6 ms·
The overseas market, specifically China, probably plays a much bigger role in self-censoring cinema than most people are comfortable admitting. Nobody wants goo
by DanielBMarkham 5y ago
The overseas market, specifically China, probably plays a much bigger role in self-censoring cinema than most people are comfortable admitting. Nobody wants good cinema, movies that dig into and challenge the human condition. They want money. In the last 20-30 years, we have seen the strip-mall-ization of the movie theater. Every city has at least one, they all look the same, and drop in at any time and you'll see the same kinds of movies: cool-looking, easy, bowlderized, with paint-by-the-numbers plots.
I love real cinema. For all intents and purposes it's gone now. We need a new art form to take its place.
A big part of the problem with any commercial art form is the plethora of folks who love to be reductionist in one way or another. Leads in TV shows from the 1950s forward wanted to know and control how many lines they spoke. John Wayne famously gave the advice to another actor that if you're leaving a scene, first move in the opposite direction and then leave the way you're supposed to. Gives you a bit more screen time. (Apologies that I cannot source that offhand)
Once everything becomes reductionist, it's then much easier to argue about some oversimplified version of the art than the contents of the art itself. Were there enough tall people in that film? Did that essay have the right amount of third-grade level adjectives? Is the playwright using a meter for the supporting roles? If so, what is it?
We can go on and on about such things because they are easier to measure, require almost no understanding of the art form itself, and lead to all sorts of debates. Sometimes I think the number one rule of modern media is "I don't care what you're arguing about, just argue about something!"
If we placed the story first, and only created anything in an art form to support and enhance that story, we'd get all sorts of interesting and self-challenging art, depending on which artist is telling the story. Whatever trivial reductionist thing you'd like to experience, there'd be art that let you experience it. But if we try to create and tell stories through art by way of committee and marketing research, it's just going to be more and more bland populist pablum.
The saddest part of all of this is not that businesses are acting in their best interests. The saddest part is what it says about the average consumer. I love modern theater even though it's a completely new art, but I try very hard not to do the "reverse math" and figure out just what the creators think of me. Otherwise I'd get pretty pissed.
- moogly 5y agoOn the China thing: Why don't we let the ones who want to censor movies just do it on their own instead of precensoring them? This used to happen a lot. Is it really that expensive to cut out a few shots or use compositing to obscure things? I believe it's still done for so-called in-flight entertainment.
- DanielBMarkham 5y agoGood question. To clarify, in China any company or business enterprise has to have political officers sprinkled throughout. This makes sure that the organization is following the party line appropriately. So when I said the problem was China, I didn't mean the Chinese market, I meant that a huge amount of money currently being spent financing film entertainment comes from groups like this. They kill these kinds of things before they ever get financed. Most folks don't talk about the money side of movies. It's nothing like talking about which star is in rehab or where the MCU is heading with its reboot. But at the end of the day, that's the thing driving content creation.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> On the China thing: Why don't we let the ones who want to censor movies just do it on their own instead of precensoring them? Because its more cost effective to consider the whole market when making the movie to start with. > I believe it's still done for so-called in-flight entertainment In-flight entertainment isn't way down the list of money drivers. “Chinese first-run sales” is a lot higher. So the power of the latter on how movies are initially crafted is big, while the former is negligible.
- Zababa 5y agoYou're assuming that these films are made first for the USA. As an example, the last Fast & Furious made more money in China as compared to the USA, and that's with a Taiwan controversy: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt5433138/ https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt5433138/
- 2ion 5y agoI think in a lot of "markets", uselessly drawn out sex scenes were just never there. In fact, I find this trait of Western movie and TV making highly annoying. Because those sex scenes are always the same. If you have seen a few, you've seen all of them, more variety only to be found in real porn. After N repetitions, TV and movie tropes just become boring rehashed mechanics. At that part, might as well leave it out if you can imply in a different way "and then they had sex". Having sex scenes in cinema does not make good cinema at all just because of it.