Ian's Brother Sean Here.
There are two factions in this business we call show, and those are "business" and "show". Or, more specifically, "art" and "commerce". Or, as we used to say after every show of "Hunchback Of Notre Dame" when we were congratulating each other, "way to move some units, baby!"
Now, there is a mythology about show business, that there is some guy sitting at a typewriter trying to come up with that Barton Fink feeling, while in the background there is some wealthy number cruncher sniping at him to write faster, funnier and better. There is an artist, his integrity tucked neatly into his pocket next to his empty wallet, his few remaining pills and a flask with a thimble's worth of pain-number, crouched over, one hand in his hair, the other scratching out brilliant ideas that only he understands, while some guy in a sharp expensive suit stands in the doorway chomping on a cigar with a blonde on his fat arm waiting for the pages that he can sell.
Obviously, this isn't true. Wanna know why? Because that guy standing in the doorway figured out forty years ago that he doesn't need that jerk at the typewriter. He can write the damn thing himself and then kibosh anything else in the market and we will eat what we're fed.
Oh, and also, that guy? He figured out that the cigar chomping fat guy is a dead give away, so he doesn't let himself become that anymore. He stays athletic, he gets surgery, he pops pills, he does all those things that keep him youthful and hip. And he makes fun of himself in public, joking about his lack of talent, laughing at his own stranglehold on American culture, goofing on his persona. Self-aggrandizement has been replaced by self-deprecation.
George Clooney, Tom Cruise, Ashton Kutcher, Mel Gibson, Brad Pitt etc., these assholes have taken over America. Even worse, Angelina Jolie, Kate Hudson, Paris and Nicole, on and on. The obsession with modern celebrity is disgusting, of course, we all laugh at the guilty pleasure of reading those shit-rags about people with more money, more beauty and more fame than they have talent or intelligence, but what is shocking is the disregard for the fact that it's actually *destructive*. It's no wonder the South Park guys hate everyone in Hollywood, the debate has shifted to the most ridiculously simple ideas.
So, yeah, I jump on Ian when he mentions whatever famous person he's seen recently. In an age when fewer movies are being made every year, when fewer new ideas are even being attempted in Broadway houses, these people are making sure that they own as much of the world as they can. Every play and movie and TV show that doesn't have famous people in it is disregarded, and every celebrity demands a fiscal investment that makes it impossible to take artistic chances.
The people I work with, our artistic world will always remain outside the realm of success, because most of us are the guy sitting at the keyboard hunting and pecking for a new way to tell an old story. Nobody is even looking for us anymore, we don't have an audience. Now, a person's life outside the art he or she creates is the real story, and our lives aren't interesting.
But, if ever there is a tiny crack, one of us will slip through. At this point, the level of irrelevance of theater in modern culture is shocking, and that is, in a way, liberating. We can just do our thing without any worry about whether anyone gets it or likes it, at most only 5 or 6 hundred people will ever know the difference. We can just do our thing, telling our tiny hopeless stories and giving our $15 back and forth to one another as the years creep by.
We do it because we know, one day, someone is gonna stand up in the middle of the movie and say, "Wait a minute. Wait just a minute. Why am I here? This is the same thing they've been giving me for years, I didn't like it then, I don't like it now. My life is spinning past me, and I've spent time *WORRYING ABOUT NICOLE RICHIE'S WEIGHT!!!* I have to get out of here! Even if I just sat at home and listen to myself breath through my mouth that would be better than shelling out shitloads of money for the same old crap!"
And, when that happens, if you feel like coming out and seeing what the actual people in your actual town are doing, we'll be there waiting for you. Even if you just go see Fiddler at your local community theater, at least you'll be taking part in something that matters to the people you share a grocery store with. Kate Hudson doesn't care if you live or die, and her movies are crap, so do yourself a favor and throw her out of your life.
Posted by scw at October 10, 2006 07:42 PMchristine checks the boxes labeled "enjoyable post" and "good rant" and "would read more if available, please send additional literature" :)
At the same time, though, aren't the good movies nowadays a lot better than what Pauline Kael was watching most of her career? I guess that could be from more films getting made. Or maybe it's my taste for naturalism. Anyway, I approach "Golden Age" movies at the video store with a lot more skepticism than I do movies of the last couple decades, and I don't mind that a lot of dumb, overweight Americans are with me on that.
I canceled my People subscription last year and suddenly felt a lot lighter. I admit to still checking the website every now and again to look at pictures of the Beautiful People (the zoo animals), but I'm not [as] bound up in the mythos anymore.
Although I love, love, love movies. As the last preview fades from the screen and the movies starts, I always think, "Entertain me." To me, there's nothing better than that moment of suspense before the movie starts, even when you're not expecting Art. Just that: entertainment. Don't get me wrong, I love theater, too, but there's an additional level of involvement that makes you work a little harder, and sometimes you just don't want that.
Finally, I'm curious. Why are the female celebrities worse than the males? Or did Angelina and Kate (who have actually done some decent work) just accidentally get lumped in with the Paris and Nicole zeroes?
Haven't you heard? Paris and Nicole are FRIENDS again. All is right with the world!
I enjoyed your screed, Sean. The laundrey-list of useless celebs is spot-on, but I'd only disagree that Clooney's completely talentless. He's done quite a few unexpected bits and given the current climate, any promoter of Murrow's version of journalism is all right with me.
movies are much better when they serve beer at the concession booth. I'd like to get some funding to see if I can research it and find any correlation.
