Hollywood Infected - Part 1

There is a sickness spreading throughout the movie industry in America, aka Hollywood. It begins with a lack of creative energy and nepotism. Then the virus multiplies itself with business minded studios and marketing departments. Where will it end? It cannot end with the destruction of Hollywood, the dismantling of a conglomerate enterprise into smaller, more manageable parts. Why? Because Hollywood is a thought, an idea. It is no more tangible than the World Wide Web or the Easter Bunny. Thus, this article, which will be broken up into multiple parts, is about diagnosing the illness and offering some possible cures: no more no less.

In Hollywood, incest is best. No joke here. Nepotism and favoring opinions bring misguided and under-qualified people into power (e.g. George W. Bush). Sons and daughters of Hollywood elite, and definitely, the not so elite, walk the hallways of agencies, marketing departments, production companies all over town looking for the next back to scratch in order to move up. Come on, let’s get real: If your child is a C+ student in America and got into her undergrad with a letter of rec from her parents, they probably do not belong in a position that is responsible for seven to eight figure deals. That should be a no brainer. Let them party with your hard earned thousands, but do not let them burn millions on their weak decision making powers.

New ideas come from new people, new places, new thoughts. Hollywood gives its fair chances to first time directors; but what about producers, marketing heads, writers, editors, cinematographers, actors? Let’s base the rise of any new player on her or his talent, hard work, and chutzpah; not whether their religion matches yours, or who she seems to be connected with, or the most popular one now, who he or she slept with. No matter how many ‘rags to riches’ stories you hear about Hollywood [think Billy Bob Thornton], there are many more Paris Hilton stories. [What does she really do and why are people still fascinated with her?]

Of course, this problem of nepotism is not new and almost any 3rd world corrupt government is an example of this trend. There might not be many cures for such an issue. Hell, maybe diagnosing the problem would be enough. Then again, if I was in a position of power in the industry, every new hire would have do three things in order to get into my company:

1. literally RUN a marathon without walking
2. work minimum wage for half a year at a Best Buy or Blockbuster
3. and most importantly, write one feature length screenplay

They would run the marathon to show that their heart and body are strong enough to handle the work. This film business is not for the weak of heart. Secondly, if they could handle Best Buy or Blockbuster for half a year, they have most definitely learned what ‘normal’ people prefer in film and what they are willing to buy and spend money on. In fact, if any high end producer wants to check their film barometer and get their compass set, they should spend a couple weeks in a Blockbuster or a Best Buy. And of course, I would make a new hire write a feature because then they would understand the pain and loneliness involved with the genesis of all films.

In fact, if they did these three things and did them well, they would have learned that before any movie gets made there is a desire behind it (the marathon), a marketplace for it (the Blockbuster), and then paperwork that outlines how it will be completed (the script). Now, that all of that is done and over with, the new hire would definitely be ready for the mail room and must work their way up from there.

Nepotism is a big problem in the industry, but I still feel the biggest problem is the Lalaland Bubble complex that most film people share and are infected with. This will be discussed more in depth in Part II of this article. Hopefully, coming soon.

www.neverendinglight.com

The Hype Can Kill the Show.

Imagine this: you wake up and tell your significant other that today is going to be the best ever. You're going to cook them breakfast in bed, call into work, and take them on a trip to their favorite place in the world. There, your significant other and you are going to make the sweetest love. Imagine you tell them this… and then turn over and fall back asleep. This would be so damaging to your relationship that you may never want to wake back up. Why would you raise their expectations so high and then turn back over and fall asleep? This is exactly what Hollywood studios do every day. They make a film for millions of dollars and then for millions of dollars more they ‘over’ hype their own film. They tell the audience that this film is the best thing since they lost their virginity. It will change their life. It is a ‘monumental event’. It is an ‘epic’ picture. It is… it is… over marketing.

Right now studios are crying over the low performance of their films. There are many reasons for this, but I believe, the biggest detriment to the show is over marketing. Marketing departments are so bent on getting the preliminary buck on opening weekend, that they are willing to lie to their audiences. Next time you see an ad with four word blurbs from the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune that say ‘absolutely stunning’, ‘goes where no movie dares to go’, and ‘couldn’t be better’, go look at the whole article. You might find that those blurbs were spun a little; surprise, surprise. Variety might have written, ‘despite the absolutely stunning performance by Naomi Watts, the film failed to work on many different levels’. The marketing department has the nerve to blow up expectations, knowing damn well, that the film will not satisfy them. This backfires not only on the film itself, but it also affects the global film culture.

