Best Movies by Farr

The Dirtiest Word in Hollywood

You'll never guess: it's "originality".

But perhaps, I should explain.

A few weeks back, I read an announcement that the now white hot Colin Firth might be signing on for a re-make of "My Fair Lady".

Not since Steve Martin decided to put a new spin on “The Pink Panther” have I been so moved to ask, “Why?”

Will a remake of this venerable 1964 musical, even one featuring Mr. Firth, really improve on Rex Harrison’s definitive performance, one he originated on Broadway?
Flush with success, does Mr. Firth really think he can bring something new and fresh to Rex’s immortal rendition of “Why Can’t A Woman Be More Like A Man?”

Even assuming its creators would retain this highly un-PC number (one of my favorites), I for one doubt it.

The truth is, if you span the course of moviemaking history, it becomes abundantly clear that remakes and sequels tend not to improve on the originals.

Recognizing this, the actor Michael Caine, who knows a thing or two about the industry, once suggested that it would be more logical for Hollywood to remake mediocre movies rather than acknowledged classics.

(This is why the new “True Grit” worked out so well in my opinion…the original was never really all that good, even with the Duke on-board.)

But the Hollywood suits who took Marketing 101 know better. You remake past successes because that’s where the name recognition lies. From purely a sales standpoint- that is, getting butts in movie seats, it gives you a big head start on piquing the audience’s interest, or so the thinking goes.

In the advertising business (my first career), we were taught the same principle: it’s a lot easier to market a line extension of an existing brand- let’s say, “Ivory Creamy Soap” than a whole new brand simply called “Creamy Soap”.

Boy, have the movie executives taken this lesson to heart. Those of you who have access to IMDB-Pro need only scan the roster of feature films in development to discern that the overwhelming majority are either remakes or sequels.

Here’s a sobering partial list: for re-makes: The Crow, Westworld, Robocop, Frankenstein, Dune, and When Worlds Collide; for sequels: The Expendables-2, Avatar-2, Zombieland-2, Kill Bill-3, Iron Man-3, National Treasure-3, Ghostbusters-3, Halloween-3, Austin Powers-4, Terminator-5, Indiana Jones-5, and Scary Movie-5.

Help- I’m drowning!

Business imperatives aside, the potential of movies to move and excite us sets it apart from the near-commodity plane of package good products like soap. Surely there’s something more at stake here: A society whose popular culture is fed a continual diet of retreads will languish in the long run, no? Yes.

The cynics among us will doubtless chime in with comments along the lines of “This is nothing new” or “So what?” Fine. On the other hand, I think it’s a troubling sign that some of the best original feature films, even from the fairly recent past (think “American Beauty” from 1999), would have virtually no prayer of being made today.

That said, there is a glimmer of sun peeking through these clouds: Lots of young filmmakers are still inspired and empowered to make original films because technology advances actually make it easier and more affordable for them to do so.

And this progress is not just confined to production. The growth of streaming on the internet means that increasingly many self-financed, independent films will have significant opportunities to discover and build their audience online via sheer merit (and the viral word-of-mouth it creates), rather than having to rely on traditional marketing hype whose control lies mainly in the hands of glorified bean counters. Perversely enough, too often these are people who really don’t know or get great movies…crazy but true.

Soon enough we’ll all benefit from these emerging trends with easy access to more original, intelligent, human-scale movies. And the vitality and prestige of the movie business will be enhanced, along with the profits.

Now wouldn’t it be a truly visionary move if those currently running the industry were somehow embracing and nurturing this new direction, rather than competing against it by pursuing business as usual: pushing mindless, formula entertainment that’s all been done before…and better?

“Visionary”- that’s another dirty word in Hollywood.

Unsure what to rent on Netflix? Visit www.bestmoviesbyfarr.com

To see John’s videos for WNET-Channel 13, go to www.reel13.org

Message to Hollywood

No doubt about it: this is a frustrating time to be a movie lover of a certain age and outlook.

