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 filmmaking- 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".
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Just When Did The Quality Of Hollywood Films Start To Drop?
How about 1959.
There have been some great documentaries and smaller films made but the distribution is killer. It's harder for the small films to be seen especially now in this economy with megaloplexes owning what you see and the smaller art houses going out of business. If a small film gets into a theater it may be there for a week tops. You have to search it out. Sad
Just When Did The Quality Of Hollywood Films Start To Drop?
When Disney rides opened box office weekends: anybody remember The Haunted Mansion w/ Eddie Murphy?
When the executive decision was to never have a movie truly end and the audience was caught in sequel purgatory.
When television suddenly became the big screen everyone watched and could afford.
When we switch out pyrotechnicians, animation and tits for substance, acting, talent and a decent script.
great blog.
I have been racking my brains why movies I`ve seen, say, a year ago, even a couple of months ago, simply don´t stick in my head. Whereas movies from 10-15 years ago (nevermind the great comedies from the 30`s) are forever etched into my brain, bringing forth quotes that I can still remember.
Today, everything, for the most part, is just a blob of goo. There are exceptions of course, but don´t ask me name one just now. Have to think.....
Also the days of a great or even good comedy are long over since the target audience is male teens/young men.
We have had a steady diet of bathroom humor and not funny sexual situations posing as funny. Even the young women of that age are turned off by it.
i beg to differ....
Pretty simple answer: the day MBA's took over the decision-making process in the Hollywood studios.
At least "back in the day," folks like Mayer, Goldwyn, et. al., while tough businessmen, had a passion for film making.
Not so today. The Fred Segal-clad bean counters at the major studios - who've basically been in complete power for the last decade, maybe two - could care less.
And the results are in. Only a smattering of good films find their way to the screen, and I can hardly remember the last time I saw an American offering that was "great."
In sum: Harrison Bergeron, MBA, is to blame.
while your premise is correct...
well, at least quentin tarantino has a movie coming out......t
See John Farr's Profile
jury's out on quentin.
I still think Reservoir Dogs is Quentin's best film. Pulp Fiction is good and entertaining, but hardly the masterpiece some have said. And his films have gotten progressively duller since.
The Kill Bill movies (especially Vol. 2) were boring.
Didn't bother with Grindhouse. Don't see the point of seeing a homage to bad movies that played in Grindhouses on 42nd street and Times Square in the 1970's.
agree. Pulp Fiction - ok. But the rest......
Sorry, but true. At least in my humble opinion.
Tarantino simply makes fanboy mashup valentines to the '70s-era cheese he grew up on. Just look at GRINDHOUSE--what was that studio exec who greenlit that waste of celluloid snorting?
See John Farr's Profile
I too thought this was pretty dreadful.
hey, i actually enjoyed death proof.....
"Maybe as a movie lover, I over-dramatize the situation.
See John Farr's Profile
thank you so much for this!
The Eye of the Needle (Donald Sutherland)
What's Eating Gilbert Grape (DiCaprio/Phoenix)
The Aviator (DiCaprio)
The Last of the Mohicans (Day-Lewis)
Master and Commander (Russell Crowe)
A Beautiful Mind (Russell Crowe)
Glengarry GlenRoss (Pacino/Le
Edward Scissorhands (Depp/Ryder)
These are some really good/great movies that were made in US (mostly I think), that folks that love a good story will probably enjoy. At least I did!
See John Farr's Profile
only title not on my site is the aviator...
Try to remember that a film takes a year or two to make before it comes out. Often a script will circulate for several years before it gets produced. So the movies coming out now are mostly products of the dark Bush years. The media was all propaganda and the debate was hostile and very negative. The country and by extension Hollywood was pretty confused and divided, so the films reflect that national mood to some extent.
An example and possibly the exception to this was Batman: The Dark Knight, which (I think) should have won best picture.
come on now....i will blame many things on W, but mediocre films that come out of hollywood isn't one of them. hollywood is about making money....t
batman....
To each his own. I like The Dark Knight, and it felt like the right movie at the right time. There's a reason it made so much money.
They were making brain dead pg13 comedies and action movies for decades, and they'll keep doing it.
I'm not trying to blame W for bad movies, but it was a negative effect on the country and the national mood to be sure. I will always look at the reign of King George as a dark period for America. The Dark Knight summed that up for me, which is why I liked it.
See John Farr's Profile
I liked uma as poison ivy...that
I blame Bush for a lot of things but not for the cr#p that came out of Hollywood. Although you do have a point about the "confused and divided" part.
