[kino] NYTimes.com Article: What Is an American Movie Now?

[karpeev at mcs.anl.gov]

The article below from NYTimes.com 
has been sent to you by karpeev at mcs.anl.gov.


Is the future of "small" American movies on HBO?  Or on the Internet?

karpeev at mcs.anl.gov


/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight ------------\

SIDEWAYS - NOW PLAYING IN SELECT CITIES

An official selection of the New York Film Festival and the
Toronto International Film Festival, SIDEWAYS is the new
comedy from Alexander Payne, director of ELECTION and ABOUT
SCHMIDT.  Starring Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church,
Sandra Oh and Virginia Madsen. Watch the trailer at:

http://www.foxsearchlight.com/sideways/index_nyt.html

\----------------------------------------------------------/


What Is an American Movie Now?

November 14, 2004
 By LYNN HIRSCHBERG 



 

I. Is the Face of America That of a Green Ogre? 

This year's Cannes International Film Festival epitomized
the extraordinary global reach of American films --
sometimes to the point of absurdity. There were thrilling
movies at Cannes -- movies that told original, compelling
stories about life in Senegal and upper-middle-class Paris
and the jungles of Thailand. But those movies (and many
others) contrasted sharply with the American films
spotlighted at the festival, whose chief purpose, it
seemed, was to please the widest possible audience. 

Along with weapons, movies are among our most lucrative
exports to a waiting world, and in the last seven years or
so, it has become clear that the expected audience for
nearly all American-made studio movies, the audience they
are designed and created for, has shifted from the 50
states to the global marketplace. This change in
perspective has, naturally, resulted in a change in
content: nuances of language or the subtleties of comedy do
not translate easily between cultures, but action or
fantasy or animation is immediately comprehensible, even if
you live in, say, Japan, which is the country that most big
studios long to reach. Films like this year's "Troy" (which
was shown at Cannes), "The Day After Tomorrow" and "Van
Helsing," which are not dependent on dialogue, did not play
as well as expected in America but became huge hits in many
other countries, making several times what they made in the
U.S. box office. Thankfully, the so-called specialty
divisions of the big studios still try to depict the
prevailing mood of the country. But consider a specialty
film like "Sideways," which is the best American movie I
have seen this year: it has no international stars and no
action, and because the film shifts in tone from comedy to
drama in nearly every scene, it is not likely to be easily
comprehended by a worldwide audience. As far as the big
studios go, "Sideways" is essentially a foreign film made
in America. 

But "Shrek 2" is not. An American entry in this year's
Cannes competition, "Shrek 2" continues the animated saga
of the lovable, irascible green creature (whose voice is
that of the international star Mike Myers doing a Scottish
brogue); his bride, the princess; and his faithful donkey
(voice by the very funny Eddie Murphy). "Shrek 2" has the
added bonus of Antonio Banderas, who gives the growing
Latin market a chance to cheer for his Puss in Boots. As
charming as "Shrek 2" is, I found it an unsettling example
of how big studios represent the United States to the
world. While other countries have interpreted globalism as
a chance to reveal their national psyches and circumstances
through film, America is more interested in attracting the
biggest possible international audience. At Cannes,
war-torn Croatia was shown through the eye of the director
Emir Kusturica, the French elite was exposed in "Look at
Me," the fear of female genital mutilation was depicted in
Senegal's "Moolaade." And so on. America had a green
fantasy creature and Michael Moore, who went on to win the
festival's top prize with his documentary "Fahrenheit
9/11." 

