Why Good Films Like ‘A Serious Man’ Are Nearing Extinction
Michael Stuhlbarg in "A Serious Man."
As I stood at the Hollywood Grove Pacific Theater wondering which movie I should see, I noticed something rather disheartening about my options. Every single film had a certain specifically-tailored marketing hook—the kind of hook that insists on drawing attention to itself each time you read an ad for a movie on a billboard, see a theatrical trailer, and likely in the movie itself. You know just what I’m talking about. The kind of movies that, like products, you know precisely what you’re going to get. Movies like The Vampire’s Assistant that knows it’s a vampire movie and draws attention to itself (and let’s face it, it’s probably nothing more than “a vampire movie”). I’m not quite sure when the impulse overtook me, but I was feeling rebellious and purposefully did not want to be hooked into the cheapness of such marketing ploys.
Where the Wild Things Are and Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs are two movies based on children’s books. These are books which many of us have read. These are two movies with an already embedded market. Then I looked to Couples Retreat and felt sad that a film so predictable had done so well at the box office last week. Then I looked to Zombieland and, though enormously interested, resisted the urge to being reeled into the theater primarily because of the film’s obnoxiously hip marketing campaign (but I will see it, and will admittedly probably enjoy it). Another movie, Capitalism: A Love Story is quite bluntly for anyone who wants to have their own anti-capitalist opinions confirmed in a pointed, sarcastic Michael Moore documentary. So I looked to the Coen Bros.’ most recent A Serious Man. While I admit I was not sold on this movie from the trailer, I decided to see it anyway. And why? It was the only film that didn’t feel like a predictable and disposable studio product.
But ironically enough, it was the film with the most reliable brand name attached to it: The Coen Bros. Even though I hardly had any desire to actually see the film, I knew that I was in good hands. I wanted to experience a well-told story that was challenging and complex, funny and sad. Needless to say, I’m glad I purchased my ticket. Because soon enough these kinds of movies will be rare commodities.
The Death of Surprise
I recently spoke with an agent at a well-renowned talent agency who challenged me to name one “drama” that’s done well at the box office in the last five years. Shocked by the fact that he wasn’t kidding, I started naming several movies which I thought to be dramas that were successful. He immediately shot down my responses on grounds that while they may have contained “elements of drama” (which, inevitably all films do) that they could not necessarily be considered dramas. I wasn’t sure that films like Atonement (2007) and Slumdog Millionaire (2008) were exempt from such classification, but decided to listen to what he was trying to tell me anyway.
He then took out his Blackberry device and read me a list of about sixty or so films set for release in years 2010, 2011 and 2012. The list included an assortment of scripts related to or concerning pre-existing brands or games, sequels, comedies, 3D and—well, that’s all. I was stunned. Hollywood is reducing risk by targeting micro-specific markets as annoyingly as Facebook and Twitter ads visually assault its users. And now there’s absolutely no room for risk.
So goes the assumption: “Have you played Battleship as a kid? Well then you probably will want to see a movie on Battleship!”
This “anti-risk Hollywood” is not only dangerous to the industry itself, but it will most certainly fail. The assumption that viewers no longer want thought-provoking, unpredictable film is not only naïve but disturbing—disturbing because it underscores the mentality that in order for tickets and DVDs to be bought that a consumer must know exactly what product they themselves are getting. My question is: Why would you want to see a movie if you already know what it’s about?? That’s not to say that people interested in seeing neverending car-chases and rip-roaring explosions shouldn’t see Action movies. But how can we establish a compromise between seeing what we want to see without knowing exactly how the story will go?
Another problem with an anti-risk Hollywood is that by eliminating the word “drama” from our movie vocabularies, the fundamental purpose of movie-going historically and today is being outright challenged. No longer can film be thought-provoking because under these new standards film need only be thought-confirming. Now can you see why this is problematic?
Credit the Coen Bros. for continuing to innovate virtually each year by delivering films which not only challenge Hollywood to be better, but sometimes even influence Hollywood. A Serious Man is a loaded film which ultimately provides more questions than answers for both its central characters and the viewers alike. Admittedly this was not an easy film to sit through. But it is a film which stands up for itself. A film which cannot be dismissed as disposable entertainment. A film that is too complex, too emotional, too funny, too sad, and ultimately too unpredictable to be packaged as a product.