You see, most normal folks choose very wisely the film they are going to watch. They don’t go and watch every premiere or every blockbuster film. They are too busy with their own life. In Hollywood, it is quite the opposite. People discuss films at all events, any time, all the time. They are constantly asking, ‘did you see that new film’. Hollywood is an area where there is a film culture, there are very few areas like this in the world. Over marketing is hard to do here, because this area is so gung ho about film. But in other places, over marketing is a lot easier to do. When one film is marketed to death, and it fails to fulfill the pre-instilled expectations, the audience is left with a bad taste in their mouth. And here’s the kicker: they are not upset with that filmmaker, not that specific studio, or the star, but they will have a bone to pick with watching films in general. Next time they spend twenty dollars on entertainment, they might as well buy that video game they wanted, or, Hell, go bowling. At least there, they know what is going to happen and they will get their money’s worth.

Because of all of this over marketing, audiences feel they cannot trust the studios. They think that when they are going to the theaters, they are gambling. Studios should do the opposite, they should build trust in their audiences. Studios should want to build a film culture (a concept I will discuss further in other articles). Audiences want their expectations fulfilled. They simply want to know what the story is about, not get the whole story in a minute long trailer. They don’t want to see stars showing up on every channel chit chatting about how great this film is. I have a news flash… stars always think their films are great. Audiences want to spend some money, buy some popcorn (not for 6 dollars) and a soda (not for 3 dollars), and enjoy the film and have their expectations met. Thus, Hollywood should want the buzz, but they shouldn’t build false expectations to get the quick buck. Figure out another way you marketing geniuses and gurus behind all the latest hits. And while you’re at it: stop taking credit for success that is based on good writing and storytelling. The filmmakers, cast and crew made the film great. The marketers just didn’t spoil it… yet.

www.neverendinglight.com

Grass is greener on the other side theory

Bollywood films do well all over the world - except America!

When I mention my ‘grass is greener on the other side’ theory to other filmmakers they usually squint their eyes and cock their heads as if they fail to see the connection. They might not consciously understand it, but I assure them on the subconscious level they more than likely abide by it. Mainly, this theory grows from the idea that there is a human tendency or habit to covet that which we do not possess, or treasure those things that are farthest from our grasp. Of course, this is a tendency, not a law. Thus, the general discussion that follows should be taken with a grain of salt.

The general audience, for the most part, likes to see that which it does not participate in or that which ‘is on the other side’ of their own personality or life – usually something fantastic (remember the root word: fantasy). An American independent filmmaker’s audience can be very definitive: the upper-middle class in America. They live rich and full lives of entertainment and wellness: they are ‘well-off’. You can see what I’m getting at. According to the theory, they desire in their subconscious minds those films that do not imitate their life, but show them what ‘is on the other side’, specifically bleak films. Of course, people detest seeing themselves as ‘well-off’. Rather, especially true in America, they want to be considered the ‘underdog’ or underachiever, living a difficult life of strife and sorrow, poverty and neglect, self-pity and hopelessness. So most of these film goers, or the filmmakers themselves, would argue that they are not ‘well-off’, thus seemingly negating the theory. In actuality, their arguments support the theory in full. They have taken on a self-perceived notion that they are the opposite of what they really are; in essence, they are living their life in the grass which is greener on the other side.

Leaving relativism aside, we can view the cross section of this audience in a very plain and objective manner. First of all, they live in America, a modernized nation full of wealth and security that fulfills the most basic needs of human existence. When was the last time one of these people in the audience had to latrine in the wilderness, go hungry for days on end, or homeless in a thunderstorm. There might be exceptions, but for the most part, those that live in America have enough food and social service to be more than satisfied. In addition, those in our first world sample audience have gained some education, secondary and/or post-secondary, if not higher. This is not only an expensive measure in our society separating in stark contrast socio-economic status and upward mobility, but in addition, allows for this sample to become more of a thought provocative group. In this way, we see that in general, this sample can be labeled ‘well off’. They are usually thirsty for films that are realistic and gritty, if not outright ‘bleak’.

