Mike Sutton

GET UPDATES FROM Mike Sutton
 

The Seven Deadly Sins of Modern Hollywood: Lack of Ideas

Posted: 6/02/2012 00:00

In The Hangover, a group of friends go to Las Vegas for a stag party, get blind drunk and discover that they've done all sorts of things while under the influence that they have to sort out before the wedding. In The Hangover Part 2, exactly the same happens but you can swap Bangkok for Las Vegas.

One imagines that Todd Phillips could go on making these films indefinitely by changing the location; alternatively, straight-to-DVD sequels could be produced with increasingly less glamorous settings until the Wolf Pack find themselves waking up after an exciting night in Stoke Newington. Clearly, something is awry when such a lazy sequel can be a massive commercial success without people demanding their money back. To add insult to injury, the film recycles a good number of the same jokes from the first film, simply adding extra unpleasantness to the mix. It's visually ugly, badly paced and lazily acted; a film with no ideas beyond the basic motive of making money.

When I refer to a lack of ideas, I don't necessarily mean originality. Admittedly, there is precious little originality in mainstream Hollywood at the moment but then there never has been. Right from the start, American narrative filmmaking largely depended on existing ideas - plays, books, poems - and there's nothing at all unusual, or indeed wrong, about that. It's not where the material comes from, it's what you do with it that counts. A classic example: Brian de Palma may have stolen from Sergei Eisenstein in The Untouchables but he added a a good deal of his own style to the classic Odessa Steps sequence; equally, Sergei Eisenstein refined that legendary scene from visual ideas first seen in D.W. Griffith's Intolerance. The problem I'm concerned about is that so many films coming out of America seem to have virtually no ideas at all. It's not just the plots, it's the fact that the plots are recycled with such a paucity of visual and verbal invention. A great director can take familiar material and renew it through sheer visionary panache; Tim Burton, for example, rarely creates original stories but his films, like them or not, never seem like the work of anyone else. But if a director doesn't really care then there's no hope for the film.

The surprising commercial success of the monochrome and largely silent film The Artist suggests to me that audiences are desperate for something which is different and, more to the point, has some kind of controlling vision beyond the standard demands of a three-act story. As several writers have cogently argued, it's not a great film and, by the standards of the silent films which were actually being made in 1927, it's really rather mediocre. But Michael Hazanavicius has genuine ideas and has the skill to put them onto film. Compare that to the likes of The Iron Lady or J. Edgar which, despite promising performances, trudge through potentially interesting lives with all the inventiveness of an average TV biopic; or Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows which, Jared Harris' brilliant Moriarty apart, has no feeling for either Conan Doyle's creation or the period in which it is meant to be set, and ends up like any other big-budget adventure movie in which the Great Detective might as well be James Bond or Indiana Jones.

Speaking of Ethan Hunt, however, Brad Bird demonstrates in Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol that all is not lost in the world of mega-budget action. It's packed with familiar set-pieces and the script barely rises above the functional but Bird's direction is inspired, turning the familiar grind of the M:I series into a crazily insolent live-action cartoon. The pacing is a little bit frenetic, even hysterical, and it's obvious that no-one quite knows when to say enough is enough but you get the impression that Brad Bird could go on directing daft stunt sequences for another hour and still not run out of ingenuity. The ideas here come not from the material but from the execution and that's what is desperately needed. The film is just an action flick but it's got a soul and it's alive. The Hangover Part 2, on the other hands, looks like it was filmed in a drunken stupor.

 

