What are You Looking At?

Oh, those were the days.

Remember high school? Oh, high school. A world without subject-by-numbers, p-sets, all-nighters, or worries. There wasn't much of anything to do, period. The most exciting thing that could happen to you in high school was probably go to a keg party-er, did I say keg? You know I meant cake, and going to the big premiere of "Spider-man." Friday night at the movies with your buds was a sure-fire way to pass two or three hours of your endless free time. What else did you have to do? Fill out the MIT application?

Most teenagers, myself included, probably look at movies as entertainment, rather than as art, and most directors will confirm this. The movie industry has capitalized on this "entertainment" view of movies.

More than ever, the movies industry is dominated by blockbusters and, to many's dismay, sequels to previous blockbusters. According to the website of the Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA), from 1999 to 2002, the average theatrical cost of an MPAA film rose over 80%. Over this 3-year period, a whopping 25 out of the top 50 highest grossing movies in the American film history were produced, all of which made over 200 million dollars. Among these blockbusters were "Spider-man," "Finding Nemo," and "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace."

We all know why "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" exploded at the box office. But why did the other two gross over $340 million each? Because they were thought-provoking? Hardly. "Spider-man" has the tired old theme of damsel-in-distress-as-hero-saves-the-day. "Finding Nemo" finds a rebellious fish wandering off into an adventure as his parent desperately searches for him (can you say underwater Home Alone?). What makes these movies such great sellers is their entertainment value. The high use of Computer Generated Images (CGI) allowed for effects never before seen in cinematic history (c'mon, when have you ever seen such a realistic-looking talking fish as the ones in "Finding Nemo"?).

This is the dilemma of the blockbuster movies like "Finding Nemo" and "Spider-man." While they were said to have paved the way for the CGI movement in the film industry, creating unbelievably realistic cartoon characters and environments, their entertainment value is just that-the incredible graphics. These movies catch consumers' eyes by featuring something new and flashy. While the plot is the side dish to these movies, a terrible plot could still be a hit with great graphics and the right marketing techniques. With these mainstream movies, you're being stimulated visually; and maybe the awesome sound effects will leave your ears tingling. But in the end, that's about all that you'll get out of "The Hulk" or "Spider-man": a two and a half hour visual detour from endless hours of boredom.

There's a good reason why most mainstream movies have recurring plots, or at best, cleverly-retooled recurring plots. It's because these movies have to appeal to the masses. Therefore, mainstream plots can't include controversial issues. They are forced to be a reflection of popular beliefs instead of thought-provoking exercises.

Today, mainstream movies can be thought of as a litmus paper for the nation's morality and popular culture. There is an inherent problem in this though. The public already knows about the popular moral beliefs of the nation, and therefore, mainstream movies provide no support for another very integral part of popular culture, questioning the validity of popular beliefs.

In the independent film industry, film-makers are allowed a much broader range of ideas to be incorporated into their movies. In fact, many independent film festivals, like the Sundance Film Festival, encourage "the independent vision and the exhibition of their new work." With much lower production costs and unknown cast members, independent film-makers do not expect high turnout at the box office, and therefore, can be much bolder about expressing their ideas and beliefs in their work. Many of these independent films deal with shockingly controversial issues and pose questions about today's societal standards. "Requiem For a Dream," directed by Darren Aronofsky, is an example of a film dealing with the horrors of drug abuse. Though mainstream movies do venture into the realm of drug- dealing and drug abuse, this movie shows in extremely graphic details the physical effects of drug abuse. However, Aronofsky leaves viewers with their own thoughts about the gut-wrenching psychological damage done to the characters in the movie. "Requiem's" focus on the individual character's spiral into destruction showcases the effects of drugs on a very personal level to the viewer, something that would not have been seen in a mainstream movie. In "Better Luck Tomorrow," director Justin Lin exposed the hazards of stereotyping. The movie shed light on the apathy that is prevalent in today's teens. The movie's depiction of the school's "good kids'" debauchery poses a critical question to parents everywhere: "How well do you know your kids?" It is a disturbing thought in the back of parents' mind everywhere.

It's easy to choose to watch mainstream movies rather than indpendent films. They have more well-known actors, bigger budgets, bigger productions, and so forth. But the one thing they are missing that the independent films have is freedom. Not only the freedom to present viewers with controversial issues or pose daring questions, but also the freedom to give viewers a chance to think about those issues and to answer those questions. As more and more of the mind-numbing productions increase in grossage, I begin to wonder if we as a society are beginning to become more and more nonchalant and ignorant about the problems we face today. Perhaps the next time you watch a movie, you should look for one that makes you say "hmmm" rather than "wow".

Note: The following websites were helpful in my research:

http://www.mpaa.org/useconomicreview/2002/02%20Economic%20Review%20w-cover_files/frame.htm

http://www.hollywood.com

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/