Thursday, August 30, 2012
The Problem with American Comedy Films
We got into a discussion this week at my job about the state of American film comedy. Some of my co-workers were insisting I see the new Will Farrell movie The Campaign and honestly I don't think I've got to gumption to sit through it. Per their requests I had seen Seth MacFarlane's randy plush toy comedy Ted a few weeks prior and while I didn't find Ted to be an awful movie by any stretch I have to admit I didn't find much of it very funny at all.
So we were talking about American film comedy and I started to ruminate on this question: what was the last great American comedy? Was it Bridesmaids? That was almost a year and a half ago. Was it The Hangover? That was nearly two and a half years ago.
Here's a list of comedies that have been released this year: 21 Jump Street, That's My Boy, Ted, The Campaign, Men in Black 3, American Reunion, Wanderlust, The Three Stooges, Mirror Mirror, The Dictator, Project X, This Means War, The Five-Year Engagement, What to Expect When You're Expecting, Dark Shadows, The Watch, Think Like a Man. That's a sad little list.
So what's gone wrong? Why are American film comedies so mediocre?
I have a theory:
It's kind of obtuse, but essentially I think most people making comedic films today don't understand they are making a feature film. And making a feature film has some basic needs that are part of the process. First of all, a feature film needs to tell a story. More specifically, a feature film needs to tell a story that can sustain a running time of at least 90 minutes. Most comedies today feel like a series of sketches that are loosely strung together. Second, a feature film needs interesting characters. More specifically, a feature film needs characters that have arcs. These are characters who are dynamic, who are changed by the events in the movie. Most film comedies today can't be bothered to have that kind of depth of character. They have personas, not characters. Third, a feature film needs to have a subtext. A great film has a point of view, it's about something. There is symbolism in play. There are ideas at work. The filmmakers have something bigger than the plot they want to communicate to the audience. Most comedies don't have any satirical edge, no bigger thoughts in them at all. I would even argue that in our current social/political climate most filmmakers aren't at all interested in providing any subtext.
It's interesting that while most people look at comedy as something inferior to drama comedy filmmakers seem to be affirming that point by making films that are void of any story or interesting subtext as if a good comedy doesn't need these things.
Most comedians today are coming up through schools that teach improvisational comedy. If you assemble a who's who of American comedians they are people who came up through Second City or The Groundlings or ImprovOlympic or Upright Citizens Brigade. I don't dislike improv comedy. Far from it. Well executed improvisation is the coolest kind of magic trick there is. Steve Carrell, Tina Fey, Paul Shafer, Stephen Colbert, Paul Ruebens, Phil Hartman, Bill Murray, Kathy Griffin, Alan Arkin, Harold Ramis, George Wendt, Joan Rivers, Peter Boyle, John Belushi, Jeff Garlin, Melissa McCarthy, Cheryl Hines, Bob Odenkirk (Better Call Saul!), Jane Lynch, Jennifer Coolidge, Chris Farley. That's just a small list of vital artists who've trained in this art form.
But improv does create a couple of things that have really harmed feature film comedy.
First of all, the end game for most improvisors is to be cast on Saturday Night Live. In fact many improv schools use improv as a means of creating characters suitable for sketch comedy. In other words, most of our comedy minds are being taught to think of things as an 8 minute sketch. This goes a long way to explain why feature comedies can't tell a coherent story that sustains its run time.
Second, improv training has created a situation in which actors are expected to make a weak script funny by riffing on set each day. Who needs a good, polished screenplay? We'll just make it work on set by hiring actors who can be funny on the day. This would explain why so many film comedies today have such a lack of character depth. In some cases all this mad ad libbing results in characters with no consistent behavior. They're just trying desperately to be funny. And desperate is rarely funny.
I think that's why many of these films play better on television than they do in movie theaters. I remember seeing Will Farrell's movie Step Brothers in a theater and just despising it only to kind of warm to it a little bit when I saw it later on TV. Seeing it in little 15 minute increments takes away how badly it didn't work as an 85 minute movie. Seeing it on TV helped to zero in on some of the more subtle bits of improv that populate the film.
Correspondingly, it turns out we're kind of in a golden age for TV comedies. Parks and Recreation, The Office (both versions, focusing on the US early seasons), Curb Your Enthusiasm, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Archer, Louie, 30 Rock, Arrested Development, Modern Family, South Park, the Stewart/Colbert tandem. Hell, I really like The Big Bang Theory and I haven't liked a multi-camera sitcom in a long time. And I would argue that any of these shows offers more laughs than any screen comedy released this year. I think it's not that much of a stretch for people trained in writing 8 minute sketches to come up with 22 minute stories to tell. Curb Your Enthusiasm is largely improvised but it's also intricately plotted.
