In Response to Mr. Ebert, Part 1

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/08/the_gathering_dark_age.html

A friend sent me this article yesterday, and I thought about it long and hard. I'm obviously a little late in my response, but I don't spend all my time in the blogosphere either.

I don't think the American audience is dumber. I think they have too many options. SCANDALOUS you say in a time when I and everyone I know is struggling to find a film-industry job. But think about it long and hard. The idea of a 4-quadrant film is a fallacy. Everything has a genre. Everything has a brand. This immediately limits an audience. The reason people aren't going to see "The Hurt Locker" is because of the stigma attached to limited release. And because of the pretense that comes with a film that was released in major cities first. Trust me, I've been in the small towns that get it last. Why see a movie that was initially designated for "important" or "enlightened" folks living in segregated, crime-ridden major cities? Yes, there are still blockbusters, but even they fall into genres. To call Transformers 2 a four-quadrant film is totally false. It is meant for men and boys. Yes, I saw it, but I was not the target audience. I also saw "Up," and Lord knows I don't have a family of my own.

People are not dumber, but they are overstimulated. With so many choices and so few opportunities for real conversation left in the world, why wouldn't you go see the movie everyone else is seeing. At least the potential for connection is present afterward. And perhaps, with movies like "G.I. Joe" and "Transformers" a chance to reminisce about childhoods that are no longer possible. I don't know a single child who play with action figures anymore. They are all playing with their Wiis an X-boxes. Perhaps online. My former neighbor, only eight, has a facebook! At least with big flashy movies based on our simple toys and complex imaginations, we have a chance to share with this younger generation something they have lost. Maybe.

And maybe we need to rethink our limited releases. Maybe Hollywood needs to stop thinking of Middle America as a cultural wasteland and give them a chance to see "artsy" movies or "obscure" movies first. There was so much I missed before moving to Chicago, cinema-wise, and so much I try to make sure my little sister does not miss. When that rich classmate comes back from having seen an art house film in "The City" (whichever major city is closest), no one in the class wants to see it because no one in that class wants to be perceived as elitist.

The fact of the matter is, there is no single movie in theaters right now that just anyone could go see. Except, maybe, Up. There was a time when people had more freedom, when there was less genre applied to Hollywood. Perhaps "Julie and Julia" could reach a younger audience if it hadn't been so adamantly pushed upon the women 25-50. And perhaps "The Hurt Locker" could reach my girlfriends back in western Illlinois - action-movie loving girls uninfluenced by the gross sexism that pervades major cities - if it had been presented to them before it hit Los Angeles and was branded a "guy movie." A WOMAN DIRECTED IT FOR GOD'S SAKE!

No, Mr. Ebert, young American audiences are not dumb. They are overstimulated. They have too many choices, so they pick the one that will allow them the most chances to relate. They pick the genre that fits into their lifestyle: the "comic book movie", the "video game movie", the "coming of age teen drama", or, my personal favorite, the "event film". They could make other choices, but those labels might be more isolating. The "Oscar film" or the "limited release" or the "indy drama" or the "mid-life crisis" or the "romantic comedy" don't sound like movies one can discuss with classmates in high school or college.

Next entry in response: why critics ARE elitist and how to read film criticism so it does not ruin your movie-going experience.