Disagree though on The Dark Knight. A bit less on the subplot front would have been more.
Besides, Bale s enhanced Batman voice just bugged the heck outta me.
Okay here's one I loved: "Lars and the Real Girl". Not a hollywood blockbuster and I think it was filmed in Canada. Did anyone else love/like this one?
Didn't interest me. BRICK, on the other hand, interested me.
I don't know anything about this one, but I'm a girl, so maybe it's more of a "guys" flick, I'll check it out on Netflix.
See John Farr's Profile
I liked it...
satisfying today's ignorant and simple audience is easy for film makers--show some sex,show some blood and show the good guy winning and you have an audience--then every once in a while make a worthwhile film-vol-la--box office magic!!!
See John Farr's Profile
I want to give audiences more credit than that- maybe I'm a naive idealist.
When exactly did it become a death-penalty offense to make a fun movie? Personally, I'm getting tired of the snobbery, whether it comes from developmen
See John Farr's Profile
I don't mind sex and blood, done with intelligence and restraint. those themes are as old as humanity. I just hate it when it's done gratuitously.
i blame the success of the flintstones!!!! i remember thinking to myself "the end is near" when i heard the flintstones was the the #1 movie in america. having said that i find myself disappointed with nearly every movie i watch.....
LOL, so true! I thought the same thing when that movie did so well! Maybe it was a slow week at the box office? Haha
See John Farr's Profile
now I'm waiting for the jetsons movie to hit!
When I think about the question in the title of your article, I'd have to wonder if the paying of so many millions of dollars to these actors had something to do with the drop in quality. It seems that the two coincide. The more these "top" level actors make, the less the quality of the films seem to be.
I find myself going to my local smaller theater to watch movies that did not qualify to run on the big theaters more and more often. When I think of the movies I've watched in the past 10 years, at least half of those were not made in the US, and at least half of the remainding are documentaries.
When I look at my netflix queue, again right now it's the same pattern, mostly smaller, independent films or international films. I rarely go to my local gargantuan (20 screen) theater, maybe twice a year and am very selective about what I go so, because most of what's showing isn't worth the ticket price (in my opinion).
I started going to movies in the early 70's (, and watched many of the older movies on television). So maybe that's why my particular pattern is the way it is, because that's about when the down-turn started.
See John Farr's Profile
I agree completely that astronomical star compensation has undermined the quality of the end product and the industry as a whole.
Well, if America was in fact making its share of great movies to stand the test of time, wouldn't we need to outsource the watching of them? I mean, great movies frequently fail to have happy endings, or even heroes, and sometimes they are internal (you know, where "nothing happens") and they've got no car crashes or explosions or computer animation. And sometimes they don't even have stars reprising roles as themselves and aren't sequels or based on comic books or TV shows. Not to mention that some great films aren't even in color and their endings weren't rewritten after audience testing and weren't conceived, written, produced and marketed for 12 year-olds. Great movies tend to get in the way of product and they sure as heck get in the way of profit motive. My own off-the-wall guess as to when Hollywood drifted over the yellow line would be when the marketing men were allowed to start fulfilling their own prophecies.
I
I am delighted, however, with having completely missed Streisand's work in the Thirties.
See John Farr's Profile
oops- I meant to say the seventies.
it was first time since the thirties that a top ten star failed to make my site with a single title.
"I am delighted, however, with having completely missed Streisand's work in the Thirties."
Never saw a Fanny Brice film?
Audience reaction cards started long ago during Hollywoods's golden age with endings and scenes redone according to the audiences' response at previews. In the last scene of that famous gangster film with James Cagney where he's seen already dead, propped up and bound when someone opens a door, the audience reaction was one of horror and they were really considering deleteing the scene or just changing it but the director insisted it stay and luckily he won.
As to Streisand, nmaybe you should see her Streisands woork of later decades e.g., "The Owl and The Pusycat", "Yentl" nare two of my favorites. How can you say you don't her films if you haven't seen them.
Irony escapes, eh? I merely found the idea of Streisand displaced by a few decades humorous. And rest assured, I have seen her work and think she was lethally funny in "The Owl and the Pussycat," though a little less so in "Yentl," though Streisand as directed actress and Streisand as director are two decidedly different Streisands.
See John Farr's Profile
I've seen most streisand except yentl.
this may be a blind spot, but she has always gotten on my nerves!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
