Theory #2
This week’s column continues a lengthy answer to a question posed earlier, namely… Why does it seem that there are maybe 6 templates for Hollywood movies? As a writer you pick one of those, fill in the check boxes, and poof the next movie of the week. Is it because of the money to be made, or a lack of talented writers getting their scripts to the right people, or is it due to producers and directors not getting the ‘picture’, or is it because those mentioned above don’t really give a rats butt about the people going out to see a movie?
–Niall
In a previous column, I talked about why so many movies seem to have the same overall "shape," which I postulate comes mostly from the limited number of outcomes any storyline can have. In a romantic comedy, either the couple ends up together or they don’t. Whatever the details, one of those two results is going to happen.
Of course, it’s the details that make a story unique and interesting. Even with just two possible outcomes, there are a million different romantic comedies you could write. So the real question is… Why does Hollywood keep making the same damn movies?
Theory 2: Audiences Want Hamburger
Right from the start, I’ll have to admit to some strong personal biases in this theory. I wrote and produced GO, which certainly wasn’t to everyone’s taste, but was at least different than every other youth-centered comedy on the market. There was no high school, no prom, no parents, no awkward girl who’s really pretty when she takes her glasses off. We got good reviews and great test audience scores.
But when the dust settled and the box office receipts came in, it turned out people wanted the prom. GO made money, but not nearly as much as NEVER BEEN KISSED, VARSITY BLUES, SHE’S ALL THAT, or 10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU. The problem wasn’t the marketing, the problem was the movie itself.
We were offering taboulleh, but the audience wanted hamburger. Deep down, I think the movie-going public wanted to see the white, middle-class suburban fairy tale they’d seen a hundred times before. Our movie was a gritty $7 million comedy with drugs and guns, and the presence of young attractive stars wasn’t going to change that.
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t make difficult, challenging, rewarding movies. You should. But you shouldn’t delude yourself into thinking they’re crowd-pleasing populist entertainment when they’re not.
So how do we get Hollywood to make more good, original, groundbreaking films and fewer by-the-numbers retreads? A few ways:
First and foremost, we need to support the quality movies that are made, which means buying tickets and dragging your friends to see them. Around December, there’s always a few "vitamin" movies, films that you’re told to see because they’re good for you. But it’s just as important to rally behind the groundbreaking action movies, comedies and genre pieces so Hollywood can see that quality counts.
Second, film critics play a crucial role in shaping the overall direction of movies. By championing new talents like Quentin Tarantino, P.T. Anderson or Darren Aronofsky, they legitimize these filmmakers in the eyes of the studios, who become more willing to take a chance on one of their movies.
Finally, the rise of independent film and diminishing barriers to production (i.e. shooting on videotape, or distributing via the Internet) allow new stories to be told, and new voices to be heard. Most of these movies end up being horrible, but that they can exist at all is cause for celebration. By not having to appeal to all tastes, smaller movies can offer something besides hamburger.
Articles
June 12th, 2005 at 7:41 pm
What about the trend for surprise endings? Maybe that is the hamburger you speak of. People like them, even though it makes for weak storytelling, in my opinion. Happy to find an appropriate thread for this, as reposted from an email I sent you:
Your opinion. I have always frowned upon stories that can be easily spoiled with just a simple one-line sentence. Such as Sixth Sense (“the hero is already dead!”), or Usual Suspects, or the upcoming Benioff picture, STAY (a great script, but also.. so easy to give away the ending). The best paradigm of this problem is displayed in all the work that M. Night Shyamalan, especially his last flick, The Village, that shows just how bad a dependence on surprise endings can get!
I feel like these stories are cop-outs. The underlying concept isn’t strong enough to be interesting if ruined. Why would a competent, interesting, successful screenwriter plan an entire story around one single pivotal payoff? Take that one payoff away, and where’s the story? More mature and complex stories seem not to rely on one big surprise, but rather several enlightening moments that each reveal a truth about all our lives.
Take American Beauty, which can be spoiled to a lesser degree by saying “the neighbor is gay” and/or “he kills the hero” — but overall this movie is great every step of the way, even if you know these things. No one can really ruin this movie for you by giving away any major secret. It’s a mature story that remains compelling for a variety of simultaneous reasons, regardless of whether or not you know the ending before you watch it.
Stories centered around one surprise ending seem to take away from all the other ways one could spend their talent for plotting. Not to mention the self-torture you would inevitably feel trying to make sure no one spoiled it for others.
Maybe I feel this way because I don’t usually eat hamburger?
June 12th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
My apologize, I thought the web form would automatically fix the problem line breaks in my cut-and-paste above.