I'm reading "All hail Avatar! How event movies are trying to bring back the box office blockbuster/Ahead of James Cameron’s latest Avatar sequel hitting the big screen, we look at how studios aim for ‘theatricality’ to get streaming film fans from sofa to cinema" (The Guardian).
From the depth of my memory came a question that sounds like an entry for a new Dictionary of Received Ideas: Who was that French theorist who said theater must be spectacle? I believe he died putting on his shoes.
Such raw thoughts are — I think — good AI prompts. I immediately had the name: Antonin Artaud. Here's his Wikipedia article. He wrote a manifesto about what he called the Theatre of Cruelty. Here's a Grok-made chart to help you compare him to the Hollywood execs:
I did some further chatting with Grok on the topic of "cruelty" and ended up with this other chart that is too good not to share:
I'm not going to resolve that, because I have taken a position of cruel neutrality.
Posts
49 comments:
Top Gun 2 was the last movie I attended. Most of Hollywood stuff makes me gaga.
gag
Cartoons/CGI/AI are not going to save Hollywood and the motion picture experience. The art has been corrupted by self-imposed DEI (think Kathleen Kennedy and her alter ego on South Park) and wokism. Top Gun Maverick was a hit because it ignored all the trends except for the remake one. Audiences responded. Hollywood recoiled from the lesson instead of embracing it.
The question is how long these rump organizations can survive without audiences. Even the “popular” product fails to generate income sufficient to justify huge salaries for sports and entertainment rump entities like the WNBA and the endless Star Wars derivatives.
Hollywood needs better movies. My “Frankenstein, Part II” fits the bill.
"The suffering of the damned becomes part of the aesthetic perfection of the universe." So the elites get to metaphorically laugh at the rest of us for all eternity? Harsh!
Mike is right- they shoved so many politically ‘important’ movies down the gullet of serious movie goers, with all the diversity, anti white, anti male, climate apocalypse- how many of those did they make? A dozen? Tom Hanks was in at least two…that and the $25 movie ticket and the $15 popcorn. I have a brighter, clearer movie screen and a comfy couch to enjoy a film with people I like. If only they’d go back to good movies…
Critical Drinker put out a new video about this and noted that it is the theater model that is dead. Ironic for me, as I was watching in my newly renovated theater room, but then that was his point. Why go to the theater, buy an overpriced ticket, buy overpriced refreshments, sit in a chair that stickier than your bachelor uncle’s couch, and watch something you could have seen at home? This isn’t news. RedLetterMedia has been saying this for years, just to name one other.
That is the issue before we get into “content”. Whether that is the subject of the content, quality of it, the length of it, or the politics of the creators. All the things that Avatar has going against it.
The question is how long these rump organizations can survive without audiences
When was the last time a crappy hollywood entity went t.u.? I can only suspect some of the missing tax money has been somehow propping up balance sheets in exchange for Biden era political propaganda…
Waiting for Godot is "theater of cruelty" if you ask me. At least Stoppard, in Rosencrantz and Guilderstern are Dead gave you some first rate wordplay to entertain you. I am bored by spectacle, but at least they are trying to entertain.
An interesting movie on this subject is the new Ethan Hawke movie, Blue Moon, which is about the purpose of movies, if you ask me, even as it was framed as a kind of debate about Broadway, between Rogers and Hart, and BTW, Hammerstein.
See if you can find an '80s era color TV and try to watch it to understand why people liked the movies so much and compare it to today to see why that motivation has disappeared.
It's not just that, its:
The hero's journey - fascist
Beautiful women - sexist
Strong male lead - sexist
etc, etc.
What you have now are "girl bosses," like Rae who ruined Star Wars, who are designed to appeal to "female narcissism," which given the fact that women like them even less than men, suggests is a serious audience misreading. The one thing that they get right about women is that they make sure that the men are sexy to impossible standards for men who don't dedicate their lives to it, to achieve. Women love this. The women, on the other hand, must not have intimidating beauty, we can't have Audrey Hepburn or Natalie Wood, it's all Phoebe now, no Rachael.
Top international movie this year at over $1b in gross.
“ Ne Zha 2
After a great catastrophe, the souls of Nezha and Aobing are saved, but their bodies face ruin. To give them new life, Taiyi Zhenren turns to the mystical seven-colored lotus in a daring bid to rebuild them and change their fate.”
I go to the movies about once a month with my son and 10 year old grandson. Most of them have what I think of as a disjointed plot line, and make no effort to keep up the suspension of disbelief. My son and I feel the same way about them. The ten year old, raised on tiktok and youtube shorts, has no problem with that at all. In fact he seems to enjoy the movie more if it contains unrelated snippets rather than a long story arc.
Here's hoping they don't screw up "Hail Mary Project".
