[quote]Otep wrote:
I think the OP’s on to something, but not the way he thinks.
If you want a make a ‘realistic’ film, it has to be more ‘realistic’ than ‘realistic’ in order to be sensationalized enough to be interesting.
A movie about a two-parent household who are making ends meet and raising a son and a daughter which are nice and eventually find good jobs and spouses is not interesting.
Unless, of course, one has this odd habit of sniffing cocaine, or whatever.
IRL, people try to avoid conflict and pain. Movies are built on them. You see the inherent dichotomy.
One thing about the backgrounds of successful directors and actors in the film industry- They’ve got money. It takes an obscene amount of ca$h to send your kid to film school or acting school. That money takes… money. With the exception of Antoine Fisher, they guy who wrote Boyz in the Hood and maybe the girl from Million Dollar Baby, they walked into Hollywood with cash.[/quote]
Good post. There is no good story without major conflict.
Who would really pay to see the movie where the nice well paid family has two kids who go to school and never miss a day, a dad who LOOOOOVES his job and a wife who works AND cooks? Where is the conflict? They get attacked by terrorists while eating dinner?
Who would pay for boring upper middle class “realism”?
[quote]Otep wrote:
I think the OP’s on to something, but not the way he thinks.
If you want a make a ‘realistic’ film, it has to be more ‘realistic’ than ‘realistic’ in order to be sensationalized enough to be interesting.
A movie about a two-parent household who are making ends meet and raising a son and a daughter which are nice and eventually find good jobs and spouses is not interesting.
Unless, of course, one has this odd habit of sniffing cocaine, or whatever.
IRL, people try to avoid conflict and pain. Movies are built on them. You see the inherent dichotomy.
One thing about the backgrounds of successful directors and actors in the film industry- They’ve got money. It takes an obscene amount of ca$h to send your kid to film school or acting school. That money takes… money. With the exception of Antoine Fisher, they guy who wrote Boyz in the Hood and maybe the girl from Million Dollar Baby, they walked into Hollywood with cash.[/quote]
[quote]ProwlCat wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I get where you’re going with this, OP.
Remember “American Beauty?” Everyone in the suburbs is a closeted homosexual, a pedophile, an adulterous career woman, etc. “Hollywood” is the west side of Los Angeles (usually north of the 10 fwy) where all of the “industry people” in “show business” live. They tend to have a lot of money or put on a front like they do and are really disinterested in anything outside of their own insular world.
How do you and others take one movie and act like ALL movies are made this way? I keep pointing to the blockbusters over the last 2 or 3 years and they do NOT seem to have the issues you think plague all of Hollywood. Even here you had to go back to 1999…A WHOLE DECADE AGO to talk about American Beauty. No other movies that did well at the box office that show this in 10 years?
If you read my original post I said that this type of filmaking has become a specific style or form. They are never blockbusters. Although, the critics love them and they win awards. There is usually some humor or dark humor in the movies. The scenery is always dank, shitty cars, shitty homes, shitty lives. I guess that’s the point. It’s someone’s perception of reality. That’s cool. I was mainly just posting about something my wife and I ended up laughing about: My OWN weird perceptions of things.
[/quote]
Well, again, the point is, if there aren’t even seen by many, who cares what the movie is about?
I haven’t seen one real chick flick since Bring It On…and that’s just because she was an ex-cheerleader and talked me into going. That means I couldn’t even tell you what went on in half of them and wouldn’t use them as a representation of any overriding force in Hollywood other than that there are girls who like those movies.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I get where you’re going with this, OP.
Remember “American Beauty?” Everyone in the suburbs is a closeted homosexual, a pedophile, an adulterous career woman, etc. “Hollywood” is the west side of Los Angeles (usually north of the 10 fwy) where all of the “industry people” in “show business” live. They tend to have a lot of money or put on a front like they do and are really disinterested in anything outside of their own insular world.
How do you and others take one movie and act like ALL movies are made this way? I keep pointing to the blockbusters over the last 2 or 3 years and they do NOT seem to have the issues you think plague all of Hollywood. Even here you had to go back to 1999…A WHOLE DECADE AGO to talk about American Beauty. No other movies that did well at the box office that show this in 10 years?[/quote]
PRC’s point was somewhat tangential, and displays the surburban lifestyle instead of ‘realistic’ one the OP initally ranted about.
