Wow, there’s a ton of value in your comment. Thanks for sharing!

Excellent point about the differences in literature and film. People who talk about how “the book was better” completely miss the point about these differences. You can’t compare a book with a film because they are very different.

Right on about the power of Hollywood. They truly wield great power, which has rarely ever been used for good. And with great power comes great responsibility.

I strongly believe that more people would be going to the movies if the stories were more original. This falls under VI: Lack of Artistic Direction. You’re right, they’re just trying to sell popcorn and drinks, but they would sell MORE of these concessions if people got out and saw ground-breaking, original movies. This leads to VII: Movies Are No Longer Events. Movies would become big events if word of mouth spread that Hollywood was starting to abandon their cookie cutter philosophy.

The powerful influence of movies lies not in the amount of money they filch out of our pockets, but in the simple trick they share with literature: the suspension of disbelief.

In a great book, you achieve a level of imaginative commitment that creates a kind of voluntary hallucination in which you become the protagonist. This is the real value of literature: that we can, vicariously, live a life that is not our own–and profit from it.

Movies have their own suspension of disbelief but instead of becoming the protagonist, you become the camera, a disembodied, omniscient observer and you get to live a story much in the same way you do in great books.

The experiences compare in how they entrain information in the reader and the watcher. They differ in three distinct ways:

One: it takes more than two hours to read a book and during that time you are creating everything in your head. A movie delivers the same story in the time it takes to read eight chapters and it does it with magnificent power.

Two: Only the literate can experience a book.

Three: You read alone.

Each of the mediums delivers a new metaphor to the audience; but the movie does it faster, with more force, and is accessible to everyone–and it is deeply ceremonial.

The money of Hollywood is certainly interesting, but the real power they have is the ability to instantly inject new ideas, new metaphors, new language, and new heroes into an entire culture over a weekend.

No one ever talks about this power and the responsibility it implies.

My biggest complaint about Hollywood is that given this terrible and hypnotic technology for storytelling, they continue to use it to tell us stories we already know by heart.

Whenever someone comes out with a story that really transcends the routine crap that’s usually selling popcorn, I’m game.

The immediate and lasting effects of watching movies that illuminate our nature, movies like Gran Torino, The Matrix, and The Godfather, is priceless. Give me a movie like that and I’ll pay anything for it.

Christopher Garlington’s most recent blog post..How to Pack for Disney

But you are right, they claim to protect us but that’s crap, aren’t we adults?

Plus I wouldn’t be surprised that the church is involved in this, as they are with everything else.

One thing I noticed in movies, whenever there is like a tragedy, the “bad guy” always gets caught and served.
I was talking with my brother about this and he said that they do this to keep people in fear. In fear so they don’t break the law.

tom’s most recent blog post..Art of business

Like I said in the article, I think we need MORE sexuality in films. I mean seriously, what’s wrong with that? The people who don’t want to see it doesn’t have to, but if I want to “go to hell” for seeing nakedness on the screen, then let me! Ya know?

Sex is a natural thing. Violence is not. I think that you’re on to an interesting theory there. When people aren’t having sex, they need to fill a void, so they should probably do so with material possessions.

Always great to hear from you!

Violence has been increasingly put in front of us to make us think it is ok because it is justifiable, which is stupid.

Now I think they censor us from sexual scenes because if we got to realize just how great sex is, it would be like finding the secret to happiness.
Seriously, if people had more sex, they would be happier, and would probably ditch half the crap they have bought.
But guess what would happen, businesses would get hit by this decline, and they don’t want that.

tom’s most recent blog post..Art of business

@ Giovanna

You’re right when you say that the finished product is much different than the process of making movies. It’s not as glamourous as it seems. Just look at Christian Bales latest stunt on the set of the new Terminator movie. These people have bad days, just like the rest of us. Thanks for commenting!

@ Roman

I don’t think that actors are as important as they used to be. People are starting to go to movies based on the director, or the concept. I would argue that any job where you start out making $130 a day should require a lot of talent, but that’s the going rate for an extra in Hollywood. These are the people who walk around in the background!

I agree that capping salaries isn’t very free economy. All I am doing is bringing these issues to discussion. When people went to see Tom Cruise’s movies, they enabled him and his couch jumping antics. I’m pointing out that the industry can point to piracy, while still paying an actor 22 times the money for one movie that the average working person will make in an entire lifetime. I always appreciate your honest feedback. Thanks!

@ Ian

I feel for you. I enjoy movies too. I’m guilty of feeding the beast. I don’t want people to stop going to the movies. I just think that its time that we started supporting the indie scene in an honest way. And yes, the storytelling should be the main focus. Thanks for contributing!

I used to be a regular visitor to the cinema, and just got fed up with shoddy story telling and the clear influence of a desire to make money over the desire to entertain, inform or provoke (the main reasons I used to watch films).

I’ve no problem with the film industry making money … in fact it’s necessary … but it should be secondary to making films. I suspect the industry, like many others, is a victim of its own success.

Ian

Ian Peatey’s most recent blog post..Problems too large to handle?

The only point that I would argue with is IV.

The actors are simply paid according to their market worth. A producer can choose to use a less expensive actor, but then ticket sales will be lower.

Actors pay is determined by demand. They charge what producers are willing to pay. Producers pay that because they know more people will see the film if that actor is in it.

How would you propose to reduce actors pay? By putting in a price cap? That’s not very ‘free economy’.