Take a Look Beyond

There are a lot of things that bother me in how people, in general, decide which movies are worth seeing and which ones are not. No, you don’t have to see Star Wars: Episode III just because it’s Star Wars, just like you don’t have to see Tron: Legacy because Daft Punk made the score. And you definitely don’t have to see Hitman because you liked the games.

It bothers me because this kind of thinking is the exact reason why studios release movies based on completely inane, useless and unrelated IPs just on the (sadly correct) assumption that those IPs will sell no matter what. It’s the reason why we have non-sequels like Hangover 3 (honestly, Hangover 2 would also count, though for different reasons), it’s the reason why we have shitty videogame adaptations like Max Payne, and it’s the reason why we have retarded films like Battleship. Hell, it’s kind of Uwe Boll’s entire career. God knows we could do without that.

This is why I don’t like it when people opt to watch a movie because a specific actor or actress is in it. Actors are an absolutely superficial facet of movies and an awful basis on which to decide to see a film or not. I will admit that an actor’s bad performance can ruin a film, but so can the score, the photography or the post-production, and you don’t hear people say that they have to see Little Giants because Kaminski was director of photography. And they shouldn’t.

That’d be silly.

But saying that you want to see a movie because Tom Cruise or Jessica Alba is in it is equally silly. I’ve said on this very blog that I liked Liam Neeson, but never will you hear me say that I like Liam Neeson movies, because there’s no such thing as a Liam Neeson movie. If there were such a thing, Schindler’s List would be one, and…

…Star Wars: Episode I would be another. I don’t want to live in a world where those 2 movies are compared. I don’t even want to write both titles in the same paragraph.

Actors accept all sorts of roles for all sorts of reasons, and their presence (or absence) has very little impact on the resulting film. And even when an actor does show a trend (because of typecasting, or personal preference, or any number of reasons), be it good or bad, they can (and often do) break out of it. You shouldn’t avoid (or see) Punch Drunk Love because of what you thought of the rest of Adam Sandler’s career. Same with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Jim Carey. Or Requiem for a Dream and Marlan Wayans.

Did those actors suddenly become competent? No. They were chosen carefully by a director, who then directed them competently. Directors have an enormous influence over the direction (heh!..) a film takes. At least the ones who care do. A director can turn a nonsensical script into a good story, or a bland actor into a believable character. Directors are the gods of the worlds they create.

Of course, the quality of a movie is the result of an insane amount of little things, the work of innumerable people, from caterers to technicians to cameramen (camera people?) to set artists to actors to producers, but if you had to base your decision to see a particular film or not on only one of those little things, the direction would be wiser than the acting. Or the catering.

Most people should pay more attention to directors. And I’m not talking about the good ones, necessarily. Someone who liked Transformers is more likely to like another movie by Michael Bay than another movie starring Shia Leboeuf. Directors have a vision of an ideal movie, and they try to surround themselves with people who share that vision, people who, they believe, can help them bring that vision to fruition, even from movie to movie. Pay attention to the directors who share your interests, rather than the actors who are gorgeous and cut.

It may seem like I’m overreacting, but this sort of actor sycophancy is the reason why they are paid so much, and therefore also part of the reason why movies cost so much to make. If Tom Cruise is paid X amount of money, it’s not because his outstanding performance will elevate the movie into a work of art, it’s because he, alone, will sell at least the same amount in tickets, and this seems like an awful reason to choose an actor over another. Would Oblivion be worse with a better but unknown actor in the lead role? No. Would it sell less? Without the shadow of a doubt.

And it’s pissing me off.