In order to better define the theory, we can look to global cinema by comparing two of the largest film production countries, America and India. American filmmaking, without much argument, uses a large amount of resources and theory in order to bring ‘realism’ to the screen. Independent filmmakers love to use the ‘documentary’ camera approach, going handheld for hours at a time to provide this sensation of reality. Big budget Hollywood productions dig deep into their pockets forking out money for art direction, set construction, and production design geared, for the most part, to create reality. Here in America, if the helicopter goes down and the pilot is killed, we want to see it. In contrast, Indian filmmaking uses very little money to re-create reality, shooting mostly on location in a setting that is available to them. When watching a fight scene in a Bollywood film, Western audiences would be struck dumbfounded by how unreal the choreography is. Fists do not land (LET ME REPEAT - FISTS DO NOT LAND) and people that are struck one time by a kick, fall instantly dead. In addition, almost all Indian films are musicals whereby the protagonist dreams, sings and dances to find resolution to the conflict in the story. This is Bollywood! Why do billions worldwide love it? Well, when you are living hand to mouth, life is dealing you blow after blow, the real world is coming down on you, then you would want to escape and let your mind wander in something fantastic.

In essence, by theory, the American moviegoers are living a fantastic life, and enjoy viewing realistic cinema. The Indian audience is living in a hard existence, and enjoys watching fantastic cinema. Of course as stated before, there are smaller subgroups within each country that fall in a different category. Nonetheless, in order to watch a film at the theatre in America, one would pay eight to nine dollars. This is a hefty price, usually leaving those that are homeless or impoverished out. Yet in India, the price for viewing a film at the theatre is relatively cheap, allowing even beggars and the homeless in to watch the film. I believe the price in each country is set for the target audience: in America, middle class and above; in India, middle class and below.

Thus, when I tell people that Independent filmmakers know themselves and their audience, I am saying that they comprehend that ‘well-off’ audience members want to watch that which they do not see in their day to day life; suffering, malaise, and challenges. If they were making a movie for general release in America, they would choose to go another route, hoping to appeal to the massive middle-class, by showing them an ‘up-ending’ story. Americans, no matter their education or ability to value poverty, live in a fantasy world when compared to third world countries. This fantasy world is exactly what third world audiences would love to watch and dream of. In this way, filmmakers are trying to exploit the human nature that they subconsciously understand: that is, people believe the grass is greener on the other side and want to see it or better yet, live it.

www.neverendinglight.com

Box Office ["BATTING"] Average (BOA)

First and foremost, the entertainment industry is very unique in it's measurement of success. We are the only people that love to tell the world what we made over the weekend selling our product. Imagine how ludicrous it is for a restaurant to tell it's customer, "come eat at Luigi's because we grossed $2700 this past weekend - that is two times the next highest pizza chain". Funny, huh? Nope -- that's Hollywood reality.

Hollywood or more specifically, Variety Publications, should measure success of a film not by box office earnings but rather ticket sales per showing. This would be more like a batting average for major league baseball players. When you stepped up to bat, did you get a hit or not. Box office earnings are victim to inflation, trends, and being spun by the everyday producer. Let’s do a case study:




My Bloody Valentine (3-d) vs. Law Abiding Citizen. Which one is a better film? Which one made more money? Of course, Valentine did in 8 weeks of release ($100M). Citizen, which was out for 7 weeks and was not distributed to foreign markets, did 60.4 million in sales. However, if we did the tickets sold per engagement batting average, which is of course difficult to do given the data now, I would venture to guess that Law Abiding Citizen would be batting an All Star .300 since it was on far less screens and Valentine would be batting an average .250 or less.

What does this have to do with movie watching and you, the audience member? Well that’s my second thought. You see, studio execs, producers, and marketing teams look at these box office numbers as if they are God. Literally, in offices around town (Hollywood) on Monday morning, everybody types in www.boxofficemojo.com or cracks their Variety or Hollywood Reporter open, which are virtually identical magazines, and then either pat themselves on the back or bow their heads in defeat. These box office numbers influence those that choose which films to make more than divine intervention ever could. For example, another three Bloody Valentine films will get made long before another Law Abiding Citizen.

You see, the audience speaks by watching a film. But then the numbers get spun by those that want to spin them (everybody in the Hollywood game). They get spun around so much that most of these poor studio execs don’t know their ass from their head. Thus, I say, use the batting average of tickets sold per engagement. This number will help guide these gentle and busy souls so that they can understand what a good film really is.


व्व्व.नेवेरेंदिन्ग्लिघ्त.कॉम
www.neverendinglight.com