3 ms·

Why does it seem that way to you? I have not quite noticed that. I think when you are younger, there are movies that profoundly affect you. When you get older

Why does it seem that way to you? I have not quite noticed that. I think when you are younger, there are movies that profoundly affect you. When you get older, and you have seen a lot of movies, its rarer to get the same kind of feelings. But that's just a part of growing up, it isn't a problem of censorship. I wonder even if, upon re-watching now, you'd think Fight Club is really the pinnacle of edginess and a profound art you attribute to it now, or if maybe you were just young when you watched it. And I also wonder if there are some great, profound works being made now that, for whatever reason, you have simply missed or felt the need not to see. Is "American History X" really leagues above "How To Blow up a Pipeline" in terms of "uncomfortable and ugly topics"? What about "Beau is Afraid"? Is that one censored by the modern zeitgeist? What about the films of Yorgos Lanthimos, Ruben Östlund, Harmony Korine, or Nicolas Winding Refn? Trying honestly, its hard for me to pinpoint what in particular you might think is censored these days. People are definitely still making good, uncomfortable movies. Edit with a few more directors making really great, messed up things at the moment: Julia Ducournau, Gaspar Noé, Rick Alverson, Boots Riley. Have you watched any Cronenberg lately? Lars von Trier? Haneke? What about recent Verhoeven films?? What about Paul Schrader? Bong Joon-ho? If these people are being censored, well, they are still definitely making some Art within those restrictions.

lmpdev 3y ago
I think they just mean edgy movies about Americans made by American studios
- notyourwork 3y ago
  That's an easy way to be dismissive to someone without actually contributing to the discussion.
CuriouslyC 3y ago
Movies have gotten worse, without question. Big budget movies now are consistently cliché ridden rehashes of proven IP because studio execs don't want to take any chances. This behavior really took over in the early aughts, and you can look at the top 10 movies for each year to see the slide from ~2004-2010.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  And yet, they got huge audiences and revenues, so it isn't that studio executives judged the market wrong for many years.
  - CuriouslyC 3y ago
    It's not wrong if you don't care about art, or the legacy of the time. They're aiming for repeatable mediocrity, which is more profitable, but 50 years down the line nobody will remember the profitable trash, but they'll remember the art that was made before it.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Not sure I subscribe to your definition of art. Making a movie that has a hundred million people watching it when it is released is art in my view. Most "art" even from the 1970s is utterly forgotten by now, for example, while certain blockbusters endured.
    - neaden 3y ago
      But that is how it has always worked. Movies in the past just seem better because you only remember the good ones. I would argue it was even more egregious in the past because under the studio system they used to quickly crank out huge numbers of formulaic movies that no one really though about after they had a theatrical run.
- xctr94 3y ago
  I do agree that lack of risk-taking and sameness are affecting the music and movie industries. But it’s entirely possible movies “feel” worse because… there’s more of them. Maybe Sturgeon's law is at work, and the more movies we make, the more shit we get.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  I think blockbusters got too expensive to make (relative to economic conditions) so now the money men don't want to take any chances when funding a movie. Everything needs to be designed by committee and run through a hundred focus groups; this kind of process can never produce true art, only soulless LCD slop. But it maximizes the chance of a movie not being a commercial flop, and that's what's important to the movie industry right now. This is the same reason we barely get anything besides remakes, reboots, adaptations and "cinematic universes". The movie industry in recent years is very averse to risk. People who reject qualitative artistic appraisal of movies will reject that any such trend exists, and will say that everything is fine by the empirical metric of box office returns. They're missing the point; the reason movies are being made like this is because it's the least risky way to make a movie. Of course box office returns are going to look good, that's the point.
throw1234651234 3y ago
There is certainly a lot of truth to this. The first time you see some basic plot twist, it seems profound. This applies to life philosophy too, the first time you here about nihilism, stoicism, Buddhism, etc, they all seem profound. Later, you begin to view them as part of a pattern you are already familiar with. Later in life, it's far rarer to find a quote or concept that actually changes your life view at least a little bit.

lmpdev 3y ago

I think they just mean edgy movies about Americans made by American studios

notyourwork 3y ago
That's an easy way to be dismissive to someone without actually contributing to the discussion.

CuriouslyC 3y ago

Movies have gotten worse, without question. Big budget movies now are consistently cliché ridden rehashes of proven IP because studio execs don't want to take any chances. This behavior really took over in the early aughts, and you can look at the top 10 movies for each year to see the slide from ~2004-2010.

RandomLensman 3y ago
And yet, they got huge audiences and revenues, so it isn't that studio executives judged the market wrong for many years.
- CuriouslyC 3y ago
  It's not wrong if you don't care about art, or the legacy of the time. They're aiming for repeatable mediocrity, which is more profitable, but 50 years down the line nobody will remember the profitable trash, but they'll remember the art that was made before it.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Not sure I subscribe to your definition of art. Making a movie that has a hundred million people watching it when it is released is art in my view. Most "art" even from the 1970s is utterly forgotten by now, for example, while certain blockbusters endured.
  - neaden 3y ago
    But that is how it has always worked. Movies in the past just seem better because you only remember the good ones. I would argue it was even more egregious in the past because under the studio system they used to quickly crank out huge numbers of formulaic movies that no one really though about after they had a theatrical run.
xctr94 3y ago
I do agree that lack of risk-taking and sameness are affecting the music and movie industries. But it’s entirely possible movies “feel” worse because… there’s more of them. Maybe Sturgeon's law is at work, and the more movies we make, the more shit we get.
mcpackieh 3y ago
I think blockbusters got too expensive to make (relative to economic conditions) so now the money men don't want to take any chances when funding a movie. Everything needs to be designed by committee and run through a hundred focus groups; this kind of process can never produce true art, only soulless LCD slop. But it maximizes the chance of a movie not being a commercial flop, and that's what's important to the movie industry right now. This is the same reason we barely get anything besides remakes, reboots, adaptations and "cinematic universes". The movie industry in recent years is very averse to risk. People who reject qualitative artistic appraisal of movies will reject that any such trend exists, and will say that everything is fine by the empirical metric of box office returns. They're missing the point; the reason movies are being made like this is because it's the least risky way to make a movie. Of course box office returns are going to look good, that's the point.

throw1234651234 3y ago

There is certainly a lot of truth to this. The first time you see some basic plot twist, it seems profound. This applies to life philosophy too, the first time you here about nihilism, stoicism, Buddhism, etc, they all seem profound. Later, you begin to view them as part of a pattern you are already familiar with. Later in life, it's far rarer to find a quote or concept that actually changes your life view at least a little bit.