Warning: soap box ahead.
I deeply and firmly believe that film-going is a great opportunity for a social experience, but my friends and I do not even remotely share the same taste in movies. To put it simply, if 'Singin' in the Rain' came on the radio, they would associate it with Gene Kelley swinging around a lamppost, and I would associate it with the infamous scene from A Clockwork Orange. So when we decide to go to the movie theater, it usually results in a heated fight where several friendships are destroyed and I am forced to give in to seeing some action movie directed by Michael Bay at the risk of losing my first-born child. I have nothing against people who enjoy these kinds of movies- they're made for teenage boys and they don't need to be anything deeper than that. However, when I leave the theater complaining about the weak third act or gratuitous use of explosives, I hear the same thing every time: "It's a _____ movie, what did you expect?". The genre of the movie does not determine the quality, there are many rom-coms, comedies, and action movies out there that don't sacrifice their smart side while remaining enjoyable.
I think one of the best examples of this is Edgar Wright's work. Now of course, all film is subjective, and comedy movies are particularly hard to pin down as good or bad. What you find funny is what you find funny, and that's not something heavily influenced by good or bad directing. However, it's a fair claim to make that these films are closer to documentaries than anything resembling art. Most scenes are just neutral focalization loosely connected by the illusion of plot, pop music, and dialogue- the latter of which carrying 100% of the comedy. But Wright's work is much deeper than that. He puts value into the movies by taking advantage of visual and auditory comedy. The reason that Airplane! and the Monty Python movies are still hailed as the greatest comedies forty years later is because the also took advantage of those things. Some examples:
I deeply and firmly believe that film-going is a great opportunity for a social experience, but my friends and I do not even remotely share the same taste in movies. To put it simply, if 'Singin' in the Rain' came on the radio, they would associate it with Gene Kelley swinging around a lamppost, and I would associate it with the infamous scene from A Clockwork Orange. So when we decide to go to the movie theater, it usually results in a heated fight where several friendships are destroyed and I am forced to give in to seeing some action movie directed by Michael Bay at the risk of losing my first-born child. I have nothing against people who enjoy these kinds of movies- they're made for teenage boys and they don't need to be anything deeper than that. However, when I leave the theater complaining about the weak third act or gratuitous use of explosives, I hear the same thing every time: "It's a _____ movie, what did you expect?". The genre of the movie does not determine the quality, there are many rom-coms, comedies, and action movies out there that don't sacrifice their smart side while remaining enjoyable.
I think one of the best examples of this is Edgar Wright's work. Now of course, all film is subjective, and comedy movies are particularly hard to pin down as good or bad. What you find funny is what you find funny, and that's not something heavily influenced by good or bad directing. However, it's a fair claim to make that these films are closer to documentaries than anything resembling art. Most scenes are just neutral focalization loosely connected by the illusion of plot, pop music, and dialogue- the latter of which carrying 100% of the comedy. But Wright's work is much deeper than that. He puts value into the movies by taking advantage of visual and auditory comedy. The reason that Airplane! and the Monty Python movies are still hailed as the greatest comedies forty years later is because the also took advantage of those things. Some examples:
As I said before, there is absolutely no problem with enjoying a movie that's just there for good fun. But it doesn't excuse it from having a bad script, being poorly directed, and lacking any likable characters. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. The majority of modern audiences are finding the idea of challenging themselves at the movies more and more unpalatable. It's this kind of restrictive comfort zone that's to blame for the endless loop of CGI-heavy, meaningless adventures that will inevitably spawn sequel after sequel. As of July 2013, there are 111 sequels projected to be released in the close future, 47 of those coming out last year in a record-breaking amount. Earlier this year, 1,433 Americans were polled asking if they had seen any of the best picture nominees, plus two other films competing in other categories. The most watched film, Captain Phillips, came in at only 15%, while 67% said they hadn't seen a single nominated film (there are eleven). That's not to say that Oscar-nominated films are inherently good, but we can all agree that they at least have plot, developed characters, and some thematic elements. I love Superbad, and I'll explain later why I think it's a great movie, but Judd Apatow, Adam Sandler, and Tyler Perry are everything that's wrong with the "dumbing-down" of Hollywood. The issue here is- people support their movies more than they support movies with "value", leading to an increase in their genre and a decrease in all others.
Superbad is a movie that I think can satisfy both audiences. It's a silly comedy with a few cheap laughs that can be enjoyed without any real challenge, but if you're in the mood, it has some deeper elements that can be analyzed as well. Anyone who's been through the final years of high school can definitely appreciate Superbad for its realism. I know that in a lot of ways, I am like Evan. I have crushes on boys I hardly talk to, I'm socially awkward, and I wasn't really invited to any parties until I became an upperclassmen (though I knew they were going on before that). Though it's a comedy aimed at teenagers, the dialogue is surprisingly realistic. I feel like a lot of the dialogue could have been pulled right from a few conversations I've had with my friends. That's one of the elements that sets it apart from the other "teen summer" movies- the Linklater-esque use of realistic dialogue to enhance the story. A lot of that can probably be attributed that Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg wrote the first drafts together when they were in high school, but that doesn't detract from its merit in any way. The theme of growing apart from the people you thought would be there forever is an old message, but Superbad does one of the best jobs of conveying that. Case in point: the final scene at the mall. The whole movie has been building up around both boys attaining the girls of their dreams before school ends, but as Seth goes down he escalator and Evan walks away, they can barely concentrate on the girls they're talking to. It's in this moment that they realize their friendship is waning, they're going their separate ways both literally and metaphorically, and it hurts because they really do love each other. That's no pseudo-gay joke, they genuinely care about each other, but sometimes growing up means growing apart.
