What kind of a determination can give to the present period of American cinematography? Can say, this a time of continuities, remakes, reboots and creation of new chapters from point where acclaiming were taken by box-office and audience’s sympathies. This without any doubt gives an exact description, but for everything of that, I am thinking, exists a right word – the degradation. In the American cinema were different epochs as “silent film era”, then customary to call “classical Hollywood cinema”, where a certain time occupies the Hays code, for cancellation of all restrictions flourishes “New Hollywood”, then comes action films, is popularizing the market of home video рынок and to the end of the century with the development of computer graphic those more appears on filmstrips. To each of these epochs there are characteristic genres and about every individual decade can say what the cinema were about it. No progressive word isn’t arriving to me about modern American cinema. I only see the descent down and with aspiring to globalization the world which not enrapture me, but as de Tocqueville in relation to democracy, I understand the inevitability of it, although also suppose this willn’t erase identity of each nation, elements of American films are borrowing in different cinematography of the world. Before when I start to list reasons of a decline (by the way, also a the right word for characteristic.) need to designate a year of the countdown, when it began and to unfortunately still continues. I went to conclusion, that worth to put the year 2000. Regress started to come out on three years earlier, but there were sprouts in individual places. Complete deterioration followed in 2000. From there a created those depredating movement.
To real stunts prefers the computer graphic and today it came through the possibility to paint an every frame. From this a picture of film is losing a verisimilitude. Unnatural looking ideal in extern actors (which usually haven’t difference from other passerby in simple life.) are locating in clear and glisten placement. Following for result of work of sitting at the computer people call out more attract than a screenplay which importance Alfred Hitchcock emphasized thrice out of three in creating of a good film. In this case by ear come names Michael Bay and Roland Emmirich and also must remind about placed in divinity status a disappointed me then James Cameron who directed in these style Avatar. In what is the quality of the good film determine? This is when after some years you wish to watch again and see you still like it and even can be will find yet more of magnificence. Computer graphic is getting obsolete for perception of eye in course of time. If natural landscapes of Dances with Wolves doesn't have a dilapidation notion when took from there a plot Cameron with his drawn Avatar willn't dumbfound a naïve viewer after so many years. However for myself I found a backwardness in this case of it flick in a premiere watch, because when all natural and making by creative people and also knowledges of special attainments of unique in this people so I always admire as stunts which makes Jackie Chan in his movies and as any action actor shows his mastery in martial arts – this can’t have a temporary phenomenon. Especially in those times the cinema was making with a soul at above all. It was possible to demonstrate an individuality, when a modern cinematography frankly shows a totally commerce. In any of this moment of six large Hollywood the highest administration completely decide which cinema must to be. Screenplays of their films are making by patterns. In watching of every such product you predict what a plot about, how will the characters do and what will the next director’s move. Every studio doesn’t like to work with a totally original materials, prefers to base on something and most of all are making a film series from it as for example nowadays popular to create a “cinematographic universes”. Unbelievable success Disney have in it, which profitable have bought Marvel who was first started to make films on own comics and together to it a Mickey Mouse company is fully exploits now a George Lucas’s gold-bearing offspring Star Wars. Although, historically it was originally came from Universal with their “monsters” in 30s and 40s. If film releases unluckily, the studio agrees with the audience and repels from a “failed picture work”. Actors and directors nod in the positive direction and say: "How could I do it!" and somebody of them is apologizes. As slaves, they indulge to their master filming in these shapeless flicks, whose runtime goes for two and two and a half hours calling sufferings personally from me, because the characters are undisclosed, the dialogues are useless which can be filled of ridiculous gags and with hints of "it must cause a laugh" phrases, actors are making monkey business around, not acting and for an entertaining film there is no long time any exciting action, and if something is shown, it was made without taste and without impression. I was looking for reasons for the length of the runtime until I’ve read an Edward Epstein's book “The Hollywood Economist” where found an answer that it lies in popcorn. Due to the sale of tickets cinemas can’t hold and the main revenue comes from popcorn and if the movie goes on for a long time this so-called food ends in the process and may appear a wish to buy it one more time or some other products, as well as drinks, in the bar of this cinema theater. Therefore studios intentionally are making films so long that the cinemas kept in order for where can show the results of spent tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. The policy of all these companies origins on the fact that each of them is today part of a conglomerate, and usually the main goals of such structures are aimed on excellent indexes in the financial report.
