Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Bye Bye, New Old Hollywood


As an aspiring filmmaker, I'd love to see Hollywood die a gruesome death. So, you can imagine my excitement at Raleigh Studios’ recent announcement of its plans to create a "studio and entertainment complex" in Utah. Their announcement falls in line with a recent trend in the film industry. Hollywood can keep poppin’ flashbulbs, but it’s no longer the only place to make movies. Words cannot express the joy this would give me, though they may come close enough:

FUCK HOLLYWOOD.

Utah makes its claim with natural beauty. You only make a movie outside Hollywood if the cost is cheap or the scenery is otherwise unachievable. Utah has the best of both worlds. Utah boasts some of the world’s most spectacular landscapes. Why paint a natural backdrop when the real thing exists, and in your own backyard? What’s more, everything comes at a cheaper price! Watch your back, LA. Raleigh Studios’ announcement came as part of a recent diaspora away from Hollywood and into the wilderness of life outside of pop-culture.

New York City, Philadelphia, Michigan, Alaska, Chicago, North Carolina, Atlanta, New Mexico, and not to mention Vancouver (or many other Canadian cities) all want a piece of showbiz, and they’re taking it freely. You can’t blame them for trying, given the sorry state of the economy and the fact that the American entertainment industry generally controls all of Earthly Civilization. The other 49 want their share of the loot, so they’re baiting filmmakers with tax incentives. We’re talking big breaks, saving millions of dollars per production. Philadelphia, for example, offered a 25% tax credit for films that spend at least 60% of their budget in state. Since its creation, the Film Office of southeastern Pennsylvania has generated over $2 billion thanks to film and video productions. Obviously, both parties benefit. It’s a win-win that fundamentally changes the movie-making business. Good, maybe movies won’t suck anymore. These days the film industry concerns itself with business primarily, and with new competition around, LA will have a run for its money. It could be disastrous. You may need to avert your eyes.

Personally, I’ll kick back and marvel as the big companies struggle to push the limits of “spectacle” even further – once the novelty of 3D runs out they’ll need even newer, louder, bigger, more encompassing ways of distracting the audience. Common sense would demand a better product via genuine talent, or better stories, but business is about efficiency, and cheap shortcuts. I know from my experience in the field that Hollywood prides itself on its ability to sell bad movies. Gimmicks will only last so long, until people realize they don’t have the money to see the nineteenth edition of Fast and Furious, Too Fast Too Furious, or some other slight derivative of the words “fast” and “furious.” Hopefully, the dispersion of film production to new environments means raising the bar.

With any luck, decentralization of the film industry should result in a new oeuvre of movies. A new spirit for a new age. As an audience, we’ve been wading in the same recycled stories for decades. For whatever upsetting reasons, The Remake is in, and it’s only a matter of time until the pool of films ripe for remaking runs dry (don't be surprised if they start remaking remakes). In the meantime, studios around the country will produce specialized films that result of their unique settings. I base my hopeful argument around the idea that these unique locations will produce equally unique feature films. Enough decentralization could shatter Hollywood's thin plastic veneer - that sour pride running rampant, taking advantage of your wife and kids with cheap escapist gimmickry. Then may our film industry lead a way out of this muck of contemporary pop-culture we've gotten ourselves into, because Jesus, it’s about time.

5 comments:

  1. Do you really think that just by having a new location movies will get better? Won't it be the same people making them, just new location? I don't see this changing actual movies, just the way the industry works.

    And I don't see how new location would make movies less gimmicky or change the goal of moviemakers from making fast money to providing a genuinely enjoyable and eye-opening experience.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree, movies will be as good or as bad as they always have been, no matter where they are shot. Building independent industry around a location might work better toward developing and nurturing talent, but network studio movies are here to stay and will be always be the corporate products they have been.

    In fact, they've been around since the '30s, as has recycling/adapting/remaking plotlines, so that's going to stick around also. As long as people shell out for this stuff, they'll keep making them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with your analysis of the situation. I think the more diversity in ideas that goes into the movie business, the larger array of movies we are likely to see. By decentralizing the movie industry away from Los Angeles, film studios and production companies are hopefully going to get a broader range of talent and skills, not just the stereotypical hollywood types. However, if we really want better movies, than Americans have to stop going to see bad movies and expect more from the movie going experience.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have mixed feelings about this expansion of the film industry. In one case, I agree that filming movies outside of Hollywood can create stories we have never seen before. Just look at Slumdog Millionaire. The movie was shot largely oversees and as a result, the product was like no movie we have seen before. Still, however, I can't think you can discredit all the good that has come from Hollywood. Sure there are plenty of bad movies being released. But that won't change no matter where movies are being made. These bad films are products of filmmakers trying to make money, not trying to win an Oscar.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is nonsensical to direct hostility towards the idea of Hollywood (and especially the physical location of Hollywood) about the distressed state of the movie industry.

    Of course, today we could never find such seminal films as Lumet's SERPICO or Hill's THE STING, but that is not the fault of Hollywood. In fact, it is quite the opposite: it's OUR fault.

    Children are raised today to become addicted to the crash-cutting style that MTV and VH1 throw at them and, if parents would be more inclined to take their children to a museum rather than to go see 17 AGAIN, perhaps we could revert back to the true art of filmmaking that defined our classics.

    So, of course, Hollywood had to follow suit. For without people to watch the movies, what's the point of Hollywood churning them out?

    Granted, it's sickening how all of the major studios are owned by grotesquely large corporations now, but Hollywood is just as disappointed about this as you are. The same people who grew up with such classic films are now forced to produce absolute shit that the modern consumer basks in like a plant in fresh manure.

    You should focus your anger less on "Hollywood" and more on the current state of consumer culture. Hollywood is and always will be the CENTER OF THE WORLD as far as filmmaking is concerned, and whether you like it or not, that is a reality. There is no harm in hating the system, but hating it's source is a tricky issue. Of course there are aspects of Hollywood that we all wish we could change, but please do keep in mind that "The Hills" and "Keeping Up With The Kardashians" is no more Hollywood than PAUL BLART: MALL COP is.

    As I write this from my office on the Warner Brothers lot in Burbank I can confidently tell you that "Hollywood" is here to stay. Who decides what comes out of it, however, is Hollywood's boss - and that boss is you.

    ReplyDelete