I agree with Mr. O'Neil that there have been a number of well crafted
and well intended films released this year. I wasn't implying that all
Hollywood releases this year were marginal (although I'm sure there are
some that would dispute that). It is more the case that the marginal
offerings grossly outweigh the exemplary ones. (Mr. O'Neil and I are
obviously on the same page because _The Waterboy_ was fresh in my mind
as well.)

As far as "the spectacle" is concerned, it seems that what sells
(besides infantile humor) are films that offer high levels of technical
eye-candy (i.e. _Saving Private Ryan_, _Deep Impact_, _Armageddon,
_Titanic_). There is nothing wrong with spectacle. It just feels as if
we are being inundated with more spectacle than is necessary. 

Movies makers have become more concerned with the films as an event
(trailers, festivals, marketing, sales, etc.) than the films themselves.
They feel that if they can simulate a fifty foot monster crushing
buildings they will sell X amount of T-shirts. I know this sounds like
I'm playing my Sontagian violin but the fact remains that I feel my
intelligence, as a human being, is being insulted when I see that so
many other human beings are spending significant amounts of time and
money watching an asteroid hit the earth or Adam Sandler talk in a
squeaky voice for two hours.

I want something better for my fellow humans. Something entertaining yet
intellectually stimulating. Let's face it, those high box office sales
are mostly children - the future. I have a teenage brother and I don't
want him to think that what's cool is to be a dumb ass who can tackle. I
think that a balance can be achieved and right now I am just not seeing
it. 

That's why, starting January 1st, I plan to save my movie money for May
21st when the spectacle of all spectacles is to hit screens. I can do
without Hollywood for five months. Can you?



> ----------
> From: 	Edward R. O'Neill[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 	Wednesday, December 02, 1998 9:35 AM
> To: 	[log in to unmask]
> Subject: 	Hollywood's Marginal Offerings?
> 
> Tocce, Vince wrote:
> > 
> > Here's a way to express your appreciation of all the marginal
> offerings
> > Hollywood has bestowed upon us in the past year:
> 
> Can we really say that the films released (in the U.S.) this
> year have really been oh so very marginal?  
> 
> Many of the following are independent and foreign films, but
> many are not:
> 
> 	Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss
> 	Buffalo '66
> 	Bulworth
> 	The Butcher Boy
> 	Chinese Box
> 	Dark City
> 	Gods and Monsters
> 	Happiness
> 	Happy Together
> 	Kundun
> 	Kurt and Courtney
> 	Living Out Loud
> 	Love and Death on Long Island
> 	Out of Sight
> 	Palmetto
> 	Pi
> 	There's Something About Mary
> 	The Truman Show
> 	Velvet Goldmine
>                                                  
> I for one do not feel that "spectacle is all that is left in
> movies" (as Mr. Tocce puts it), and I think this list of
> films demonstrates my view.  In fact it's been such an
> outstanding year for cinema, that I feel we may be
> experiencing something of a renaissance akin to the 1970's.  
> 
> As for the _Star Wars_ prequel, I cannot imagine it will be
> markedly superior in many respects to _Pi_, _Happy
> Together_, _The Butcher Boy_ or _Happiness_.  
> 
> If I had to urge a boycott it would be:  don't see _The
> Waterboy_.  
> 
> Sincerely,
> Edward R. O'Neill
> UCLA
> General Education Program/Dept. of Sociology
> 


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%