It seems increasingly evident that Hollywood has been taken over by people who know and care very little about the movies themselves, but who live to target and promote formulaic, forgettable pap to an audience their studies say will pay for the privilege of consuming it.

Have you noticed that practically everything that's prominently on offer right now is a remake, sequel, or part of an ongoing, proven franchise, from the latest "Shrek" installment to the much-ballyhooed "Sex and The City-2", a hundred million dollar soufflé that didn't just fall, but generated a deadening thud?

When you actually consider how that obscenely expensive turkey so utterly fails across all the fundamentals- with story and script heading the list- I get angry thinking that some supposedly experienced people in Hollywood actually thought their public would swallow it whole-and like it.

My recurring passion on this subject doesn't just come from the fact that I live to celebrate great movies, but also because my first career was in advertising, so I know the playbook Hollywood is using, or in fact, abusing- to make money off indifferent merchandise.

At Ogilvy Advertising, where I spent seventeen years of my life in account management, we had a couple of key sayings we all lived by. The first and most important, uttered by the legendary David Ogilvy himself, was "the consumer is not a moron".

This simply meant: Don't take your audience for granted- never, ever under-estimate, or talk down to, the people you're trying to reach.

Whether homemakers in Des Moines buying soap or stockbrokers in Greenwich buying Jaguars, we were taught early on that the buying public is not a group of clueless, impressionable receptors eagerly waiting, with wallets poised, for us to tell them what to buy. Rather they are thinking human beings, endowed with sharp critical faculties, who above all want to be dealt with honestly and with respect.

Hollywood has forgotten this, I think. They care first and foremost not about respecting or rewarding their audiences, but about making money and managing their own financial risk. The unfortunate thinking that prevails today is that the more original and intelligent a movie, the greater the risk. The standard excuse is that a release "won't play overseas", unless it's so dumbed-down with action and effects that all language and cultural barriers miraculously melt away.

It's a cop-out, folks. A good story is universal, human emotion, tribulation, violence, romance, and death- all are universal. The real barrier here is that quality filmmaking is harder to accomplish than predictable variations on proven formulas, and for the most part, the industry no longer has the stomach to go for that higher, tougher standard.

Much has been made of the decline in the importance of script and script quality, and on a broader level, the erosion of written and expressive language in our society. With computers and technology, increasingly language is purely functional- no more poetic than a series of truncated instant messages, to be replaced wherever possible by stunning imagery that obviates the need for words.

Is this cultural evolution so inevitable that we must simply accept it? How long till the inherent beauty, subtlety, and complexity of language as a tool of human interaction becomes more or less obsolete? And is this the world we want to bequeath to our children?

It's clear that mainstream Hollywood, in an influential position to shape our destinies in this regard, is doing all it can to accelerate this trend, for better or worse. Why? Because it's the easiest, quickest path to profit, and more than ever, that's all that counts.

The blunt truth is that Hollywood has become lazy, complacent, and increasingly blind to the broader audience of film-goers- let's say... anyone out of their teens. They justify their slate of (mostly) derivative, junk food entertainment with the tired protestation that they're giving their audience just what it wants.

It goes without saying that the business itself is mostly about entertainment and escapism-it always has been- so please don't take my arguments solely as a plea for more serious films per se. That's really not the point.

For example, I love action films and thrillers; all I ask for is a decent, somewhat distinctive story, with characters I can remember and care about. I'm also fond of sex comedies and women's pictures, if done well. In fact, one of my favorite classics is "The Women" (1939), written by Clare Boothe Luce. The movie concerns nothing more than a bunch of women engaging in poisonous gossip about a friend whose husband is dallying with a shop girl- not exactly a lofty premise, but nevertheless executed with taste, cleverness, and flair.

In fact, "The Women" is everything "Sex and The City-2" should have been for our time, if the industry thought it even needed to care about such outmoded qualities as cleverness and flair.

