Too true. Used to be if a movie was cheap and gritty it gave you even more of an impression that you were on dangerous ground and that anything could happen. Now I often hear people complain that something looks like a "home movie". I wonder if the availability of technology like cell phones and digital movie cameras has made this knee-jerk impression even worse!? (and yes, I am shaking a cane as I write this!)-UNK
This is an interesting idea. Is there a generational basis against small pictures?I don't think modern genre fans have lost their respect for B-movies. What they can't stand is insincere pseudo-B movies that excuse visual and technical incompetence by claiming that is somehow harkens back to the "purity" of indie filmmakers of a previous era.The state of film technology is now such that you can shoot on a shoestring and not have your film look like crap. Hard Candy, for example, was shot for less than one million bucks and it looks all-pro: It's got great lighting, amazing saturated colors, clean set-ups, and a pro-gloss that movies with much larger budgets struggle to emulate. It might have other problems (with the script and whatnot), but it looks great and was made for a relative pittance.By contrast, Romero burned through ten million bucks for Diary of the Dead. Where the hell did all that money go? The thing looks horrible. Cheesy effects, bad CGI, uninventive set-ups, no real commitment to the first-person conceit – the thing was stylistically inert compared to the even smaller budget Night, which used managed to work around its microscopic budget and make its black and white camera seem classic.Bitchin' that something was shot cheaply makes no sense, but that's not what people are bitching about. Many of last year's biggest horror films were shot on fairly small budgets: The Strangers, Quarantine, Saw V, and Let the Right One In were all modestly budgeted films compared to the money a studio will drop on something like I Am Legend. There's plenty of love for small pictures.What people are bitchin' about is that " . . . of the Dead" LOOKS cheap, and that's a completely different complaint. Horror fans don't demand that everything look like the Matrix, but there's no reason to swallow bad filmmaking in the name of nostalgia or out of pity for George Romero.
Great points, CRwM. You're right about small films being able to look super-slick. And frankly, I'm shocked to learn that Diary of the Dead cost $10 million dollars - that doesn't even seem possible! However, I do question the disdain among fans today for films that 'look cheap'. That disdain might be valid in some regard - as you say, there's examples of low budget films that look stunning so there's no excuse for shoddy filmmaking. I guess my thought is that until recent years, genre fans never gave much care when a horror film looked cheap and now they definitely do. Perhaps it's because fans - and audiences in general - are much more film savvy and demanding than generations of the past were. I'm not sure. But there isn't much patience anymore with films - whether they be big or small - that aren't up to what's deemed to be current standards. There's a hostility towards cheap looking films that I find curious as someone who grew up usually regarding that quality as a virtue. Or at the very least, it was never an impediment towards enjoying a movie.As for Romero's latest, with the exception of Creepshow (and maybe Martin, with its b&w flashbacks), Romero has never been caught up in the look of his films. Does his latest really look any cheaper than his segment of Two Evil Eyes, for instance? I don't think so. I think his new film's look is just reflective of someone who doesn't see the style of his film as his top concern. It's not a bid for nostalgia so much as it's his natural instincts as a filmmaker. The guy's in his 60's - he hasn't changed, the world has changed around him. And that makes his work out of step with even his low budget competition - now comprised of younger filmmakers with much different sensibilities of how movies ought to look.
I still find myself having a vague distrust of horror films that look too slick... that look like loads of money was dumped into them... where the people are pretty and everyone drives new cars.Somehow that's like a stamp of community acceptance... Like, how could the thing possibly be a transgressive bit of shock theater if people were willing to throw that kind of money at it... surely it's had all the life sucked out of it... sanitized and secured. Not that low-budget automatically = good in my eyes... I think what fans are able to read is sincerity... we can tell if the people making the movie really want it to be scary vs. they're going through the motions to pad out their resume and collect a paycheck.
Post a Comment
4 comments:
Too true. Used to be if a movie was cheap and gritty it gave you even more of an impression that you were on dangerous ground and that anything could happen. Now I often hear people complain that something looks like a "home movie". I wonder if the availability of technology like cell phones and digital movie cameras has made this knee-jerk impression even worse!? (and yes, I am shaking a cane as I write this!)-UNK
This is an interesting idea. Is there a generational basis against small pictures?
I don't think modern genre fans have lost their respect for B-movies. What they can't stand is insincere pseudo-B movies that excuse visual and technical incompetence by claiming that is somehow harkens back to the "purity" of indie filmmakers of a previous era.
The state of film technology is now such that you can shoot on a shoestring and not have your film look like crap. Hard Candy, for example, was shot for less than one million bucks and it looks all-pro: It's got great lighting, amazing saturated colors, clean set-ups, and a pro-gloss that movies with much larger budgets struggle to emulate. It might have other problems (with the script and whatnot), but it looks great and was made for a relative pittance.
By contrast, Romero burned through ten million bucks for Diary of the Dead. Where the hell did all that money go? The thing looks horrible. Cheesy effects, bad CGI, uninventive set-ups, no real commitment to the first-person conceit – the thing was stylistically inert compared to the even smaller budget Night, which used managed to work around its microscopic budget and make its black and white camera seem classic.
Bitchin' that something was shot cheaply makes no sense, but that's not what people are bitching about. Many of last year's biggest horror films were shot on fairly small budgets: The Strangers, Quarantine, Saw V, and Let the Right One In were all modestly budgeted films compared to the money a studio will drop on something like I Am Legend. There's plenty of love for small pictures.
What people are bitchin' about is that " . . . of the Dead" LOOKS cheap, and that's a completely different complaint. Horror fans don't demand that everything look like the Matrix, but there's no reason to swallow bad filmmaking in the name of nostalgia or out of pity for George Romero.
Great points, CRwM. You're right about small films being able to look super-slick. And frankly, I'm shocked to learn that Diary of the Dead cost $10 million dollars - that doesn't even seem possible!
However, I do question the disdain among fans today for films that 'look cheap'. That disdain might be valid in some regard - as you say, there's examples of low budget films that look stunning so there's no excuse for shoddy filmmaking. I guess my thought is that until recent years, genre fans never gave much care when a horror film looked cheap and now they definitely do. Perhaps it's because fans - and audiences in general - are much more film savvy and demanding than generations of the past were. I'm not sure. But there isn't much patience anymore with films - whether they be big or small - that aren't up to what's deemed to be current standards. There's a hostility towards cheap looking films that I find curious as someone who grew up usually regarding that quality as a virtue. Or at the very least, it was never an impediment towards enjoying a movie.
As for Romero's latest, with the exception of Creepshow (and maybe Martin, with its b&w flashbacks), Romero has never been caught up in the look of his films. Does his latest really look any cheaper than his segment of Two Evil Eyes, for instance? I don't think so. I think his new film's look is just reflective of someone who doesn't see the style of his film as his top concern. It's not a bid for nostalgia so much as it's his natural instincts as a filmmaker. The guy's in his 60's - he hasn't changed, the world has changed around him. And that makes his work out of step with even his low budget competition - now comprised of younger filmmakers with much different sensibilities of how movies ought to look.
I still find myself having a vague distrust of horror films that look too slick... that look like loads of money was dumped into them... where the people are pretty and everyone drives new cars.
Somehow that's like a stamp of community acceptance...
Like, how could the thing possibly be a transgressive bit of shock theater if people were willing to throw that kind of money at it... surely it's had all the life sucked out of it... sanitized and secured.
Not that low-budget automatically = good in my eyes...
I think what fans are able to read is sincerity... we can tell if the people making the movie really want it to be scary vs. they're going through the motions to pad out their resume and collect a paycheck.
Post a Comment