Stephen Whitty compares the hits of 1971 to those of last year.
Topel in 1971's "Fiddler on the Roof" (MGM), left; and Daniel Radcliffe in 2011's "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2" (Warner Bros).”When I was a child, most of the big hits in movie theaters were aimed at adults. Now that I’m an adult, most of the big hits in movie theaters are aimed at children.
And that’s not middle-aged crankiness talking. (Well, not just middle-aged crankiness.) It’s also box-office numbers.
Admitted, with a few of last year’s big-buzz films, like “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol,” still new to theaters, it’ll be a few months before we can say precisely what the Top 10 blockbusters of 2011 were, domestically.
But according to www.hollywood.com, we have an idea.
And they are, right now, in order, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2,” “Transformers: Dark of the Moon,” “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1,” “The Hangover Part II,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” “Fast Five,” “Cars 2,” “Thor,” “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” and “Captain America: The First Avenger.”
The Potter film was great fun. A couple of others were, well, OK. But really – these are the 10 biggest hits of the year?
“You can’t find a single original movie on it,” admits Paul Dergarabedian, hollywood.com’s box-office analyst. “They’re sequels, remakes or they’re setting us up for next year’s ‘The Avengers’ movie... The box office is being driven by familiar themes, familiar characters.”
True enough – and although it’s particularly obvious now, it’s been true for years, to some extent. But take a look at what the box-office list used to look like.
In 1971, for example, I was 12 and just getting seriously interested in films. And that was easy. Because back then the Top Ten domestic grossers were, in order, “Fiddler on the Roof,” “The French Connection,” “Summer of ‘42,” “Diamonds Are Forever,” “Dirty Harry,” “Carnal Knowledge,” “A Clockwork Orange,” “Klute,” “The Last Picture Show” and “Bedknobs and Broomsticks.”
The contrast to today is pretty striking – and sad.
In 2011, the Top Ten movies included two films based on young-adult novels, two more based on toys or amusement-park rides, two superhero films, one sci-fi flick, one cartoon, one raunchy comedy and one over-the-top action picture. Nine of the films were built around action and special effects; not one was a drama.
In 1971, however, you had a musical, and three gritty crime stories. You had a romance, two serious dramas, a dark political satire and a children’s movie. Only one film, a 007 flick, counted as a sequel. The vast majority of movies were made for adults, At least half are now considered to be classics. And they were still huge hits.
“Those were challenging movies,” agrees David Gross, founder of the smart critique site www.moviereviewintelligence.com. “They were dramatic and interesting and we’re not seeing that anymore… The idea of the serious studio drama, made for a wide audience – that genre’s in a tough place, now.”
A pretty obscure place, too. Never mind the Top 10 – go through last year’s Top 50 and look for all the movies that didn’t depend on special effects, car chases or a dirty joke. There’s “The Help,” at No. 11 – and then, towards the very bottom of the list, “Contagion,” “Moneyball,” “Water for Elephants” and “The Lincoln Lawyer.”
Five dramas. Five out of 50 films.
So what happened? Why are today’s biggest hits often movies aimed at the easiest audience? Why has Hollywood practically given up on the kind of movies – “The Godfather,” “Kramer Vs. Kramer,” “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” “Ordinary People,” “Chinatown” – that were both grown-up stories and popular favorites? Where did all the smart hits go?
The answer began long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
Because “Star Wars” proved that you could take what seemed like a kiddie matinee (funny robots and laser sabers!) and treat it like a real movie, and make real money. It proved you could use a new kind of marketing and distribution (saturation TV ads, huge releases) to get a new kind of mass audience (teens who would come multiple times, then buy the merchandise). It proved you didn’t need adults to have a huge hit.
And eventually moguls realized you could apply those rules to all sorts of special-effects driven movies – not just the good ones. And they saw that, because those movies rarely had a lot of complicated dialogue, they did even better overseas. So by the¤’90s, as markets opened up in once-Communist territories (or once-impoverished Third World countries), studios began catering to them by concentrating on action-crammed, no-subtitles-needed adventures.
There’s a reason why big, dumb, loud movies like these now rule the Top Ten. And it’s because they’re the sort of movies that now rule every studio’s global-conscious production slate.
