Quality Hollywood

Markers of Distinction in Contemporary Studio Film

Geoff King

• Publisher: I.B. Tauris
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781784530440
• eBook ISBN: 9780857728852
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Media & Performing Arts
• Subtopic: Film & Video

What defines 'quality' in contemporary Hollywood film? Although often seen as inhospitable to such work, the studios of the blockbuster-franchise era continue to produce features that make claims to higher status. Films such as The Social Network, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and Mystic River are marked as distinctive from the mainstream norm. But how exactly, and how are such qualities mixed with more familiar Hollywood ingredients, as found in larger doses in other examples such as Blood Diamond and the blockbuster-scale Inception? Quality Hollywood is the first book to address these issues, featuring close analysis of case study films, critical responses and the wider notions of cultural value on which these draw. Geoff King argues that such films retain a presence as a minority strand of studio output. The reasons for this combine factors relating to economics, the power of certain filmmakers and Hollywood's investment in its own prestige.

1

Markers of quality and contemporary Hollywood strategy

It is useful at this point to consider in broad terms some of the dimensions in which quality is marked in the kinds of films examined in this book and some of those cited above. What follows is an initial sketch of some of the key factors considered in greater detail in the subsequent case studies. Two main grounds of definition exist for markers of quality, although these function in dynamic relationship to one another rather than as separate dimensions. One consists of points of similarity to other works or broader realms of production that claim, or are generally accorded, higher cultural status. The other is the establishment, implicitly or otherwise, of an impression of difference from that which is associated with the ‘lower’ realm of the Hollywood mainstream, constituted by the characteristics – textual and otherwise – attributed to what is perceived to be more routine or core studio output. One can be viewed as the making, on some level, of a positive claim; the other as a negative marker of distinction. Both operations might be in play simultaneously.

It is important to be clear from the start that what are involved here are processes of distinction that operate in relation to prevailing or received notions of what constitutes ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ quality. These hierarchical conceptions are liable to exist in exaggerated, invidious and over-simplified form (for example, the widespread attribution to blockbuster-scale Hollywood productions – or ‘the mainstream’ more generally – of degrees of aesthetic crudeness, standardisation or simplicity that are far from always substantiated by close analysis). The notion of the ‘mainstream’ – against which quality, art or indie distinctions are made – is best understood as a relative concept, one that implies (usually valorised) alternatives of one kind or degree, and that only exists discursively as the product of such a dynamic. Specific textual and extra-textual characteristics can be associated with the mainstream in contemporary Hollywood, as outlined below, but the manner in which these are customarily articulated is the product of a number of long-standing discursive contexts of the kind examined further in this chapter. I begin with a list of potential positive markers of quality, combined with, and in some instances followed by, an outline of some elements of the negative other against which these characteristically are defined. I then return to the question of the place of the quality film within contemporary studio strategy, before outlining the main approaches taken to the case studies that comprise the rest of the book (the basis on which these were chosen is explained towards the end of this chapter).

Markers of quality: an initial sketch

As has already been seen in many historical examples, source material can be one key supplier of quality associations, the most obvious instances being films adapted from canonised literary texts. These tend to figure less prominently, however, in studio productions of recent decades. The overt ‘classic’ literary adaptation is an arena that has tended to fall into the orbit of the speciality divisions more often than that of the main studio arms (an example from the latter is Warner’s The Great Gatsby [2013]). The same is true generally of studio adaptations of more contemporary serious ‘literary’ fiction, which are less common in general, the principal domain of which has also been either the indie or Indiewood sectors. Where studios have been the sources of such productions, these are likely to include strongly mainstream-emotional hooks, as in cases such as Warner’s Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (2011) and Fox’s Life of Pi (2012), each of which features a central emotive performance by a child or young performer.

More frequent sources for the contemporary studio quality film probably are works of genre fiction that claim a somewhat higher status than is the norm in their own realm, products that are in this respect situated in a manner similar to that of the films themselves, as can be seen from some of the examples considered in detail in the chapters below (particularly Chapter 4). A subversion, or more subtle questioning or mixing of genre components, can be another more general source of quality resonances, a prominent factor also in many canonised examples of quality TV. Here, too, however – or in films based on original screenplays or other sources – an appeal is often made to the literary in more general terms, relating to particular narrative qualities and their broader associations with the type of fiction liable to be accorded higher cultural status.

