For Smurf's Sake: Children's Films and the Lowest Common Denominator

This weekend, the utterly unnecessary "The Smurfs (in 3-D for more money)" opened nationwide, much to the delight of little (age, not size), uninformed children and much to the chagrin of very large (statistically speaking), uninformed adults. Anyone who barely knows me is aware of my negative feelings towards the film industry in America. It is a shallow wasteland of marketing-at-its-best and creativity-at-its-not actually existing at all. True, there are of course exceptions to the rule, and in many ways, the more constructs Hollywood puts up to true creativity, the more experimental and creative one must get to make something actually good, which can lead to some truly amazing movies.

Denzel Washington cries over the lack of ideas...

This is a reason why judging a cinematic era cannot be done by looking at the (critically) best movies of the time. A terrible overall era can produce amazing works of art. Rather, the general trends of the era must be examined, and based on this qualifier, Hollywood sucks. I realize the end of that last sentence wasn't very flowery or even well written, but I don't care. It is a simple idea that should be put simply. The film industry in America today totally sucks it.

Ironically, this picture has been optioned for a film version

That being said, children/family movies seem to be the most fascinating example of this divide between quality and crap. The past decade has seen the rise of Pixar (beginning in the late 90s with Toy Story and A Bug's Life), ushering in an entirely new era of animation that, on the surface, may appear to be about incredible computer-generated graphics, is in actuality a pinnacle of story-telling appealing to all ages, to both the mind and the soul, both in beauty and intelligence.

Oh, and that other company that exists

Then, you have the crap-end of the spectrum, with pre-digested drivel in the form of Yogi Bear, The Smurfs, Alvin and the Chipmunks, and all related sequels/squeakquels. These most often come in the form of pre-existing properties being "updated" with new computerized digital effects and splashes of pop culture references, both coming across as desperate attempts to seem current and relevant. The effect, however, makes the films seem dated and disposable, with no need for return visits or deeper insight.

Capri-Sun Grows Up

To be perfectly honest, I don't see a need to belabor this point anymore. None of what I just said is at all revolutionary or even unnoticed to the masses of individuals (especially the smart, beautiful, and endlessly amazing people who read this blog...). What I DO want to belabor (the shit out of) is the idea that this is not simply an epidemic related to slocking out merchandizing machines in the guise of 'movies' aimed at children, but a stepping-stone to the larger culturization and indoctrination of filmmakers towards teaching viewers about the purpose and merits of movies. To put it succinctly, simple children's movies lead to simple movies in general.

Only posting because it is cute, from a great movie, and came up in my image search"

To say that there is nothing wrong with giving young children pure entertainment slop with no deeper meaning or resonance is a disrepectful and misguided stance on the mental capacities of young ones. The concept of these films being "childish fun" is extremely short-sighted, as countless authors in both child development and media studies will attribute to the normalizing effects of media on people of all ages, children most definitely included. In fact, children are much more susceptible to finding behavior/ideas in the media normative due to a lack of critical reasoning. Children who have not reached the crucial stage of "Those big 'adult' people may actually be wrong about stuff" will take the ideas they see as normal, especially with repeated exposure. Sure, parents can warn or explain more to their children, but the reinforcement from several media (which kids are more and more attached to) leads to normalization.

Not exactly what I had in mind

I am not talking about the "Kids seeing violent images makes them commit violent acts" argument news and talk shows like to promote when they have nothing better to do. In fact, I generally disagree with this, as violence in these forms as to come in context. The context is what I am most worried about, and the context for this terrible children films is 'there is no context.' Everything is just there for fun and marketing's sake. Are their lessons to be found? Sure, but only the most banal of kinds, and they are usually not well-developed, thrown in at the last moment as a faux-version of closure.

Why does this image exist, besides to (literally) illustrate my point?

Let's put it this way: all media forms inform/educate the recipient, whether consciously or unconsciously. This does not mean they have a specific message that they are brainwashing into a child (or adult's) head. This is the mistake most people make about media messages. Whenever a news pundit spews something along the lines of "This video game/movie/TV show/breakfast cereal encourages children to kill hookers," they are confusing message and meaning. Just because someone can derive a meaning from some piece of content does not mean that is the intended message. Charles Manson thought "Helter Skelter" predicted an apocalyptic war of sorts, but I'm not sure that was Paul, John, Ringo, and George's intention.

Yet that was nothing compared to the atrocities The Beatles committed after listening to this soft-rock classic

So the meanings derived from a film can be many and varied. This goes for children's films as well. And this is the primary difference between the beauty of classic and Pixar-type films and the Hollywood crap-machine - layers of meaning. This is why classics remain classics and favorites of adults. This is why everyone loves Pixar movies. They contain different meanings for different people. And this layering of meaning is necessary for a maturing child, as repeated viewings or even some first viewings can help the child grow, as they become more in tune with the deeper levels of meaning.

She is so fucking Zen right now

What makes this whole scenario so interesting is the deep divide that is forming between the gold and the crap. Some of the best children's films of all time have been produced in the last two decades, many coming from Pixar. They have received more awards and critical acclaim than most children's films of the past, being raised to comparable levels as other cinematic classics. The stigma of being 'for, or accessible, to kids' is lifting. Yet this has also been a time of massive marketing-driven schlock. And guess what? This is further indicative of the entirety of Hollywood. Amazing, groundbreaking films are still being produced, yet the vast majority seems to be big-budget, star-driven messes based on a pre-existing intellectual property. Fuck, they have started making movies based on board games (Battleship, Candyland, and Monopoly are in the works).

Though I am looking forward to this scene

I fully admit that this entire post is a rant, and as such is subject to my own personal blinders and rose-colored view of the past. But I am not saying the past is better or pure. I am simply talking about now. There is a reason this films keep getting produced: they make money. Simple as that. So no matter how much blame I can try to throw on Hollywood, it really does come down to the people paying to see it. But the process is cyclical: Hollywood produces trash for young people, who come to expect that as the norm, and then are fine paying for trash when they are older. In the end, it is about exposure. In short: I would never take my kid to see the fucking Smurfs movie.

What happened to you, Doogie?

I could go on, but I've already lost myself. Thank you for reading through, as I know the annoyance that can come from rants. Please throw some of your own comments on all this below and maybe, together, we can make the movie theater a better place.