Pedro Almodóvar is now the second major filmmaker this week, after Martin Scorsese, to come out against current cinema.
Do these guys have a point? Of course they do. If you just look within the American studio system things are looking very bleak. For example, I am currently attempting to make my annual ten best list and have 30 contenders. Of these 30 contenders, how many have had the "luxury" of being backed by a big studio? Only one: Martin Scorsese's "Silence." But as Todd McCarthy stated yesterday, "Silence" happened "Only because “Marty” had paid enough commercial dues to finally make a dream project dating back 26 years. Yet even then, 20 — count 'em, 20 — producers and executive producers were needed to cobble together the financing."
The good news in all this downer outlook? I had 30 films contending for my ten best list. That usually doesn't happen. It's been a great year, but Hollywood, well Hollywood is a lost cause.
Here's what Almodóvar had to say:
“It’s very difficult for me to go to the theater and find movies that I love — much more difficult than before. Maybe I’m getting old. Either that or I find it more difficult for a story to surprise me. I think that film right now is worse than it used to be. For example, I don’t think that you see the kinds of films you saw in the ’60s or the ’70s,” he tells Variety.
“I have no real interest in films that have to do with superheroes and sequels, prequels, reboots — all this kind of business,” he added. “Ironically, on some level, the fact that movies are so technically proficient works against them. I used to be interested in the adventure film or any chase film before the effects were so perfect. The digital, the synthetic aspect of the image, has taken some of that away from me. There was a sense of danger that was exciting.”
Thoughts?
Thoughts?