Dumb Hollywood movies? It’s ‘our’ fault.

17 October 2011 | 10:39 - By World Movies

Here’s a crackpot theory about why blockbusters supposedly are getting sillier.

Fast-Five_627_1195043895

Hollywood blockbusters are stupider than ever because the US studios increasingly are pandering to overseas audiences as international box-office receipts continue to outstrip US grosses for many films.

So goes one of the silliest theories I’ve ever heard from several otherwise sensible film commentators.

“Hollywood films have become stylistically generic because their success depends on crossing into multiple markets with differing cultures. Place and personality – the great irreducibles – get in the way,” The Guardian’s Phil Hoad declared in an article headed Attack of the clones: Hollywood's mutant movies are on the march.

Hoad cleverly coined the term Helvetica Blockbuster to describe franchises such as Mission: Impossible, Fast & Furious and G.I. Joe which he claims do a “remorseless death march on the global box office, operating in the money-minded limbo where Hollywood's least-questioned habits rule.”

To back up his argument, Hoad cited an essay by San Francisco-based author and writer David Thomson in Intelligent Life magazine.

"When the American film business became international, it moved towards what it believed was material for the 18-24s with franchising prospects: violent, cruel, cool, self-interrupting,” Thomson wrote. “The executives listened to the marketeers, and the film-makers had to decide whether to go along with them. The alternative was to go independent, or try television. Both of which meant a drastic cut in income.

“The overwhelming drive in the mainstream film business now is to make blockbuster animated films, preferably ones that can be cloned—repeated, reheated and sold in packs of two or three or six, like fizzy drinks. Another is to base films so much on special effects that the audience is always seeing something it has never seen before—like the earthquake rippling along the runway in 2012, challenging John Cusack’s plane to get off the ground in time. In short: make movies that have as little to do with the photography of life, faces, real places and ordinary action as you can manage.”

That theme was enthusiastically taken up by one popular blogger, Badass Digest’s Devin Faraci.

“The problem with our big budget movies, why they focus so much on spectacle instead of character or story, is because they need to be consumed by everybody in the world, no matter their cultural context,” opined Faraci. “An exploding robot crosses all cultural barriers while a smart comedy like Bridesmaids maybe doesn’t.”

What’s wrong with the kind of analysis quoted above? Plenty, although I do agree that blockbusters have become increasingly homogenised and formulaic.

As for Bridesmaids, it grossed $169 million in the US and a healthy $117 million in the rest of the world, which suggests its raunchy humour and sight gags translated pretty effectively.

My chief objection to the argument that movies are getting dumber to boost their appeal to non-Americans is that it seems based on the assumption that a sizable percentage of international audiences isn’t sophisticated and doesn’t crave intelligent fare: pure bunkum.

For proof of that, take Black Swan, 127 Hours and Hereafter, which earned more than twice as much overseas than in the US.  X Men: First Class, Source Code and The Adjustment Bureau, to name a few recent releases, all grossed more internationally than at home. 

Plus it’s unfair to categorise Hollywood’s output by the blockbuster mentality: that ignores the many fine films that are produced or acquired annually by Sony Pictures Classics (which celebrates its 20th anniversary this year), Fox Searchlight and NBC Universal’s Focus Features.

Yes, I know other majors have closed their specialty divisions but the Hollywood companies will continue to do what they’ve done for many decades: strive to make profitable movies that appeal to various demographics and diverse cultures.  

Share article: 
top

Comments (10)

Display: 20 | 40 | All comments per page
Previous 10 | Page 1 | Next 10

09 Feb 2012 11:35 AEST

Mike Eckmeier

From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Hollywood Movies are better than ever

I have to disagree are you can call the newer Hollywood Movies "Silly." All of the movies in the past few years are getting so intense with the way they spin them, that every single trailer I see makes me want to see the production , the day it comes out. After viewing the movie, I am always very impressed. Sure, at times, they is a little bit of extra craziness to them, but that adds the the new format of how they are seen.

