[sph]

I love the thread about Barry Lyndon. I’ve seen it for the first time recently and it is clear there is no talent, or rather no money, to create something so earnest and opinionated. The problem isn’t film, isn’t digital, isn’t the ironic dialogue of modern blockbuster, isn’t lack of art sense, it’s all of the above. It is clear that film, and any other creation today, is soulless, aims at the common denominator, there is no strong opinion, no auteurship. You see that in blockbuster film, blockbuster game design, blockbuster art even. In software.

Call me old and grumpy but there is a real sense that this data- and money-driven approach is the lowest, most sterile point for artistry and creativity. ‘Art for art’s sake’ is the antithesis of the relentless pursuit of revenue and efficiency. You do not have art when you need not to offend anyone but sell the most units. When art is just another product out of the industrial line.

[magicalhippo]

> isn’t lack of art sense, it’s all of the above. It is clear that film, and any other creation today, is soulless, aims at the common denominator [...]

That's a problem with what you seek, rather than what is created.

There are lots of films and other creations being made that are the exact opposite of soulless, and does not aim for the common denominator.

Yes the big blockbuster movies are typically predicable sequels with limited inspiration. But that's what the audience wants. If Barry Lyndon premiered this year it wouldn't be a blockbuster hit, I am sure.

So you need to put in some effort, and not just go on the highway and complain it's not an exciting drive.

[sph]

It’s facile and frankly uninteresting to put the blame on the critic, in this case my comment. I don’t watch blockbuster movies, I enjoy the indie scene in music and video games. I know there is always a niche of earnest art if one looks deep enough, but that shouldn’t stop us from having a conversation about what is going on with our culture and where we are going.

In fact this ‘meh it is what it is, just ignore it’ is another manifestation of this culturally-low point we find ourselves in, unwilling to imagine a better world, to even try to push against the status quo.

We have gone through these phases multiple times in history, and periods of ‘renaissance’ owe everything to those unreasonable people that claimed “this is terrible, I shall do better!” rather than just shrugging it out.

[ksymph]

You make a fair point about cultural conversation being important. I think that conversation is happening, but the focal point shifts from one generation of creatives to the next. It's an important part of cultural dialogue, not just reaching the same targets as previous works, but finding new targets, new mediums and methods of expression.

We saw the shift toward a more fractured landscape happen in music long before movies. If you grew up hearing the Beatles on mainstream radio, listening today might feel like a cultural low point. And that feeling isn't baseless. But treating the Top 40 as the whole of music ends up missing the new developments happening outside that narrow slice.

We're seeing similar shifts in film. The Blair Witch Project and Once Upon a Time in Mexico heralded the age of accessible digital filmmaking, leading to an indie boom that's still rippling out. Everything, Everywhere, All At Once showed that ambitious, effects-heavy filmmaking is no longer tethered to the traditional studio system. Those are the high profile bellwethers -- indie bands that sneak in a radio hit -- but I think they reflect the wider landscape of passionate creatives better than, say, the new Jurassic World.

So yes, blockbusters aren't what they used to be. But judging the health of the entire medium by looking at those is like judging transportation by looking at horse-drawn carriages after the arrival of cars. It focuses on what's leaving instead of what's emerging.

[magicalhippo]

> It’s facile and frankly uninteresting to put the blame on the critic, in this case my comment.

Well in that case your critique failed at the gates.

If your problem is that other people don't like the things you think they should like, or that movie theaters shouldn't show "soulless" movies, then say that then.

> In fact this ‘meh it is what it is, just ignore it’ is another manifestation of this culturally-low point we find ourselves in

That's the exact opposite of what I was saying. There's good stuff out there being made. Seek it, support it.

[tweetle_beetle]

I think you might be looking at the film through rose tinted glasses without the broader context. Kubrick's films had been nominated for 9 Academy Awards and won 1 (he was personally nominated 3 times) by the time Barry Lyndon started filming. (He had also directed a certain Spartacus.)

Warner Brothers were keen to bankroll whatever he wanted to do, even tolerating moving the country of production due to the Troubles.

He was given some artistic freedom due to previous commercial success - ie. a "data- and money-driven approach". He also really wanted to be making a Napoleon biopic, but financing was pulled when a similar film failed at the box office, so he didn't get it all his own way.

Barry Lyndon was only a modest commercial succes. So much so that Warner Brothers hooked him up with a much safer bet for them for their next venture. He was given unfinished manuscript of The Shining, from the wildy popular best seller King for his next project, which was also simpler to produce ie. "relentless pursuit of revenue".

TLDR Making films is expensive and needs to be a commercial activity, but every now and then there's a fortunate crossover of quality and funding. This still happens but you need to look out for it.