Very rarely are movies ABOUT a lifestyle. More often, they involve very select situations (star wars, James Bond, Batman… or… Harry Potter, I guess)
More recent examples of PRC’s point:
Mr. & Mrs. Smith
Guess Who
Burn After Reading
The House that Preys
The Dying Gaul (Excellent play, have not seen the movie)
All of which typify the rich, surbaban lot as not even remotely human (as shown in their inability to have honest relationships with each other. Guess Who may be an exception
I haven’t seen one real chick flick since Bring It On…and that’s just because she was an ex-cheerleader and talked me into going. That means I couldn’t even tell you what went on in half of them and wouldn’t use them as a representation of any overriding force in Hollywood other than that there are girls who like those movies.
One thing about the backgrounds of successful directors and actors in the film industry- They’ve got money. It takes an obscene amount of ca$h to send your kid to film school or acting school. That money takes… money. With the exception of Antoine Fisher, they guy who wrote Boyz in the Hood and maybe the girl from Million Dollar Baby, they walked into Hollywood with cash.[/quote]
There’s way more of the Antoine Fishers, guys in Boyz in the Hood and Million Dollar Babys in Hollywood than the super rich folks.
Most did not walk into Hollywood with cash- they walked in dirt poor and did shitty production assistant jobs until they worked their asses off and made a few contacts- like any other successful person. Sure some people sleaze their way up, but isn’t that the case in most professions?
Oh, and a lot of the top flight directors either didn’t go to film school, or flunked out. They teach a lot of theory which is all nice and good if you have a big budget and department heads (production designers, line producers, people like that).
That theory goes out the window when you’re on your last day of shooting before all your rental equipment is due back, you’ve got 6 more scenes to shoot, and you don’t have a nickel for late fees. A film school degree won’t get you through those problems, but a solid work ethic and ingenuity will.
Most of these movies portray average Americans as slobs who come home from their shit-bag jobs and collapse on the couch amid a pile of filth. Am I being optimistic to hope that’s NOT the case with great majority of this county? Shit. I guess I’m wrong.
One thing about the backgrounds of successful directors and actors in the film industry- They’ve got money. It takes an obscene amount of ca$h to send your kid to film school or acting school. That money takes… money. With the exception of Antoine Fisher, they guy who wrote Boyz in the Hood and maybe the girl from Million Dollar Baby, they walked into Hollywood with cash.
There’s way more of the Antoine Fishers, guys in Boyz in the Hood and Million Dollar Babys in Hollywood than the super rich folks.
Most did not walk into Hollywood with cash- they walked in dirt poor and did shitty production assistant jobs until they worked their asses off and made a few contacts- like any other successful person. Sure some people sleaze their way up, but isn’t that the case in most professions?
Oh, and a lot of the top flight directors either didn’t go to film school, or flunked out. They teach a lot of theory which is all nice and good if you have a big budget and department heads (production designers, line producers, people like that).
That theory goes out the window when you’re on your last day of shooting before all your rental equipment is due back, you’ve got 6 more scenes to shoot, and you don’t have a nickel for late fees. A film school degree won’t get you through those problems, but a solid work ethic and ingenuity will.
off the soapbox
[/quote]
Sounds like this is you. That’s cool. I was not trying to put you down personally. Hard work is hard work. Good for you and good luck.
OP, I get what you’re saying, but I think that for some people, that IS the reality. Far more irritating to me is seeing the opposite on TV shows. I was watching 7th Heaven one day and thought I’d have a stroke. They were living better than the Cosby family did on combined doctor/attorney salaries (which seems to me to be a reasonable portrayal of salary and lifestyle) on one minister’s salary with a stay-at-home wife and 400 kids. Oooh, lookit the $3K entryway table in their $750K house. Pretty! And aren’t the 400 children looking very fine in their upmarket clothes?
But back to your concern…I wonder if your wife has a thing for this type of movie? My husband tolerates my insatiable appetite for plucky-underdog-makes-good movies pretty well but I know he gets tired of the more extreme social commentary stuff I like. You certainly couldn’t make reasonable judgments about Hollywood as a whole from the movies I’m drawn to.
