I found out today that movie ticket prices have gone up another fifty cents since the last time I went to a movie this last summer. Movie ticket prices are increasing faster than the price of gasoline, and unlike gasoline, the world isn't running out of movies.
I love going to the theater to watch movies. It's one of my favorite things in the world to do. The whole experience, aside from price, is fantastic. Even going to watch a lame movie in the theater can still be a lot of fun...
When I finished high school, about 14 years ago, I was going to watch upwards of around three movies in the theater a week. I went to see so many movies in theaters I saw movies multiple times, and so many that I even went and to watch movies I didn't care about at all. In some cases I went to watch movies I didn't even want to see out of boredom; simply because I loved watching movies in the theater.
This year I went and saw four movies in theaters total...only four movies! It's not for lack of desire either. I really wanted to go see movies like Drive, Paranormal Activity 3, X-Men, and so on but I just can't afford it anymore.
Since 2008 nearly every industry in America has had to restructure completely while some still hold on to their same poor business models. However I feel Hollywood will have to restructure eventually. I'm reading more and more articles about how ticket revenue is down year after year. Is anyone honestly surprised?
If you want to see a 3D movie your pockets are gouged even further, by requiring movie goers to pay an additional $3 for the exact same pair of 3D glasses over and over. The theater even provides patrons with a "recycle" bin for these glasses, so the exact same glasses can be sold over and over again.
Where is the financial incentive to see a movie in theaters? Movie fans can either spend $10.50 (a piece) in theaters, or simply wait 4-6 months to rent the exact same movie for $1.25 from Redbox and have a whole group of people watch for the same price. On top of that the quality of home theater systems are starting to rival the theater going experience with giant HD televisions, blu-ray, and surround sound.
Not only is the theater going experience incredibly over-priced, but is also a terrible value compared to it's competition.
The bottom line is that the system will be forced to restructure eventually. Unfortunately it will probably come in the form of slashed budgets to movies. Projects like an Akira trilogy, a series of The Stand or Dark Tower movies are already being shelved. More and more great movie ideas will ultimately be shelved, in large part to the ridiculous cost of going to see a movie.
If Hollywood was smart they'd slash ticket prices instead of movie budgets. Then maybe people could actually afford to go watch them.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
How Far is too Far?
I think an interesting question for horror movie fans to consider is: just exactly how far is too far? The line for what is acceptable in a movie keeps moving further and further toward the extreme end of the spectrum. A movie like Rob Zombie's Halloween 2 would have probably been banned 15 or 20 years ago. Now people barely bat an eyelash. But as extreme as that movie is, H2 doesn't hold a candle to the extreme end of the really nasty titles that have been coming out.
We've seen some incredibly graphic moives scrape the surface of mainstream horror in recent years like: The Human Centipede 2 and A Serbian Film; both blowing past the boundaries of what is considered acceptable, even for jaded gore fans. Also this year also brings the Criterion blur-ray release of Salo, a film with content still quite shocking even though it is nearly 40 years old (I had nightmares just from reading the plot synopsis from wikipedia).
I think one of the reasons horror movies have become even more extreme is that is getting harder and harder to shock audiences. Horror movies rely on pure shock to disgust and frighten the audience, however with the advent of the internet granting us real-life horrors that people document with their own home video cameras is simply something that most fictional movies can not compete with. Honestly, what is gross after seeing 2 girls 1 cup? That video is as as disgusting as anything I have ever seen, yet it is an internet "meme" and even an archetype for the awful things you can view online with just a quick Google search.
That may be one answer "why" these movies are getting more extreme, but there still remains the important question: "Why do we watch?" This is a question I'm not even sure I have a good answer for. I myself am curious about watching movies like Salo, Human Centipede 2, and Cannibal Holocaust. (No thanks at A Serbian film, I draw a firm line at child rape). But what is it about them?
I think there is just something about looking into the darkest parts of the human mind. Movies like these allow us to look at the filthiest parts of ourselves while still allowing us the safe abstraction of knowing they are nonfiction. I would compare it to trying to stare into the sun... if we gazed directly, and for too long we might go blind. In this case we might literally go mad if we spend too much time with these thoughts and in these spaces. Some unhinged people, somewhat like the killer in Human Centipede 2, may wallow in that sort of depravity. However, I think for most healthy people, it is simply just trying to take a peak without losing ourselves.
I don't think I'd want to spend much time there personally. I love to write, and am fairly convinced I could write a script with acts as disgusting as those in these movies I've mentioned. However, I have absolutely no desire to turn my creative gaze toward the darkest and most vile recesses of my own mind. It's just not a space I want to dwell in, for any reason whatsoever.
Are these films justifiable, and are they art? With the new release of Salo I find it interesting that both Salo and A Serbian Film are justified in the same way: both are political allegories, and both are beautifully shot. I feel like these justifications are simply excuses. There is nothing else positive you can say about them, so that is all there is... However, to play devil's advocate, I think it may be fair to say the supporters find merit in the existence of these films, even though it is almost impossible to articulate just what it is, and there is also absolutely nothing traditionally artistic about them.
