Books: the Good, the Bad, and the Multiplex
I got this book by Mark Kermode for Christmas. I think I must have first heard Mark Kermode when I started listening to Radio 1 when I was 12 or so. I feel like he was on Mark & Lard's show that I used to listen to in bed after ten or ten thirty, but perhaps that's just because everyone on the program seemed to be called Mark.
Anyway, Kermode is "Britain's most trusted film critic" which, as he points out, means he's trusted by some tiny proportion of the population. The fundamental point about this book is that Mark Kermode loves cinema. Whereas I, on the other hand, have never been a cinephile. The cinema itself has never been a place I'd go to hang out with people, or head off for an evening. Films themselves I am hesitant to sit down and start watching. So Kermode's paeons to the glory of film don't hit an emotional chord with me.
The book is written in what you could call a conversational style. By which I mean walking the line of being annoying. Also, being unnecessarily long-winded. Some of his stories or asides are entertaining, like his obsession with Zac Efron's hair and his daughter's put-downs. A lot of the time they're just a bit tiresome, and Each of the six chapters could probably be condensed down into a mid-length essay. At least they're quick to read.
The chapters deal with: the terrible state of multiplexes, why blockbusters should be better, the inevitable decline of 3D, what film critics are for, the "british" film industry, and how bad remakes of foreign-language films are.
The chapter on blockbusters may have been the most interesting. I always thought that 3D was a way for the film-industry to squeeze out more money, I'm well-versed in disliking remakes, and the British film industry has never filled me with concern. What I didn't know was that it's pretty much impossible for a big, blockbuster film to lose money. If it's terrible, the PR will go on about how much money it cost, and people will watch it to see where all that money went. Between cinema receipts, worldwide takings, DVD sales and tie-ins, a film will make its money back. Blockbusters don't lose money and sink studios like they used to, they just "underperform" (although maybe that can be dangerous enough in a leveraged world).
In which case, Kermode asks, why can't they make good blockbusters? Why do we get more Pearl Harbours and not more Inceptions?
A good companion piece is this article which argues that what movies get made is now determined by marketing. And one thing marketers love is a definable audience. That's why so many movies are sequels, tie-ins, 're-boots' or whatever. The marketers can go "100 million children had he-man toys/65 million people watched transformers 5/whatever", decide what percentage of that group see the film (and how to advertise to these people) and they can propose a sure-fire hit.
In the studios eyes, stars aren't bankable any more, nor are directors or scripts. This is why 2014's Stretch Armstrong is a certain money-marker, but films like Inception - with a good script, a big-name director, and one of the world's most famous actors - or The Departed - with one of the world's greatest directors, and a batch of stars - are regarded as surprise hits. Of course, Inception 2, now there's a film studios will queue up to make...
Anyway, Kermode is "Britain's most trusted film critic" which, as he points out, means he's trusted by some tiny proportion of the population. The fundamental point about this book is that Mark Kermode loves cinema. Whereas I, on the other hand, have never been a cinephile. The cinema itself has never been a place I'd go to hang out with people, or head off for an evening. Films themselves I am hesitant to sit down and start watching. So Kermode's paeons to the glory of film don't hit an emotional chord with me.
The book is written in what you could call a conversational style. By which I mean walking the line of being annoying. Also, being unnecessarily long-winded. Some of his stories or asides are entertaining, like his obsession with Zac Efron's hair and his daughter's put-downs. A lot of the time they're just a bit tiresome, and Each of the six chapters could probably be condensed down into a mid-length essay. At least they're quick to read.
The chapters deal with: the terrible state of multiplexes, why blockbusters should be better, the inevitable decline of 3D, what film critics are for, the "british" film industry, and how bad remakes of foreign-language films are.
The chapter on blockbusters may have been the most interesting. I always thought that 3D was a way for the film-industry to squeeze out more money, I'm well-versed in disliking remakes, and the British film industry has never filled me with concern. What I didn't know was that it's pretty much impossible for a big, blockbuster film to lose money. If it's terrible, the PR will go on about how much money it cost, and people will watch it to see where all that money went. Between cinema receipts, worldwide takings, DVD sales and tie-ins, a film will make its money back. Blockbusters don't lose money and sink studios like they used to, they just "underperform" (although maybe that can be dangerous enough in a leveraged world).
In which case, Kermode asks, why can't they make good blockbusters? Why do we get more Pearl Harbours and not more Inceptions?
A good companion piece is this article which argues that what movies get made is now determined by marketing. And one thing marketers love is a definable audience. That's why so many movies are sequels, tie-ins, 're-boots' or whatever. The marketers can go "100 million children had he-man toys/65 million people watched transformers 5/whatever", decide what percentage of that group see the film (and how to advertise to these people) and they can propose a sure-fire hit.
In the studios eyes, stars aren't bankable any more, nor are directors or scripts. This is why 2014's Stretch Armstrong is a certain money-marker, but films like Inception - with a good script, a big-name director, and one of the world's most famous actors - or The Departed - with one of the world's greatest directors, and a batch of stars - are regarded as surprise hits. Of course, Inception 2, now there's a film studios will queue up to make...