I am a huge fan of Albert Brooks' work as both a stand-up comedian, an actor and a filmmaker. One of my favorite comedies of all time is his 1984 film Lost in America. The great thing about that film is not only is it gut-bustingly funny with many now classic scenes, it's actually about something -- the selfishness and greed of the Reagan 1980s.
Another great film comedy example is the Dustin Hoffman comedy Tootsie from 1981. Famously, Hoffman plays an unemployed actor who dresses in drag in order to be cast as an actress on a TV soap opera. Is it funny? Yup. Does it tell an interesting story? Yup. Does it have something to say about the way women are treated in society? Yup. I remember seeing an interview with Hoffman where he broke down and wept talking about the impact making that film had on him personally. It turns out he didn't make a very attractive woman and in the interview he laments all the interesting women he might have met but didn't give them the time of day because they weren't conventionally attractive. It's a pretty powerful movie and it's also funny as hell. Bonus: Bill Murray is in it!
What we need today are comedy writers who understand film. Woody Allen has written many classic comedies and despite his beginnings as a stand-up comedian, Woody went to film school and NYU and understood story structure.
I'd love to see a guy like Patton Oswalt try his hand at screenwriting. Patton if you're reading this (yeah, right) it's time to get to work!
Thursday, April 12, 2012
The Cabin in the Woods is fantastic
I’ve always been fascinated by horror movies but for some reason never really been much of a fan. I remember being intrigued by Fangoria magazine when I was young and I loves me some monsters. As a kid I had a ton of books about movie monsters, but for some reason that’s never translated into an enjoyment of the genre for me as an adult.
There’s a couple of reasons for this, I think:
First of all, horror films tend to wallow in human suffering. It’s sort of the point. You can’t really make a horror film without something horrible happening to the characters. A nubile 16 year old blonde getting disemboweled with a machete? Horrifying! A nubile 16 year old blonde getting asked to the prom by the perfect boy? Not horrifying! Horror content doesn’t play nice.
But it seems like in recent years horrible circumstances are largely all horror movies have to offer. For instance, I get what Eli Roth is onto with the Hostel films, that there are fates worse than the fast and usually immediate death most horror film characters receive. But what’s supposed to be fun or entertaining about watching people be tortured to death? Isn’t that what the Final Destination series is all about? Watching attractive young people meet their elaborately choreographed ends, like some Busby Berkley splatter move? Like the Friday the 13th series that came before them the whole point of these movies are just elaborate kills and nothing else and where is the fun in that? I don’t mind extreme violence at the service of a story but when extreme violence is supposed to the main entertainment attraction I tend of check out.
Secondly, horror films are almost always poorly made. Let’s face it, when your audience is made up primarily of teenagers with questionable taste to begin with why would anybody really try all that hard making a movie? Yes there are artists like Carpenter and Romero who make good films and have something to say, but generally speaking horror movies usually suck. It seems like in recent years there’s be an increase in my friends inviting me to see some new horror movie only for them to tell me later on how bad it turned out to be. And they almost always seem surprised by this.
The Cabin in the Woods doesn’t suck. In fact, The Cabin in the Woods a tremendous amount of fun. And when was the last time a horror film had a sense of humor and wasn’t some dour, overly serious Saw knockoff?
I have to admit to being a bit of a mark for anything Joss Whedon does. I even sort of liked Dollhouse. Anybody familiar with Joss’ body of work will recognize his love of horror. And like the aforementioned Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Romero, Mr. Whedon is using horror tropes for commentary. What was Buffy if not a show using those tropes to comment on the horrors of high school and young adulthood.
Co-written by Joss and the film’s director Drew Goddard, Cabin will likely remind people of what the Scream films did years ago – it takes a horror sub-genre (in this case the college kids in an evil isolate cabin deal), takes it apart and the re-shuffles all the pieces. Unlike Scream, however, the college coeds being tormented in Cabin are not aware that they’re characters in a horror film. No, it turns out there’s an entirely other set of characters who are aware of the genre strings being pulled and why. It’s inspired storytelling.
And I’ll stop with any other plot descriptions there. I don’t want to spoil the experience for people. The last act is nutty is a great way and I wonder how many Buffy fans will notice some similarities to that series’ Season Four?
The Cabin in the Woods is a movie that really should be seen cold, with as little prior knowledge as possible. I think the trailers give away way too much of the film, but which trailers in modern Hollywood don’t?
Fans of horror films are likely to love this but I think non-genre fans will dig it too. I don’t think it’s too “inside baseball” for people who don’t know Freddy Krueger from Jason Vorhees. Whedon and Godard are making a very meta film here, but it doesn’t trip over its own references.
Also Richard Jenkins is in it and I love Richard Jenkins.
The Cabin in the Woods is stupendous fun. But unlike a lot of modern horror films it’s not just about the killings. It’s smart, funny and exceedingly well constructed.
