When I went to the Curious Case of Benjamin Button Screening, the producers stuck around to do a Q&A with the audience after. One of the things that they spoke about was the place that historical movies, in particular "historical epics," which they called Button, have in Hollywood today. Onyx, as our resident historical drama writer, you might want to cover your ears now.
The outlook was grim, to say the least. There was general consensus that historical films are now one of the hardest to make. This is due to a number of things, probably, including the immense budgets they demand, the often limited ability to compete at the box office (hmm... Victorian era couples playing "who gets who" or Batman 7?), and their often limited audiences - you know, because who wants to hear people talking funny and wearing weird clothes? (all my speculation). On top of all of that, many historical films, dare I say more than half?, are also long. Really long. BRAVEHEART and GLADIATOR are both long, but they're filled with action and blow my mind every time I watch them. But there are a number of other, tamer, more subtle historical dramas that are nearly as long as those, yet much quieter and about people and not fighting.
While the producers of Button were hopeful that their film could remind Hollywood not to drop this genre from future slates, I think I might have to disagree slightly that historical pieces are completely disappearing. There have been a number of celebrity driven epics tat take place before, say, 1900 recently. (How many times have you seen Orlando Bloom not dressed in something that you could only get at a costume shop? Once?) Historical epics are crowd pleasers, especially if current times are less than stellar. Not only can you escape to see people whose lives are far more difficult, but they also whack at one another with swords, and how great is that? The key is to keep the language contemporary enough, the action (if it's there) big enough, and the film star-studded enough. Can you make the argument that those "requirements" taint the genre? Yeah, probably, and you're welcome to do it in the comments section below.
But I don't think either audiences or filmmakers want to see the genre disappear totally yet.
9 comments:
I remember you having a comment about how the producers thought there "Isn't a place for historical dramas anymore" or something along those lines. I don't buy it. I just don't. Sure they're expensive, (some aren't though. Illusionist = 16.5 million dollar budget) but the notion that there's no place for them anymore is ridiculous in my opinion.
As long as there's drama of any kind we'll always be delving into the distant past. That might be a 30 minute stage play, or it could a huge army clashing epic on the big screen. We might see fewer for the next few years, but there will always be some director who steps up who thinks he can bring two armies clashing together on the big screen better than Braveheart or Gladiator.
If we lose anything it might be the Sense and Sensibility type stuff, but I can live with that. In my opinion the Western is still the genre that's on life support, even with 3:10 to Yuma and Appaloosa. The genre churns out some good flicks, but people don't seem to get too excited about them. It needs to be reinvented somehow. (Insider League wink wink)
The historical drama has a few things going for it. You mentioned it, and I think Onyx echoed you in saying that it's escapism at its best, and some people see movies for just that reason. Also, they do usually run long, but with movie prices increasing and people trying to squeeze as much out of every dollar they spend, a three-hour movie seems to fit the price of admission (in New York anyway). There are other things - the visual spectacle (the landing sequence in Saving Private Ryan, anyone?) usually translates very well to the big screen, there's more time for filmmakers to develop and create emotional attachment to characters, and they can also be legitimate opportunities to learn. Cake Man, you have a great point about the cost (although Onyx has an equally valid counterpoint) acting as a deterrent to the studios, but is there evidence that really good historical dramas fail at the box office? It's important to emphasize the reference to GOOD historical dramas because, let's face it, Alexander was no Gladiator.
Onyx, interesting point about the Western. I wonder if it's not somehow tied to the cultural mindset. We seem to have lost our sense of frontierism (we're doing what in space, exactly?). That doesn't really account for the success of the late 80's, early 90's westerns, but you don't see anyone making films about covered wagons or, well, Dances With Wolves 2: Staying Alive (starring Barry Gibb, of course). In short, what exactly is wrong with the Western that needs to be reinvented? And does it matter if no one cares to see it?