Follow Mike Sutton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mksttn

In The Hangover, a group of friends go to Las Vegas for a stag party, get blind drunk and discover that they've done all sorts of things while under the influence that they have to sort out before the...
In The Hangover, a group of friends go to Las Vegas for a stag party, get blind drunk and discover that they've done all sorts of things while under the influence that they have to sort out before the...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 30
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
23:38 on 11/02/2012
I was amazed by the first Blair witch project. It made you think, it was done on a small budegt the sqeul blew, they made it all hollywood. I like movies that think out of the box. Being John Malvich, was a great movie, something differnt.
17:15 on 11/02/2012
the problem with hollywood is neptosim. everyone is some ones son, daughter, brother wife etc. this goes way beyond the on screen talent. It is almost immposible for fresh talent to penetrate the walls of hollywood so you get medicore talent. many of those who grew up an hollywood donot have the life experiences it takes to be a good actor writer etc. Back in the day, people had life experiences to draw from, riding the rails, being in a war, working in a coal mine or mill., being a teacher or policeman. Now they all(with exceptions) come from class of people who were sent to private schools with other rich kids, never had toworry about were their next meal was coming from etc.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Diana Scrimger
00:21 on 08/02/2012
Young Hollywood is just being stupid. How can young Hollywood go against old Hollywood. Why don;t they have respect for the classic era actors shown on TCM? This has turned into a culture clash. This ruling on Prop 8 is an insult to the classic era actors in Hollywood. This just proves that they have no respect I have not decided yet whether to boycott watching the Oscars this year!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
c-tom
Badges we don't need no stinking badges
01:39 on 08/02/2012
Just because the many gay classic era actors didn't marry how is the ruling an insult to them.
19:33 on 07/02/2012
I agree with the author's premise: Talented, dedicated filmmakers with a distinctive point of view make good films, no matter what genre they're working in.

But is junk filmmaking a particularly modern problem? In any year you care to name, there were many, many more routine, flabby do-it-for-a-buck movies than there were great ones.

1939: Routinely cited as Hollywood's apex. Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz. Mr. Chips. Dark Victory. There were masterpieces from Ford, Wyler, Capra, Lubitsch. The Oscar Best Actor category was so crowded, there wasn't even room to nominate Charles Laughton for The Hunchback of Notre Dame!

And yet, that year's dull, predictable pot-boilers calculated to appeal to the lowest common denominator vastly outnumbered the masterpieces. Film in America was always a profit-driven business, literally from day one.

Fifty or 60 years from now, when they look back at 2011, what will they see? The Artist. The Help. The Tree of Life. Major films from Spielberg, Scorsese, Allen, Payne. A year when Streep, Clooney, Pitt, Oldman, Depp, DiCaprio, Cruise, Downey all had films in release at the same time. And junk like Hangover2 will be long forgotten by all but the most curious film buffs. From such a distance, only the tallest landmarks remain visible.

Our grandchildren might look back and say, "That must've been an exciting time to be a movie fan. Why don't they make 'em like that anymore?"
17:22 on 11/02/2012
your right they made alot junk back then too. But overall, ther are few films which would stand up to any of those you mentioned. fewer and fewer of the talent coems outside of hollywood. Not enough fresh blood, only the sons and daughters, sisgers and brothers. Look at Billlyu Bob thorten, one of my favorite actors. He got all over clooney. when he played a sadistic gyn teacher he nailed. because he probalby had a few sadistic gym teachers in his life. I remeber he was on one of the talk shows telling about his career at shakeys pizza. he made it interesting, I could just imagine him doing that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eileenla
Author, "Sacred Economics"
13:06 on 07/02/2012
Part of the problem lies in the consumer culture and profit motivation that drives "art" today. If it can't be mass marketed and sold to earn a buck, art is demeaned, devalued and ultimately not supported by our for-profit obsessed society. Young people are actively discouraged from pursuing the arts for art's sake, unless they direct themselves toward a profession where artistic talent can be bottled and sold. Unless we, as a culture, elevate artistic expression as a spiritually uplifting and necessary element of human society, and begin to both honor artists and subsidize their efforts by providing them opportunities to explore their talents and safe havens in which they can work without privation, we are destined to experience "art" in a commercialized way, reduced to the common denominator of what offers the higest commercial mass appeal.
06:37 on 07/02/2012
Hey not all recent movies have been bad. Inception comes to mind as well as another earth... uhmmmmm midnight is Paris was the most interesting Owen Wilson movie ever lol. And even though the help and the girl with the dragon tattoo were novel-based they were good as well! Does suck about all the product placement though.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CreepyThinMan
More dapper than Don Draper.
05:55 on 07/02/2012
The problem is that corporatization is killing the movie industry the same way it's killing everything else. Movies depend on creativity and that is the exact opposite of what corporations want. They want movies to be Coca-cola or McDonalds, a product mass manufactured to the mindless masses. The studio's also fail to realise that with the incredible advances in digital technology, you don't need to spend 150-300 million dollars to make a movie. Think about what Directors of the 70's could have done with the digital video cameras and editing equipment that we have today? Oh and there's nothing wrong with popcorn movies. The real problem is that the studio's want to make nothing but popcorn movies because the greedy stockholders want their paper value to spike every quarter.
02:12 on 07/02/2012
"Lack of ideas"??? In Hollywood????? You think????? Hollywood has been devoid of anything really creative for years. The industry keeps the good ol boy network in, and everyone else out. So industry friends and family and friends of family and friends of friends get their projects made no matter how crappy they may be. They have the f'd up idea that they don't have to give audiences what they want, they give them what they want. They finance the publicity of their own flicks and then give each other the awards and hugs and kisses at the Academy Awards. It's nothing new. As the saying goes..."That's Hollywood!"
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
themightyabealrd
screw the real world-I'm an artist!
23:56 on 06/02/2012
The sameness of popular movies might be owing to the same mentality that drives radio's 'Golden Oldies' stations-people can be assured they won't be exposed to something they haven't heard a thousand times already. I remember friends talking up 'Air Force One', praising it highly. I found it to be okay, but it was only 'Die Hard' on an airplane, with hardly any other changes of note. As for 'The Hangover' pictures, their appeal is lost on anyone who (like me) has dealt in both personal and professional terms with the human wreckage caused by alcohol addiction. But there are millions who truly believe alcohol abuse is funny and that overdosing on that particular drug is hilarious...so those films are created for that demographic.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FreedomMan
Writer, Illustrator, Philosopher
21:33 on 06/02/2012
Poor writing, plebeian camera work, lousy actors because they the later are the children of the ultra rich who want to be actors and their money buys that.