There’s a couple of reasons for this, I think:
First of all, horror films tend to wallow in human suffering. It’s sort of the point. You can’t really make a horror film without something horrible happening to the characters. A nubile 16 year old blonde getting disemboweled with a machete? Horrifying! A nubile 16 year old blonde getting asked to the prom by the perfect boy? Not horrifying! Horror content doesn’t play nice.
But it seems like in recent years horrible circumstances are largely all horror movies have to offer. For instance, I get what Eli Roth is onto with the Hostel films, that there are fates worse than the fast and usually immediate death most horror film characters receive. But what’s supposed to be fun or entertaining about watching people be tortured to death? Isn’t that what the Final Destination series is all about? Watching attractive young people meet their elaborately choreographed ends, like some Busby Berkley splatter move? Like the Friday the 13th series that came before them the whole point of these movies are just elaborate kills and nothing else and where is the fun in that? I don’t mind extreme violence at the service of a story but when extreme violence is supposed to the main entertainment attraction I tend of check out.
Secondly, horror films are almost always poorly made. Let’s face it, when your audience is made up primarily of teenagers with questionable taste to begin with why would anybody really try all that hard making a movie? Yes there are artists like Carpenter and Romero who make good films and have something to say, but generally speaking horror movies usually suck. It seems like in recent years there’s be an increase in my friends inviting me to see some new horror movie only for them to tell me later on how bad it turned out to be. And they almost always seem surprised by this.
The Cabin in the Woods doesn’t suck. In fact, The Cabin in the Woods a tremendous amount of fun. And when was the last time a horror film had a sense of humor and wasn’t some dour, overly serious Saw knockoff?
I have to admit to being a bit of a mark for anything Joss Whedon does. I even sort of liked Dollhouse. Anybody familiar with Joss’ body of work will recognize his love of horror. And like the aforementioned Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Romero, Mr. Whedon is using horror tropes for commentary. What was Buffy if not a show using those tropes to comment on the horrors of high school and young adulthood.
Co-written by Joss and the film’s director Drew Goddard, Cabin will likely remind people of what the Scream films did years ago – it takes a horror sub-genre (in this case the college kids in an evil isolate cabin deal), takes it apart and the re-shuffles all the pieces. Unlike Scream, however, the college coeds being tormented in Cabin are not aware that they’re characters in a horror film. No, it turns out there’s an entirely other set of characters who are aware of the genre strings being pulled and why. It’s inspired storytelling.
And I’ll stop with any other plot descriptions there. I don’t want to spoil the experience for people. The last act is nutty is a great way and I wonder how many Buffy fans will notice some similarities to that series’ Season Four?
The Cabin in the Woods is a movie that really should be seen cold, with as little prior knowledge as possible. I think the trailers give away way too much of the film, but which trailers in modern Hollywood don’t?
Fans of horror films are likely to love this but I think non-genre fans will dig it too. I don’t think it’s too “inside baseball” for people who don’t know Freddy Krueger from Jason Vorhees. Whedon and Godard are making a very meta film here, but it doesn’t trip over its own references.
Also Richard Jenkins is in it and I love Richard Jenkins.
The Cabin in the Woods is stupendous fun. But unlike a lot of modern horror films it’s not just about the killings. It’s smart, funny and exceedingly well constructed.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Why didn't somebody tell me about Don Winslow?
I'm a huge nerd and part of being a huge nerd is taking pleasure in reading books. I was a communications and English major in college and as such I tend to gravitate more to fiction a lot more than non-fiction. As I've gotten further away from completing college I notice that I'm reading a lot less literary fiction. I love crime fiction. I love Michael Connely's Harry Bosch series. I even more love Dennis Lehanes Patrick/Angela series.
So a couple of weeks ago I finally got around to reading Savages by Don Winslow. I'd seen the paperback at the store and had been meaning to read it but never gotten around to it. Two words: Holy shit! Savages is pretty spectacular. And I am totally all in on the Don Winslow train.
I devoured Savages in two days (to be fair it's not a long book, only about 300 pages) I bought The Power of the Dog.
I'm in the middle of that one right now and it's certainly a kindred cousin to Savages but more of an epic, sprawling thing with a bunch of seemingly unrelated characters who are going to intersect in unexpected ways. It's a lot like the film Traffic. And it's awesome.
So a couple of weeks ago I finally got around to reading Savages by Don Winslow. I'd seen the paperback at the store and had been meaning to read it but never gotten around to it. Two words: Holy shit! Savages is pretty spectacular. And I am totally all in on the Don Winslow train.
I devoured Savages in two days (to be fair it's not a long book, only about 300 pages) I bought The Power of the Dog.