Books of the Gutenberg variety seem to have had the longest shelf life, but even there there's been some loss. I read most of my books on Kindle. It obviates the need for reading glasses, and I can read independent of outside lighting......The technology of high def tv's and soundbars have made movie theaters unnecessary. I suppose the theaters offer a communal experience but it's no longer a common experience.......Shakespeare is still performed live on the stage, but jugglers and fan dancers have gone the way of the dodo. I guess some movie theaters will remain in existence, but they will exist in the way Shakespeare exists and they will not serve the mass market.
You know what else has killed the theater experience? Phones.When you're trying to focus on the movie but several in the rows before you have their screens out casting a glare. Infuriating.
I had a hard time watching the burning of Joan of Arc in Henry VI in The Hollow Crown, and as Richard Dreyfus's character says in Stoppard's movie, Hamlet is a real slaughterhouse of play, but in real life?
Yesterday I went to the store and there were a couple of the employees looking out on the ice, and naturally I asked them what they were looking at, and they pointed out a duck that was frozen into the ice and struggling, but they were trying to think of a way to rescue the duck, without dying in the frozen water themselves. Was that a "theater of cruelty"? Maybe, I don't know, I guess I could invent a theory wherein it was, but I like to think not.
Wife and I watched the last two “Mission Impossible” movies, “Top Gun: Maverick,” and “F1.” That’s three Tom Cruise movies and a Brad Pitt. We’ve given up on the Marvel Universe and the X-men (X-people?), and never did get into Justice League.
If the people who make movies can’t figure out how to tell a story that the wife and I are willing to leave the house (much less spend the money) to see then that’s on them.
Trying to find something of quality to watch on Netflix is quite difficult. Trying to find something to see in a movie theatre is now a lost cause altogether.
18-34 dominate adult movie-going and distributors know it.
Film production is about to be democratized.
There will be a dozen studios that can make Avatar level content in 1 year.
There will be hundreds of independent producers that can make a hollywood level movie in 1 year.
That's funny Big Mike. Those are the exact last four movies I have seen with my Grandsons. None of them were particularly good films but as action flicks go, they were all pretty good.
Achilles makes a great point. Over the last few years we have seen the democratization of the mainstream media into a chaotic mixture of random individuals who have risen to unbelievable levels of popularity out of nothing.
Let one giant film production company consume another one. Rather than take over the world, they may become the next Blockbuster video.
Is it really that difficult to find quality film and or television entertainment? No of course not. We have the entire history of cinema at our fingertips and yet people still complain there's nothing to watch. That says a lot more about the spoiled brat unimaginative drone like behavior of an individual who cannot navigate life particularly well. That to me is the definition of a punter.
The last GOOD movie I saw in the cinema was Death Of Stalin. The last movie I saw was Wonka (went with children), and it was so indescribably bad that I have refused all invitations to see anything since then.
"...We have the entire history of cinema at our fingertips and yet people still complain there's nothing to watch. ..."
I think it's a Failure of Imagination. Which, ironically, is the problem with modern entertainment. But, fear not: If they won't come to theaters, we'll track them down to their homes.
If you want to get people off the couch and into the theater - stop streaming movies until they are at least two years old.
Movie theaters were cool when tv was just tv. Now with big screens, your sofa, and cheap snacks and your bathroom steps away, plus the ability to pause whatever it is you're watching, why bother.
Theaters were also more fun when ticket prices didn't require a personal loan to get in and sometimes had discount nights. Popcorn and drinks were cheap - though more expensive than outside the theater. And, you could smoke. If you've never watched a black and white movie through the haze of cigarette smoke, you're too young to understand. Everyone on the screen was smoking too. And, half the scenes were in smoke filled rooms. You felt like you were in the movie.
Theater was a big deal when home technology did not compete. You will go to a show when the event must be seen directly. TV expanded the audience for professional sports because not everyone could afford to go, or they wanted to attend a game during the rain or snow, or see it from a distant location.
Home theater flat panels look better than many theater screens, and multi-channel home audio is as good or better too. Why leave the house for an inferior experience?
THX and Alamo Drafthouse are trying to draw people out with better technology and food and subscriptions. Still, going to an Alamo showing means ordering bar food in the dark and then watching the food service staff carry 100 orders in and out while you try to watch the show.
I came here to mention “Critical Drinker”. But I was late to the party.
Last night I watched “Last of the Mohicans “ I didn’t realize it was a romance story. Beautifully shot, though.
My husband and I choose which movies to see in the theater based on the type of movie. A movie that is mostly dialogue or about relationships can be watched just as satisfyingly at home. A movie where the scenery is also an important character, or where the action is an important character is usually better enjoyed on a big screen. I wouldn't pay to watch most Woody Allen movies on the big screen today at the prices they charge, but I love watching them at home on a small screen. I would pay to see Top Gun on the big screen, though, just for the flying sequences.
My son and I watched "Dunkirk" at the San Francisco Alamo Draft House on Mission St., probably the last movie I've seen in SF. I'd say it was worth the effort for that movie, certainly.
