Why modern movies suck - they teach us awful lessons

[Guest 7034872]

I would argue that if it's managing to engage you in subject matter that you don't agree with, then it has slipped past one of the strongest defence mechanisms that people have for their thoughts; confirmation bias.

As a rule of thumb, that carries weight, but I note it is no law. From the fact that some person S is capable of becoming aware of his or her confirmation bias, it follows that at least some part of S is capable of overcoming such bias: to see it as bias already is (at an instinctive level) to understand it as ultimately dishonest. Even more, there are some of us who make it our special business in life to spend extraordinary time and effort considering ideas and arguments with which we do not already agree. Some of us even get tenure while doing this (which is nice).

I think Bedrockgames and AnotherGuy have it right: the tribalism of the political and moral positions today (on nearly all sides) is what really poisons them, not which positions they are, and the substitution of a well-told story with some totemically waved moral and political pieties is one of several things killing current movie-making. I also think payn is right that the tribalism isn't coming from movies and TV; it's being picked up by them and exploited because it's already so much in the cultural air. That's one of the main points on which I disagree with the Critical Drinker's analysis: the movies aren't teaching us moral narcissism: they're picking up on it and pandering to it because (1) it's easy, and (2) at least for the moment, it sells.

As a professional philosopher, I've changed my mind more than I've held to it over the past thirty-odd years, and I learned long ago never to trust the judgments and advice of people who refuse seriously to consider ideas with which they do not already agree. Because they will not step outside of themselves and take contrary positions seriously, I cannot take them seriously. It isn't what they hold that makes me stop listening to them, mind you: it's the manner in which they hold it.

Are you sure it's not simply a bias of perception?

Yes. Habitually, I make myself watch carefully for that.

One thing that probably is involved, though, is a shift in the sample pool. As you note below, indie stuff is having a much easier time getting into mainstream culture than it did in the 80s and 90s. That's certainly true.

We're aware of most films coming out today, but we're not familiar with the majority of the naughty word films from say the 1950s for example.

I am. (Maybe not "most," but certainly "lotsa.")

Also there are groups of people who today are able to make films who would have been prevented from doing so in the past, which would help offset any losses to tv.

That's true. The problem I continue to see, though, is that writing and storytelling skills have gone downhill hard. My cynical take on this has been and is that it's hard to find good writers in a culture that no longer reads books (and of those that do, they'll only occasionally manage to read good books).

 

[Ryujin]

I also think it's easy for people to forget how groundbreaking something is. Star Trek starting airing in 1966 and featured an African on the bridge of the one of the Federation's best exploration vessels. Just a year earlier, many television stations in the southern United States refused to air I, Spy because it featured a black secret agent played by Bill Cosby and a white secret agent played by Robert Culp who were equal partners. Cosby's character was neither subservient to or in command of Culp's character but they worked together as partners. Sesame Street started airing in 1969 and was banned in Mississippi the following year because of its integrated cast of characters.

When I was watching Star Trek, even as a teenager, I didn't think twice that the Federation's most venerated expert on computers, Dr. Daystrom was black. It didn't occur to me that it was a big deal for Nichelle Nichols to play an officer on the bridge of a space ship. But in the 1960s it was kind of a big deal.

As a kid who was growing up in a poor and very multi-racial/multicultural area of Toronto, when TOS first aired, I was amazed to see people on TV who looked and sounded like my neighbours.

 

[Guest 85555]

I also think it's easy for people to forget how groundbreaking something is.

That is very easy to not understand. I was born in the mid-70s. I think I have a pretty good handle on a lot of the stuff coming out of the late 60s, simply because my parents and other adult relatives who lived through that always made a point of explaining how significant those kinds of movies or shows were. And a lot of my understanding of the context of the 70s films I enjoy (that is by far my favorite movie-making era) comes from what I was told about the 70s as a kid or what I read about the 70s as a history student. That is a lot different than living through a decade.

 

[payn]

That's true. The problem I continue to see, though, is that writing and storytelling skills have gone downhill hard. My cynical take on this has been and is that it's hard to find good writers in a culture that no longer reads books (and of those that do, they'll only occasionally manage to read good books).

I think this is something in the film sphere. There is excellent stuff happening on the small screen in the golden age of the dramatic series. I think this is where writers have gone. It kind of makes sense too because a series is work for longer as opposed to the shorter work a film creates for writers.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I think this is something in the film sphere. There is excellent stuff happening on the small screen in the golden age of the dramatic series. I think this is where writers have gone. It kind of makes sense too because a series is work for longer as opposed to the shorter work a film creates for writers.