Joel and Ethan Coen on the set of "A Serious Man."
To quickly brief those who have no seen or heard of A Serious Man, the story deals with a man named Larry Gupnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) who finds that he is constantly being victimized by human nature. His wife leaves him, he is kicked out of his own house, his kids are spoiled rotten, his students want better grades, etc. While those interested in seeing the film will assume that the story’s message is “you shouldn’t take life so seriously,” the Coens have labored hard to make the film far more complex than we’d expect. As Larry wrestles with an abundance of problems he decides to finally turn to God for some meaning behind his hectic life. What he learns is that sometimes there aren’t divine explanations for bad circumstances. For some people, the answer simply may just be something we have to figure out on our own. The question is whether Larry is able to figure that out for himself.
That’s about all of the story I’m going to give away as I’d hate to dismiss the film as a mere predictable product. A Serious Man may not be an easy pill to swallow. But it is an important pill. The kind of pill that’s good for you.
Simply put, the film is about Jews, God and Marijuana. So go out and see the movie. You may love it. Or you may even hate it. But one way or another, I can guarantee you’ll be surprised.
Charlie Wachtel is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade and Founder of www.filmcrusade.com.
Well said, Charlie…nice article.
I agree with your stance, though I think you don’t truly understand why filmgoers do indeed see movies in which they “know what they’re getting.” For example, if I go see a Mission Impossible film, I know there are certain elements to pull me in, as an action fan. That’s the target demo…plus female fans of Tom Cruise. Movie studios are built to make money and there’s nothing wrong with marketing to your target audience.
What I despise is movies that talk down to their audience, by pandering to the lowest common denominator. Films that are copycat and have nothing left to say. For example, this bizarre Hollywood notion of the “remake”, which is essentially to repackage a film from the recent past, even if it had been successful. I recently saw an ad for the remake of the movie, “The Stepfather.” Problem is, it was a perfectly solid little film made about 20 years ago, starring Terry O’Quinn from “Lost.” But I suppose it wasn’t seen by enough people. So, we have to get another one. Same deal with “Wicker Man”. I can’t think of one example where a remake was superior to the original…can you?
I knew nothing about “A Serious Man” before buying my ticket, except that the Coen Bros. directed and that there were no stars. That was enough for me. I suppose you could say I was a demographic as well…the indie film fan.
But I completely agree with you. Films like “A Serious Man” are an endangered species, likely to only find acceptance and an audience on DVD down the road. A shame…it’s quite a challenging little flick.
Keep up the good work.
“MoviesNowMoreThanEver,” while I admit that studios must find ways to target their audiences (thereby inevitably revealing elements of the story), I think such targetting is spinning so much out of control that perhaps 10 years from now these products will be considered of equal value to a purchased song on iTunes for 99 cents. Take this example for instance. If you hear a song on the radio and like it, chances are you will purchase it. But is it worth the price of a movie ticket? Of course not. That’s why people purchase albums. My beef with the direction of the business is simply this: are we getting our money’s worth?
All I keep hearing about is how movie-goers are annoyed to find that the movie they payed $10-15 to see was “predictable.” But if unpredictability is what we value in storytelling (and really, we should value this) then are pigeon-holed marketing schemes really going to attract the shrinking target audience? It’s no surprise that movies with viral marketing campaigns such as Blair Witch, Cloverfield, and even Paranormal Activity have had great success: viewers simply do not want all of their questions answered before they arrive at the theater.
I’ll admit first that I’m a fan of action films. When stuff gets blown up, I’m happy. I suppose we need some brainless films to provide mindless entertainment but the problem I have with the film industry (& this has been a problem for decades now) is that “brainless” always wins over substance every time. Even a film like Speed, despite one dimensional characters & a flimsy story, STILL had a central pulse. Not to mention the one gimmick that kept it going for 2 hours; if the bus SLOWS DOWN it blows up. I was NOT disappointed!
These days you just can’t convince the larger number of moviegoers these days that a film that may challenge them to think even a little bit will be good for them. I read a piece by Peter Travers of Rolling Stone about 6 years ago where he decried Britney Spears’ presence at the Sundance Film Fest where she told a reporter “The films here are kinda weird, you have to think about ‘em while you watch ‘em.” Well, DUH!! Not surprising coming from a celeb who went to Park City merely because she wanted to attend what she thought would be the socialite event of the season. Her seat in the theatre or theatres she went to could’ve gone to someone who would’ve perhaps had something more intelligent to say.
