There is a Crime Happening

The other day while I was rotting my brain at work, I read an article from "The Guardian" which boldly called Martin Scorsese's The King of Comedy, the "Last Great American Film." Apparently of all the movies released in the last thirty years, that was the exclamation point on the end of the 70s auteur period.

Naturally, my eyes bulged.

It's not that I don't *love* The King of Comedy. I do. It has to remain one of the best and most uncovered pop culture gems of the last twenty-five years: a vehicle for the most interesting and lively performance that Robert De Niro has ever given and a highly prescient satire of the YouTube age that makes everyone a star. But is it really the "Last Great American Film?" (SFX: 1930s Radio Serial stinger)

When I first read the piece, I found it to be esoteric and out-of-touch; one of those "I'm getting old and things aren't as good as they used to be" laments that critics throw out every once in a while to stir up their younger readers. For example, while praising the very praise worthy Scorsese film, the writer, Jonathan Jones, bashes the towering and bizarre There Will Be Blood, which has to rank by any metric as one of the best movies of the past decade. For shame, Mr. Jones!

I wrote it all off as sour grapes and didn't even bother to send it to my Scorsese obsessed friends who would have probably loved to see The King of Comedy getting any press what-so-ever.

But then something happened that made me realize everything Mr. Jones had written was right. I had my "Chazz Palmintieri at the end of The Usual Suspects" moment, where everything came together at once.

Darren Aronofsky to direct a remake of Robocop for MGM

You remember Darren Aronofsky, right? His was part of the late 90s/early 00s influx of directorial talent: Aronofsky, Spike Jonze, Steven Soderbergh, David O. Russell, Christopher Nolan, Paul Thomas Anderson, Sam Mendes. Guys who all made huge splashes and who seemingly had their own distinct voices. It was a glorious time.

With Requiem for a Dream, Aronofsky established himself as a visual dynamo, as well as someone capable of creating a film narrative that can shake you to the core. If there is a more bleak, depressing and heartbreaking movie than Requiem, I have yet to see it. And while The Fountain was a colossally confusing and utterly beautiful misfire about the nature of love and, presumably, time travel, at least he was ambitiously trying to do something different.

Sadly though, the career that Darren Aronofsky was headed towards is over. He will embarrass himself now with Robocop (and presumably a Robocop sequel), a movie that will play like a more violent Iron Man with lots of CGI and little else. (I wonder who will play the titular cop? I think early money has to be on Mark Wahlberg.)

While sitting there, lamenting the death of what was a once promising career, I realized that Aronofsky wasn't alone. With nary an exception, nearly all of the "next generation" of directorial stars have basically sold out or worse, stopped trying. They have devolved right before our eyes.

Right now, everyone, including yours truly, is orgasming over The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan's latest. And with good reason. It's an amazing movie, flaws and all--too long, too short, at times confusingly messy, overly speechy and fairly stupid (Holy Crappy Sonar, Batman!) But the action set pieces, the car chases, the explosions, the gravitas, the 9/11 allusions and Heath Ledger make it the best movie of the Summer and, most likely, one of the very best of the entire year.

I loved The Dark Knight. But thinking it over, only one thing keeps going through my mind. Why is Christopher Nolan heading up a franchise? Shouldn't the guy who made Memento--a parlor trick movie that doesn't hold up as well as you remember but still displays immense talent--be doing something better with his time? Shouldn't he be blazing his own territory instead of aping shots from Michael Mann, William Friedkin and Brian De Palma all while making a comic book movie?

Nolan isn't alone. All of these young filmmakers just steal from their forefathers. PT Anderson, whom I love, is nothing more than a master impressionist. He's like the best contestant on American Idol. "Look, there's Terrence Malick! That's just like Robert Altman! Now he's doing Stanley Kubrick!" Hell, Anderson even out-Scorsese's Martin Scorsese nowadays. Granted, he does the impressions extremely well, with skill and care of craft, but you could make the argument that he's basically the Frank Caliendo of directors.

Why did this happen? How did all of these seemingly talented people have their individuality crushed underneath the weight of fame, fortune and Hollywood franchises? Part of me wants to blame society, but I know that's just a fools errand--the rants of a fledgling sociology major who never got out of the classroom.

No, the more I've given this thought, the more I realized who is to blame for this sheer waste of talent: Mr. Steven Spielberg.

Spielberg was the 70s auteur who showed that you could make popcorn movies with the touch of classic cinema. Jaws. Close Encounters. E.T. Indiana Jones. These were movies and films. All of these young directors grew up in the shadow of Spielberg and his mark can been seen in all their work. They think they can make something like Jaws. But what they don't realize is that you can't make a movie like Jaws nowadays. Studios will always make these directors go the extra mile, throw in the extra special effect, the extra gimmick. If Spielberg made Jaws today, the shark would have been CGI and you would have seen it in full within five minutes of the opening credits. Just look at what Spielberg did with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The last reel contained so much CGI, you could make the argument that it was animated.

Even in The Dark Knight, you can almost feel that (spoiler alert!) the crappy sonar/SWAT team/Clown hostage/Batman fight was added on late in the game based on a plea from someone at Warner Brothers. "This is too good! We need more stupid digital special effects! Enough awesome stunts and real-life explosions!"

So where does that leave us? Well on the one hand, we should be happy because our franchises are getting better than they have any right to be (see: Batman, Bourne, Ocean's, Spider-man.) But on the other hand, are we headed towards a world where we'll never see an original and thought-provoking movie again? Are we already living in that world? It seems like that writing is already on the wall, taunting us with new reports like Darren Aronofsky's planned Robocop reboot.

Basically, it sucks. And people who like good cinema are doomed.

Things aren't as good as they used to be.