Source material can also be an important factor in the marking of quality more broadly than in relation to literary texts. Reference to what are understood to be ‘real world’ issues – whether directly or through adaptation of other sources – is another widespread marker of quality, as seen in the historical social problem film and its more recent equivalents, a framework of relevance to the examples examined in Chapters 3 and 5. A broad opposition is established here between the valences of that which is understood to exist more or less in the realm of fantasy – whether all-out overt fantasy, at a generic level, or in a general unlikeliness of material or its treatment elsewhere – and that which is considered to have a more immediate relationship to plausible materials or perceived realities of the external world. We are here clearly in the realm of the substantive content of narrative material. The clearest markers of quality might be found in this case in particular (realist, although this is a term that brings its own complications) treatments of material such as politics or serious social issues (also a key component in most definitions of art and indie cinema, alongside formal innovation or experiment). This is especially the case when these include a critical attitude towards dominant institutions. The latter tends to be limited, at best, however, in studio quality films of any period, within which any critique of an overtly political nature is rare. More likely is an implicit questioning of mainstream Hollywood norms such as the presence of less-than-entirely sympathetic/heroic central characters, as found in a number of the examples examined in this book. This leads us more generally into a consideration of serious modality as a marker of quality, in the presentation of material – both the material itself and its manner of articulation – in a way that suggests that we are meant to treat it as having implications for our understanding of matters of substance beyond the world of the screen. Just as a particular range of modality markers can encourage the viewer to take material un-seriously in various ways in comedy, other markers encourage us to respond in the opposite direction.

While markers of broad comedy encourage a distanced response to the action on screen (slapstick violence, for example, that does not seem really to hurt the characters in any serious way), markers of seriousness encourage a stronger level of implication on the part of the viewer in both what happens within the diegetic universe and what it might tell us about the world beyond. The serious is thus established in opposition to the ‘escapist’ (that which distracts us from realities), a major marker of quality in many cases (the literary adaptation is likely to stake a similar claim to such seriousness). From this it follows that seriousness-as-quality often entails a darker or more downbeat view of the world than that which is associated with escapism. Pessimism is more likely to be accorded quality status than optimism, particularly in more recent formulations of quality, on the grounds that it might involve an embracing of the complex, difficult and challenging dimensions of life. A dark seriousness is again associated with notions of realism, of confronting what might often appear to be intractable problems, as seen in some of the postwar examples cited in the Introduction. This would usually be articulated in opposition to notions of escapism as defined by the provision of easy, comforting, but essentially illusory simplifications, wish-fulfilments and idealisations – ways of avoiding anything more challenging or uncomfortable (qualities widely associated with the Hollywood mainstream, including the individual-based outcomes of many social problem films).

This is another point of difference from the historical variety of quality rooted in notions of moral uplift – the latter being one that can entail an idealisation of social or other relations, as opposed to an emphasis on harsher and more critical realism. All such judgements are, of course, premised on particular ideological positions, as suggested in the Introduction. Wish-fulfilment and idealisation as found in Hollywood are often conservative in implication when viewed within the context of the inequalities of capitalist, patriarchal or otherwise divided societies. A darker-toned realism is positioned implicitly as highlighting the downside of prevailing regimes of wealth and power (this was, again, a key dimension of some postwar art cinema). The different valuation of such qualities is also more deeply ingrained in the history of Western cultural production. Not least of the grounds for such assumptions would be the long-standing influence of the hierarchical opposition offered by Aristotle between comedy and tragedy; the latter being valorised as a form superior to, and of greater consequence than, the latter.