That's true, Joe, spending $12 on a 3-hour movie is better (at least mathematically) than spending $12 on a 2 hour movie. People love spectacle. But I've found that, like many people I know, I can only take so much spectalce in an environment I can't control; i.e. I'd rather go see that 2 hour movie and have more of my day to myself and wait for the DVD of the 3 hour flick, so I can pause it and watch it at will.
I think one of the things that might be working against the genre (in cases) is that historical pictures often take place either outside the U.S. or, if in the States, have a lot of British and other Europeans here. For the most part, I would argue that audiences don't like accents (unless they belong to the Russian villain that Bruce Willis or Harrison Ford is after). Even a British accent is too far from the norm for a lot of American audiences, audiences that do not often flock to theaters to see foreign films.
Take Valkyrie. Joe and I were just talking about Tom Cruise's noticeable lack of an accent in it, despite the fact that he plays a German. I can understand not teaching him German, but to allow him not to use a dialect coach or anything? (granted, I take that only from the trailer, but I didn't hear a hint of accent in it.) Is Hollywood specificly trying to avoid the accents here? Would that make this film dangerously close to a foreign film and turn audiences away? Or is Tom Cruise just adamant about not being shown as a real Nazi, just the kind who wants to kill Hitler?
Historical film hangup? You tell me.
The Valkyrie thing kills me because the other Germans that Tom Cruise's character is working with all have British accents. It being a popcorn flick, I can understand if you don't want the characters to have German accents (ala Schindler's List), but you have to make whatever you decide about the accents uniform. Maybe none of them have accents (aka American accents) or maybe they all have British accents (because, didn't you know, all Europeans have British accents), but you cannot, CANNOT have one character out of sync with the rest because it's just silly. Tom Cruise speaking like Tom Cruise has never sounded as silly as it does in the Valkyrie trailer.
And as for the other stuff about duration, etc - I think it's just a taste thing. I don't really like to go to the movies unless it feels like some kind of special event, and when I know a movie is three hours long, I plan my day around that. Remember, I was one of those people that saw all three LOTR movies in the theater the day they released ROTK. To me, that's what the movies are for. I know I'm about to ignite something nasty by saying that, but that's what the medium is for me.
We seem to be focusing on historical epics. Don't movies like The Other Boleyn Girl and Marie Antoinette fall into this category? There seems to be a new big-budget movie about some historical, female royalty coming out every six months...
Right, but that tendency has to collapse in on itself, the same way all poorly-done and ill-thought movie trends do...
The Valkyrie accent thing I'll let slide. I honestly think Tom Cruise would get more shit for an awkward accent than he's getting for speaking like himself in a German uniform. It's probably in his contract that he doesn't have to change his voice, ever. It would be like Arnold sounding French.
Back on the Western thing. I think when you take a step back and look at the Western and some of the movies that have been coming out (Open Range, Appaloosa, 3:10 to Yuma), they are good movies in a still good genre. So there's nothing wrong with the genre as much as it must be people's shifting interests. The reinventing I mentioned isn't necessarily to fix something that is broken, but to alter it so that the genre can better meet the needs of movie goers today.
Onyx--
I think we're on the same page on the Western front. I won't bend on Tom Cruise's lack of accent though, only because everyone else seems to have one. If it was an all-American-sounding film, then I could let it slide.
Fight to the death. With swords... in kilts.
As far as the Western thing goes, I don't think the genre's disappearing. I do, though, agree with Onyx that it might need some re-thinking to really draw those crowds. Did anyone actually see Appaloosa? I feel like it came and went while I was putting on my shoes one Friday morning. I was into it, just didn't make it. I think the thing with Westerns is they're much more "familiar" than many other genres. You know you're going to get the tough gunfighter in the hat and vest, riding his trusty steed through some hot desert as he fights some evil baron. Or landowner. Or train robber. You'll see them riding by the last light of the evening. You'll see them sweat under the hot midday sun. You might even get a bit thirsty watching it. And, at the end, unless it's a great western, you'll probably tell your friends you've seen it before.
A Western's greatest obstacle is the genre it's in, because it has to work within those walls, while breaking them down at the same time.
Post a Comment