Mike's Musings: Movies for Adults
Some movies are made for adults.
This is different from an "adult movie," which is a completely different thing. No, I'm talking about movies that are made for adults because of their subject matter and the way they are (and should) be told. Not every movie is made for the typical Marvel crowd.
Nor should they be. Some movies, like "Downfall," "Monster," "Saving Private Ryan," and many others, are made for adults and were cognizant of that fact. They were all awarded a well-deserved R rating for their frank depictions of violence and disturbing material. Actually, the late Jack Valenti argued that "Saving Private Ryan" should have gotten a PG-13 so that kids could understand what those soldiers went through. Admirable as his intentions might have been, I think it's safe to say that the MPAA made the right call in this case. Yes, even the notoriously corrupt MPAA can, on occasion, do something right.
But this is not another rant about the MPAA and their "policies" and "practices" that allegedly give parents a guide to what is appropriate for kids. Anyone who reads my stuff, or who pays attention, is well aware that they are nothing short of an embarrassment. They're rotten to the core and need to be rebuilt from the ground up. It will be a cold day in hell before that happens, so I'll continue to shake my fist at them and spew bile in their direction whenever I get the opportunity (if I saw as many movies as I'd like, I would probably be doing it on a weekly basis).
Rather, this is a criticism of the studios who make the movies and, on occasion, the filmmakers themselves.
Indulge me for a minute, and allow me to compare two films: "The Kite Runner" and "The Siege." Both are films that deal with heavy material such as violence, terrorism, rape, torture...the list goes on. Neither film is easy to watch, and that's by design. They are movies for adults, and that's something hardwired into their DNA.
Edward Zwick, with the support of 20th Century Fox, understood this. He allowed room for moral complexity, shades of gray, and ambiguity. His characters talked, thought, negotiated, planned, schemed, and had their own motives. The three central characters played by Denzel Washington, Annette Benning and Bruce Willis all wanted the same goal, but they each had very different approaches to get it. Zwick told the story in such a way that while we understood where they were coming from, we asked ourselves who was right and who was wrong. Or if such judgement could be made. He also didn't soft-pedal the violence. Physically, there isn't a lot of violence shown on screen. But we see the aftermath, and while not especially bloody, it is intensely disturbing. He creates a feeling of fear and terror that allows the film's themes to take on the necessary level of urgency. In every way, shape and form, "The Siege" is a movie meant for adults, and adults alone.
So is "The Kite Runner," but apparently no one told that to Paramount or Marc Foster. The subject matter, which includes a child being raped by a bully, a man and a woman being stoned to death in a public stadium, and children being sold into sexual slavery and then murdered. Not to mention a graphic fight. It's as adult as any film I can think of. But it got a PG-13. As it is, it should never have gotten such a mild rating (and it remains one of the MPAA's worst offenses among many). But why bother at all? It could not have been much of a shock to the studio. They have far too much control over the organization for that to happen. It had to have been intentional. As I was watching it last week, I could sense that Foster was holding back, limiting the film's intensity (to the extent that such a thing is possible). It felt intentionally toned down. I guess the thinking was that because the first half stars pre-teens that it should automatically be geared toward them? Yeah, right.
Both films hit the viewer in the gut. Neither is a happy movie. Nor are they intended to be. Zwick embraced this but Foster did not. While I will concede that "The Kite Runner" is a better film, "The Siege" at least felt more honest. The point is that these films are not for children, and I'll give props to Zwick for his willingness to make his film for adults.
I want to know what idiot thought that it was even possible for "The Kite Runner" to get a PG-13. Because this isn't just a one time thing. This happens over and over again. Horror movies, M-rated video games (aside from "Doom"). All get toned down to get the almighty teen audience in theater seats. Why?
The short answer is money. The difference between a box-office tally for a movie with a PG-13 rating and an R-rating can be substantial. Take "Mad Max: Fury Road," for example. With a budget of $200 million (including marketing, etc), it only earned $375.2 million despite critical and popular acclaim. Reportedly, it lost about $40 million for the studio. Of course, there were other factors (there always are). But compare that to a given Marvel movie, which cost about the same, if not more, but routinely hit the billion dollar mark. Aside from the "Deadpool" movies, they're almost all PG-13. So to a studio head, it makes sense to go for the PG-13 rating, even when it defies common sense. Actually, two versions of "Mad Max: Fury Road" were shown to test audiences: one with a PG-13 rating in mind and the other with a solid R rating. They released the latter because it tested better, so props to them for choosing art and consumer satisfaction over the opening weekend box office numbers.
But is it really that simple? I don't think so. Particularly when it comes to movies that aren't typical multiplex fare. Of course, the "Deadpool" movies made bank and surprised everyone. But others like "The Revenant" ($533 million against a $135 million budget), "Fifty Shades of Grey" ($571 million against $40 million budget), "IT" ($701.8 million against a $35 million budget). "Joker" even crossed the billion-dollar mark (the first R-rated film to do so) against a budget of $55 million budget. So R-rated movies do make money (otherwise they wouldn't make them). And not just the raunchy comedies, apparently. I am delighted to point out that, of the 50 highest grossing R-rated movies, none of them star the fat ginger with glasses (who shall remain nameless).
What is my point? That filmmakers and studios should be honest with their films and their audiences. When a person sits down to watch a movie like "The Siege" or "Saving Private Ryan," they understand that it won't be easy to watch and that they're going to see and hear things that will make them uncomfortable. When a film respects that, it will make a good return.