All this said, I continue to believe that serious, adult dramas are commercially viable. Historically, viewers have most always valued films that manage to enrich as well as entertain, movies that give them something meaty to think about and discuss long after the house lights go up.

Why doesn't Hollywood do more of these types of films? Sorry for the broken record, but it's because they are hard to do well, and therefore, inherently "risky".

A second oft-quoted piece of wisdom around Ogilvy was that no amount of good advertising can save a bad product. Overselling was most always fatal; ultimately, whatever was being advertised had to deliver on its promise, or die.

For most products and services outside Hollywood, this is true because repeat purchase of a brand is what ensures success. Hollywood manages to skirt this issue because their goal is trial, not repeat purchase. In other words, you only need to buy what they're selling you once. After all, if you don't like a movie, you can't very well ask for your money back.

In this scenario, lots of good advertising can in fact sell a bad product, as studios relentlessly build interest and expectation around a high profile picture's opening weekend. No matter that the movie's ultimately a turkey- by the time the verdict's in, tons of people have already paid to see it, and most of the production investment is recouped.

With commercial hits of course, heavy, concentrated advertising combine with valuable word-of-mouth to create audience loyalty towards a particular movie "brand". This is where sequels and remakes make good business sense, regardless of the inherent difficulty in making follow-up features or re-treads even remotely as effective as a classic original effort (one veteran director likened this to making lightning strike twice in the same place).

To the money people, whatever creative challenges hobble sequels or re-makes hardly matter. Even if a follow-up is markedly inferior, the good will generated by the first movie- again coupled with a ton of advertising and merchandising hype- will inevitably draw consumers in. Game, set, match.

The third adage from my advertising days: Know your customer as thoroughly as you can, and always make it easy for them to buy what you're selling. This means detailed, timely research on the various distinct segments of your buying public and what they want, followed by creation and placement of the right product that answers their particular tastes, wants and needs.

I'm sure Hollywood knows I'm out there, but they're doing a lousy job of making it easy for me to access what I want. I'm at the tail end of the historic "baby boomer" generation, an immense and (relatively speaking) fairly affluent group approaching retirement age, who incidentally have more leisure time for movies than ever before. These are folks who don't go to the multiplexes often, more often frequenting the art houses that show independent and foreign films. Having invested in home theatre equipment (increasingly advanced and affordable), they also watch more movies at home on DVD or via download. I'm right there with them.

The major studios have set up independent film arms that cater to me and other boomers, ostensibly churning out a more substantive roster of films for grown-ups. The problem is, unless there's an arts house around my corner, it isn't always easy for me to find what I'm looking for, or even know it's out there.

That's because the disproportionate distribution and marketing emphasis placed on the mindless product aimed at my kids inevitably saps space and attention away from these smaller independent and foreign films, making it harder for them to thrive and truly find their audience-or have their audience find them. Too often a great movie will come and go from the art house circuit before people like me have had a chance to discover it.

Oh, well, you reason- that's not so bad. Just wait for the DVD release. If only it were that easy. The length of time it takes these films to go from first-run release to DVD is outrageous. Case in point: "The White Ribbon" an acclaimed foreign feature that opened last October, is still not out on DVD. Why the delay? People could be excused for forgetting all about the film by the time it's ready for home viewing! It is just plain stupid-and incompetent.

In addition, the list of critically acclaimed classic and foreign films that remain unavailable on DVD defies logic, as well as innumerable stellar titles that were available, but have since been "discontinued". Predictably, studio executives will claim there was limited demand for these films. But how can there be anything more than limited demand if you don't properly promote these movies in the first place? Short answer: there can't be.

I keep hoping that the traditionally cyclical nature of the movie business will lead us to a moment of truth as in the early seventies, when Hollywood finally recognized the need to reinvent itself and invest in significant, edgy films that helped re-establish and indeed extend the power and primacy of the medium.