I'm in the middle of that one right now and it's certainly a kindred cousin to Savages but more of an epic, sprawling thing with a bunch of seemingly unrelated characters who are going to intersect in unexpected ways. It's a lot like the film Traffic. And it's awesome.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Real Snobbery and the Problem With American Education
Recently Rick Santorum called President Obabma a snob for suggesting all Americans should attend college. To be accurate the President has never said this and reiterated this point after Santorum's attack, that what he wants is for all Americans to get an education that extends after high school. That could be a four year college or university, a two year program or a trade school of some kind. And the President is dead-on about this: the days of a high school education being all a person needs to have a successful career are long, long gone. I know Santorum loves the way things used to be (dude should get in a time machine and run for president in 1952) but facts are facts. And nobody is going to be able to get a decent job in the 21st century with only a high school education.
The other thing that bugs me about what Santorum had to say was the idea that wanting people to further their education is snobbish. I would think the opposite of that is true, that suggesting some people don't need to be educated because they're "only" going to be a blue collar worker. Why wouldn't an auto mechanic benefit from a bachelors degree in business? Why shouldn't people of all walks of life benefit from knowing about art, poetry, science and history? Isn't it really snobbery of the highest order to say (as Santorum does) that people like him should be educated but others really shouldn't be?
And in a nutshell this is why we have such a subpar educational system in the United States of America.
While I don't think you'll find many Americans, liberal or conservative, who will declare education irrelevant and unimportant there are hordes of people who see education simply as Mr. Santorum does: something you need in order to get the job you want. If you want to be a doctor you should get a higher education. If you want to be a construction worker you don't really need to be all that educated. After all, you don't NEED a college degree in order to work with your hands for a living. So why waste your time filling your head with information about sociology and psychology and literature when it's not the base requirements for your job?
In other words, Americans see education as not much more than a dodge or a hustle. This makes perfect sense since our true love is money. If you want a better paying job then you have to go to school. Enlightenment doesn't enter the picture at all. Being a more intelligent, thoughtful and well rounded person has no relevance whatsoever. An education = more money. Is it any wonder, then, that our education system is in the plight that it's in?
If knowledge for knowledge sake isn't really important or necessary at all, then why the hell should anybody care about school?
I taught high school English for ten years and the thing that frustrated me the most about it (besides the pay) was this same question being asked over and over and over again: "Are we going to need to know this for the test?"
See what we've done? We've programmed our kids to only care about knowledge insofar as it helps them pass a test. They don't see a lot of value in learning for the sake of knowing something or being edified by it. That's what the system has created: test takers. Not artists. Or free thinkers.
I remember having to attend a seminar several years ago in which the presenter talked about how we as teachers shouldn't teach a concept if we couldn't directly relate it to a real-life application for the kids. I said it then and I believe it just as strongly now: this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my entire life. As an English teacher, how was I supposed to show how Shakespeare could be applicable to real-life? It can't! Does that make it a bad thing? For people's lives to be enriched by things that can't be applied to real life? If we strip our lives of the things that enrich us and give us meaning then we have moved right back into the cave again.
We started as cavemen and then discovered fire and then invented the wheel. Over time we have created many things (music, science, sports, art, fashion, etc) that add beauty to the world. Our lives are the better for it. The world is a better place because of it. Life is worth living as a result of it.
So I guess I'm a snob, too. I think everybody should be well educated. I think everybody should live lives that are not just about getting by or making ends meet but of real value and consequence. A full life enhanced by a good education. I know it's a crazy idea but I think a ditch digger should enjoy the opera as much as brain surgeon.
The other thing that bugs me about what Santorum had to say was the idea that wanting people to further their education is snobbish. I would think the opposite of that is true, that suggesting some people don't need to be educated because they're "only" going to be a blue collar worker. Why wouldn't an auto mechanic benefit from a bachelors degree in business? Why shouldn't people of all walks of life benefit from knowing about art, poetry, science and history? Isn't it really snobbery of the highest order to say (as Santorum does) that people like him should be educated but others really shouldn't be?
And in a nutshell this is why we have such a subpar educational system in the United States of America.
While I don't think you'll find many Americans, liberal or conservative, who will declare education irrelevant and unimportant there are hordes of people who see education simply as Mr. Santorum does: something you need in order to get the job you want. If you want to be a doctor you should get a higher education. If you want to be a construction worker you don't really need to be all that educated. After all, you don't NEED a college degree in order to work with your hands for a living. So why waste your time filling your head with information about sociology and psychology and literature when it's not the base requirements for your job?
In other words, Americans see education as not much more than a dodge or a hustle. This makes perfect sense since our true love is money. If you want a better paying job then you have to go to school. Enlightenment doesn't enter the picture at all. Being a more intelligent, thoughtful and well rounded person has no relevance whatsoever. An education = more money. Is it any wonder, then, that our education system is in the plight that it's in?