Yes. In a world where "The Devil Wears Prada" could be talked about as anything other than a light teen flick, there's really something wrong.
I enjoy movies, but it is nothing compared to watching live performances. To me, going to a movie is fun entertainment. Going to a live performance is an event. I've said it before and I'll say it again, be it a community production of Into the Woods, Jr.. Godspell or Steel Magnolias, to a high school production of Cinderella all the way to a Broadway play - they send chills, smiles and energy through me the way no movie can.
Its the difference between going to a live show at the Cradle versus listening to the tape in your car.
So true. Yet it is so much *easier* to turn on cable or netflix on a widescreen tv at home. That matters a lot to busy people with jobs and families, etc. Even movie box office is hurting because of these "improving" options.
How to make going to the theater more accessible (i.e., convenient) for more people?
maybe he's just not that in to you
I don't know about anyone else, but it has always been evident to me that there was a real culture -- which is local, and particular, without being insular -- and a mass culture, which represents nothing except a self-referential ideal of humanity that has nothing to do with the real lives of normal people.
If you compare art made because the artist was compelled by an imperative, individual inpulse to share what they see with their inner eye, to entertainment designed to make money, it should be obvious which really matters.
You're preaching to the converted. I go to about two movies a year, and have never touched one of those magazines outside of a waiting room.
Heck, I'm surrounded by geeks, and I never even thought about seeing the most recent two Star Wars movies, not after the first one proved they were going to suck. What other people were thinking, who let themselves get fooled again and again, is beyond me.
a few things.
1) about a week ago i read a preface written by craig lucas, introducing a collection of short plays written by up-and-coming writers. basically, he said that in a world controlled by big business and corporate media, practically the only true voice we have left is that of the playwright's...and that the following plays he'd anthologized provided a glimpse of hope that the world wasn't completely shot to hell...yet. and my god...i read several of those plays and i couldn't believe that i'd NEVER heard of these writers. and i'm a theater person.
2) i saw "the pain and the itch" last night. what an incredibly disturbing piece. i left the theater, rode the bus home, walked into my apt, and burst into tears. no movie has done this for me in years. the theater was packed; 75% senior citizens, and 25% playwright's horizons students. i don't know how to get our generation and the one below us back into those theater seats.
Our culture simply does not support the arts in mass any more. Sad but true.
Winston-Salem is bucolic and typical of medium sized cities. But we do have Wake Forest and the NC School of the Arts to provide a decent arts offering. Even better we have the River Run Film Festival every year. Check it out:
http://www.riverrunfilm.com/home.asp
I've seen some damn good movies here and they are all usually sold out.
1) YES on "The Pain and the Itch"
2) There is, of course, a lot more to this rant than I wrote, and Angelina Jolie and Kate Hudson fit into the "comparatively talented enough to be considered *geniuses*, but only got there because they are beautiful and have massively famous parents" category. But, as you can see, that category isn't very elegantly named, so I dropped that part of the screed.
3) The fact that George Clooney represents the left now is startling. His last two movies insinuated the radical idea that the witch hunt for communists in the 50s was bad, and that America is making foreign policy decisions based on oil. Only Ann Coulter thinks those ideas are worth debate. And though he's a good actor now, he was dreadful for years. He got on-the-job training because he's the best looking guy in the world.
4) I can't believe nobody called me fat.
It's always seemed unfair to me that in this country (as it seems Britain may be more reasonable) your level of talent is not nearly as important as your looks and body type. Theater is better in this regard I think but movie and TV actors/actresses are always so nonrepresentative of real people - particularly of women. If I were an actress I'd be really pissed that I'd have to be stunningly beautiful and anorexic to have any chance of making a good living no matter how great I was at my craft.
Thankfully I am not judged as a physician entirely on my looks (at least I hope not). Why are we this way as Americans? I'm just as guilty as the next person as I love the distraction and entertainment of an US mag, but as a Mom of girls I worry about the ideal female image we promote in this country. This is one of those situations (like the control of oil companies, big pharma,etc.) where I think "little old me" can't make a dent in this problem. I'd love ideas of how I might though..
AMEN!!
there are still decent indie movies being made though, actually, because the technology has made it more affordable and feasible. the problem is distribution. same is true of music.
theatre is probably a little different because it doesn't have a mass-distribution issue to deal with (although i'm sure other commercial issues specific to theatre make up for it).
and i do think that tearing down the whole "cult of celebrity" isn't the same as tearing down the celebrity herself/himself. i'm on board with doing the former but not the latter.
If Net neutrality and the YouTube and the home video trends prevail, every small producer who can get online will have world-wide distribution and word-of-mouth. That's liable to give the better art an in. Temporarily at least. Haven't a few feature-length documentaries/polemics already taken off that way?
good rant, fatty.
just joshing...
Read this again waiting for a plane and I wanted to say that damn, Sean damn good post. I would only add that music has slid into the toilet as well. T
Neva, I hear you. My parents showed me lots of foreign films when I was growing up. The actresses (and actors, as well), while very attractive, tend to be less "perfect" and more varied in their appearances, and are still fawned over just as much by the other characters. I plan to do the same with my children; I think it instills in kids an appreciation for non-cookie-cutter physiques. Like you, I enjoy magazines like US, and I hope I'm not naive in believing that I can teach my kids how to keep such magazines in their proper place--"This is trashy fun, but not at all important." I think it helps that the people in these magazines, in spite of their looks, are often pretty unhappy, while I know a lot of "imperfect" people with great lives. I want my kids to understand the difference.