I don’t like movies anymore…

One of my favourite past times used to be going to the movies. The smell of popcorn, cold, dark theatres, and holding the large drink you finished in your bladder until the last of the end credits roll by. All of this was a massive part of my life growing up. I remember arriving early to a show to watch the previews and whispering to friends, “oh we need to come and see this”.

These days, I can’t get excited about these things. I used to think that my love of cinema disappeared because of the era we currently live in. Nowadays, movies get released on streaming platforms and the fact that we don’t go to a movie theatre to see films anymore kinda took the fun out of it for me.

Only recently, I realised that this is not why my passion dissolved a bit or why I haven’t continued to vigorously pursue a career related to what I majored in in college (film, for those who don’t know).

Remember a couple of years back, Empire ran a piece on Martin Scorsese that caused quite the uproar. The conversation turned to modern cinema (in particular the MCU). This is the part that really got to people – he said the MCU is not cinema.

Now, I get where people are coming from. We all like movies, and as self-proclaimed cinephiles, we all know there is this unspoken rule (which I kind of hate) that states that you cannot disagree with the opinions of film legends like Scorsese (they know their stuff, so if you agree, you also know your stuff). On the other side, we all love Marvel movies (this includes me, by the way) – they’re fun. So, the fact that people got angry, makes sense to me. We “have” to agree with Scorsese, but we don’t want to…he is criticising something we love.

Oh the inner conflict…

Now, as much as I enjoyed (and still on occasion enjoy) the Marvel franchise. I cannot help but wholeheartedly agree with Mr Scorsese. And as pedantic as I can be, no, it’s not about the stupid rule or because I’m a plaid-wearing hipster that hangs around coffee houses. I agree with him because he was right.

Here is the full quote (because judging by people’s reactions, they didn’t go and read what he had to say, they just read the headlines from third party sources):

“I don’t see them,” he says of the MCU. “I tried, you know? But that’s not cinema. Honestly, the closest I can think of them, as well-made as they are, with actors doing the best they can under the circumstances, is theme parks. It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being.”

Now, I might be a pretentious know-it-all who thinks her taste in movies is based on her superior knowledge and discernment (my taste in film is immaculate, mmkay), but I’ve always had soft spot for movies that made me think. Not like the great revelation and temporary diet change after you watched a documentary like Seaspiracy, the extreme confusion you feel after Inception (as I have mentioned before, it’s not that confusing – but you get what I mean), or even the existential crisis you go through after watching The Truman Show (All great movies, by the way, add them to your list if you haven’t seen them). You guys know what I mean – you sit back after the credits roll by and think about the story, you put yourself in the characters’ shoes and think about you how you would’ve done things and made decisions as if you were each of the characters.

I used to love how a story could be told, any old story, and we as the viewer can get something out of it – whether it’s knowledge about people or the world around us, more of an open mind or even a lesson on ourselves (without being preached at of course) while still being entertained.

My point is that Scorcese was right, in more ways than one – you can take his opinion about the MCU and you’ll see it applies to modern cinema as a whole.

It’s been said that at a certain age, your music taste is set in stone and I think it’s the same when it comes to film. Now, I might form part of a generation that is slowly being replaced, which might make me somewhat biased when it comes to new movies, but something is not right in film nowadays, and we are going to look at exactly why (in my “biased” opinion, anyway).

First I’d like to mention that not all new movies are bad, there have been exceptions (I don’t want to sound like your drunk uncle always going on about how they don’t make ‘em as they used to). When I talk about modern cinema, I’m referring to mainstream studio films.

Familiarity is the new sex

The film industry has become a machine for producing the same old shit over and over again, and this is totally on purpose – it’s what sells. This is why we’re getting a seemingly endless string of awful sequel, after terrible reboot, after shitty spin-off.

Give it some thought, and be honest… Would you rather pay to sit for two hours and watch a new release with an existing universe that you know and love than a new movie with characters and a story you’ve never heard of?
The answer is yes. Yes, you would. In 2018, most people watched Avengers: Infinity War before they watched Calibre (even though it is the superior movie).

