packed moments, a lot of viewers are used to constant ‘moments’ and sensory shock, and in that sense Batman was a bit of a different ‘superhero’ movie. I love the dark vibe the joker film and Batman had without the borderline OTT level of action, but it didn’t surprise me that the excitement wasn’t there for some people. However, I don’t necessarily disagree with their taste on a broad scale - they way they felt about Batman is similar, for example, to how I feel about Victorian literature: I can appreciate their merits, but I simply don’t enjoy consuming them - not enough happens
Batman and the Joker are cheap copies of se7en and Taxi Driver.
They’re not good or original.
When you talked about alien and how it made people feel something, made me feel hopeful when I watched good time and uncut gems. Those movies filled me with so much anxiety and dread, but we’re SOOOO artisticly satisfying
A 26 minute video about the 2022 Oscars and no mention of the slap?! So refreshing, somebody needs to inform every media organization on the planet that there was indeed an entire award ceremony and dozens of films to talk about in between the bouts of narcissism that they all seem to be hyper-focused on.
The slap was the only note worthy thing about it.
It's worth noting that while a lot of Scorsese's criticisms were on the right track, it's hard not to notice his emphasis on "the unifying vision of an individual artist", which smacks of the older dictatorial auteur driven cinema, rather than an acknowledgement of its collaborative nature (which of course was always the case despite what some insist). It makes it seem less like an issue with the house of mouse slowly devouring the entirety of creative industries and ips, and more about who is in control.
I have more issues with the sorts of films made today than I do love, but I would like to see the definition of art that includes what is reserved for being called "cinema" but excludes them. Seems like the classic case of "thing i don't like isn't art".
The goal today is to build a franchise not to make a movie.
Auteurism was and is good.
@@maozedong537 Auteurism also created movies like "Heaven's Gate" and other Vanity projects.
@@bighands69 The sad thing is, all the MCU clones keep forgetting that you need to focus on making good movies that link up and not just focus on the link up.
The Conjuring movies did it right.
@@ShadowSonic2 Yeah and most of those vanity projects are infinitely more enjoyable than the assembly line franchise stuff that gets released.
EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE NEEDS A REVIEW
Thank you for the video, and the reference to the fact that Disney sucks in 60% of the box office. When I tell people that, they think I’m lying. It’s disgusting. We need to bring back antitrust laws.
this is very funny to me, because while I agree with most of what you said, this last month has probably been the most I've gone to the theatre in quite a long time. The Northman, The Batman(while it is a franchise/remake/blockbuster, I felt it was tasteful and put in caring hands), Everything Everywhere, and I've personally seen a spike in Bollywood films airing in my area (midwest america). Idk, i think that rebirth is coming sooner than later or at least I hope so.
It’s sad that the northman didn’t do good at the box office
Even though The Batman, The Northman, and EEAAO were successful, they feel closer to art while still being spectacle than the even more formulaic stuff that this video addresses.
Also, those are probably not Bollywood movies at your theaters. A number of South Indian movies especially in the Telugu language (Tollywood), have been more commercially successful movies than Bollywood (Hindi language cinema) recently. This is probably because of a movie desert across India for a number of years. And most of those movies are big budget blockbusters that were delayed and now have all come out at once. Totally rejuvenated Telugu movies' box office inside and outside of India. Unfortunately, the box office has been in a desert now that all the big spectacles are out of the way, and there's a long wait ahead for the next blockbusters. The more artistic, medium budget films _in theaters_ going out of style has been disappointing. Indian movie theater audiences up till the pandemic kept the theaters running, but after the pandemic driving people to settle for streaming for everything except big budget stuff has caused a lot of India to head the same direction as Hollywood.
I am quite sure It's never coming
@@wasabiithink9601 well yeah but that’s cause focus features and universal completely and utterly fucked up the marketing, and sold it in the absolute worst way possible. “Teeheehee quirky TikTok about director showing actors in the movie” (we watch these actors commit literal crimes against humanity in the movie)
@lrig snart you worded it perfectly. zack snyder is someone people apply this to
7:00 well you have people like Orson Welles, Hitchcock, John Ford, Howard Hawks, Elia Kazan, Billy Wilder, Nicholas Ray, Otto Preminger, John Huston making some of the best films ever in the height of the studio era. As good (or even better) than the films of "new hollywood".
That intro audio clip of the guys talking ruined my day lol
hard same tbh
the absolute worst