---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 14:15:57 -0500 From: Steven Mintz, U. Houston <[log in to unmask]> To: Multiple recipients of list H-FILM <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Audience manipulation in recent film From: [log in to unmask] (Michael Lewis) Re: Audience sophistication in the Good Ol' Days. The recent thread of discussion which reminisces about how more literate movie-goers were in the pre-WWII era is a bit difficult for me to believe. It seems to be the scholarly equivalent of, "In the old days, we didn't have..." I'll toss out what's going through my mind when I read how much better this-or-that was before the Age of the Blockbuster for all of you to chew on. I'll be interested to see what comment they bring since, I admit, they are only general observations made from some film study during my undergraduate years and a little continued reading since caving in to the demands of the world outside the ivy halls. (Of course, years as a moviegoer might account for something.) We should probably remove technology from the discussion. It's obvious that technology and special effects are better now, and, as was observed in a previous posting, new technology will be used (or even overused) to tell the stories of its day. What is left is the basic story or visceral thrill which is being given to the public. And that thrill, whether it be meant to tweak the brain or the glands, will be delivered with all the technology or artistic license a producer can afford. Are movies today designed to tug at the heart and manipulate the audience? I would say no more so than _Casablanca_, _Mildred Pierce_, or _It Happened One Night_ were when they were released. _Casablanca_ had numerous directors and writers, and its script was rewritten during filming. This was done less, to my knowledge, from a drive toward artistic vision than for a need to produce a successful movie to touch the hearts and minds of romantics and a war-conscious public. Are the films of today less literate? When films as slow and deliberate as _The Piano_, _Four Weddings and a Funeral_, and many others, can become top grossing films despite limited openings, I am inclined to answer, "No." There were many films in the good ol' days which pandered to the lowest denominator, if I am to use terms which have been alluded to in the ongoing discussion. For every _True Lies_ there is a corresponding gangster flick, complete with ethnic villians, screeching cars, and flying bullets. For every _When Harry Met Sally_ there is a screwball comedy complete with mismatached couples who don't see love will soon change their lives. And just as _Citizen Kane_ was in its day, there are films today which are passed over by the public at large (or outright censored) only to be noticed for their achievements years later. Some day, perhaps, _Germinal_ or _Blue_ and others will become part of the Canon. Shallowness is not the creation of today's films. Cheap thrills and pure escapist fun could be had every weekend in film's early days with western and science fiction serials. James Cameron doesn't have a patent on awe-inspiring special effects, spectacle and set design. Cecil B. DeMille knew the value of that in the days of the silent film and, despite decline as a directorial force, could still pull out all the stops and rivet the audience with _The Ten Commandments_ and 1950s gee-whiz. To use a famous cliche: The more things change, the more they stay the same. --Michael Lewis --------------- [log in to unmask]