Now you might say, this is because of marketing. “Well, we can’t help it that the Infinity War was marketed better – we’ve never even heard of Calibre” you’ll say while rolling your eyes at me. Firstly, I know you haven’t heard of Calibre – this whole example was an excuse for me to bring it up, now you can go watch it. And secondly, I’m not blaming the viewer for knowing about and eventually watching Infinity War, this kind of proves my point; it isn’t that it was marketed better (the teaser was close-ups of the characters with flashes of The Infinity Gauntlet and people creamed their underwear), my point is that it didn’t need a lot of marketing. It was a new release with an established story and characters, people already knew it was coming – it wasn’t hard for studios to get audiences pumped up for their movie (and get people to pay to go and see it).

Filmmaking is the most expensive art form. As a writer, you need an idea, a good vocabulary and somewhere to write it down. As a painter, you need paint and a canvas. As a filmmaker, for your vision to come to life, you need hundreds of crew members, equipment and a blank cheque, and if you’re not Tommy Wiseau, that blank cheque will most probably come from a Studio, which means the Studio will have the last say.

Because a film is such a financial risk, the studio will play it safe and go with something they know will sell (read: the same old same old). These days with online living and social media, the news that your movie sucks, spreads fast. So studios rely on well-known characters, brands and franchises to fill the cinema seats on opening weekend. They want to make a return on investment before the first flood of tweets comes in.

Also, these days, many films purely get made to preserve the rights to a character.
Think about it, we’ve had a Bourne movie without Jason Bourne and a Hellraiser movie that was filmed in three weeks (the first Hellraiser movie where Doug Bradley was not Pinhead because he didn’t want to participate – good on you, Doug).

Studios go, “Damn, we need to make another Bourne movie! What? Damon’s unavailable? Well, make a plan!!” Or “People, we forgot we lose our rights to Hellraiser in a month! Do something!”
Studios feel the need to keep rights to the characters, just in case it pays off later. So in the meantime people, here is your shitty, half-assed movie. Enjoy! (Or don’t…whatever)

Characters used to be tools to drive a story forward that add complexity and emotion to a plot, but in recent years they have become assets and full-on brands that need to be kept alive in the audience’s minds to sell merch, make more movies and build franchises.

They put different well-known and not-so-well-known characters together and create a universe, build on the unknown characters, expand the known characters, milk them some more until they can add more lesser-known characters (you want new audiences to also help fill your pockets after all). And so the cycle starts all over again.

We see this with Cinematic Universes in film popping up everywhere. Apart from the very successful MCU, we have the MonsterVerse, The Wizarding World, The Conjuring universe, the Lego Universe and the DCEU from Warner Bros (WB is giving it their all, aren’t they). The Transformers Universe from Paramount. Disney’s Star Wars Universe. Universal even tried dipping their toes in Universing with a Dark Pictures Monster Universe which The Mummy (the shitty Tom Cruise one), was supposed to set up (that one was DOA, but they still attempted it). There is even a Sony Universe of Marvel Characters! Am I the only one that thinks that this is insane?!

Instead of coming up with new ideas and relying on filmmakers and storytellers to do what they need to do, studios take what worked in other mediums like comics and books and milk them for everything they’re worth (sometimes even past that point), and we are still falling for it.

Great story, man

Back in the day (there she goes, doing her drunk uncle impression again), if America (and some smaller markets scattered around the world) hated your movie, it was over. The good thing about this, is that telling stories that your audience can relate to, was easier. There was no need to communicate across vastly different cultures and tell an intricate story that the audience would get, so to speak. Now you have an ever-growing international market, which means intricate, heavy dialogue movies with morally ambiguous themes and stories have been replaced with over-the-top special effects, quick-paced action scenes and minimal dialogue (of the complex nature, anyway). Movies get peppered here and there with seemingly intense topics, just to make it feel (if only for a brief moment), that the movie that we are currently watching is profound, but if you think about it, we are still being fed the same old themes and lessons that have been forced down our throats since we were kids. Good will always conquer evil (and there is a clear distinction between good and evil). A team is better than going it alone. If you believe in yourself, you can achieve anything. You know, all that BS.