If knowledge for knowledge sake isn't really important or necessary at all, then why the hell should anybody care about school?
I taught high school English for ten years and the thing that frustrated me the most about it (besides the pay) was this same question being asked over and over and over again: "Are we going to need to know this for the test?"
See what we've done? We've programmed our kids to only care about knowledge insofar as it helps them pass a test. They don't see a lot of value in learning for the sake of knowing something or being edified by it. That's what the system has created: test takers. Not artists. Or free thinkers.
I remember having to attend a seminar several years ago in which the presenter talked about how we as teachers shouldn't teach a concept if we couldn't directly relate it to a real-life application for the kids. I said it then and I believe it just as strongly now: this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my entire life. As an English teacher, how was I supposed to show how Shakespeare could be applicable to real-life? It can't! Does that make it a bad thing? For people's lives to be enriched by things that can't be applied to real life? If we strip our lives of the things that enrich us and give us meaning then we have moved right back into the cave again.
We started as cavemen and then discovered fire and then invented the wheel. Over time we have created many things (music, science, sports, art, fashion, etc) that add beauty to the world. Our lives are the better for it. The world is a better place because of it. Life is worth living as a result of it.
So I guess I'm a snob, too. I think everybody should be well educated. I think everybody should live lives that are not just about getting by or making ends meet but of real value and consequence. A full life enhanced by a good education. I know it's a crazy idea but I think a ditch digger should enjoy the opera as much as brain surgeon.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Hollyworse
So earlier this week, it seems Catwoman peppersprayed Jack Sparrow. Allow me a moment to digress and explain.
If you don't live in Los Angeles you may be unaware of the comings and goings on Hollywood Boulevard. Due to a lack of any kind of institutional control the stretch of the Boulevard that passes in front of Grauman's Chinese Theater and the (soon to be re-named) Kodak Theater/Hollywood and Highland complex is a nightmare. Due to a large influx of tourists that part of Hollywood is overrun with people trying to hustle a buck from the out of towners. The worst offenders are people dressed as movie characters who pose for photos with tourists for tips. Legally they aren't allowed to ask for money but that protocol has long fallen to the wayside. I've seen them yell at people who wouldn't give them money. To be fair, some of the costumed characters have spent some real time on their look and they are harmless and do give the area a little bit of atmosphere. The majority of them are creeps who buy a $25 Halloween costume and wear it around. Many of them are lascivious in their behavior. A guy who dresses as SpongeBob got arrested recently for groping women. So there's them.
There are also amateur rappers trying to hock their basement made CDs and DVDs. Then there are the tour companies who send out employees to act as carnival barkers trying to entice tourists to take a bus ride to see the gated homes of famous people. Add on to this the homeless who are begging for change. And then there are the people who are varying degrees of mentally ill. A couple of weeks ago a guy went nuts and had to be taken away by police after assaulting people in a bank.
This time of year it isn't as bad as it will be in the summer months at the height of the tourist season. The bigger the crowds of guests, the more people will be out on the street trying to fleece money of the tourists. For people who actually live in or work in the area it's horrendous. It's also dirty and badly maintained.
Which brings us back to Catwoman. This week a woman who dresses up (sort of) like Catwoman maced a guy dressed up as Jack Sparrow and a guy dressed up as Ozzy Osbourne. What a delightful vacation moment that must have been as horrified families looked on to see beloved Captain Jack get sprayed in the eyes!
Which raises the question from me, why in the hell do the people in charge allow this part of Hollywood to be such a shithole? With the exception of possibly Disneyland, the section of Hollywood Boulevard between Orange and Vine is very likely the most popular tourist destination in the city. The area boasts the Walk of Fame, both Grauman's Chinese and Egyptian theaters, the Disney El Capitan theater, both the W and Roosevelt Hotels, the new Cirque show Iris, Madame Tussads, the Guiness and Ripley museums and the Hollywood and Highland mall. Why on earth would you let a tourist destination with this much to offer be this level of sketchy?
It's bad for business to be sure but it also shows a sharp lack of concern for history and city culture. People want to see the Chinese Theater with it's world famous hand and footprints because they want to see the history of the motion picture industry. And that industry has been extremely vital to the economic and cultural development of Los Angeles. Why would anybody let that be disrespected so much?
If you don't live in Los Angeles you may be unaware of the comings and goings on Hollywood Boulevard. Due to a lack of any kind of institutional control the stretch of the Boulevard that passes in front of Grauman's Chinese Theater and the (soon to be re-named) Kodak Theater/Hollywood and Highland complex is a nightmare. Due to a large influx of tourists that part of Hollywood is overrun with people trying to hustle a buck from the out of towners. The worst offenders are people dressed as movie characters who pose for photos with tourists for tips. Legally they aren't allowed to ask for money but that protocol has long fallen to the wayside. I've seen them yell at people who wouldn't give them money. To be fair, some of the costumed characters have spent some real time on their look and they are harmless and do give the area a little bit of atmosphere. The majority of them are creeps who buy a $25 Halloween costume and wear it around. Many of them are lascivious in their behavior. A guy who dresses as SpongeBob got arrested recently for groping women. So there's them.