Hollywood should take note of that.
This is different from an "adult movie," which is a completely different thing. No, I'm talking about movies that are made for adults because of their subject matter and the way they are (and should) be told. Not every movie is made for the typical Marvel crowd.
Nor should they be. Some movies, like "Downfall," "Monster," "Saving Private Ryan," and many others, are made for adults and were cognizant of that fact. They were all awarded a well-deserved R rating for their frank depictions of violence and disturbing material. Actually, the late Jack Valenti argued that "Saving Private Ryan" should have gotten a PG-13 so that kids could understand what those soldiers went through. Admirable as his intentions might have been, I think it's safe to say that the MPAA made the right call in this case. Yes, even the notoriously corrupt MPAA can, on occasion, do something right.
But this is not another rant about the MPAA and their "policies" and "practices" that allegedly give parents a guide to what is appropriate for kids. Anyone who reads my stuff, or who pays attention, is well aware that they are nothing short of an embarrassment. They're rotten to the core and need to be rebuilt from the ground up. It will be a cold day in hell before that happens, so I'll continue to shake my fist at them and spew bile in their direction whenever I get the opportunity (if I saw as many movies as I'd like, I would probably be doing it on a weekly basis).
Rather, this is a criticism of the studios who make the movies and, on occasion, the filmmakers themselves.
Indulge me for a minute, and allow me to compare two films: "The Kite Runner" and "The Siege." Both are films that deal with heavy material such as violence, terrorism, rape, torture...the list goes on. Neither film is easy to watch, and that's by design. They are movies for adults, and that's something hardwired into their DNA.
Edward Zwick, with the support of 20th Century Fox, understood this. He allowed room for moral complexity, shades of gray, and ambiguity. His characters talked, thought, negotiated, planned, schemed, and had their own motives. The three central characters played by Denzel Washington, Annette Benning and Bruce Willis all wanted the same goal, but they each had very different approaches to get it. Zwick told the story in such a way that while we understood where they were coming from, we asked ourselves who was right and who was wrong. Or if such judgement could be made. He also didn't soft-pedal the violence. Physically, there isn't a lot of violence shown on screen. But we see the aftermath, and while not especially bloody, it is intensely disturbing. He creates a feeling of fear and terror that allows the film's themes to take on the necessary level of urgency. In every way, shape and form, "The Siege" is a movie meant for adults, and adults alone.
So is "The Kite Runner," but apparently no one told that to Paramount or Marc Foster. The subject matter, which includes a child being raped by a bully, a man and a woman being stoned to death in a public stadium, and children being sold into sexual slavery and then murdered. Not to mention a graphic fight. It's as adult as any film I can think of. But it got a PG-13. As it is, it should never have gotten such a mild rating (and it remains one of the MPAA's worst offenses among many). But why bother at all? It could not have been much of a shock to the studio. They have far too much control over the organization for that to happen. It had to have been intentional. As I was watching it last week, I could sense that Foster was holding back, limiting the film's intensity (to the extent that such a thing is possible). It felt intentionally toned down. I guess the thinking was that because the first half stars pre-teens that it should automatically be geared toward them? Yeah, right.
Both films hit the viewer in the gut. Neither is a happy movie. Nor are they intended to be. Zwick embraced this but Foster did not. While I will concede that "The Kite Runner" is a better film, "The Siege" at least felt more honest. The point is that these films are not for children, and I'll give props to Zwick for his willingness to make his film for adults.
I want to know what idiot thought that it was even possible for "The Kite Runner" to get a PG-13. Because this isn't just a one time thing. This happens over and over again. Horror movies, M-rated video games (aside from "Doom"). All get toned down to get the almighty teen audience in theater seats. Why?
The short answer is money. The difference between a box-office tally for a movie with a PG-13 rating and an R-rating can be substantial. Take "Mad Max: Fury Road," for example. With a budget of $200 million (including marketing, etc), it only earned $375.2 million despite critical and popular acclaim. Reportedly, it lost about $40 million for the studio. Of course, there were other factors (there always are). But compare that to a given Marvel movie, which cost about the same, if not more, but routinely hit the billion dollar mark. Aside from the "Deadpool" movies, they're almost all PG-13. So to a studio head, it makes sense to go for the PG-13 rating, even when it defies common sense. Actually, two versions of "Mad Max: Fury Road" were shown to test audiences: one with a PG-13 rating in mind and the other with a solid R rating. They released the latter because it tested better, so props to them for choosing art and consumer satisfaction over the opening weekend box office numbers.
But is it really that simple? I don't think so. Particularly when it comes to movies that aren't typical multiplex fare. Of course, the "Deadpool" movies made bank and surprised everyone. But others like "The Revenant" ($533 million against a $135 million budget), "Fifty Shades of Grey" ($571 million against $40 million budget), "IT" ($701.8 million against a $35 million budget). "Joker" even crossed the billion-dollar mark (the first R-rated film to do so) against a budget of $55 million budget. So R-rated movies do make money (otherwise they wouldn't make them). And not just the raunchy comedies, apparently. I am delighted to point out that, of the 50 highest grossing R-rated movies, none of them star the fat ginger with glasses (who shall remain nameless).
What is my point? That filmmakers and studios should be honest with their films and their audiences. When a person sits down to watch a movie like "The Siege" or "Saving Private Ryan," they understand that it won't be easy to watch and that they're going to see and hear things that will make them uncomfortable. When a film respects that, it will make a good return.
Hollywood should take note of that.
Comments
Post a Comment