In recent years, it feels, to me at least, like filmmakers have become lazy – they don’t need to create thought-provoking stories with complex characters or polarising themes. They need to make movies that sell fast, are easily digestible and ties into an existing piece of media, or at the very least, is franchisable (which, if you think about it, means that they do not actually have to even finish a story – “don’t worry, we’ll address it in the sequel and explain it with a prequel”)

That’s why it never feels like there is anything at stake – not really.
Movies have become almost predictable – not only do they all have the same themes, they all basically follow the same structure.

Most movies follow the tried and tested three-act structure – which goes something like this;
Person, usually with a goal, lives in the ordinary world. Person gets introduced to a new world with a new threat to their goal or various obstacles. Person tries over and over again to overcome obstacles but fails. Person regroups, comes up with a new plan and eventually overcomes obstacles and achieves goal.

Now, I don’t have an issue with the three-act structure at all, it’s one of the first things you learn when it comes to writing and it works. Every story needs a setup, confrontation and resolution, which is in essence the three-act structure. If you look at any movie, The Matrix, Fight Club, Pulp Fiction, you will see this structure, sometimes more straightforward than other times, but it’s still there. It’s been used in so many different and clever ways over the years – it’s been flipped upside down, turned inside out and even switched around. So again, my issue is not with the three-act structure, it’s with the way it is being used in modern cinema – it gets used in its truest form to “dumb down” movies for a wider audience. This happens, this happens and then that happens and that’s it. Each Act seems as if it was written without thinking of the other two, and Checkov’s gun gets thrown out the window.

Checkov’s gun is a principle that suggests that every detail in your story has to play a role in the overall outcome.

“One must never place a loaded rifle on the stage if it isn’t going to go off. It’s wrong to make promises you don’t mean to keep.”

I don’t believe that every single thing that gets introduced in the setup of a story needs to eventually play a massive part in your confrontation or resolution, sometimes it’s a little something that gives us some insight into a character or subtly explains to the audience why certain things are happening, I get that. But I do believe that if something is going to have a role to play in your story, you better introduce it.

“If a shot is going to go off during the runtime, you better place a loaded rifle on stage beforehand”.

As if this post isn’t already long enough, I’ll give you guys some examples of how things were done differently in the past compared to now when it comes to story building.

One of these (the “good” example), funny enough, has turned into a franchise of its own, but I’m still using the first film, because even today, more than 30 years after its release, it’s a beautiful example of set up and pay off done right.

Tremors tells the story of a small town trying to defend itself against underground flesh-eating monsters that are lured by vibrations from above. By midpoint the survivors have taken shelter in the town’s convenience store – they now know how to keep still to not attract the worm-like monsters. All of a sudden the store’s defective cooler makes a noise which leads to one of the characters being eaten. It pulls the rug out from under them just as it seems like they get a hold of things and brings the tension up again, all while making sense. Apart from the movie’s setting and the expectation that this shitty little store would have old and malfunctioning equipment, the movie actually sets this scene up quite nicely within its first ten minutes. The main characters (two handymen) visit the store in the beginning of the movie, and they are actually asked to take a look at the cooler because it’s prone to making loud noises. I won’t get into all the detail, but they end up not taking the job – which in turn leads to the shit storm the characters find themselves in later.

What makes this foreshadowing so great is that it feels natural in the way it’s woven into the scene. In the beginning, it feels more like a character introduction scene than a subtle hint at what is to come – you only remember the noisy cooler when it becomes an actual problem later in the movie.

Take this example and compare it to 2016’s Suicide Squad. I know what you’re thinking; how “different” of me to dunk on Suicide Squad – “we all know it was a bad movie, move on Chantal”, but hear me out. Amongst its many flaws, there was one that has given me sleepless nights. The frigging pink unicorn. Throughout the movie, Jai Courtney’s character, Captain Boomerang, is seen with a stuffed pink unicorn – they make a point of it to show how fond he is of Pinky, to such an extent that you think the stupid little toy is going to come into play later in the film’s climax or something. Spoiler Alert: it doesn’t (it also tells us absolutely nothing about the character, by the way). When asked about this, the director, David Ayer said that Pinky has become a bit of the mascot for the character and that Captain Boomerang “is a total Brony”.

