The Warner Bros. romantic comedy, Fool's Gold, and the Miramax male melodrama, There Will Be Blood, both brought in over $20 million. The difference is, Fool's Gold did it in one weekend and Blood did it in seven. Even though There Will Be Blood (seen on the left) has not been distributed to as many theaters as a typical blockbuster, the film should be attracting a greater audience, with so many accolades and so much recognition. The film review website, Rotten Tomatoes, gave Fool's Gold a 10% rating. In other words, of the 97 critics that actually saw and reviewed the film, ten thought it worthy of spending the $12 admission into the theater. There Will Be Blood received a 91%. In fact, this year's Oscar nominees for Best Picture of the Year have all received over 80% positive reviews on the website: No Country for Old Men at 94%, Juno at 93%, Michael Clayton at 90%, and Atonement at 82%. With all of these outstanding "grades," most, if not all, will probably not receive a total gross higher than the amount that Fool's Gold will make. The fact is, the current trends in Hollywood can oftentimes predict where the American public will invest their time and money.There are fewer artists that want to engage the audience through their creative works, with thought-provoking plots and twists, and more businessmen who want to just put an A-list celebrity in a super-hero costume and throw him on the screen with special effects. The super-hero brings in the cash, because it is something that the audience is already familiar with. A film like this, though, lacks depth and fails to elicit the imaginative mind. As box office statistics continue to show most audiences viewing less-acclaimed films, Hollywood producers continue to spit out similar works with equal, if not lesser, mind stimulation. In the film business, only one thing matters: money. While the exceptional films in theaters are not being seen, the American audience continues to invest their money in the movies they know and have seen before, and thus feel most comfortable with.
With less than two weeks until the 80th Annual Academy Awards, in attempt to make the televised-event more interesting, it would make sense for intending viewers to go out and see at least a couple of the films nominated for awards, most specifically, the Best Picture of the Year award. The box office reports from the previous weekend, however, show that people are more interested in seeing Matthew McConaughey without a shirt on in Fool's Gold. Only two of the nominated films are in the top ten in the box office, with Juno at number five, and There Will Be Blood at number ten. Along with multiple critics, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has also acknowledged the merit of these films. The five films are nominated because they do not follow the popular trend in today's film business. They contain original ideas with compelling storylines and characters, and each film is unique and has thus been honorably recognized. The films may be outside the comfort zone for most of the American audience, but more people need to develop a sophisticated palette when it comes to choices in cinema.
Fool's Gold is the second film in which Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson star side-by-side (seen on the right). The previous was the 2003 hit, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days; that one brought in $23.8 million in its opening weekend, similar to Fool's Gold. With the film's total gross revenue ending up at $105.7 million, it is no wonder the celebrity duo was brought back together on the screen. The 2008 film is about a divorced couple that finds themselves reunited during a quest for deep sea treasure (I wonder if the couple get back together in the end?). Hollywood continues to release films with regurgetated storylines from previous successful movies. By minimizing films' risks and sacrficing artistic integrity, studios create a successful product, but nothing close to a thematic masterpiece. If it brought in millions before, why not stick to it? 2007 included a summer full of sequels; to name a few: Spider-Man 3, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Shrek 3, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Ocean's 13, Live Free or Die Hard, The Bourne Ultimatum. As for remakes, 3:10 to Yuma, Halloween, The Hitcher, and Hairspray all returned to the big screen with a rejuvenated look.It seems as if Hollywood is running out of original ideas to develop into major motion pictures, but apparently, not many people are fazed by it. Pirates of the Caribbean dominated the summer and made a total of $336.5 million, even though the critics bashed it (it received a 45% on Rotten Tomatoes). The other blockbuster of the summer, Spider-Man 3, made a total of $309.4 million and also was not well-received by the critics (62% on Rotten Tomatoes). Hollywood has the American audience exactly where it wants it: too numb to know what is going on but with pockets full of cash to contribute. These films are undoubtedly superficially pleasing, yet lack substance. They are old films with new titles. But as long as Americans continue to give their money to these insubstantial pieces of work, more of the same will be released.
The main purpose of a film is to entertain. Whether the entertainment value is derived from unmatchable artistic quality or silly sketch comedy by beautiful actors, people buy movie tickets for the enjoyment of the experience. I am all for going to the cinema with the intention of being entertained, whether a film has been hailed or criticized, and I occasionally am in the mood to see a less engaging or a proclaimed bad movie (this summer I enjoyed watching Evan Almighty). I will even spend two hours watching another comic book film (I cannot wait to see Iron Man). Films like Spider-Man 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean do not need critics to get people in the theaters; they will bring in money no matter what. Alongside the petty films designed to generate a quick buck, there needs to exist the same desire to see films that will be hailed as instant classics because of the depth and breath of their content. Cinematography, lighting, set design, audio mixing, acting - these are all things that are routinely sacrificed by producers looking for a quick money maker. We should not forget about the films that cherish every detailed aspect that goes into its creation.
1 comment:
I thoroughly enjoyed your post and the viewpoint you have taken in your analysis of the current attitude of the moviegoer and of Hollywood. I agree with you that the American public has become numb when it comes to going to the movies in order to watch a well made film but rather settling for a movie which relies on the actors in the film to attract the audience rather than a well constructed plot. I enjoyed the manner in which you employed the use of Rotten Tomatoes to gauge the thoughts of movie critics on a broad spectrum. On the other hand, I would have liked to have seen the thoughts of other critics, such as Ebert and Roeper or a movie meter analysis on IMDB. I would have also liked to have seen some external links leading to the websites of the movies you discuss such as, Fool's Gold and There will be Blood, and other movies you personally are excited to see (e.g. Iron Man). I enjoyed that you gave these films that attract their audience on the basis of the acclaim of their stars or their entertaining plot, while critiquing Hollywood and the American public for not giving the masterpieces currently on display in the movie theater, a fair chance.
Post a Comment