There are also amateur rappers trying to hock their basement made CDs and DVDs. Then there are the tour companies who send out employees to act as carnival barkers trying to entice tourists to take a bus ride to see the gated homes of famous people. Add on to this the homeless who are begging for change. And then there are the people who are varying degrees of mentally ill. A couple of weeks ago a guy went nuts and had to be taken away by police after assaulting people in a bank.
This time of year it isn't as bad as it will be in the summer months at the height of the tourist season. The bigger the crowds of guests, the more people will be out on the street trying to fleece money of the tourists. For people who actually live in or work in the area it's horrendous. It's also dirty and badly maintained.
Which brings us back to Catwoman. This week a woman who dresses up (sort of) like Catwoman maced a guy dressed up as Jack Sparrow and a guy dressed up as Ozzy Osbourne. What a delightful vacation moment that must have been as horrified families looked on to see beloved Captain Jack get sprayed in the eyes!
Which raises the question from me, why in the hell do the people in charge allow this part of Hollywood to be such a shithole? With the exception of possibly Disneyland, the section of Hollywood Boulevard between Orange and Vine is very likely the most popular tourist destination in the city. The area boasts the Walk of Fame, both Grauman's Chinese and Egyptian theaters, the Disney El Capitan theater, both the W and Roosevelt Hotels, the new Cirque show Iris, Madame Tussads, the Guiness and Ripley museums and the Hollywood and Highland mall. Why on earth would you let a tourist destination with this much to offer be this level of sketchy?
It's bad for business to be sure but it also shows a sharp lack of concern for history and city culture. People want to see the Chinese Theater with it's world famous hand and footprints because they want to see the history of the motion picture industry. And that industry has been extremely vital to the economic and cultural development of Los Angeles. Why would anybody let that be disrespected so much?
Saturday, October 30, 2010
London Calling*
So the NFL plays its fourth regular season game in London this week. This comes after the league has mounted various pre-season games in cities all over the world for years. I distinctly remember the Chiefs playing the Vikings in Tokyo back in the mid 90s. There has been talk about the NLF staging the Superbowl in London. The aim of all this is, of course, to expand the NFL's appeal outside of North America. And Goodell has stated he has one ultimate goal with these regular season games in the UK: he wants a permanent NFL franchise based in London.
As the Commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell's title could just as easily be CEO -- part of his job description is to make the NFL as profitable as is humanly possible. The proposed 18 game schedule is certainly a part of that. It makes logical sense for a successful US business to try and make more money by franchising itself in Europe and beyond. McDonadls. Starbucks. The NFL would like to be a big brand in Europe.
So is it a good idea? From a fiscal standpoint it most certainly is. If the NFL wants to keep making more money, the most logical way to do that is expanding the brand overseas. Did anybody see a little movie last year called Avatar? It's the highest grossing movie both here in the States and internationally as well. Avatar made about $750 million in North American. But it made almost $2 billion in overseas markets. In other words, it made nearly 3 times as much money overseas as it did here. That's not an uncommon occurrence with American entertainment exports, that they make at least as much money overseas as they do here. For most American movies, about 60% of their total gross comes from overseas markets. If the league wants to increase revenues, an obvious means for this is to expand the game outside the US.
Are there complications with this? Oh yeah, there are some complications. The biggest one is the issue of travel. I was reading this week about the Donkeys' and 49ers' travel plans for dealing with the jet lag and how they organized their travel to play the game. I know this sound pretty fundamental, but they will also have to travel back after their game tomorrow. So traveling to the UK will affect a visiting team's play this week and also next week as they recover from jet lag. But that's just the visiting team. If you base a team in London, they will have to deal with kind of travel EIGHT TIMES a season. Nine if they adopt an 18 game schedule. Then you would have to travel for two pre-season games. And if you make the playoffs you would have to travel for non-home games as well. You're looking at a team making potentially 12 or 13 jaunts across the pond, 14 or 15 if the expand the schedule. A flight from New York to London is only a couple of hours longer than a flight from New York to L.A. But if a team in the UK had to travel from London to play in San Diego? Those guys will be logging more frequent flyer miles than George Clooney did in Up in the Air.