We watched just one movie in Bilbao this year, "F1" (dubbed in Spanish), and it too was worthwhile.
On cruelty as spectacle, I ran across this-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWLpA35Aibk
An account of the torture-murder of Colonel William Crawford in 1782. The public torture of captives was an Iroquois custom. My wifes ancestor was a survivor of this disastrous expedition btw., he is her connection for her DAR membership.
Last movie I saw in a theater was "They Shall Not Grow Old". I still might go for the spectacle -- BIG effects or, as Sydney says above, scenery -- but it has to be good otherwise as well. And I can't think of one in the last several years that was. A truly giant movie screen is still better for some things than a large TV IMO.
Give the people what they want!
"My Dinner With Andre" grossed about $5 Million. "Top Gun 2" grossed $1.5 Billion.
When my oldest was 12 years old, I took him and a friend to see "Behind Enemy Lines" with Gene Hackman and a young Owen Wilson. On the way to the theater, my son and his friend held an apparently serious discourse on what makes a good movie, with my son proclaiming that the key metric was "the number of explosions". His friend agreed.
They were very pleased with the movie. As was I.
Facing down this digital firehose of – pardon the Silicon Valleyese – 'content,' how does Hollywood now decide what merits a cinema release?
"Hollywood" should focus on the trickle of water coming out of actual "firehoses."
Tom Cruise doing his own stunts is certainly taking risks, but it sounds like the writer believes that Cruise was actually and literally dangling from helicopters hundreds of feet in the air.
Giant screens and special events might bring some venturesome souls back into cinemas. If theater owners clean up enough for those patrons, others might be tempted to return for more ordinary fare. But don't count on it.
Is it really that difficult to find quality film and or television entertainment? No of course not.
Unless that is you look in a modern movie theater. THEN it is extremely difficult. Isn't it nice when Howard's obtuse alter ego posts under his name.
I still vividly remember the first time I saw Casablanca. I was a college student, it was a movie theater created out of an abandoned church, they specialized in great old films, I saw it with friends. I knew nothing about the film going in, though I had heard of Bogart. I was blown away.
They don't make movies like that any more. They rarely write dialogue like that. If they could, they might survive.
Mischievous today, huh, leaving us with that strange reference to putting on his shoe. Of course we looked it up.
Poor fellow. Seems to have had a hard life.
Fascinating analysis, though. And, for fun: https://discover.hubpages.com/style/25-Unusual-Shoes
The best time I ever had in the movie theater was watching All that Jazz at the Magic Lantern theater in Isla Vista where dope smoking was allowed. Scratch that. Maybe my best experience was watching the movie Carrie with my first actual date ever. The ending was the perfect opportunity to put my arm around the girl.
Maybe it was Star Wars: a New Hope in 1977 at the old Grauman's Chinese theater in LA shortly after the opening
Yeah those experiences are gone with the wind. But I won't worry about that now I can worry about that tomorrow for tomorrow is another day.
Artaud was good in The Passion of Joan of Arc by Carl Dreyer, a 1928 Silent movie. I'm interested in his theories on theater because, for my money, so much of contemporary playwrighting and performance is insipid, lethargic, and static. Meyerhold had the right ideas. There hasn't been a well-written play since Joe Orton got hammered.
"From 1990 to 2023, the area's white population fell from 60% to 30%. At the same time, the Asian population more than doubled to become the largest demographic group in Silicon Valley."
"In Silicon Valley, the California region synonymous with innovation in the tech field, 66% of workers in tech were born outside of the U.S., according to research released this month." ( March 2025)
Meade and I have only gone to 1 movie in the last 5 years: "Elvis." Make it 6 years and there's one more: "Nomadland" (which I hated but he loved (he walked out on the last quarter of "Elvis")).
It's not that we watch movies on TV either. I watch about 1 a month and he might join one of my movies in progress but only because I'm already watching it.
Nothing new appeals to me. I rewatched "Coffee and Cigarettes" recently. And I watched a lot of "pre-Code" Hollywood movies on the Criterion Channel and enjoyed them.
What is needed to get them to the theater is widespread devastation from which the theater was spared.
I think back to September 2005 when I went to a movie at a theater on the north side of I-10 from Biloxi, MS. Everything south of there was blacked out at night from Katrina. Along with other areas along the coast. But the north side was spared, except areas near waterways that let the surge inland.
I'd been to the only year or so old theater complex several times in the preceding year. But at the end of September it was a madhouse like I hadn't seen since I accidentally got near a theater in 1980 when 'The Empire Strikes Back' came out.
An anecdote from my aunt who was a teenager during WWII and loved movies. She told me several times that when they got a television she knew she'd not be going out to the movies much anymore as my uncle didn't enjoy it. And by the time my uncle passed in the early 1990s, the movies were very different from her youth.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.