I frequent the IMDB message boards often. My primary stop this year has been the boards for Watchmen, a film I despised (as a 20 year fan of the source material). I wasn’t at all surprised to hear all the praise that’s been heaped upon a film that to me was among the poorest adaptations of a graphic novel I’ve ever seen. But I’m convinced that everyone who showered the film with accolades were somehow hypnotized by the production, imagery, visual effects, etc. Never mind that the story was horribly lacking in depth, character development, story development, acting, etc.
We have “Avatar” to look forward to, a film set within a universe completely of James Cameron’s creation, with no pre-existing market (except maybe those who love James Cameron films). No one quite knows what to expect.
The problem is not, of course, confined to the cinema, and if you want to see what the movie world may become, look to today’s musical theatre. Throughout its history, about once a decade a great new name would enter this sphere, from Rodgers and Hammerstein, through Sondheim, Rice and Lloyd-Webber, up to Schonberg and Boublil who took the eighties by storm coming out of nowhere with Les Miserables, one of the most successful and best loved musicals ever.
And then… nothing. Why not? Because today Broadway and the West End is filled with nothing but musical adaptations of hit movies and musicals based on the songs of some hit pop act of the last thirty or forty years. And why is this? It’s because they sell, because they are risk free. People know what they are going to get, and they know they already like it, so why take the risk on seeing something new and untested that they might not like.
It’s sad. Undoubtedly the new guys are out there, the great shows are out there, and they are never going to see the inside of a major theatre because the cost of a mounting a production means that the risk-averse option is going to win out with the producers every single time.
I was really not a fan of this article at all, I am still slightly confused as to what the purpose of it is. If you’re going to assert that all films are predictable or that all current films have “a marketing hook” then you really need a lot more data to back up that sort of claim.
The claim that no drama has been a success in the past five years is beyond ridiculous no matter how narrowly you define the term drama (which, coincidentaly you neglected to do).
I am completely baffled as to how anybody could argue that Attonement was not a drama, same with Slumdog Millionair a film told in flashbacks of somebody being tortured and interrogated that involves scenes of somebody purposefully blinding children for money and rampant mob violence and prostitution.
Come on here. Mainstream cinema has always been safe. Always. For every great chance-taking film in the “golden-era” of the cinema there were several high-budget schlock o’roma main stream flicks. For every Taxi Driver, there’s a Towering Inferno. This has always been the way.
It’s a case of the ‘grass WAS always greener.’ Doesn’t matter the era, the older era was always better. A serious comparison of big budget, mainstream cinema/smaller budget, dangerous film throughout the history of the medium would find that things are now, as they ever were.
“I am completely baffled as to how anybody could argue that Attonement was not a drama, same with Slumdog Millionaire a film told in flashbacks of somebody being tortured and interrogated that involves scenes of somebody purposefully blinding children for money and rampant mob violence and prostitution.”
I agree. Those two films are the definition of drama. If their not dramas then I do not know what is.
I agree with uh…
I’m sick of hearing people say things like: “Oh, they’ve run out of ideas in Hollywood, they just keep recycling the same crap.” Hollywood’s never had any good ideas. They’ve always gone with what’s safe, marketable and predictable. Why do you think there were so many Elvis movies? It’s nothing new.
And yeah, for every 10 Elvis movies, there was a Dr. Strangelove. And for every 10 Saw films (they’ll probably go to 10), you’ve got The Wrestler, or There Will Be Blood, or Che, or any number of other visually arresting, intellectually stimulating films to go and see. You really think those types of movies are going to disappear?
Look at the film festivals held every year, with hundreds of fresh films every year, full of originality and well told stories. Not all of them are good to be sure, but most of these festival films aspire to be works of art, marketable or not. And a good handful of those go on to receive critical acclaim, a major deal, and a place in your local movieplex. That’s how A Serious Man got to there. Seems to me that there are more people out there making worthwhile films then there has ever been before.
You probably sit around and bitch about “kids nowadays” too, don’t ya?
“Jews, God and marijuana”
I was already going to see this movie but now I can enter the theater with a tail wind…
Nice article. I deliberately seek out art which is unpredictable and/or beyond my previous experiences. It’s the only way to live so thank you for voicing that sentiment.