Not so long time ago I watched on TV the wonderful comedy Back to School, which appeared on the screens in 1986. To the genre, it should be attribute to, among others, “teenage comedies”. Now this combination in me causes an association that the movie of this genre is completely filled of vulgarity, but to those times I don’t relate this film. On the young people then were shot not only funny pictures, but also raised serious topics, as from director John Hughes. In Back to School doesn’t rule a toilet humor, which almost fifteen years later will fully occupy American Pie series, Scary Movie dilogy, and at my young age I was struck by the exceptional jam in the restroom of the continuation of Nutty Professor’s remake. Grudge Match (from the director of mentioned second part of Nutty Professor and the stunning Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult.) is the only worthy film of this decade from this genre, and so I willn’t remember when there was a decent American comedy, because all that appears I can’t be attributed to this class of cinema. All that I saw belongs to the low-lying human sides.
Everything repelled from realism, as films are writing that based on true events and people. The real history is using for background for own absurd fiction, where can go so far that some decent individuals slandered and ranked to villains, when unpleasant people become heroes. Such films are nominating for Oscar. Ridley Scott succeeded in this pseudo-historical field with his fictions in Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven and American Gangster. For the stories he takes, there are usually no witnesses. The only exception was the last called film, where it main character, the real Frank Lucas expressed about the director's profound wrongness. Such examples, when witnesses talk about the untruth of events have a lot cases, as well as the real story is different from the artistic fiction was invented long before of the cinema, but now there is a natural misinterpretation of history. The authors of the film boldly declare that it is based on true events, when everything shown relates to their imagination. They don’t undertake a serious study of the topic now and this phrase itself is good for it’s "realness", because wonderfully stimulates in commercial purposes for watching, and if film it with pathetic, you can be pleased to the main nominees of Oscar. Nothing common with real history. By the way, in the seventies was popular method of this phrase to lure the audience to various horror films as Texas Chainsaw Massacre or based on the same fictional book The Amityville Horror, and in the late nineties many people believed in “documentary” of the Blair Witch Project, but all these stories don’t have real events and people, which means nobody and nothing insult.
From any fiction books remains only the basis too in the current cinema. A case in point is Sherlock Holmes, who in modern interpretations, both on television and in Warner Bros. films has no connection with original. They could make a funny parody, but using it as a trademark is a disrespect to the primary source. Any desecration over the original becomes bacchanalia of computer graphics. Everywhere something flies and explodes and the heroes behave for like to the audience. For characters they change sex, skin color and even sexual orientation. There are appear incredible machine mechanisms or monsters, which, of course, wasn’t in the original.
Disney cartoons of the nineties that period is designate as "Disney Renaissance" now. It was a great time, when released not only with excited animation and plot as Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Hercules, but also with bold moves as in The Hunchback of Notre Dame and The Lion King. The story of the whole company from the very beginning covered of abominable acts as the deliberate sweep of lemmings into the precipice for their White Wilderness, which won the Oscar in the nomination "Best documentary film" or the re-use of animation in their cartoons. In the nineties on the video (and sometimes some films came to the cinema screens and tear down a great money.) began to appear new parts of their cartoons with a number "two" and so on and also produced animated series, which, however, under all this, I don’t mean that everything become to have a poor quality, but production gained the open commerce side. In zeroes appeared “sequels” of their animated films, which are separated from the original in the cases of The Jungle Book for thirty five years, when for One Hundred Dalmatians, Lady and the Tramp, Peter Pan, Cinderella, Fantasia lie from four to almost six decades. The record holder is Bambi, which after sixty-three years gets the continuation Bambi II. Each coming out their new cartoon is fully exploits. About any free creativity don’t raises conversations and it’s making contrary for respect of political correctness, as for example, in their version of Brothers Grimm fairytale "The Frog Prince" the heroine becomes black. Also, for a several years already, Disney releases based on cartoons full-length live action remakes which were collecting a large grosses. Drawing activity has Disney’s acquired Pixar studio in 2006, whose majority of cartoons in the tenths are sequels and other branches. The same is observing in another large studio DreamWorks Animation. Not only the continuity preponderance in this, but also the quality itself is falling. In the pictures for the children audience, I observe the presence of vulgar humor. Seriousness evaporates in action and becomes a set of scenes designed to cause the laugh and call out tremendous feels by spectacular scenes, as in all these "blockbusters," but with minded audience. It doesn’t matter in which place and time it happens, but the characters communicate on trendy and modern topics, which, of course, is also done for a reason.