Wandering through Cannes and fighting my way into
screenings, I felt a growing frustration that what I loved
about American movies (and, by extension, about America)
was in short supply, and when I mentioned this to Walter F.
Parkes, head of motion pictures at DreamWorks SKG, he said:
"I know what you're talking about." Parkes, like most of
the big studio heads, is in a bind: corporate finances
dictate that they cast the widest net possible. That has
become the mandate of the studio president. DreamWorks, for
instance, made "Shrek 2" and is trying to parlay the $436
million success of the film (it is currently the
third-highest-grossing movie of all time) into a profitable
I.P.O. for its animation division. "Films are the one
product that we have that's the first choice around the
world," Parkes continued. "So, then, the questions to ask
are: Is this the one place that people's fears about
globalization are coming to fruition? Is America dominating
world culture through the movies it produces? And if so,
does that come with certain responsibilities beyond
economic ones? These are questions that we have to ask
ourselves. And they are different questions than we asked
even five years ago." 

The day before "Shrek 2" was set to have its premiere at
Cannes, DreamWorks's representatives placed large plastic
bags full of green Shrek ears along the Croisette, the
bustling beachfront walkway that dominates the action in
Cannes. Even before the festival began, it was feared that
protesting French workers would shut it down over a labor
dispute. On this day, a group of hundreds gathered outside
the Carlton Hotel to denounce the war in Iraq. They were
chanting in French for about 45 minutes, until the police
broke up the demonstration. Then, as the protesters
dissipated into the throng on the Croisette, I watched
them, one by one, put on the free Shrek ears. They were
attracted, it seemed, by the ears' goofiness and sheer
recognizability. Immediately, the crowd, once filled with
political fervor, was transformed into a sea of cartoon
characters. 

I felt embarrassed: America seemed, at best, an absurd,
vaguely comic place. 

When you look at the big international hits of the year, it
is easy to understand why the world views America with a
certain disgust. Shrek may be a lovable (and Scottish)
ogre, but nearly every other global hero in American movies
is bellicose, intellectually limited, stuck in ancient
times or locked in a sci-fi fantasy. American films used to
be an advertisement for life in the states -- there was
sophistication, depth, the allure of a cool, complex
manner. Now most big studio films aren't interested in
America, preferring to depict an invented, imagined world,
or one filled with easily recognizable plot devices. "Our
movies no longer reflect our culture," said a top studio
executive who did not wish to be identified. "They have
become gross, distorted exaggerations. And I think America
is growing into those exaggerated images. 

My fear is that it's the tail wagging the dog -- we write
the part, and then we play the part." 

II. Sorry, We Don't Film Here Anymore 

Several months
after I returned from Cannes, I phoned nearly every big
studio chief and queried them about the wages of
globalization. Not surprisingly, they all maintained that
they chose movies on the basis of whether a script or story
grabbed them, and not according to the dictates of a global
audience. And yet they also acknowledged that they
typically build their slate around the so-called event
films, like another "Harry Potter" or "Star Wars" or
"Matrix" installment. Event films are big and expensive and
conceived for the largest audience imaginable. To keep
costs down, most of them are shot in other countries. "It
used to be Canada," said Jeff Robinov, president of
production at Warner Brothers Pictures, the industry leader
in the global film business. "But the Canadian
tax-incentive laws were redefined. London has instituted
rebates that have lured production there." 

Between mid-October and the end of the year, Robinov will
travel to Australia and Rome and twice visit London, Paris
and Canada. He's checking on all of his films. He's
accustomed to this: the "Matrix" movies were shot
completely in Australia (except for a freeway scene shot
outside San Francisco). Shooting overseas saves money and
adds to the universal appeal of the films -- the films are
set in a movie world with no distinct sense of place; they
could happen anywhere. 

Sherry Lansing, Paramount's chairwoman, who just announced
her plans to step down, noted that the world marketplace
has only recently become an important factor. "I think CNN
brought the world together," she told me. "When I worked as
a producer and we made 'Fatal Attraction' in the mid-80's,
we never even thought of the global audience. Back then, we
thought, If it does well in America, it will do well over
there." 