Now I smell two brands of horseshit here – firstly, you wanted to make your character more memorable and fun so you give him a throwaway piece of the set to carry around – it does not add to the character whatsoever (I wouldn’t have been as bothered if it felt like a natural part of the character). Secondly, (and this is the part where my point finally comes in), you make us think that this little fluffy pink unicorn is Checkov’s gun just to spoil it and make an unknown gun go off – Boomerang’s life is saved by a wad of cash in his jacket stopping a knife piercing his skin – and as far as I can remember, this wad of cash was never really introduced.

And for those who want to say, “Well, actually, the cash came from so and so, when this and that…”, I say “Fight me” – the last time I saw Tremors was more than 10 years ago, and I have watched Suicide Squad recently. Guess which one I remember more clearly?

It’s just strange to me how so much care and thought went into a 30-year-old low budget film that most people would see as a throwaway shitty monster flick, compared to a big blockbuster where there is time for a useless shoe-in character trait but no time to properly explain (in a memorable way) where a lifesaving stack of cash came from and why it is important.

Scenes are being written without a second thought, things just happen “because the movie said so” and acts are written as separate stories. Nothing is planned out or explained.

“Don’t ask too many questions, audience, here is an explosion and a joke or two and get excited about the sequel!”

I can forgive bad special effects, less than stellar acting or subpar production value overall, but when the story is clearly pulled out of a random asshole (which seems to be the case in modern movies), your movie has reached a point of no return.

Gotsta represent

This one is a biggy for me specifically, and it ties nicely into my other reasons for why modern movies suck so much (money, baby!).

Through the years, film has changed to align itself with what is currently popular. Example; there was a time where musicals were everywhere, then people got over them, and Hollywood stopped making every movie into a musical and moved onto the next thing, whether it was westerns, sci-fi movies, gangster movies – if you look back, you’ll see spikes in different genres across decades.

Now, that makes sense – movies need to make money (my problem is that it seems to be the sole reason for making movies nowadays, but I digress). And how do movies make money? They go with what’s popular, they make what people want them to make. Aside from making follow ups, remakes and sequels to beloved franchises and simplifying stories for a wider audience, there is another requirement that has popped up in recent years – representation. And the studios listened, (like their asses in my opinion, but they listened).

I will start by stating that I am 100% for representation in media – it’s good to see art imitate life – the world is a diverse place, and if movies are supposed to copy life, it should be done with care. As in, if you are going to address a touchy subject, make it at least seem like the subject actually matters to you as opposed to using it as a shield or an excuse to put minimal effort into your movie.

There is one representation trope that has become quite popular in the last couple of years, and because I fall into the demographic that this trope is trying to pander to, I feel I can comment on it – the strong female lead.

Female characters have gone from side characters and bonus eye candy for the viewer to fleshed out heroes of their own story.

Or have they?

On the surface, sure they have, but if you dig a bit deeper (and I’m not saying you need to have a hole big enough for a house, just enough ground to fill a teaspoon) you’ll see that film has almost come full circle in a way. These female characters, despite being the lead of their very own movie (oh boy! How lucky are we, am I right ladies?), have fallen victim to the same problem that the movement has tried to annihilate – under-representation.

Let me explain. I’ll start with, of all things, toxic masculinity – a concept that encourages a person to go to extreme lengths to distance themselves from any form of femininity so that they won’t seem weak or lesser-than.

For years in film we’ve seen male characters written with this in mind. Male leads were “alpha” males that never even dare to think about giving up or show any signs of emotion (unless it’s anger, of course).

These days there’s been a massive shift when it comes to writing men – even in the most action-centric franchises we see men becoming intensely vulnerable with moments of weaknesses and hopelessness. These characters are being stripped of all the toxic alpha male shit that has been pushed onto boys and men for generations, and they are turned into human beings, that most people can relate to, regardless of which group you identify with or form part of (we are first and foremost human beings with feelings and vulnerabilities of our own).

