Hollywood and the Marketing/Quality Conundrum

The following quote from A.O. Scott's New York Times review of Knight and Day perfectly captures the problem with Hollywood today:

"Ms. Diaz is June Havens, a collection of alternately appealing and exasperating traits thrown together to satisfy market research data suggesting that audiences go for women who are tough but not aggressive, flaky but not nuts, sexy but not actually having sex, and willing to fall for a certain kind of guy without entirely losing their heads" (http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/movies/23knight.html?nl=movies&emc=mua1).

It is not that films shouldn't be made to appeal to audiences, per se, but the fact that these decisions are at the heart of the Hollywood model. Rather than making quality films that will sell themselves, the marketers seem to be brought into the process too early, thus underming the artistic process itself. Art then succumbs to the dictates of the market, much as appears to be the case with publishing and popular music today (though to be fair, I have read several good novels this year).

But Hollywood has always been like this, right? I assume this is the response many would have to this argument. I would say not always. Certainly not in the early days, not in the 60s heyday and not when the studio system collapsed in the early 70s and the great American auteurs took over the business. Unfortunately, one of those auteurs became the doppelganger of the future -- making the sequel into a Hollywood norm (and not stopping at 2), reintroducing product placement in a big way and creating the notion of the blockbuster that has increasingly driven the business in recent years. His name, of course, is Steven Spielberg. While many of his films are great, I really do think we have to look at him as the leader of a movement that took his ideas and translated them without his talent for narrative and character development (though he has done several clunkers himself).

The main problem appears to be that marketing trumps content today. The key questions seem to be: Can we make a compelling 90 second trailer? What stars and directors will bring in the big audiences? How can we get women to action films, men to romantic comedies and/or old men to any film not starring Clint Eastwood (the only guy who seems to consistently make good films in the mainstream today)? Lost is the art of a good script, coherent character development and a push toward technique over artistry. One can see this most clearly in Avatar, which lacked a truly compelling narrative, but amazed with its visual effects. Film has always comprised both elements, but I think the true geniuses bring them both together. Hollywood has fallen prey to the lowest common denominator perspective and it shows up in everything they make, thus forcing good films to the art house or abroad.

Like many things in America today, what worries me the most is the distance between quality and success. In sports, quality still wins most of the time (except when the referees get involved), but in most other popular culture, hype, money and effective marketing have stolen the reigns from those artists still interested in making good films with the big studios. Hopefully, the trend will change, but this appears to be one of the worst years in film I can remember.