Tom Jolliffe on directorial vision vs crowd pleasing…
We’ve all done it in our lives. The crowd leans a certain way and we adhere to that. Maybe it was in school. Oasis vs Blur (yes, I’m old). The consensus is Oasis, so you put Oasis in your tape deck to please everyone. Secretly though you’re none of the above, and actually dance around your living room singing show tunes in your pants (I didn’t…honestly).
In filmmaking terms we live in a time where box-office is of utmost importance. It always has been but the sheer ludicrous sums of money invested into the biggest films means astronomical returns are required to merely break even. On the whole this means studios will ensure to follow a focus group formula. What will keep as many demographics as possible happy? What’s the easiest route to entertaining masses, even at the expense of what a particular director/writer may actually want to do? Formula is a good start. If it works once it’ll probably work again. If it works twice, you’re on a roll and beyond that everything is gravy.
Marvel are probably the best example of the crowd pleasing formula. There are their core films which are fairly interchangeable. The light-hearted tone, large-scale action and heavy petting level of fan service delivers what the mass markets want, and on the whole they’re fun. I enjoy them, even as much as I’m tiring of the formula as a whole. I can still sit and have fun watching a Marvel film. Even though this particular phase all feels the same to me. If it ain’t broke though, don’t fix it.
I’m all for easily ingestible entertainment. As much as the next person I appreciate when someone hedges their bets over what will entertain. To an extent they sit on the fence and perhaps don’t firmly entrench themselves in one particular way (there are exceptions). If you throw out a line that you know 80% of the auditorium will like, then you can safely do so. I loved The Force Awakens. It was everything a Star Wars fan both long-established, and new, could have hoped for. It ticked what us old buggers (on the most part) wanted, and was modern enough in its convention to lure in new audiences. It was a film that essentially bet on red and black at the same time. On the whole the film went down very well. As it should. It was essentially A New Hope again, with oodles of fan pleasing moments included. Pure entertainment. Was it interesting though? Thought provoking? Was the vision more strongly directorial, or studio? We’ve seen high-profile directors like Edgar Wright, Phil Lord and Chris Miller leave projects (voluntarily and involuntarily) due to a difference of vision. In Wright’s case he wanted an unrepentantly Edgar Wright styled Ant-Man, whilst Marvel weren’t game. More recently Lord and Miller’s overtly comical and winky style was deemed not suitable for the upcoming Han Solo reboot. The best moments in Ant-Man were those that felt distinctly Wright’s, left over from the parts of his screenplay the studio kept.
The antithesis to the crowd pleaser is the “this is my film, like it or lump it.” This of course takes us away from the mainstream largely. There are exceptions. For better or worse, directors like Zack Snyder and Michael Bay (okay…mostly worse) do things their way. Critics hate it, more discerning filmgoers hate them, but the box office receipts suggest there’s an audience. Whilst Snyder’s forays into DC comic lore have been pretty poor, what can be commended is the fact he’s tried to pull away from convention laid out by the rivals in Marvel and do something distinctly Snyder. His first concern is to do the film he wants to do (Bay is the same). That might result in him indulging his inner 12-year-old too much, and lacking in structural forethought but Snyder is still very distinct. Yes he may be stacked with clear influences, but they amalgamate to form a style you can see a mile off as his. Ironically, DC now seems to be leaning away from the dank and dreary tone of Snyder’s works, and are harking back to more jovial material. Wonder Woman delivered that, and James Wan has already compared his template for Aquaman to Romancing the Stone and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Granted DC were already making money, but they’re now playing things safer it seems, to keep the punters coming in. One grim comic book film (devoid of fun) too many and the takings may have tumbled.
More successful across the board is Christopher Nolan. Whilst I’m in a camp of believing he’s sort of rested on Nolanism’s somewhat in his last 2-3 films, he wholeheartedly delivers his vision on whatever film he’s doing. If he doesn’t get the hole in one every time, he never leaves with less than a cinematic birdie. Critics? Check. Box office? Check. Audience appreciation? Check. To varying degrees. Certain directors always manage to deliver their vision. It’s a select few in the mainstream. Tarantino, Scorsese and more.
What I often find interesting are those divisive films. A director like Nicolas Winding Refn for example is contentious. His films are distinct and the most important to please, is himself. If he released a film that no one bothered watching, it probably wouldn’t bother him as long as it was the film he wanted to make at that point in time. Drive bridged the gap perfectly between his style and thematic tastes, to a wider audience. The cult film is a work of brilliance that still musters repeat viewings, and even the more reviled moments of thunderous violence work as moments of attention grabbing shock as opposed to excessive masochism. This balance deserted him in Only God Forgives and The Neon Demon (the better of these latter two).