And again I think these movies exist so we can catch a glimpse of something genuinely human. And while there may be no "line" to cross anymore when it comes to what you can put in a movie, or what people will watch anymore, I will never call these types of movies "art." As far as I am concerned these types of movies are not art, they are pornography.
And that is not to say I am above ever looking at them, because I am not. It is just that they serve no purpose, other than to gawk at human depravity. There is no lesson to be learned or story to be told. There is only the exploitation of the most disgusting aspects of ourselves.
We've seen some incredibly graphic moives scrape the surface of mainstream horror in recent years like: The Human Centipede 2 and A Serbian Film; both blowing past the boundaries of what is considered acceptable, even for jaded gore fans. Also this year also brings the Criterion blur-ray release of Salo, a film with content still quite shocking even though it is nearly 40 years old (I had nightmares just from reading the plot synopsis from wikipedia).
I think one of the reasons horror movies have become even more extreme is that is getting harder and harder to shock audiences. Horror movies rely on pure shock to disgust and frighten the audience, however with the advent of the internet granting us real-life horrors that people document with their own home video cameras is simply something that most fictional movies can not compete with. Honestly, what is gross after seeing 2 girls 1 cup? That video is as as disgusting as anything I have ever seen, yet it is an internet "meme" and even an archetype for the awful things you can view online with just a quick Google search.
That may be one answer "why" these movies are getting more extreme, but there still remains the important question: "Why do we watch?" This is a question I'm not even sure I have a good answer for. I myself am curious about watching movies like Salo, Human Centipede 2, and Cannibal Holocaust. (No thanks at A Serbian film, I draw a firm line at child rape). But what is it about them?
I think there is just something about looking into the darkest parts of the human mind. Movies like these allow us to look at the filthiest parts of ourselves while still allowing us the safe abstraction of knowing they are nonfiction. I would compare it to trying to stare into the sun... if we gazed directly, and for too long we might go blind. In this case we might literally go mad if we spend too much time with these thoughts and in these spaces. Some unhinged people, somewhat like the killer in Human Centipede 2, may wallow in that sort of depravity. However, I think for most healthy people, it is simply just trying to take a peak without losing ourselves.
I don't think I'd want to spend much time there personally. I love to write, and am fairly convinced I could write a script with acts as disgusting as those in these movies I've mentioned. However, I have absolutely no desire to turn my creative gaze toward the darkest and most vile recesses of my own mind. It's just not a space I want to dwell in, for any reason whatsoever.
Are these films justifiable, and are they art? With the new release of Salo I find it interesting that both Salo and A Serbian Film are justified in the same way: both are political allegories, and both are beautifully shot. I feel like these justifications are simply excuses. There is nothing else positive you can say about them, so that is all there is... However, to play devil's advocate, I think it may be fair to say the supporters find merit in the existence of these films, even though it is almost impossible to articulate just what it is, and there is also absolutely nothing traditionally artistic about them.
And again I think these movies exist so we can catch a glimpse of something genuinely human. And while there may be no "line" to cross anymore when it comes to what you can put in a movie, or what people will watch anymore, I will never call these types of movies "art." As far as I am concerned these types of movies are not art, they are pornography.
And that is not to say I am above ever looking at them, because I am not. It is just that they serve no purpose, other than to gawk at human depravity. There is no lesson to be learned or story to be told. There is only the exploitation of the most disgusting aspects of ourselves.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Apocalypse and Crucifixion mirror images?
It seems like religious archetypes get inverted or reflected to create new meanings. I wonder if the "apocalypse" in Revelation is a mirror image of crucifixion?
The apocalypse seems to be a culmination of prophesied events that leads to "shit hits the fan" types of moments and disasters, evil is defeated, followed by a resurrection of the physical world.
This could work as a mirror of crucifixion because of #1 fulfilled prophecy, #2 physical trauma and humiliation, #3 death is defeated #4 transformation of the physical body to the revelation of the spiritual form.
I was thinking of this because (if I remember correctly, haven't read the text in a while) that satan impregnates a woman which gives birth to "the beast," which seems an obvious inversion of the immaculate conception of Christ. These events seem to have their on symmetry; one reflecting the other.
So I guess I wonder if there will ever be a time of reckoning for all of humanity followed by a lasting peace, or is this just another description of the transformation that each believer has to undergo?
I would personally like to think there will be a time where the physical realm is justified. This seems intuitively necessary. The physical world does not have to be justified, however it seems to me that the suffering that we experience in this world would be more understandable if the physical universe is eventually "fixed."
If there is I guess I don't see much reason for waiting around to do it. Is God waiting for a culmination of specific events, or waiting for us to transform ourselves before He steps in and finishes the job?