But the international success of "Titanic" in 1997 helped
to change everything. "When 'Titanic' opened at only $28
million in the U.S.," recalled Nina Jacobson, president of
the Buena Vista Motion Picture Group at Disney, "everyone
called 20th Century Fox and offered their condolences. But
'Titanic' turned out to be the ultimate international
movie. It played very well in America, but in Japan they
loved it, loved it, loved it. It eventually made $900
million in rentals worldwide. That movie is so big
internationally that no one can touch it, but everyone
tries." 

"Titanic" was a rarity: a special-effects marvel that
helped create two stars (Leonardo Di Caprio and Kate
Winslet) and won a hoard of Oscars. (The success of
"Titanic" is daunting even for its creator -- James Cameron
has not made a film since.) In 2003, another global
milestone was established by the second "Matrix" film: at
the suggestion of its producer, Joel Silver, the movie was
released simultaneously all over the world. "Day and date"
releases are increasingly necessary to capitalize on
audience interest and, more important, to limit piracy. "If
you don't release your movie at roughly the same time all
over the world, the video of your movie will be sold on the
streets of Singapore within days of its first release,"
Jacobson explained. "I don't want to be the one to say
this, but the song is correct: it's a small world, after
all. The audience has merged." 

Like other studio heads, she said this matter-of-factly, a
statement of fact. But clearly her decision-making has been
affected by her observations. Of course, it's not all
blockbusters at the big studios these days. Warner
Brothers, for example, is currently making "Syriana" with
George Clooney. Described by many as one of the best
scripts in Hollywood, it is a dark tale about the global
oil business that intertwines Middle Eastern politics and a
story line involving the C.I.A. Meanwhile, Sony, more than
most studios, is diversified, green-lighting "Spider-Man"
and "Closer," a $30 million drama, directed by Mike
Nichols, about two couples who are undone by an affair.
Perhaps wisely, the studio is hedging its bet by stocking
"Closer" with the international stars Julia Roberts and
Jude Law. "It's always a decision," Jacobson told me. "You
might make a choice, for instance, to put John Travolta in
'Ladder 49,' as we did, to heighten the national and
international profile of a film. And you have to realize
that if you put a sports movie into production, it will do
disastrously internationally. It won't travel no matter how
good it is, so you adjust the budget accordingly. The world
just doesn't care about other people's sports." 

III. Who Is the Bad Guy Now? 

Part of the reason I find
the globalization of American movies unsettling is that I
can't remember a time when the dialogue at cocktail parties
or between friends or in office meetings has been so lively
and political. The shift in the national conversation is
missing in our global film identity. For the most part,
present-day politics may be too complicated a subject for
Hollywood to handle -- at least in ambitious feature films.


"You have to make different decisions now," said Lansing,
whose company, Paramount, made "Team America," the puppet
comedy in which Kim Jong Il is the archenemy. "It's hard,
for instance, to pick a villain with a global audience in
mind. If we're in a global market, it's going to be a
challenge to find credible villains." The movie "Pearl
Harbor" played well in Japan, but generally the studio
heads agreed: countries (with the possible exception of
North Korea, which is not a big movie market) can no longer
be demonized. 

Strangely, politics, especially anti-American politics,
just might have global appeal. Insiders predict that "The
Manchurian Candidate," with its vague Halliburton-esque
conspiracy plot line, will play better to an anti-American
international audience than it did here. Warner Brothers
has high hopes for the ambiguous villain in "Syriana." "The
enemy is a combination of global business and politics,"
Jeff Robinov said. "We think that will play well to
international markets." 

For the most part, however, studios are more comfortable
with plots and characters from a parallel universe that
does not mirror ours or, really, anyone's. If you want to
find anything like the voice of America, you have to see a
documentary or a smaller film from one of the specialty
divisions of a studio. Jacobson told me: "The chitchat that
precedes every pitch meeting has changed. But the pitches
haven't. In the movie business, it's hard to be in the
moment or of the moment -- the economics are too great.
That's why there are smaller divisions. They have a
different audience." 