Would there be a fan base? So far all the games they've staged at Wembley have sold out. So there is at least some interest in it. I'm sure the NFL wouldn't go forward with a UK team if they hadn't studied its chances for success. Plus, London is a huge city, with a population of 7.5 million people. However, you have a situation in the UK where nobody plays youth football. I'm sure the NFL would be more than happy to help fund equipment for youth leagues if that would help expand the popularity. But like the rest of the known world, soccer is king in England. Could an American football team succeed in a city like London? The NFL has already failed at trying to start a league in Europe, but that is partially because the World League was a self-admitted bush league of developmental players -- the fans in Europe weren't getting the best possible NFL product.
Who would they move? Goodell has stated he doesn't want to expand the league from 32 teams, so somebody would have to get relocated to London. Who goes? What division do they play in (I would assume the London team would have to be in either of the Easts)? I know the NFL wants to move at least one team to Los Angeles (there are two different stadium plans underway, one headed up by AEG to build a stadium next to Staples downtown). Jacksonville is usually the first team people mention as a possible LA team. Who goes to London? Buffalo? If London were in the US it would be the second biggest city, nearly as populated as New York. Buffalo has a population of 270,000. One team would have to be relocated. The team owner would have to go along with it. Who moves?
Would players want to live in London? I wouldn't mind it, but you never know if a London team would be able to sign free agents. This is just me, but I would much rather live in London over the following NFL cities: Green Bay, St. Louis, Buffalo, Jacksonville, Charlotte, Nashville, Minneapolis, Dallas, Houston, Detroit, Indy, or Oakland. But that's just me. Would a team in the UK be able to attract talent like a team in the States? London is a great city, with as much to do and see and as much culture (maybe more) than New York. But would a player want to live there? Would a GM and coaches want to move their families there?
I don't live in KC any more, so I don't know what the atmosphere was like there for the World Cup. In LA it was pretty insane. The sports bar across the street from my apartment was serving breakfast at 6 am so fans could come in and watch the games. Most sports bars were open that early. The company I work for is based in the UK and my boss is from England. All the games were on here at work. People had their flags out, wearing their teams' jerseys around. Honestly, it reminded me of Arrowhead. And that's not even close compared to what the atmosphere was like overseas. The thing the NFL might be pushing towards down the road would be a World Cup of American football, where countries sent all star teams to compete against each other once every four years. If American football can be grown outside the US, this kind of event is possible in the future -- remember the World Cup is by far the most successful sporting event in the world.
So the NFL plays its fourth regular season game in London this week. Do you think American football can thrive outside the United States?
*I know the title is a little obvious, but I'm a fan of The Clash. So sue me.
As the Commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell's title could just as easily be CEO -- part of his job description is to make the NFL as profitable as is humanly possible. The proposed 18 game schedule is certainly a part of that. It makes logical sense for a successful US business to try and make more money by franchising itself in Europe and beyond. McDonadls. Starbucks. The NFL would like to be a big brand in Europe.
So is it a good idea? From a fiscal standpoint it most certainly is. If the NFL wants to keep making more money, the most logical way to do that is expanding the brand overseas. Did anybody see a little movie last year called Avatar? It's the highest grossing movie both here in the States and internationally as well. Avatar made about $750 million in North American. But it made almost $2 billion in overseas markets. In other words, it made nearly 3 times as much money overseas as it did here. That's not an uncommon occurrence with American entertainment exports, that they make at least as much money overseas as they do here. For most American movies, about 60% of their total gross comes from overseas markets. If the league wants to increase revenues, an obvious means for this is to expand the game outside the US.
Are there complications with this? Oh yeah, there are some complications. The biggest one is the issue of travel. I was reading this week about the Donkeys' and 49ers' travel plans for dealing with the jet lag and how they organized their travel to play the game. I know this sound pretty fundamental, but they will also have to travel back after their game tomorrow. So traveling to the UK will affect a visiting team's play this week and also next week as they recover from jet lag. But that's just the visiting team. If you base a team in London, they will have to deal with kind of travel EIGHT TIMES a season. Nine if they adopt an 18 game schedule. Then you would have to travel for two pre-season games. And if you make the playoffs you would have to travel for non-home games as well. You're looking at a team making potentially 12 or 13 jaunts across the pond, 14 or 15 if the expand the schedule. A flight from New York to London is only a couple of hours longer than a flight from New York to L.A. But if a team in the UK had to travel from London to play in San Diego? Those guys will be logging more frequent flyer miles than George Clooney did in Up in the Air.
Would there be a fan base? So far all the games they've staged at Wembley have sold out. So there is at least some interest in it. I'm sure the NFL wouldn't go forward with a UK team if they hadn't studied its chances for success. Plus, London is a huge city, with a population of 7.5 million people. However, you have a situation in the UK where nobody plays youth football. I'm sure the NFL would be more than happy to help fund equipment for youth leagues if that would help expand the popularity. But like the rest of the known world, soccer is king in England. Could an American football team succeed in a city like London? The NFL has already failed at trying to start a league in Europe, but that is partially because the World League was a self-admitted bush league of developmental players -- the fans in Europe weren't getting the best possible NFL product.
