Birdman has a moment in its third act where its leading man Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton, a former superhero actor) has something of a mental breakdown, and his infamous alter ego in this universe discusses what audiences want these days from their movies. stating that they would rather see explosions and big battles then "this talky, depressing, philosophical" character pieces that Thomson is trying to make. At one point, the titular Birdman face the audience and tells them what they'd prefer to be watching. Not only that, but throughout the film it makes references to various superhero actors who are earning millions for their work to the dismay and various in the performing arts industry. Outside of the film, director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu considers the genre of superhero movies to be something of "cultural poisoning"
Since then, critics have been eating up those words and spreading it like gospel, as evident by the aforementioned Oscars thanks to the opening monologue appearance by Jack Black in which he complains about how Hollywood is being filled with blockbusters, whilst the genres in which audiences tend to flock to were mostly absent outside the usual categories - and even then they've been sidelined with smaller pictures taking the prizes. Audience favourites - even those which critics loved to like Gone Girl and The LEGO Movie - were pushed aside to make way for those smaller fares. And whilst superhero films weren't entirely avoided, with Big Hero 6 winning the Best Animated Feature Oscar, it felt more like an obligatory win towards Disney after the huge success of Frozen the previous year.
Meanwhile, blockbusters are becoming bigger and bigger. Not only with the various Universe slates given by the likes of Marvel Studios and Warner Bros, and news stories like the Spider-Man rights taking huge chunks of media attention, but also the various articles about all the remakes in production and how well certain big films are doing. Then we look at how things are going financially - Furious 7, the latest in a long line of panned films, has grossed $1.3bn worldwide; Fifty Shades of Grey passed the half-century mark; Avengers is already in the top five after a week of release; Tak3n - a franchise often mocked - grossed $300m. This is audiences spitting in the face of Hollywood, whose picks this year in America have nearly all grossed less than $100m (the exception being American Sniper, which oddly became the highest grossing of 2014).
This has lead to a division between Hollywood and its viewers, which both crave separate things. And poor Age of Ultron has been placed slap-bang in the middle of it all as the first blockbuster of the year - and a superhero film, no less. With that, critics have began to use it as something to maul and dismantle in hopes to headline the problem with Hollywood these days. Not helping are interviewers asking the superhero actors about some of these comments, with Robert Downey Jr trash-talking the indie movie market and making racist comments against Inarittu for what he said about superhero films.
This wasn't a problem a few years ago, in a time where Marvel's Avengers Assemble was just coming out and critics and audiences applauding it. In that time, so many have tried to copy it and still are - is that why Hollywood is now revolting against the notion? And because the sequel to what caused this phenomenon is now being released, is it worth being attacked because it was what spearheaded the future of filmmaking? I'd say otherwise.
Hollwood is something of a fickle thing. It's a business that wants to make both art and profit, but so often fails to make something which can please all and fit these two elements. With the ever-growing superhero genre, it was something that could, with the success of the first Superman and Batman features, and later with Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy and the first Avengers. But for a good time in the late 90s and early 2000s, it was a genre to avoid. Sure, the likes of X-Men and Spider-Man had good success to start with (eventually faltering and both having semi-reboots of sorts) but for every Spider-Man 2 came a Daredevil. It was only with Nolan and Marvel Studios that the genre became more and more of what it is today. And with that, critics began to praise it more and more. To this day, both critics and audiences despise the idea that The Dark Knight didn't get a Best Picture nomination. A film that achieved to mark art and profit.
Fast forward to now, where there are so many hits with the genre but rarely because critics applaud them. Sure, Guardians of the Galaxy was praised last year, and X-Men: Days of Future Past had lots of admiration, but Captain America: The Winter Soldier wasn't quite as admired by some critics and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 faltered on various levels. The year before, Man of Steel, Thor: The Dark World and The Wolverine got mixed results against the critical praise for Iron Man 3 - which had its own problems with the fans because of its misleading promotional material. They all fight to be the next Avengers - even those part of the same brand - and critics are already starting to get a little sick of it. Not helping is the idea that Universal wants to do a Monster Universe and Paramount a Transformers universe. Universes are a big thing.
But why pin the blame on Age of Ultron? A film which, despite its flaws, is a great piece of entertainment? Because Hollywood can.
On the other side of the coin sits those smaller films; the ones which don't get quite the coverage they were deserve until awards season comes up and they have a bit of limelight from the general public. With the exception of American Sniper - which hadn't had a wide release until after the nominations were out - none of the films nominated for Best Picture were exactly in limelight. Grand Budapest Hotel may be in the exception also, what with being Wes Anderson's most popular film to date, but as a film released in March meant it was quickly out the way once Winter Soldier was released shortly after. Boyhood? Loved by all that saw it, but very little saw it outside the critics. At one point the frontrunner for Best Picture, seen by none.
Perhaps that's why, somewhat controversially, Birdman was the one to pick up the big gong at the Oscars, despite Boyhood winning all other awards shows in that category. As a way of telling the studios and the audiences that this isn't what the film industry should be, with all these blockbusters and billion dollar movies - and as such lost out a big blow to a film that truly deserved it to make way for a statement. And with Hollywood ignoring that, the critics try and push it further by criticising the film that should be loved solely to stop the freight train for continuing.
In the choice of both corners, I'm stuck in the middle. I loved the first Avengers and a lot of what followed (hence the name of this blog, believe it or not), but dipping into other indie fares like the amazing Whiplash or The Theory of Everything has opened things to enjoy these other films. Yes, a good number of Hollywood hits are bad, but for every Tak3n and Insurgent there's a Kingsman or a Chappie. It's no different on the other end - for every Whiplash there is a Foxcatcher. Why split these apart as one medium not counting as proper films? There's no purpose for it. So critics and audiences, do what the Avengers do - unite.
No comments:
Post a Comment