IV. Why Small American Movies Don't Travel 

Unfortunately,
the much-admired mini-majors are not always content with a
small domestic audience. While I have an enormous weakness
for Harvey Weinstein's passion for films, the truth is that
he has radically departed from the original idea behind his
company, Miramax. Initially, Miramax embraced challenging
movies like "My Left Foot," "The Crying Game" 

and "Pulp Fiction." Weinstein was brilliant at marketing
these films, and he developed a brand: a Miramax movie was
aimed at certain members of the audience (me, for instance)
who wanted an alternative to what the major studios were
producing. 

After "Pulp Fiction," which was rejected by major studios,
Weinstein himself started thinking big. Suddenly, small
films about fascinating characters were not as appealing as
large-scale epics like "Cold Mountain" or "The Aviator,"
directed by Martin Scorsese and coming soon from Miramax.
"Selling a small movie takes an amazing amount of work,"
explained one longtime Hollywood observer. "And then you
make 8 or 10 million dollars. Harvey saw what the big
studios had always seen: if you go big, your presence is
larger and your profit is larger. A mediocre film released
in thousands of theaters will usually be more successful
than a small movie, without stars, that requires clever
marketing. Harvey got tired of working that hard. It's
easier to put in a big star." 

At the moment, the old Miramax model has been adopted by
Fox Searchlight, headed by Peter Rice. Searchlight largely
concentrates on reaching a small North American audience,
and this mandate allowed a director like Alexander Payne to
cast four relative unknowns in "Sideways." Because of its
casting, Universal rejected the movie. Actually, George
Clooney had sought a part in the film, but Payne said that
because of his superstar status he was wrong for the role.
"To ask the audience to believe one of the world's most
handsome and successful movie stars is now playing one of
the world's biggest loser actors is too much," Payne has
said. (Clooney agreed: "Alexander was right. I am too
famous for what he had in mind. But isn't that part of the
problem? As an actor, you don't want to be locked in to big
action films. Alexander found the two best actors for the
job, but we're all attracted to interesting stories, even
so-called stars.") 

Other studios are paying attention to Fox Searchlight. Tom
Freston, co-president of Viacom, has plans to reinvigorate
his own specialty division, Paramount Classics. Still, the
specialty division is not a panacea. Payne's stubborn (and
correct) belief in his casting choices is unusual enough to
be noted in virtually every mention of "Sideways." In
America, most directors have begun to think strategically,
like businessmen, and their films have suffered. The
studios long for stars, global stars, and the filmmakers,
who want to get their movies made, comply. 

V. Why Small American Movies Don't Play Well at Home Either


In 1980, Pauline Kael wrote an essay in The New Yorker
titled "Why Are Movies So Bad? Or, the Numbers." After
taking a sabbatical from film criticism and working in
Hollywood for about a year, she came to believe that
television was ruining the movies. She said that TV
watching reduced the attention span of viewers and that the
need to sell films to reach these TV-saturated viewers had
led to truncated plot lines and worse. Kael longed for the
days of the moguls, who, she said, had courage and a
respect for quality. She was also a believer in the
filmmakers of the 70's. Among her favorites were Hal Ashby,
Francis Ford Coppola, Robert Altman, Bernardo Bertolucci
and Warren Beatty, who lured her out to Hollywood to work
in the business. "In the 70's, audiences were willing to be
surprised," Beatty told me recently. "Now people want to
know what they're going to get. The studios want to make
whatever successful movie is in their rear-view mirror. Now
there are two ways of trying to make money on a movie. 

You either need to have a brand or you need a sound bite on
TV to get audiences into the theater. If those are the
rules, then the movies have to conform. And the hallmark of
the 70's, the hallmark of any artistic endeavor, was
nonconformity." 