Yep, that's exactly the point I made earlier, and professionals in the business noted it years ago: especially since the advent of shows like The Sopranos, a lot of the strongest writing talent (and even acting talent) has gone over to the small screen. Consequently, movies have suffered.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think this is something in the film sphere. There is excellent stuff happening on the small screen in the golden age of the dramatic series. I think this is where writers have gone. It kind of makes sense too because a series is work for longer as opposed to the shorter work a film creates for writers.

I've been watching a lot of Talking Sopranos episodes in the wake of viewing the many saints of newark and this is something I do hear the actors say. Especially actors who went on the sopranos after a film career. That since then there has been this big shift in where a lot of the writers are going

 

[dragoner]

Yep, that's exactly the point I made earlier, and professionals in the business noted it years ago: especially since the advent of shows like The Sopranos, a lot of the strongest writing talent (and even acting talent) has gone over to the small screen. Consequently, movies have suffered.

JMS, the creator of Babylon 5 and other shows, tweeted a reply to someone who was talking about independent writers making it in Hollywood: "Name three". It is a know issue, that it is an insular system, much like the studios have always done it. Part of it is that one has to be good at the social scene of hob nobbing at parties vs being the best at one's craft. Though there is not an industry where operating the social clutch and having a minimum of talent, will always beat having talent alone.

 

[Guest 85555]

For example, I read numerous complaints about Star Trek Discovery having "an agenda." I watched it myself and some scenes are definitely constructed in a political manner, but that doesn't mean the purpose of the show is to lean into a particular set of politics.

My last post jogged this thought, but I had that reaction to the Many Saints of Newark. I had heard there was a lot of political subtext (and it isn't like the Sopranos never had political subtext anyways), or that it was pandering to current political issues. I waited to watch it, and while politics was in it for sure: the Newark Riots are an important backdrop, the character Harold, who is black, is pretty important to the story, I can't say it really struck me as being all that much different from anything the Sopranos had done before (Honestly the episode Christopher was way more didactic than the Many Saints of Newark). I liked the movie quite a bit. The riots worked well as a backdrop because they did five it this atmosphere and a growing sense of tension. And Harold was a really good character. The actor was someone you wanted to watch on screen and he added a real sense of stakes for the main character, Dickie Moltisanti. I think my only quibble is they could have made Harold a little less tied to the political landscape he inhabited and given him more personal motivations like the other characters but that is fairly mild and I may change my mind about that on repeat viewings if I notice more details about his character.

 

[payn]

Yep, that's exactly the point I made earlier, and professionals in the business noted it years ago: especially since the advent of shows like The Sopranos, a lot of the strongest writing talent (and even acting talent) has gone over to the small screen. Consequently, movies have suffered.

Maybe for the best? Bedrockgames brought up Many Saints of Newark the soprano prequel movie. I thought it was pretty weak as a story overall. A lot of that had to do with the movie trying to accomplish way too much. It was at least 8 episodes of material crammed into a 2 hour movie. Movies just dont have the time to encompass a large scope like a series can. It has really expanded what is possible for a writer(s).

 

[Guest 85555]

Maybe for the best? Bedrockgames brought up Many Saints of Newark the soprano prequel movie. I thought it was pretty weak as a story overall. A lot of that had to do with the movie trying to accomplish way too much. It was at least 8 episodes of material crammed into a 2 hour movie. Movies just dont have the time to encompass a large scope like a series can. It has really expanded what is possible for a writer(s).

While I have a slightly different take on Many Saints of Newark, I do think you are on to something here. I feel like we've gotten very into long form story telling since the sopranos (there were long form shows before but that really seemed to change the culture). And in recent years I started getting very bored with a lot of television series because they were soooooo slow and taking so long to tell a story that could be told in shorter space. And I think a lot of newer movies have taken to this kind of approach where they tell larger stories over a series of movies (or as you point to, cram a larger story into a small movie). Netflix Shows work similarly. When they are done well, I love it. But sometimes I feel like I am just moving to the next episode soley to find out what happens (not because I am enjoying watching the actual episode). There is something to be said for a tight movie or a film that is enjoyable to watch on its own, without giving thought to a larger story.