“I used to run international sales at Fox, and you’d make 40 percent of your money overseas,” Gross says of the shift. “Now, it can be as much as 70 percent... Countries like Russia, Brazil, China, their interest in our films is exploding, which can be great. But China doesn’t give a damn about ‘The Social Network.’ What plays are good guys and bad guys and things that everybody can understand, like ‘Transformers.’”
“It’s a global business now,” agrees Dergarabedian. “And also, at home, we’re living in a world of video games, and the net, and that’s changed forever how people consume and view entertainment. I mean today, compared to ‘Fast Five,’ ‘The French Connection’ would be considered a post-modern, European-style thriller... Adult dramas – well, I don’t think Hollywood’s ever going to stop making them. But they’re only going to make them at the right price.”
And that consideration is the flipside of the big change. Because just as Hollywood long ago decided they could maximize profits by turning B-movie ideas into A-movie epics, they’ve slowly realized they can minimize risks by making A-movie ideas on B-movie budgets. So yes, they’ll still make a smart movie – but often only if everyone is willing to take a pay cut, trim the crowd scenes, forget the on-location filming and give up on any huge publicity campaign.
The idea of a star-driven, serious story like “Out of Africa” or “Reds” or “All the President’s Men,” however – let alone the intelligent, international epics David Lean used to undertake? Forget it. Unless there’s a hobbit involved, most studios aren’t interested in funding ambition.
“Once you start to spend real money, they get worried,” Kevin Kline confided to me last year. “A director told me the most excruciating note he’d ever gotten from a studio: He was pitching a project and the executive said, ‘These characters are far too complex for a budget this big.’”
“One of the big studios actually put out the word, ‘We’re not doing any more dramas,’” John Sayles told me recently. “Dramas – you know, that’s a pretty big category to just write off! But what they’re saying is, drama is not a sure thing. It’s complicated, it’s risky, it’s not a product we know how to sell anymore.”
Of course, studios used to know how, before they got distracted by all the spandex and sci-fi. And, admitted, they’ll still make a serious film, particularly if they can get a big star attached (like Brad Pitt and “Moneyball”), or steer it towards their cheaper, leaner, “independent” – more like “co-dependent” — subsidiaries.
The difference – and the problem – is that, only a decade or so ago, a movie like “The Descendants” would have come out from Fox, not its smaller sibling, Fox Searchlight. Instead of playing a few big-city dates, an uncompromisingly adult film like “Shame” would be – as “Carnal Knowledge” was – in unabashed wide release. Knowing that these movies could be difficult sells, the studios simply would have committed more time and money to selling them.
But we’ve gotten to the point where the studio’s big dumb movies use up almost all the oxygen in the room. They monopolize funds, hog multiplex screens, dominate airwaves and shout their simple slogans until they drown out the quieter pictures trying hard to build an audience without the benefit of IMAX, 3D, music videos and Happy Meals.
“So, what are you saying, Stephen,” one industry insider said in mock shock, when I told him about this story. “That the American movie audience is getting stupider?”
No, actually. Yes, more adults are staying home to watch cable (which often rewards their intelligence) or to catch films on DVD (a number that doesn’t show up in the “domestic box office” charts). But many Americans are still sophisticated, dedicated movie lovers. They want a full-course meal – except studios keep relentlessly pushing fast food.
I know that, because when I run into friends and readers, the new movies they wanted to hear about about — “Carnage,” “Hugo” (a rare big-studio gamble, from Paramount) – are not stupid movies. The films they volunteer as their own favorites of the year – “The Ides of March,” “The Debt” – are pretty smart dramas. There’s still an intelligent audience out there, which should inspire the studios a little.
What’s more, the rest of the audience is getting smarter – which should scare the studios a lot.
Hollywood profits are down this year, even with IMAX and 3D surcharges; movie attendance is at a 16-year low. Look again at that Top 10 list for 2011, and you’ll see a lot of “popular” films nobody really liked. The studios may have tricked folks into seeing “The Hangover Part II” or “On Stranger Tides,” but how many people left thinking they’d gotten their money’s worth? And how likely are they to go next time?
American audiences getting stupider? No, what I’m saying – well, hoping – is that there’s always been an audience for intelligent films, and there always will be. And that “surprise” successes like last year’s “The King’s Speech” or this year’s “Midnight in Paris” are surprises only to people who don’t realize that. Audiences can still make hits out of grown-up studio movies.
But only if studios keep making grown-up movies.