Men have started to get a variety of character types in film (goofy ones, heroic ones, smart ones, playboy types), and women, women got “the strong female character”. Now, that sounds great and all, but what in the hell does even that mean?

Yes, women in movies have evolved from ultra-feminine love interests and weak damsels in distress to the exact opposite. Filmmakers go to extreme lengths to distance their female characters from any form of femininity so that they won’t seem weak or lesser-than (yes, scroll up, you basically read the same sentence a couple of paragraphs ago).

Is it just me, or did Hollywood just put a wig on toxic masculinity and call it a day?

Don’t get me wrong, there is a place for women in movies that exude this type of energy because there are women like that in the real world – but that’s not all they are, it’s not the entirety of their character.

These female protagonists, have no flaws, moments of weakness or distinct personalities (you know, things that make us human), they are written to be “perfect”, because they are women. They never have to work for something or gain new skills to achieve their goals, they are always on the “right” side when it comes to morality and if there are any obstacles they might face…psh, piece of cake.
And the worst part…all of them are like this – hashtag, underrepresented.

Another problem with this, is that it sometimes seeps through to the progress that has been made when it comes to writing male characters. If these strong female leads are supposed to be the good guys, then who are the bad guys? Usually a male character. And in the rare case where it seems like the villain is also a woman, we eventually find out that it was really a big bad man behind all of it. I can name three examples of this without even thinking about it, the live-action Mulan, the new Charlie’s Angels and Captain Marvel. And they aren’t evil or bad because of what they went through in the past or because their values is in slight conflict with our heroes. Nooo, it can’t be that intricate or fleshed out, Are you insane? The protagonist is so perfect and boring, if we make our bad guy even somewhat interesting, the audience might relate to the antagonist. We can’t have that! Don’t confuse the audience!

They don’t write interesting fleshed out main characters so they can’t do the same for villains. If you want to form your movie around a theme of the battle of the genders, great…but don’t use it in the laziest way to pander to an audience just so that they can defend it on social media.

This is not even the worst part, gender-swaps have also become very popular in the movie-making business.

As we now know, a big part of studio film making is the reboot, but now on top of that, we get the gender-swap (because, you know, representation), where old successful franchises get remade but with women cast as leads. (the studios found an even easier way to make money. Yay! 😐 )

Nothing needs to be done with the characters, they have already been written. The problem here is that you get these poor female actors flopping around in roles that were made popular by men in the past, struggling to make the character their own. And they know they are going to be compared to those who have come before them (and most of the time, they fall short). Come on guys, this wasn’t the goal, was it? Give women their own stories. Please.

I would say trade the gender-swap for the gender-shift, where an old story is being told from a new character’s perspective (if you really need to piggyback off an old franchise), but regardless of how well it was done with Imperator Furiosa and Enola Holmes, I know we’ll just end up back at the beginning of this post (and we don’t want that – everyone is tired of my whining already).

Ever wonder why female led movies have a tendency to bomb at the box-office? It’s not because men don’t want to see women as main characters or because all women suffer from internalised misogyny. We all loved Ellen Ripley, Trinity and Kat Stratford (they were even cool in RomComs). It’s because we as the general audience can see what studios are doing.

Come on, studios! We’ll trade you a Rey and a Grace for a Leia and a Sarah…take it, it’s a good deal!

Going through all this, made me realise, maybe everyone (including actors and filmmakers) flocking to streaming services and binge-worthy series isn’t just the result of a pandemic that hit the world in 2020. Maybe, just maybe, it’s because what we’re getting from Hollywood studios just isn’t good enough anymore?

I know independent movies and Netflix or Amazon originals aren’t always groundbreaking when it comes to special effects and the acting might not always be Oscar-worthy (but who cares about the Oscars these days anyway), but at least people are given somewhat freedom there. These platforms don’t force a step-by-step recipe that needs to be followed so that every output is a copy of what has been done before. They tend to stay with us longer than the big budget studio movie that leaves you the moment the inescapable post-credit scene (read: marketing ploy) ends.

In the words of your drunk uncle. “They don’t make them like they used to”