As far as romantic comedies go, there are actually quite a few well-rounded movies that don't include people smoking as a metaphor or Katherine Heigl. For example: (500) Days of Summer. It's a bit of a departure from the cookie-cutter romance, giving equal time to both the meet cute and the aftermath of the relationship, but it still counts. It's a story of boy meets girl, but also a cautionary tale about selfishness and emotional vulnerability when it comes to falling in love. Most romantic comedies are told from a female lens, and to be honest they all seem formulaic in the way she falls for a man, but realizes in the third act- the man she was looking for was disguised as her best friend all along! Cue credits. But (500) is told from a male viewpoint, which changes the way the film works entirely. If the gender roles had been reversed, I have a feeling it would have failed spectacularly. What woman would want to see a girl fall out of love so seemingly cruelly? By making the protagonist male, Fox Searchlight both widened the target audience and cleverly turned the tables on the romantic comedy formula. But make no mistake, Tom idealizes his relationship with Summer, and it's his downfall. The line that really sums up the ultimate takeaway is actually said by a somewhat minor character when describing his girlfriend: "I think technically 'the girl of my dreams' would probably have like a really bodacious rack, you know, maybe different hair, she'd probably be a little more into sports, but truthfully, Robyn is better than the girl of my dreams. She's real."
I've gotten off track. But my point here is that it doesn't take an art-house indie flick to be a hero. There are lots of good movies out there that can satisfy both parts of your brain, but many of them are lacking attention, shoved to the bottom by big-name sequels and mindless 2-hour vacuums. There's no reason why you shouldn't have the choice to watch a movie without thinking about it, to enjoy it because it simply is, but that doesn't mean you have to choose a movie with no substance whatsoever. Enjoyment does not necessarily mean a decrease in quality.
Superbad is a movie that I think can satisfy both audiences. It's a silly comedy with a few cheap laughs that can be enjoyed without any real challenge, but if you're in the mood, it has some deeper elements that can be analyzed as well. Anyone who's been through the final years of high school can definitely appreciate Superbad for its realism. I know that in a lot of ways, I am like Evan. I have crushes on boys I hardly talk to, I'm socially awkward, and I wasn't really invited to any parties until I became an upperclassmen (though I knew they were going on before that). Though it's a comedy aimed at teenagers, the dialogue is surprisingly realistic. I feel like a lot of the dialogue could have been pulled right from a few conversations I've had with my friends. That's one of the elements that sets it apart from the other "teen summer" movies- the Linklater-esque use of realistic dialogue to enhance the story. A lot of that can probably be attributed that Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg wrote the first drafts together when they were in high school, but that doesn't detract from its merit in any way. The theme of growing apart from the people you thought would be there forever is an old message, but Superbad does one of the best jobs of conveying that. Case in point: the final scene at the mall. The whole movie has been building up around both boys attaining the girls of their dreams before school ends, but as Seth goes down he escalator and Evan walks away, they can barely concentrate on the girls they're talking to. It's in this moment that they realize their friendship is waning, they're going their separate ways both literally and metaphorically, and it hurts because they really do love each other. That's no pseudo-gay joke, they genuinely care about each other, but sometimes growing up means growing apart.
As far as romantic comedies go, there are actually quite a few well-rounded movies that don't include people smoking as a metaphor or Katherine Heigl. For example: (500) Days of Summer. It's a bit of a departure from the cookie-cutter romance, giving equal time to both the meet cute and the aftermath of the relationship, but it still counts. It's a story of boy meets girl, but also a cautionary tale about selfishness and emotional vulnerability when it comes to falling in love. Most romantic comedies are told from a female lens, and to be honest they all seem formulaic in the way she falls for a man, but realizes in the third act- the man she was looking for was disguised as her best friend all along! Cue credits. But (500) is told from a male viewpoint, which changes the way the film works entirely. If the gender roles had been reversed, I have a feeling it would have failed spectacularly. What woman would want to see a girl fall out of love so seemingly cruelly? By making the protagonist male, Fox Searchlight both widened the target audience and cleverly turned the tables on the romantic comedy formula. But make no mistake, Tom idealizes his relationship with Summer, and it's his downfall. The line that really sums up the ultimate takeaway is actually said by a somewhat minor character when describing his girlfriend: "I think technically 'the girl of my dreams' would probably have like a really bodacious rack, you know, maybe different hair, she'd probably be a little more into sports, but truthfully, Robyn is better than the girl of my dreams. She's real."
I've gotten off track. But my point here is that it doesn't take an art-house indie flick to be a hero. There are lots of good movies out there that can satisfy both parts of your brain, but many of them are lacking attention, shoved to the bottom by big-name sequels and mindless 2-hour vacuums. There's no reason why you shouldn't have the choice to watch a movie without thinking about it, to enjoy it because it simply is, but that doesn't mean you have to choose a movie with no substance whatsoever. Enjoyment does not necessarily mean a decrease in quality.