These issues of potential seriousness, darkness and pessimism of content have numerous ramifications at the formal level, in the particular textual qualities through which they are signified or highlighted. Quality at the level of narrative might be marked, variously, through slower narrative pace and development or greater complexity of plotting. These are markers of distinction widespread in the American independent and art-film sectors that are also applicable to several of the examples examined in this book. Narrative might, in general, be marked as subtle, low-key or nuanced in character – and/or more demanding – requiring closer attention from the viewer than is normally expected in Hollywood. A sense of drift might in some cases replace dynamic, character-driven action; or, on the contrary, narrative and/or dialogue might be more rapidly paced and ‘smarter’ in quality. Characterisation, in particular, might be more ambiguous, presented as more psychologically in-depth, lacking the relatively clear-cut distinctions between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ more typically associated with Hollywood and again requiring more cognitive work on the part of the viewer and implying a more complex view of the world – a quality often associated with art cinema. A notable feature of many of the case studies examined in this book is the presence of central characters who offer in some ways awkward or uncomfortable sources of allegiance (also sometimes providing grounds for distinction at the level of critically vaunted performance).

The viewer might also be denied the fantasy-pleasurable closure provided by the canonical notion of the ‘happy ending’, a key ingredient in the wish-fulfilment escapism often associated with Hollywood films, or some of the more predictable dimensions of genre. An over-simplified notion of the happy ending is a good example of the kind of negative quality widely taken to be a core component of the Hollywood norm by both general and academic commentators, as James MacDowell demonstrates, rather than having usually been thought in need of substantiation as a concept in any detail.¹ It is precisely the nature of such characterisation as a taken-for-granted assumption that gives it so much power as a negative basis against which more positively to value other approaches, including some of those employed in the case studies examined in more detail below.

A mood of darkness and pessimism can be figured literally in other formal dimensions, most obviously lighting or its relative absence. This is another dimension in which subtlety and nuance often serve as markers of quality: in lighting, camerawork and/or editing regimes. Markers of quality here might include that which suggests a ‘classical’ or elegant framing and decoupage. Camera movement might be less insistent than has become characteristic of many contemporary studio features, and editing slower and more restrained. Potential negative points of reference here would be the form of ‘intensified continuity’ identified by David Bordwell as a widespread tendency in the Hollywood of the twenty-first century, or the forms of glossy ‘shallow’ imagery diagnosed by other commentators and attributed to various influences including those of advertising and music video – formats often ascribed a lower cultural status.² It is notable that the classical, in this context, can become a marker of relative quality against which certain other formal approaches are set, given its status for many more radical practices (including modernist tendencies in some examples of art cinema as well as the avant-garde or the experimental) as an index of conformity against which to react. The studio quality film tends not to be formally distinctive in more overtly marked ways, unlike some more innovative examples from the indie or art-film sectors. It is largely classical in terms of its framing and editing regimes (as, indeed, are many examples of indie film), although with scope for some exceptions.

The implication of Bordwell’s account is that many contemporary films have become over-insistent, camera movement in particular being used excessively (during dialogue sequences, for example) rather than being reserved for the heightening of particular moments. The result, it is implied, is a lack of discrimination and nuance. A valorised alternative, for Bordwell, is the more subtle framing, staging and mise-en-scène found in the work of art filmmakers such as Mizoguchi Kenji, Theo Angelopoulos and Hou Hsiao-hsien – a style that often includes the use of long takes during which the viewer is required to be patient and to work to find particular moments of significance, as opposed to having everything insistently spelled out in the more typically Hollywood manner.³ Bordwell is careful to frame his argument as one in favour of more variety than he finds in the contemporary Hollywood mainstream, including – but not necessarily limited to – these alternative approaches. But a clearly hierarchical impression emerges from the distinctions he makes between the two and the grounds upon which these rest. The quality film is likely, typically, to occupy a position somewhere between the poles offered by intensified continuity and the art-cinema styles of the likes of Mizoguchi, Angelopoulos and Hou.

A consistent negative reference point in many of these debates is a notion that media such as popular television and music video – and films influenced by such forms – are designed to appeal to either particular classes of viewers or a wider society afflicted by a ‘limited attention span’, a prevalent discourse in media accounts of rec...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Author bio
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Figures
• Introduction: Quality and Hollywood: history and motivations
• 1. Markers of quality and contemporary Hollywood strategy
• 2. Inception and the ‘quality’ blockbuster
• 3. The Social Network: ‘smart’ contemporary narrative meets the heritage film
• 4. The darkening of genre: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and Mystic River
• 5. Making a difference and/or making a buck?: Blood Diamond and the contemporary social problem film
• 6. Artificiality or intelligence?: Spielberg, Kubrick and rival versions of quality
• A brief conclusion
• Select bibliography