In response to the recent discussion about a "dumbing down" of recent films (one recent post is included below), I wonder if we can go a little further with analyzing in what this "dumbing down" consists. Is it changes in genres--i.e. the birth in the '80's of the action-adventure genre? Is it a rise in budgets? An increasing reliance on special effects? I think the intuition is worth exploring, but I would like to avoid a the-world's-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket handwringing which is far too easy and far too general. What precisely are the changes that people find irksome? (I find recent cinema irksome, too, although I place the fundamental change somewhere at the end of the '80's, after all the brilliant and nihilistic '70's films from Altman and the likes. Sincerely, Edward R. O'Neill, UCLA ------------------------------TEXT-OF-YOUR-MAIL-------------------------------- > In response to Patrick Bjork's questions, are movies pandering more to > audiences today and has there been a progressive dumbing down since the era > of Dr. Strangelove: I don't have an absolute answer , but there are a few > things to consider. > > I believe the strongest point in defense of a yes would be the market > surveys taken of test audiences. They have definitely affected retooling of > a film to a point where the director's control has really come into > question. I'm sure listmembers can think of more examples but the first one > that comes to mind is Fatal Attraction and its changed ending. People were > not satisfied by Glenn Close's suicide in the first version, so she was > instead drowned and stabbed to death by an avenging Michael Douglas and Ann > Archer. I would bet the companies that do these surveys have a "cultural > composite of today's viewer" down to the color of their shoes. > > The story of star power is an old one, but lately it has become even more > difficult to get a movie made unless a "name" is attached to a production - > this is hardly news to anyone. But until recently no one tested this > theorem. Last week's Variety reported the results of a Gallup Poll, which > surveyed how movies goers chose the movies they see in relation to stars. > There is a direct correlation between an actor and how many people will > always, often, sometimes or never see a movie in which that actor appears . > Naturally, this won't always work, but because movies are so expensive > nowadays, they get made with actors audiences "want" to see, but the actors > get huge fees which makes movies more expensive to make, etc., so movie > prices go up, so audiences want to be sure of what they're getting, etc. > etc. > > I don't think there has been a dumbing down over time. We remember the good > movies but not the turkeys. Speaking of which, The Ghost and Mr. Chicken, > Valley of the Dolls and Steve Reeves had their moments of glory in the same > decade as Dr. Strangelove, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Cat Ballou. > > Marlyn Robinson > [log in to unmask]