If there is no resurrection of the physical universe, how might that play out? Perpetuating indefinitely or eventual extinction? Both seem plausible. We're already planning on colonizing other planets and galaxies, however the universe may eventually collapse upon itself again or as Stephen Hawking suspects, eventually spread so far apart that stars will no longer be able to warm the planets.
Neither one of these seems especially satisfactory considering that if our species continues it means indefinite suffering for the living. If our universe dies than it simply means a complete abandonment of the physical plane.
A complete abandonment of the physical world would certainly provide an end to suffering, however it doesn't fix much of what is broken, and ultimately I think think the symbolic act of resurrecting the physical world is important for our peace of mind.
The apocalypse seems to be a culmination of prophesied events that leads to "shit hits the fan" types of moments and disasters, evil is defeated, followed by a resurrection of the physical world.
This could work as a mirror of crucifixion because of #1 fulfilled prophecy, #2 physical trauma and humiliation, #3 death is defeated #4 transformation of the physical body to the revelation of the spiritual form.
I was thinking of this because (if I remember correctly, haven't read the text in a while) that satan impregnates a woman which gives birth to "the beast," which seems an obvious inversion of the immaculate conception of Christ. These events seem to have their on symmetry; one reflecting the other.
So I guess I wonder if there will ever be a time of reckoning for all of humanity followed by a lasting peace, or is this just another description of the transformation that each believer has to undergo?
I would personally like to think there will be a time where the physical realm is justified. This seems intuitively necessary. The physical world does not have to be justified, however it seems to me that the suffering that we experience in this world would be more understandable if the physical universe is eventually "fixed."
If there is I guess I don't see much reason for waiting around to do it. Is God waiting for a culmination of specific events, or waiting for us to transform ourselves before He steps in and finishes the job?
If there is no resurrection of the physical universe, how might that play out? Perpetuating indefinitely or eventual extinction? Both seem plausible. We're already planning on colonizing other planets and galaxies, however the universe may eventually collapse upon itself again or as Stephen Hawking suspects, eventually spread so far apart that stars will no longer be able to warm the planets.
Neither one of these seems especially satisfactory considering that if our species continues it means indefinite suffering for the living. If our universe dies than it simply means a complete abandonment of the physical plane.
A complete abandonment of the physical world would certainly provide an end to suffering, however it doesn't fix much of what is broken, and ultimately I think think the symbolic act of resurrecting the physical world is important for our peace of mind.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Occupy Yourself
Occupy Wall Street is pretty big in the news lately, although the protests sound like they are winding down. I can't say I ever expected them to accomplish much by camping and playing drums but I do fully support the sentiment.
We're at a point where we can't change government through voting, and we seem to be helpless slaves to our banking system and Wall Street. I really wouldn't mind seeing some sort of revolution. We really do need something to change.
But the bottom line is our government and our country is so corrupt that I don't think there is anything we can do on a large scale. Government may be corrupt, but it can't be corrupt without a country of easily corruptible people. The most glaring weakness of any democracy is that of it's own citizens.
I read this article about OWS recently and I fully agree with the author: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-ratigan/this-thanksgiving-occupy-_b_1110246.html
If you want anything to change at all you have to change yourself. That is all you can do.
While considering the subject of revolution tonight I remembered that all throughout the gospels people wanted Christ to be a violent revolutionary, and one to overthrow his own corrupt government. However Christ always refused. Vast sweeping changes to corrupt systems were not his thing. He chose to change the world through self-sacrifice; by literally changing himself through the transformation of crucifixion; by forsaking his corrupt physical form and revealing his true spiritual form.
Widespread changes to broken systems was never a desire for Christ. Why should we even entertain the thought of it now? The world we live in is too far gone and too corrupt.
Like Christ says: "Whoever has come to know the world has discovered a carcass, and whoever has discovered a carcass, of that person the world is not worthy."
We're at a point where we can't change government through voting, and we seem to be helpless slaves to our banking system and Wall Street. I really wouldn't mind seeing some sort of revolution. We really do need something to change.
But the bottom line is our government and our country is so corrupt that I don't think there is anything we can do on a large scale. Government may be corrupt, but it can't be corrupt without a country of easily corruptible people. The most glaring weakness of any democracy is that of it's own citizens.
I read this article about OWS recently and I fully agree with the author: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-ratigan/this-thanksgiving-occupy-_b_1110246.html
If you want anything to change at all you have to change yourself. That is all you can do.
While considering the subject of revolution tonight I remembered that all throughout the gospels people wanted Christ to be a violent revolutionary, and one to overthrow his own corrupt government. However Christ always refused. Vast sweeping changes to corrupt systems were not his thing. He chose to change the world through self-sacrifice; by literally changing himself through the transformation of crucifixion; by forsaking his corrupt physical form and revealing his true spiritual form.
Widespread changes to broken systems was never a desire for Christ. Why should we even entertain the thought of it now? The world we live in is too far gone and too corrupt.
Like Christ says: "Whoever has come to know the world has discovered a carcass, and whoever has discovered a carcass, of that person the world is not worthy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)