MovieChat Forums > Girl Most Likely (2013) Discussion > The careers of movie-characters vs the r...

The careers of movie-characters vs the real world...


A playwright?!? What is the deal with movies that take place in New York where the characters are either ad executives or work in the entertainment industry? Are there no interesting stories to tell about, say, meter maids or pet groomers or electricians?

reply

They made one movie about a maid (in Manhattan) and she won a fairy tale dream prince at the end.

The people out in Hollywood love to write stories about themselves or their friends because they're told by the industry to write what you know. Most of the time they only know the problems they face or the problems their yuppie friends face.

I never understood why Hollywood is afraid to showcase real working class people in films. They just think they all lead boring "redneck" lives or something. If they do feature them it's all broken homes and messed up lives.

There is a dark side to living poor in America but also a really nice welcoming and co-operative side too that should be shown.

reply

Silver Linings Playbook?

reply

Bread and Roses was well-reviewed by the critics but earned just half a million at the box office.

Why do you suppose that is?

reply

[deleted]

I think it's not just the "write what you know" advice. Often when writers write things that they don't know well, it doesn't land all that well, doesn't resonate. So they don't get made.

But there is YouTube and the like today so it's pretty easy for just about anyone to tell their stories. If you have a smartphone you can make a movie.

reply

Who is more likely to watch a movie about unions, for example? A yuppie or a blue collar worker?

These days, I'm not so sure. Are you?

reply

Wow! All the responses to my post so far are well reasoned and excellent points! That's refreshing!

reply

roycant07 is a quality poster who raises the important questions about class that few others think to ask. I wouldn't be surprised if you're the same way.

reply

Bread and Roses is an excellent film by Ken Loach who is much more successful in his home country of the UK than in the States.

The average blue collar American is not a film connoisseur so they tend to just go to the movies and choose a movie right then and there or only want to watch a movie they’ve been bombarded with ads for a whole month. They go for the convenience and out of convenience make their choices based on what’s at the local Cineplex which is usually filled with five screens of the same movie in 3-D, IMAX, IMAX-3D and regular HD. Then the rest of the screens are filled with similar movies, rom coms, slapstick raunchy comedies, and horror films. There is probably one screen dedicated to showcasing independent good cinema and the showings are probably during the day on a weekday.

Then when the box office numbers come in the studios think they have a “winning” formula and then erroneously believe they are “giving the people what they want”. They think they can bank on the fact that no matter how idiotic their films are they just have to put out the right marketing campaign and can safely bet that people will go watch their monster movie out of convenience. 7 times out of 10 their bets pay off.

So it’s not supply and demand. It cannot be because they control the distribution and there wouldn’t need to be such an aggressive marketing campaign for nearly all movies that constitute a big investment.

They create the demand. They could’ve if they had wanted to play up Bread and Roses as the hottest drama of the year and give it more ad space and tv time and whatnot and I assure you it would have at least recouped it’s money back and would’ve become a modest hit.

Americans are not stupid, they’re overworked, under-educated, and mis-educated. They do not have the luxury of taking time off from work to watch a film that has a protagonist whine and wallow in her pity that she didn’t make it in the pretentious NYC playwright scene.

reply

Bread and Roses is an excellent film by Ken Loach who is much more successful in his home country of the UK than in the States.

And why is that? For one thing, unionism has always been far stronger there and much weaker in the US. And that leads me to my next question about a comment of yours
Americans are not stupid, they’re overworked, under-educated, and mis-educated. They do not have the luxury of taking time off from work to watch a film that has a protagonist whine and wallow in her pity that she didn’t make it in the pretentious NYC playwright scene.

Actually most Americans have plenty of time for that, except for the 5% or so who work two jobs or more. According to Nielsen statistics, the average American over the age of 2 spends 34 hours a week watching LIVE TV. The average American Gen Xer and older spends roughly 25 hours a week on the Internet. (Sometimes he or she is surfing and watching at the same time). And you know what? They're not all sitting down to read Wikipedia entries on Samuel Gompers.
n safely bet that people will go watch their monster movie out of convenience. 7 times out of 10 their bets pay off.

So it’s not supply and demand.

Well, it kinda IS, roycant07. Because when people braved snowstorms to see Identity Thief, and then came back to tell their friends and family to watch it too, it lasted 13 weeks in the theaters. Marketing can do only so much. The rest depends on word of mouth. And when something stupid is entertaining enough, not even a "cabal" of syndicated film critics can kill it.

So when you talk about overworked, miseducated and undereducated Americans, you're really talking about that perennial bane of the Marxist's existence, "false consciousness." I'm not smirking-- okay, well maybe I have a wry smile on my face as I type this-- but I do share your pain.

Intellectuals (of whatever class and/or class "allegiance") just hate it when the masses won't behave.

It used to be that American workers were notoriously less given to institutionalized collective action and strong class consciousness than their European counterparts. On the one hand, they were less easily manipulated by the politics of resentment, on the other, they were more subject to "divide and rule" by conservative elites who fanned the flames of racial and religious enmity.

But I question whether the European working class is (or ever was) so very different in their TV and movie viewing habits and tastes.

And what show was it that drove the Soviet working class into a frenzy? Dallas.

Dallas fed DESIRE. Desire for material riches and social elevation.

Face it.

We're primates. Our brain chemicals go into overdrive at the prospect of hoarding more and more bananas and lording it over the other chimps in town.

I'm no fatalist, but I do think it's high time you start opening up and becoming more honest about what ails us all.




reply

Now I want to see 'Bread & Roses'! Thanks for the feedback! Great stuff!!

reply

What roycant07 neglected to mention, but which I think is vital, is that Adrien Brody is very hot in it, imo. Nothing like a sexy film with its heart in the right place. Course I felt the same about Norma Rae, or rather, the character Reuben Warshowsky in that movie, and I'm well aware that not everyone will share my opinion about Ron Leibman! (I must have a thing for union organizers in movies.)

reply