Until that time comes-and hope springs eternal, I will vote with my pocketbook to reject the prevailing mediocrity and sameness of so many of today's mainstream films. And I encourage all like-minded movie fans- who are anything but morons- to do precisely the same thing.

For over 2,100 outstanding titles on DVD or for download, visit www.bestmoviesbyfarr.com.

To see John's videos for WNET-Channel 13, go to www.reel13.org.

Follow John Farr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jfarr02

The Dimming of Star Power in Hollywood

Today's New York Times carried a revealing article titled "A-List Stars Flailing At The Box Office", which raises some pressing questions facing the movie business today.

Lo and behold, industry insiders are shocked (shocked!) and mightily troubled by the revelation that Hollywood's top stars are not opening films the way they used to.

Could it be that Denzel and Julia no longer merit guaranteed twenty million dollar paydays with every picture? And if so, what precisely has happened?

Here's my own theory: the buying public is not as stupid as Hollywood executives seem to believe. You can get away with feeding audiences substandard product propped up by big names for a while, but in the absence of quality and perceived value, the inevitable happens: you start gradually but inexorably to lose your audience.

This is about as old and basic a marketing rule as you can find, and what Hollywood sells is not immune from it. And a good thing too.

In the midst of all the West Coast hand-wringing, several other factors are floated about: foremost among them, that movies face more competition from other sources of entertainment, and that in light of this, movies are a less important part of most people's lives.

That's a bit of a cop-out, isn't it? I don't think you can blame technology for making movies less important. I think you must blame the movies themselves.

As critic A.O Scott recently attested, Hollywood is relying increasingly on tried and true, youth-targeted formula films to prop up their bottom lines.

Is this focus a sound long-term strategy? I doubt it.

It makes you think: no wonder movies seem less important- the ones Hollywood really pushes aren't even intended for anyone over 21!

And those releases that might appeal to a broader audience- many featuring those big buck names like Crowe, Hanks, and Sandler- are not working so well.

Another hard and fast rule of the film business: no star can prop up a fundamentally inferior vehicle, much less a string of them.

And in my albeit somewhat biased view, our current crop of box-office draws, by virtue of their relative magnetism, are even less equipped to do it than were their more modestly paid predecessors during Hollywood's Golden Age, and directly after.
This comparison only makes the ridiculous pay packages earned by today's top movie names all the more obscene.

If you objectively gauge today's actual on-screen star wattage to what existed in prior generations, and factor in relative compensation adjusted for inflation, you see clearly that the problem is out of hand.

Though I love movies old and new, and have the website to prove it, for me Cary Grant most always trumps George Clooney, Brando in his prime outshines Sean Penn, and McQueen always seems more riveting on-screen than Brad Pitt, while Barbara Stanwyck most assuredly wins my vote over Julia Roberts.

But let's acknowledge that this view may be purely generational, or simply a matter of taste. Even if you believe today's star power burns as brightly as ever, the fact remains that the industry still pays its mega-stars many, many times what past generations have earned.

A conservative guess-timation would suggest that top star Clark Gable in the old studio system might have made about one-tenth of what Russell Crowe now takes in annually. As recently as the seventies, Paul Newman might have earned about a quarter of what Tom Cruise would receive today.

It's also worth noting that neither Gable nor Newman felt themselves badly used at the time- they both lived extremely well, and deserved to. But their pay-checks were more in line with the actual value they brought to the industry. (Actually, in the case of stars locked into studio contracts, you could make the argument they were under-valued.)
This perspective makes it clear that Hollywood needs to re-think their whole business strategy, and fast. Business as usual will no longer cut it.

I still believe the feature length film is potentially the most powerful popular medium we have. To re-capture its relevance, Hollywood will need to take more risks, make smaller, better films which appeal to a broader swath of the public, and on the cost side, dramatically re-adjust star salaries.

Those who don't accept it will risk being replaced by smart, talented up-and-comers who recognize the new reality.

