Directors take backseat in Hollywood
Ervell E. Menezes

HOLLYWOOD, still the biggest name in films (why else would they call the Indian film industry Bollywood?), has had its ups and downs. Today, it is again on a downward trail as far a quality is concerned. Hardly two out of 10 films are worth watching.

Why? Well, there are a number of reasons. First, what with video and handicams coming in, cinema as a medium has become more accessible. There are now many more players in the market, which means quality takes a beating.

Then, the money power has always shuttled between the studio system and the independent filmmakers. The 1940s was the golden period of the studio system. Different companies hired their own stars. Metro Goldwyn Mayer was probably the biggest and well-known for its lavish musicals.

The late-1960s changed all that and the director became the most important figure in the ball game. It was the era that produced George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg and co. But like everything else in life, cinema too is dialectic and today we are back to the studio system and big-budget movies.

Filmmaker John Boorman (who made that futuristic fantasy Zardoz, among other action films) in a recent article "Hollywood or Bust" in Night & Day says: "The monster is turning on its makers. Blockbusters now cost so much to finish that no one can afford to make them." This year’s BBs will be Van Hesling `A3 60 m, Harry Potter `A3 70 m, Troy `A3 110 m and so on, he says.

He compares it to the time he made Deliverance (1972), "Warner’s hired me to write a script. I submitted it. They said: ‘OK, if you can cast it, and make it for the right price, go ahead.’ " He goes on to add: "But that sounds terribly na`EFve in today’s Hollywood."

Now everything is topsy-turvy. Today, Boorman would be given guidelines by a number of studio executives. They would decide on an A-1 star who, in turn, would have his say and so would many others — the special effects (FX) men, the editors, the cinematographers and so on — with the result the film would have no personality of its own.

Time was when the director’s name used to be above the film title, that’s how important he is. Not today. Originality goes out of the window. It becomes a joint effort or a studio cooperative. But believe me, democracy and joint leadership just doesn’t work in filmmaking.

Hollywood has, in fact, seen a decline since the new era of FX in the late 1970s—the post-Star Wars period. With every new development in cinema, in this case FX, it is the story that takes a drubbing. So, you had laser swords clashing and buildings come crashing. All visually adept but the narrative was the casualty. It was around that time too that marketing became the new mantra. Hollywood tried to target younger audiences, in the 18-40 age group, which meant they were ignoring the above-40s. Though this may have worked for a while, later it proved counter-productive. Then they tried to make children’s films which would even please the parents. With they fell into a likely trap – that of falling between two stools.

In short, today the marketing folks are so confused they have virtually fallen on their face. Hollywood films have a sameness comparable to Ford’s assembly-line automobiles. `A0Blockbusters have decreased in number, almost halved from 20-24 a few years ago to 10-12 now. And the independence of the director has been taken over by the studio. It is the studio crew that manufacture the script, decide on the cast and the budget. Then, with feedback from the audiences at sneak previews they chop and change.

But what about those filmmakers who want to make films their way? Well, they are relegated to the mean streets of the independent film, the art-house ghetto of low budget and deferred fees.

The late-1960s was a period when Hollywood came closest to European cinema because it dealt with real-life issues like moon-landing, flower-power, sexual permissiveness and drugs. It was also a time when the director was accorded his freedom and you had cult films like Easy Rider, The Graduate, Carnal Knowledge and The Happening. The studios had exceeded their brief and the independent filmmakers s acted as the studio. I remember in those days, every week there would be at least three good films and one had to pick and choose. There would be at least seven good cinemas in South Bombay and what a wealth of fare they’d offer.

Today, it is a period of scarcity, and for each Cold Mountain or Mystic River one has to suffer half a dozen potboilers. They say everything in life is dialectic and one would cherish that thought in the hope of seeing light at the end of the tunnel.

HOME