Agree (0 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

09 Feb 2012 11:35 AEST

Mike Eckmeier

From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Hollywood Movies are better than ever

I have to disagree are you can call the newer Hollywood Movies "Silly." All of the movies in the past few years are getting so intense with the way they spin them, that every single trailer I see makes me want to see the production , the day it comes out. After viewing the movie, I am always very impressed. Sure, at times, they is a little bit of extra craziness to them, but that adds the the new format of how they are seen.

Agree (0 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

17 Nov 2011 22:14 AEST

Noter

From: Paris

Hollywod

I can't disagree with that , Hollywood films are dumb like hell .ca

Agree (0 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

26 Oct 2011 12:58 AEST

harry

From: adelaide

alawys been that way

US films have always been international, right back to the silent era. Comic book franchises are popular because they are instantly recognisable to cinema-goers and people who buy DVDs (the main source of income nowadays). "Raising Arizona" for instance, an indigenous film, was barely known outside USA and Australia.

Agree (0 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

23 Oct 2011 22:38 AEST

Chuch

From: perth

Crackpot indeed

this crackpot idea presupposes that the rest of the world is totally influenced by America's culture, and in fact is lead by it. Another crackpot theory indeed ! Dont all of our cultures stand tall alone without American influence ?

Agree (0 people agree)    Disagree (1 people disagree) Report this
 

23 Oct 2011 22:38 AEST

Chuch

From: perth

Crackpot indeed

this crackpot idea presupposes that the rest of the world is totally influenced by America's culture, and in fact is lead by it. Another crackpot theory indeed ! Dont all of our cultures stand tall alone without American influence ?

Agree (0 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

23 Oct 2011 22:36 AEST

Chuch

From: perth

Crackpot indeed

this crackpot idea presupposes that the rest of the world is totally influenced by America's culture, and in fact is lead by it. Another crackpot theory indeed ! Dont all of our cultures stand tall alone without American influence ?

Agree (0 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

21 Oct 2011 15:42 AEST

Joshua

From: Queensland

Lack of Originallity

There is little original content coming through Hollywood. This is so prevalent that there are websites dedicated to the cliché-like aspects of productions (see tvtropes.org). Some parts of the industry are starting to realize that good TV died after the 90's, so now they're spinning off old series (G.I Joe, A-Team, Star Trek - just to name a few). While this is a step in the right direction, it's slightly misguided. The reason people enjoyed (and continue to enjoy) a series like Star Trek isn't because the shows had great video effects or sets. People like those programs because they have SUBSTANCE - the characters and their dialogues were deep and well thought out, not generic like most characters in modern movies and television. Also, because many effects could not be included - whether due to technical impossibilities or moral stances of the times (gore being too graphic) - more was left to the imagination with implied action, violence and emotion. Today, everything is handed to the audience in an easy to watch package, leaving nothing up to the imagination except perhaps a cliffhanger ending. The result is a general lack of immersion in the film. Studios need to invest more in good writers and less on good video effects.

Agree (0 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

18 Oct 2011 7:42 AEST

Don Groves

From: Sydney

Reply to Carl

Fair point, Carl, I should have cited more blockbuster franchises which I think refute the 'dumbing down' argument, so here are some: The Dark Knight, Harry Potter, the Star Trek reboot, Twilight, The Hangover and Kung Fu Panda.

Agree (0 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 

17 Oct 2011 22:04 AEST

carl vincent

From: brisbane

poor comparison

Of the six films you cite as proof, only one of them - X-Men: First Class - could be considered a franchise servicing blockbuster. You're saying art films and smart genre movies are proof that blockbusters aren't mindless pap. They're not even connected. It's an invalid argument. Pure bunkum, some would say.

Agree (3 people agree)    Disagree (0 people disagree) Report this
 
Display: 20 | 40 | All comments per page
Previous 10 | Page 1 | Next 10

Join the discussion

You have characters remaining.
Validation (
) :
This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots.

PLEASE NOTE: All submitted comments become the property of SBS. We reserve the right to edit and/or amend submitted comments. HTML tags other than paragraph, line break, bold or italics will be removed from your comment.