Ultimately, the industry must take a longer view beyond next quarter's P&L, recognize that most of their output today is too safe, stale and familiar , and in response, put the focus back on making movies that reward their coveted viewers' time and attention.
Easier said than done, I know, but remember that Hollywood has been forced to reinvent itself before, most memorably in the late sixties and early seventies. Undoubtedly, with the right leadership, they can do it again.

Dramatically cutting top stars' inflated salaries is only a beginning- but a necessary one.

For close to 2,000 outstanding titles on DVD, visit www.bestmoviesbyfarr.com.
To see John's weekly video recommendations, go to www.reel13.org

Just When Did The Quality Of Hollywood Films Start To Drop?

To build the number of solid DVD recommendations on my site, for several years now I've been watching roughly fifteen films a week- old and new, domestic and foreign. This process has yielded a broader appreciation of the scope of feature films beyond my pre-existing expertise, which was Hollywood's Golden Age (1930-1960).

It has also led me to a striking conclusion: though in revenue and distribution terms Hollywood continues to dominate the global film market, the most original, intelligent, and enduring movies today are being made outside this country.

It's a disturbing dynamic when the majority player in a global industry keeps turning out a largely indifferent product. Inevitably, parts of the traditional consumer base start to fall away. In Hollywood's case, the industry is gradually losing their educated adult (40 years plus) audience. As a consequence, they are working that much harder to keep our offspring hooked on a steady stream of comic book and computer game adaptations, brought to the big screen with lots of quick cuts, deafening noise, and whiz-bang special effects.

In pursuing this dubious strategy, a fundamental part of great film-making- excellence in script, character development and overall story-telling- gets sacrificed, because the bells and whistles, the sheer noise and kinetic pacing of today's commercial releases, would seem to render them unnecessary. I suggest they are never unnecessary.

True, even at Hollywood's peak, there was plenty of junk being made. But with the built-in efficiencies of the studio system creating much more product overall, there was enough quality work rising to the top to keep discerning moviegoers happy.

Also, studio moguls then consciously wanted to build industry prestige with what were then termed "important pictures". Today, "important pictures" in Hollywood represent only risk, a virtual death knell in a business driven solely by dollar signs.

For today's thinking adults, movies are being increasingly marginalized because there is less reason and excuse for us to make time for them as we did in the past. Technology encourages us to stay forever chained to our PCs and Blackberries, answering every email and phone call in real time, and looking up our old school chums on Facebook.

And if we're disillusioned with what's currently in theatres, we're unlikely to work that much harder to identify and absorb an older film or foreign release, even if we're promised a disproportionate reward in the end.

It's easier just to tune in to "Dancing With The Stars".

Maybe as a movie lover, I over-dramatize the situation. But to me, it feels terribly sad.

Just when did the mighty Hollywood movie machine really start to sputter? To find my own answer, I tried an experiment.

Though few outside the industry know of it, The Quigley Poll has annually tracked the top ten Hollywood stars at the box office since the early thirties. I decided to review their results every ten years from 1938-2008, and for each star listed in a given year, tally the corresponding number of their films featured on www.bestmoviesbyfarr.com.

Examining the trend-line of total number of films contributed by the stars over time should help indicate when overall film quality started to decline, at least from my perspective. Since this in effect links the subjective notion of quality to my own personal standards, the results are hardly conclusive, but hopefully still worthy of debate and discussion.

I myself would have expected the thirties to produce a higher total, yet the top ten box-office stars of 1938 are only represented by 27 films on our site, with sixteen of those contributed by just two actors: Spencer Tracy (10) and Clark Gable (6). Beyond runners-up Myrna Loy and Tyrone Power (each with 4 films), most of the other stars have faded with time, including Alice Faye, Sonja Henie, and Jane Withers (a child star who'd go on to play Josephine in those memorable "Comet" commercials in the sixties).