I was left not quite able to decide whether I thought both films were works of art or dreadful. If you push me on it I’d say I hated Only God Forgives, and sort of tolerated The Neon Demon. However the strength of the director’s vision, the hint of a hidden layer, a dissectable message, intrigued me in both cases, to the point I feel the need to re-watch, to re-interpret. Huge parts of each repulse me, but equally the encoded Refn message (which may or may not actually be there) is alluring. I like to be challenged, even if the film itself has quite alienating flaws. See also many of Gaspar Noe’s films, or Lars Von Trier.
I sat and watched two volumes of Nymphomaniac. It’s adulterated Lars Von Trier. It toed a line between arthouse and porn. It teased with a tightrope walk over a pit of exploitation. Some may think Von Trier just dived in the pit regardless. I tend to lean toward that thinking. In the end my view of the film was that it leant more toward exploitation than message. There were certainly interesting ideas and discussions within the film (particularly volume 1) about the notion of psychology and sex, but I felt the second part descended into exploitation too much. The point remains though, it opened up these portals of debate. It engaged, challenged, manipulated and perhaps teased, the audience. Was there a point to explicit sex scenes, or was Von Trier merely exercising an attempt to push a boundary, or get one over on the ratings board? Only he will know.
Possibly the most unabashedly strong vision, and gutsy piece of cinema I’ve seen in recent years, actually bypassed cinemas. A 3rd sequel (5th if you count two unofficial TV movies) to an early 90’s, cheesy action film starring Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren and directed by Roland Emmerich, one of Hollywood’s most hollow big budget directors (in fact Universal Soldier remains probably his most enjoyable and thought-provoking work…make of that what you will). The original was all about B-movie thrills, resorting to second-hand ideas from Terminator and RoboCop. Great fun but with all the emotional resonance and artistic integrity of a Donner kebab. A dire sequel came. Then a surprise sequel called Universal Soldier: Regeneration, directed by John Hyams. It was a surprisingly focused and strongly envisioned piece of direct to video action. It had more Frankensteinian contemplation than any of the previous films but a distinct and clear direction. If this was a brave sequel, which still offered moments of fan appeasement (such as a brilliantly brutal Van Damme vs Lundgren face off), the following sequel (by Hyams again) was utterly brazen.
The success of the third Unisol film allowed Hyams the opportunity to whole-heartedly do “his” complete vision for another. So how do you follow a cheesy action B-movie? If Regeneration was a bridge from one tone to another, Universal Soldier: Day Of Reckoning was a free dive off the bridge into a whirlpool of Cronenberg, Kubrick, Verhoeven, Noe, Refn and David Lynch. A science fiction horror, playing out like film-noir, with glorious visuals, great action (because that box needed to be ticked) and most of all a pure, unrestrained delivery of John Hyams. The film shouldn’t work. To B-movie lovers who wanted a faithful sequel to the original, it didn’t. To a lot of critics it was an oddity. It shocked, surprised and intrigued some. In fact garnering excellent reviews in some high-profile corners. Equally it’s mixture of sci-fi identity horror, melded with extreme violence was reviled by other corners. Largely though it probably went by unnoticed by general audiences.
There’s nothing out there quite like Day Of Reckoning. In fact, pull away the Universal Soldier bit (because aside from regenerated dead soldiers, it’s nothing really in line with the franchise) and the film would have been more well received across the board. The fact is though, it only got made because it had the title. Such is the movie business where franchise is rated higher than originality (even if you have to reinvent your franchise to get your own idea across). This is wholeheartedly, without shame, a declaration that “this is my film.” I’m in the love it camp. It’s not without its problems and it of course has a cacophony of influences (but this is true of even a ‘master’ like Tarantino in every film he’s made). To me the film, aside from as a whole being something I enjoyed, is something thoroughly intriguing. It’s the thought process between stepping from that 1992 film, to this. A film with no guarantee of being seen by many, but still (from the studios perspective) needing to deliver a return. I won’t sit here and claim it’s the best film ever, but it’s one of the most intriguing and ballsy I’ve seen. Hyam’s is next due to remake Maniac Cop, a cult B-picture that was trashy, low rent and a bit cool. The avenues he could take that are mouth-watering.
Cinema is a constant battle between directorial power and studio need. Between auteur vision and audience demand. Occasionally both meet in harmony, but often one pulls away from the other. Whilst the box ticker is easier to ingest, I find the auteur vision more fascinating, whether I enjoy the film or not. Let us know your thoughts below.
Tom Jolliffe