Who would they move? Goodell has stated he doesn't want to expand the league from 32 teams, so somebody would have to get relocated to London. Who goes? What division do they play in (I would assume the London team would have to be in either of the Easts)? I know the NFL wants to move at least one team to Los Angeles (there are two different stadium plans underway, one headed up by AEG to build a stadium next to Staples downtown). Jacksonville is usually the first team people mention as a possible LA team. Who goes to London? Buffalo? If London were in the US it would be the second biggest city, nearly as populated as New York. Buffalo has a population of 270,000. One team would have to be relocated. The team owner would have to go along with it. Who moves?
Would players want to live in London? I wouldn't mind it, but you never know if a London team would be able to sign free agents. This is just me, but I would much rather live in London over the following NFL cities: Green Bay, St. Louis, Buffalo, Jacksonville, Charlotte, Nashville, Minneapolis, Dallas, Houston, Detroit, Indy, or Oakland. But that's just me. Would a team in the UK be able to attract talent like a team in the States? London is a great city, with as much to do and see and as much culture (maybe more) than New York. But would a player want to live there? Would a GM and coaches want to move their families there?
I don't live in KC any more, so I don't know what the atmosphere was like there for the World Cup. In LA it was pretty insane. The sports bar across the street from my apartment was serving breakfast at 6 am so fans could come in and watch the games. Most sports bars were open that early. The company I work for is based in the UK and my boss is from England. All the games were on here at work. People had their flags out, wearing their teams' jerseys around. Honestly, it reminded me of Arrowhead. And that's not even close compared to what the atmosphere was like overseas. The thing the NFL might be pushing towards down the road would be a World Cup of American football, where countries sent all star teams to compete against each other once every four years. If American football can be grown outside the US, this kind of event is possible in the future -- remember the World Cup is by far the most successful sporting event in the world.
So the NFL plays its fourth regular season game in London this week. Do you think American football can thrive outside the United States?
*I know the title is a little obvious, but I'm a fan of The Clash. So sue me.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Why is 3D an extra charge?
I went to see Toy Story 3 last week at the Grove here in Los Angeles and it cost me $16.50 to see the movie. This was, of course, due to the additional fee the theater chains are charging for this Avatar-led glut of 3D movies coming out. I've paid the fee before and never really thought anything about it until last week while I was waiting for the movie to start. Why was I being charged an extra $3.50 premium for the 3D?
One of the things that's interesting about the movie industry is tickets are the same price regardless of what you're seeing. A couple of weeks ago I caught the documentary Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work at the Arclight. The movie's pretty good but it couldn't have cost very much money to produce. It's just people following Rivers around for a year. However, I paid the same money to see that as I paid to see Iron Man, a movie with an exponentially bigger budget and marketing costs. This would never happen in, say, the world of live theater. Seeing Denzel Washington in Fences on Broadway will cost you more money than seeing an Off-Off Broadway show.
So as I was waiting for TS3 to begin I started to think: what exactly and I being charged for when I pay the 3D premium? It can't be to compensate a bigger budgeted film since something like the Final Destination series' 3D movie would have had a much lower budget than something like Prince of Persia. Is it to pay for the glasses? If Pacific Theaters is charging $3.50 a person for 3D and they are able to use a single pair of 3D glasses for at least 5 screenings a day then they are making $17.50 a day off a pair of 3D glasses. How much can the glasses cost to produce? And why can't I just buy my own pair and bring them to the cinema with me and avoid the upcharge altogether?
I'd never really thought of this before, I'd just played along. But why should there be a premium charge for 3D?
One of the things that's interesting about the movie industry is tickets are the same price regardless of what you're seeing. A couple of weeks ago I caught the documentary Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work at the Arclight. The movie's pretty good but it couldn't have cost very much money to produce. It's just people following Rivers around for a year. However, I paid the same money to see that as I paid to see Iron Man, a movie with an exponentially bigger budget and marketing costs. This would never happen in, say, the world of live theater. Seeing Denzel Washington in Fences on Broadway will cost you more money than seeing an Off-Off Broadway show.
So as I was waiting for TS3 to begin I started to think: what exactly and I being charged for when I pay the 3D premium? It can't be to compensate a bigger budgeted film since something like the Final Destination series' 3D movie would have had a much lower budget than something like Prince of Persia. Is it to pay for the glasses? If Pacific Theaters is charging $3.50 a person for 3D and they are able to use a single pair of 3D glasses for at least 5 screenings a day then they are making $17.50 a day off a pair of 3D glasses. How much can the glasses cost to produce? And why can't I just buy my own pair and bring them to the cinema with me and avoid the upcharge altogether?
I'd never really thought of this before, I'd just played along. But why should there be a premium charge for 3D?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)