Oddly, television itself -- or cable television, anyway --
may have become a refuge of nonconformity. HBO's film
division, which is run by Colin Callender, has the luxury
of a built-in sophisticated audience. Last year at Cannes,
it won the Palme d'Or for "Elephant," Gus Van Sant's
personal meditation on the Columbine massacre. And this
year, it presented "The Holy Girl," a moody story about a
teenage girl's emerging sexuality. "In the U.K., where I am
from, they believe that you can travel easily between TV
and films," Callender explained over lunch in Cannes. "And
when you're thinking of HBO, the old paradigms do not
apply. We feel we have to offer our subscribers something
they can't find anywhere else, not even in movie theaters."
HBO Films flexibly adapts its projects to both the big and
the small screens. The award-winning film "Maria Full of
Grace" plays in the multiplex, and the award-winning
"Angels in America" spilled over two nights on TV and is
sold on DVD. "Our audience is, first and foremost, the
domestic audience," Callender continued. "That helps
dictate the focus of the work." 

VI. The End of American Movie Influence (or Where Are the
Men?) 

Today's global audience, it seems, has little interest in
the next generation of American leading men. As a rule,
international stars, a field dominated by men (only Julia
Roberts is truly an international female star), are not
American if they are newly emerging. Sure, Tobey Maguire
was a great Spider-Man, but he doesn't have a global reach
without the red hood. Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt may still
draw crowds, but the world's newest stars come from other
English-language-speaking countries, like Ireland (Colin
Farrell), England (Jude Law, Clive Owen), Scotland (Ewan
McGregor) or Australia (Russell Crowe). "What is that?"
said Amy Pascal, chairwoman of Sony Pictures Entertainment
Motion Picture Group, who just cast Heath Ledger
(Australia) as a Los Angeles skateboarder in "Lords of
Dogtown." "I guess all the American men became comedians.
They all wanted to be funny. The next generation of stars
seem to be a more international bunch, which is great: your
access, as a studio, is not limited to the boy or girl next
door." 

Actually, American movies used to concern themselves with
the boy or girl next door. I liked that -- those characters
had real complications and possibilities, and still do. But
the arrival of globalization is not complicating the
American stories being told; it is simplifying them. And
that has consequences. If you think about your life, you
may find that films have been extraordinarily influential.
The way you dress, act, talk or walk often follows what you
saw in the movies. And now, instead of being known for our
sense of conversation or style, we are known for our blood
and gore. "I noticed a few years ago," Walter Parkes said,
"that gangstas in urban movies all carried their guns
sideways, and wondered if this created a style for the real
world as opposed to being a reflection of the real world." 

But what else? I am back to "Shrek." In that movie, the
dialogue is intentionally spoofish. The movie is a long
riff on pop culture. It is funny, but it does not inspire,
or stir up any large emotions. In the end, it has no
resonance, nor does it aspire to any. 

In the past, cultures would influence one another through
film. The sensibility of the French New Wave and the Hong
Kong action picture affected countless young Americans. But
that sort of broad foreign influence seems to be waning. As
I write, the biggest hit in America is "The Grudge," which
is a remake of a Tokyo horror film directed by Takashi
Shimizu. He has already directed the original and three
sequels in Japanese. Although it received poor reviews,
"The Grudge" made nearly $40 million on its first weekend
and will probably become a global sensation. In the late
60's and 70's, horror films had the scope of "Rosemary's
Baby," which raised the genre to a meditation on urban
anxiety and rampant ambition. It is doubtful that anyone
harbors similar hopes for "The Grudge." If this is the new
global cinema, it could give the term "horror film" new
meaning. 




Lynn Hirschberg is editor at large for the magazine.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/movies/14HOLLYWOOD.html?ex=1102502281&ei=1&en=9138fea85f97cc32


---------------------------------

Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine
reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!
Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy
now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:

http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1&ExternalMediaCode=W24AF



HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters 
or other creative advertising opportunities with The 
New York Times on the Web, please contact
onlinesales at nytimes.com or visit our online media 
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to 
help at nytimes.com.  

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company