Officially, there is no censorship, but behind the scenes it takes place. For different minorities on gender, sexual orientation, color of the skin are making unquestioning concessions. About them in any way, as innocent would it be, you can’t joke on them, because it can be considered as insult. No satire and raising the contradictory topics of the Democratic Party are unacceptable. To shoot badly about the American army is fraught with the fact that the latter will refuse to issue military equipment if intend to lend it. When I didn’t know about the Hays code when was watching the movies of those years, I have no the thought on existence of a certain set of rules. Not so long time ago I acquainted with I Was a Communist for FBI and didn’t catch the propaganda tone in it. Somewhere is implausible in relation to the Communist Party, but those methods, which were shown, actually took a place among other organizations created by the Soviets. On the contrary, I’ve got the enjoy from watching when since the nineties under the patriotic and pathos music proudly marching the American army under the brave speeches of the US president and everywhere the national flag of the country are fluttering on the wind. I’m not against, but it’s going to look with distaste when all this is done persistently. Such techniques are used in called those "based on true events" films in which are taking the most vivid and victorious from American story. A film made on high patriotism doesn’t end bad and always happens a success. Such films aren’t characterized to raise the sharp themes, as in general, in the whole of American cinema you willn’t see it. Exceptions are extremely rare, but now they have reached till impossible. For example, in every film about Rambo, I’m not only getting the enjoy in entertainment part, but also in these providing the food for the mind, when all the present "blockbusters" have none of this.
Modern films exploit the preferences of the public and all tricks, which they are using, take from the producers who made for drive-in and grindhouse cinemas. Although, those people also can made a wonderful movie and besides from the subtle in the soul of the connoisseur the producer of such films Roger Corman came out a many talented personalities. In 2014, North Korea committed a hacker attack on Sony Pictures. The opened files representing various tables, SWOT-analyzes, negotiations are showing that in the development of any film is taken into account for what audience it is doing and what are the profitable sides lies, but it was obvious before. At today the American blockbusters don’t earn as a much and don’t tear down the box-office (except Disney.), as before. Good grosses from cinema theatres are providing thanks to China now, not the USA. It is clear that some representatives of this trash, as comics, will leave. It will be amusing for me if all these actors with serious, as now, face will in some documentary or interview talk about in what they shot. When any studio is just a part of the conglomerate the art is impossible and now from independent companies, whose finances afford to make any film I can only name Lionsgate, which allows people to show individuality. I'm coming to a grief by news on studio's intentions to sell to a some conglomerate for reason of serious rivalry in the cinema. We need more such companies, which should take the main places in the industry and drive out the entire "six". Cinematography situates in a time when it’s not the only way to entertain, as when it was, it’s a one of them. The basic in the modern world comes from making money. The successes of films create imitation, it tied only for commercial reasons, and in order to stay in place or lift up, then any filmmaker and the person belonging to it must impresses to the low tastes of the audience. Prerequisites for changes are possible in that, because the production costs and the advertising campaign of the cinema are increasing, grosses from the cinemas and in the home market are falling and the bet is making on release in digital format, which is more economical and no need to produce physical carriers. In the newly formed popular stream are appearing people who learnt it and they can become that substitute. Rupert Murdoch, who owns 20th Century Fox, saw a disadvantage for himself in the production of movies and decided to sell this unit and it will go to some conglomerate, each of which controls one of the six major filmmaking companies. TimeWarner was ready to say goodbye to Warner Bros., if the merger to AT&T would not have happened. Everything what is happening in the industry now maybe all of this will be a turning point? In which direction it will? Where will the world itself move?
All such films will be forgotten. In the radius of a hundred years ago, the place of cinema was occupied then by literature. The masses preferred dime novels and authors of pulp fiction, which due to their fecundity and low tastes of the majority of the audience in sold copies repeatedly surpassed the most iconic books. In Italy, the works of Emilio Salgari bypassed Dante Alighieri. In France, the well-known "Fantômas" of Marcel Allain and Pierre Souvestre, now known through the films of the sixties, left behind the "Bible". Appeared in the United States the character Nat Pinkerton spread throughout the Europe as also in Russia, where an eyewitness of this phenomenon of totally passion Korney Chukovskiy well described in an article "Nat Pinkerton and Contemporary Literature" (1908). As he writes, for only month the May books about this hero in one Petersburg were sold in the quantity of 622,300 items, when appeared in 1876 in the quantity of two thousand exemplars Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevskiy for four years couldn’t sell the entire print run. Who is now remembers Nat Pinkerton? The people who witnessed it and from not witnessed only similar to me who is interesting this. Crime and Punishment is still remaining famous in whole world. Is wishing that such a cinema is gone as soon as possible. In it’s existence lies the economy and just simply don’t support in any form for stopping of further implementations halting by it to enrich the studios.
No comments:
Post a Comment