Gone with the Godfather

The Oscars have always been a very important night for all movie lovers for they are allowed to witness the best accomplishments in the cinema industry. However, it appears that the Oscars next year, (the 85^th since 1929) will encounter a dilemma: for the first time in a long time, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will have a very difficult time deciding on which movies to nominate for such prestigious categories in February. Yet, this problem did not occur because too many good movies were produced; instead, too many bad movies were made this year, offsetting the balance between those movies that were wonderfully influential and those that were created as an afterthought.

With the economy crisis, ticket sales have dramatically increased [check older blog post] which motivates many to stay in at home and simply watch TV. This situation is particularly aggressive to present movies right now such as Argo, which has been widely praised by critics and rumored to be a big Oscar contender, merely had 7.6 million viewers over the weekend as opposed to the 8.2 million viewers one “Glee” episode attracts.

This problem is further worsening with the fact that most movie nowadays seem to be lacking in cultural and educational depth. Now, the American public is being satisfied with the simple but abrasive movies such as the R-rated comedy, Ted, or unless the movies are action-packed or dramatic like the Twilight Saga or Marvel’s The Avengers, they will not succeed in the box office.

Due to this, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is left wondering what to do in order to produce more memorable movies such as “The Godfather” and “Gone With the Wind.”  Suggestions about improving the quality of movies nowadays have varied, with the Academy staff wanting to join all the Best Picture Oscar winners filmmakers to create a campaign shown in theaters to remind the audience of the importance of movies. Others members from the Film Institute have considered starting campaigns with influential politicians such as Bill and Hillary Clinton as their supervisors of film award programs to attract a wider and more mature audience.  

This article is very important because it draws attention to a huge problem in today’s film industry. It seems that adults and older critics alike are constantly praising the films from many years ago and now that makes sense because today’s movies are very weak and sometimes pointless compared to the older ones. Although some movies created today are still fantastic such as War Horse and Hugo, these types of movies are becoming rarer with each passing day and no matter how much the audience yearn for something better, they are still a bit powerless since they do not have a voice in the entertainment industry. Still article raises the topic of the importance of films and that is certainly a step forward since the audience needs to be informed of the dilemma before a solution can be cultivated.

This article caught my eye because it made me wonder about the effects technology has had over movies and their making. For example, since technology is constantly improving practically every day, are filmmakers becoming too dependent on it? Do they feel like their movies do not need to have such a strong story or lesson because they believe all the “special effects” will make up for that? Before, say in the 1940’s, technology was absolutely nowhere near what it is now, and so the filmmakers knew they had to have a strong story to make the movie captivating. I feel like this is part of the problem because there are many influential directors such as Christopher Nolan (The Batman Trilogy and Inception) and Jason Reitman (Up in the Air and Juno) that do not like the new 3D technology either and strongly oppose it for they believe in maintaining the purity of their film intact. On some level, this proves that the new technology made to benefit movies actually backfired on the entertainment industry.

As a student, this impacts me because I am learning a valuable lesson: today’s era of movies need to be improved and fast. It makes me realize that the future of movies does not look so bright because although the movies may become fancier with the new technology, it will still be pointless if they do not contain some sort of depth that will make certain movies stand out and remain a classic. Such news inspires me to focus on the good movies that were made years before and keep an optimistic attitude about today’s movies.

As a future filmmaker, this article motivates me to ensure my future films are worthy enough and unforgettable due to their story. I do not want my films to be simple and cliché or only created for the purpose of money because that is actually quite sad. Movies should be made because it’s a passion, and seen only by those that can truly appreciate the quality and work behind them.

As a consumer, this article impacts me because I agree with the viewpoint described above and so I am one of those that refuse to go to the theaters and pay for a movie that I know is typical and boring so I would rather just rent it. Personally, I prefer the more emotional and deep movies such as The Perks of Being of a Wallflower or Argo, and so movies like Ted, I find quite offensive and pointless because its sending the wrong message to the audience. Movies similar to Ted also make me ponder about this generation….are we, the so-called “movie-lovers”, satisfied with such crude movies? If we are, then what does that say about our characters?

As I read this article, the standards of the movies made today left me thinking; do the filmmakers truly enjoy making insulting movies such as Ted, or are they just doing it because they know it will attract audience, and therefore, accumulate a lot of money? I also wonder about the impact of technology on modern movies and whether it bettered movies or only added to the ignorance of consumers. Are filmmakers becoming too reliant on technology, or are they using it as a helpful tool rather than a crutch? After all, it is possible to combine technology and valuable ethics in any movie, like Christopher Nolan did with The Dark Knight Rises; he was able to show amazing special effects and still maintain a strong lesson (e.g. the poor versus the rich). I guess a balance between the two elements needs to be found soon or else the entertainment business will see the dark age of movies.        

 
New York Times: Escape Cultural Irrelevance