Ten years later, and the number of Quigley stars' films on our site more than doubles. On the 1948 list with ten titles each are Tracy again, along with Bogart, Cary Grant, and Gary Cooper. Ingrid Bergman scores with 9 titles, while Bing Crosby adds 4. With all other names contributing at least one title, the forties' total was 62.

The overall number for 1958 stars is down only slightly, at 57 titles. All the prior actors with ten titles represented are gone, replaced by James Stewart (10), Marlon Brando and Elizabeth Taylor (each with 9), William Holden (8), and Frank Sinatra (7). As with the prior decade, each star listed in the Poll's top-ten contributed at least one title.

We hit our peak in 1968 with a record 75 titles, ironically not the best time for Hollywood itself, but in terms of stars, reflecting a vibrant, prolific new generation. Only Liz Taylor returns to the list, joined by late bloomer John Wayne (11 titles). They are joined by Paul Newman (10), Sidney Poitier (10), Jack Lemmon (8), Lee Marvin (7), Clint Eastwood (7), and Steve McQueen (6).

With the '70s' list, totals return to 1940s/50s' levels, with the top-ten stars comprising 61 total films on BMBF, and excepting Clint Eastwood, reflecting a whole new line-up of names: Peter Sellers and Woody Allen (at 10 titles each), followed by Diane Keaton (8), Warren Beatty, and Jane Fonda (6 each). Also, newcomers John Travolta and Richard Dreyfuss appear for the first and only time (each with 5 titles). For the first time since the thirties, one name, Barbra Streisand, contributed no titles to the site.

As we then look ahead ten years and beyond, we note that a steady decrease in the number of memorable films begins in the eighties, with the actors from Quigley's '88 poll contributing just over half the number of films (32) from the prior decade. Dustin Hoffman appears, providing 10 titles, as does the up-and coming Tom Hanks (7) and Tom Cruise (5). Yet after Robin Williams (4), the number of titles contributed per star is minimal: Danny DeVito (2), Eddie Murphy (2), Bette Midler (1), Arnold Schwarzenegger (1), Paul Hogan (0), and Tom Selleck (0).

(Just reading some of these names, I feel the edifice starting to crumble.)

The erosion continues in the 90's, whose totals now drop below the thirties' level to generate just 24 BMBF titles. After Hanks, Robin Williams, Mel Gibson (5 titles), and Leonardo DiCaprio (3), we again have a slew of admittedly big stars who, in my view, have not made that many outstanding films: among them, Jim Carrey (1), Meg Ryan (1), Cameron Diaz (1), Julia Roberts (0), and Adam Sandler (0).

The top box-office draws for 2008 hit a new low, contributing a paltry 14 titles to our site. Harrison Ford leads the list with 7 titles, followed by George Clooney with 3. All others on the list contributed two or less movies, including Reese Witherspoon (2), Daniel Craig (1), Christian Bale (1), and with no titles contributed, Will Smith, Shia La Beouf, Robert Downey, Jr., Angelina Jolie, and once again, Adam Sandler.

In fairness to this last group, some of these stars have long careers ahead of them, but it won't do them (or us) much good if the industry doesn't start giving them better scripts. (In particular, Robert Downey, Jr. stands out as one actor who always comes off better than the films he finds himself in.)

Or... perhaps my idea of who or what constitutes greatness in film has become outmoded. Maybe I've been blinded by generational bias, and will justifiably receive a host of angry comments criticizing the absence of Will Smith, Adam Sandler or Julia Roberts on my site.

One request, though, before lodging your protest: first, look again at some of the newer, noteworthy titles from France, Italy, Japan, Germany, Korea, Denmark, Iran and the Middle East. Next, revisit a select few Hollywood classics from the forties, fifties and sixties. In doing this, you'll likely notice some of the differences in film-making emphasis and approach I mentioned earlier.

But with so-called progress and the passage of time, such differences are inevitable. Ultimately it all comes down to this basic question: are we in America making our fair share of great movies today, movies that will stand the test of time?

I for one dearly wish I could answer "yes".