Aversion therapy and Hollywood's troubles

Two fascinating comment threads about what's wrong with Hollywood, one at Libertas, the other at Ace of Spades. In the crosstalk, this vital point was raised:

I remember having ‘Judgment at Nuremberg’ recommended to me by a friend. I looked at the poster, looked at the date it was made (1962), and I assumed it would be a one-sided American indictment of the Nazis. It would be preachy, smug, and have no drama. Even though I’m firmly anti-Nazi, there was no way I would want to watch something like that. Being lectured to is no fun, even if it’s something you agree with.

Years later, I finally saw the movie. More than anything I’ve ever seen, it showed how Nazi Germany worked. It’s a brilliant movie. It actually allowed you to understand — but not agree with — the motivations of senior Nazi figures.

Hollywood has forgotten how to do this. – “autonomoussource,” in the thread at Libertas

To which, “Looking Glass” at Ace:

Hollywood's contempt for its audience is reaching back in time to spoil great movies. The well is thoroughly poisoned...

...The learned reflex is that any given movie is not only bad, but insults the audience, with a slap in the face coming.

This is the result of years of aversion therapy, training people to cringe at the thought of a Hollywood movie.

Hollywood had better hope this attitude doesn’t spread very far among its audience, or it is doomed. An applicable story, about symphony orchestras, below the break...

I have an acquaintance whose job involves setting the schedule for the local symphony. We've had many arguments about the problem of getting people to listen to 20^th century music, in particular the tremendous number of melodic and accessible “serious” (if less-known) pieces written after 1900. This is the kind of music that, when you hear it, makes you wonder, “Wow, why haven’t I heard this before?;” the kind nearly all listeners would find enjoyable. But there’s a problem: The audience won’t give this music a chance. If the orchestra schedules an unknown work by a composer who died after 1900 (or even worse, is still living), people just don't show up.

Why is this? I blame the musical establishment’s continued attempt to sell atonal modernist music to an unreceptive audience by misrepresenting it. For the last 50 years, writers of program notes have used comparisons such as “counterpoint in the style of Bach” or “the sonic palette of Ravel” to describe the latest modernist screech-bang item on the calendar. People came, listened, and discovered that the much-touted new work not only bore no resemblence whatever to either Bach or Ravel, but was unpleasant besides. Eventually audiences wised up: Now they call to find out when on the program that unknown work will be played, so they can miss it by arriving at intermission, or make plans to sneak out early.

What does this have to do with movies? Simply this: By continually fooling people into undergoing an experience they find unpleasant, Hollywood is engaging in what's called aversion therapy. Ultimately, the audience will associate the unpleasantness with movies in general, and will cease to believe claims of greatness, even when true. “Poisoning the well,” indeed.^[1]

That’s when they’ll stop going to movies altogether, and instead stay home and play video games.




Related: A good collection of great, listenable, late 19^th and early 20^th century music (mostly by composers you've probably never heard of) is avaliable from the Swedish label Sterling Records. Dip into any volume of their Orchestral Romantics series (many of which are world premiere recordings) and be pleasantly surprised. (U.S. buyers should be able to obtain Sterling CDs through any good classical store, or direct from the importer, Qualiton Imports.)
--------
Notes:
^[1] Hollywood's other problem is that, between the increasing cynicism of a sadder-but-wiser audience and the explosion of non-industry ways to find out about the real quality of films, hype isn't as effective at papering over bad product as it once was:

A couple of decades ago Hollywood figured out that with a star and a concept they need only drop the film in 3,000 screens to make their money back [in the first weekend’s play]... Wide release negated the need for decent word of mouth to create a hit...

Ten years ago the star power of Redford, Cruise, and Streep combined with a dishonest advertising campaign and dishonest critics calling it “patriotic” would’ve at least guaranteed [Lions for] Lambs a strong opening weekend, but those days are over... – Libertas

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 22:32:06 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 751 words, total size 7 kb.