As a last aside, I’ve been shocked at the condition of houses I’ve seen on the market. Who leaves their house dirty for a showing??
[quote]Otep wrote:
I think the OP’s on to something, but not the way he thinks.
If you want a make a ‘realistic’ film, it has to be more ‘realistic’ than ‘realistic’ in order to be sensationalized enough to be interesting.
A movie about a two-parent household who are making ends meet and raising a son and a daughter which are nice and eventually find good jobs and spouses is not interesting.
Unless, of course, one has this odd habit of sniffing cocaine, or whatever.
IRL, people try to avoid conflict and pain. Movies are built on them. You see the inherent dichotomy.
One thing about the backgrounds of successful directors and actors in the film industry- They’ve got money. It takes an obscene amount of ca$h to send your kid to film school or acting school. That money takes… money. With the exception of Antoine Fisher, they guy who wrote Boyz in the Hood and maybe the girl from Million Dollar Baby, they walked into Hollywood with cash.[/quote]
It’s funny you mentioned that. I’ve got a buddy who (after getting his master’s in music from UCLA) writes music for show business. He comes from a wealthy family. His grandfather made millions in game shows and his grandfather’s money and influence certainly seem to help. My friend is a brilliant musician, it just helps to have the right connections. And money.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
OP, I get what you’re saying, but I think that for some people, that IS the reality. Far more irritating to me is seeing the opposite on TV shows. I was watching 7th Heaven one day and thought I’d have a stroke. They were living better than the Cosby family did on combined doctor/attorney salaries (which seems to me to be a reasonable portrayal of salary and lifestyle) on one minister’s salary with a stay-at-home wife and 400 kids. Oooh, lookit the $3K entryway table in their $750K house. Pretty! And aren’t the 400 children looking very fine in their upmarket clothes?
But back to your concern…I wonder if your wife has a thing for this type of movie? ??[/quote]
[quote]Christine wrote:
drewkearns wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
My wife said I was full of shit and asked me to “please, please, PLEASE shut the fuck up!”
Really? That’s funny.
huh… not really… you let you wife talk to you like that? that’s so disrespectful man…
That’s what happens when you take the gag out.
[/quote]
For what it’s worth we were both just fucking with one another. But she is a lot less verbose - and more fun - with the gag IN.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
As a last aside, I’ve been shocked at the condition of houses I’ve seen on the market. Who leaves their house dirty for a showing??[/quote]
hijack
Especially in this market, yeah?
I know a guy who is currently getting divorced and the soon to be ex lives in the house. The house has been on the market for at least a year. I’ve not seen it, but from others I have heard that she keeps the house a complete mess. She didn’t even clean it when the realator wanted to do an open house.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:
malonetd wrote:
I never heard of any of these movies.
You married?
Umm, sort of. Are they movies only married people watch?[/quote]
Not at all. I’ve seen both The Savages and Smart People, although this is likely not a surprise to anyone that follows my posts in the ‘Movies’ thread. I recall liking both movies, especially The Savages, which stars Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Now that I think about it, I think Smart Peoplewas just okay for me.
To the OP, this has already been said in this thread, but you really do need to get out a bit more. I used to do ‘in home’ computer repair for Gateway a few years back. I pretty much covered the entire Bay Area. You should have seen the inside of some of the houses I had to work in. It didn’t matter how nice the neighborhood or city I was in, some people are just slobs.
Anyway, I think you’re reading too much into the ‘message’ you think Hollywood is saying about America in movies like these.
[quote]Christine wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
As a last aside, I’ve been shocked at the condition of houses I’ve seen on the market. Who leaves their house dirty for a showing??
hijack
Especially in this market, yeah?
I know a guy who is currently getting divorced and the soon to be ex lives in the house. The house has been on the market for at least a year. I’ve not seen it, but from others I have heard that she keeps the house a complete mess. She didn’t even clean it when the realator wanted to do an open house.
/hijack[/quote]
Continuing the hijack, when I was looking to buy my first home a few years back, I remember pretty much walking out of a few houses the second I walked in because they were so messy. I’m not just talking about cluttered or having too much furniture either. I’m talking about dirty clothes laying all over the place, carpets that clearly haven’t been vacuumed in a long time, dirty dishes in the sink, etc.