Very few actors these days have talent or imagination or are interested in the work it takes to become a real one.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
c-tom
Badges we don't need no stinking badges
01:44 on 08/02/2012
In general the actors are consistently better than the material they're working with. Clark Gable and Spenser Tracy wouldn't have been able to do any more with the recent Sherlock Holmes script then Downey and Law did. .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
libwingoflibwing
Leftist Christian, Non-Violent Revolutionary
17:58 on 06/02/2012
the success of the Artist isn't because fans are clamoring for something different. it's because the entire Hollywood and critical industry pulled out all the stops with hype promoting it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gneep
if it wasn't always the same, it'd be different
17:26 on 06/02/2012
There is no lack of good ideas in Hollywood. I could give you fifty good ideas with great characters by the end of business Friday.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
youvebeenflagged
17:22 on 06/02/2012
Steven Spielberg destroyed the 70's era of quality films.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
americancolonyinhell
02:19 on 07/02/2012
I think that Godard's view as well.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MichaelFroemel
Star Trek fan from Germany
13:00 on 07/02/2012
So true! Hollywood ws making films for adults, the came Spielberg and Lucas and now we have only movies for 10 year old boys.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
16:59 on 06/02/2012
Good observations in the article. I'll add that it's become so rare that everything pulls together. I've seen good acting, within a poorly constructed plot; or a good plot with abhorrent acting and directing. Why is it so hard for so many film makers to get it ALL right. I'm going to wager a guess that there are too many cooks in the kitchen that need to simply stay out. Having multiple producers with varying ideas of what the final product should be is hurting not helping.
12:04 on 06/02/2012
I've seen a number of films lately which are pathetic and barely watchable. At the same time I have seen some marvellous television: American, British, Danish, French and Italian. TV seems to have become more mature. I must admit though, that one main crippling thing that put me off TV for years is that they can't seem to go beyond the cop, hospital, court dramas which have always dominated TV screens. Look what happens when they present a series such as that of the midwives in the 1960s - vast audience (I must admit, its on the fringes of nurse/hospital drama, but refreshing), even 'Downton Abbey' moves away from the cop/hospital/court dramas. Those particular genres have been drained so often that we now have ridiculous and unwatchable series such as 'Eternal Law' in which angels and fallen angels compete to defend and prosecute people in court.