Analyzing contemporary cinema

The primary problem that arises when attempting to reach a conclusion in a discussion considering any form of art is one as old as art itself—that is, that the quality of art is, at its core, subjective, not objective. This raises the question of how exactly one can contemplate a hypothesis, such as the standard of cinema in the modern day, whilst simultaneously attempting to remain as objective as possible.

The answer to this question appears to lie in outsourcing opinions, reviews, and critiques of cinema, as opposed to offering my own views. Thanks to the internet, outsourcing in such a manner has never been easier. Websites such as IMDB.com and RottenTomatoes.com allow users to rate a film, should they choose to do so, on a 1-10 or 0%-100% rating, respectively. The websites then accumulate the ratings and provide an overall score, an average of the total number of ratings provided by users.

The importance of outsourcing for an array of opinions regarding cinema remains crucial, as a small minority may find joy in a film the majority of others thought incredibly dull, and vice versa. While there will never be an objectively correct opinion on the standard of cinema in the modern day, analysing the widespread reception of films released in recent times offers a solid foundation for a wider discussion.

To begin the discussion, I would like to generalise the debate as much as possible. I have chosen to analyse IMDB’s “Top 100” list of films as opposed to Rotten Tomatoes' "100% Club," as Rotten Tomatoes has previously been criticised for allowing critics to post reviews, even when they are posting a negative review with the sole intent of tarnishing the rating of a particular film and plucking it from the “100% Club”.

One such example is Paddington 2, a film that received a perfect rating of 100% upon its release in 2017, earning itself a place in the "100% Club" for four years. In 2021, however, a critic published a negative review, which caused the film to be removed from the 100% Club. This is despite the fact that, amidst a total of 253 reviews, the film had only received two negative ones. Only films that have received a perfect rating across all their reviews are collated together within the "100% Club" and classified as such.

Creating an objectively perfect piece of art, be it film, music, a painting, etc., is something which has long been considered an impossible feat by academics. This is due to the fact that the quality of the piece is something determined by the consumer. Taking the example of cinema, in the absence of an audience, a film has no metric through which it can be considered good or bad. Ultimately, by classifying the most successful films together under a "100% Club" label, Rotten Tomatoes is inadvertently portraying the idea that the films included are objectively 'perfect'.

On the contrary, IMDB offers a far more successful system of reflecting audience opinions when one considers this dilemma. Shawshank Redemption sits at the top of IMDB's "Top 100" list as the number one ranked film of all time. The film has accumulated, across a total of 2,796,813 votes (at the time of writing), an average rating of 9.3/10, meaning that despite its popularity, critical acclaim, and position at the top of the list, IMDB still does not consider it a perfect piece of art.

This appears to be due to the fact that IMDB calculates the average rating of a film from a much wider pool of data than Rotten Tomatoes. It is commonplace for a film within the “Top 100” list to have anywhere between 500,000 and 2,500,000 ratings in total. Films which fall short of 500,000 ratings tend to be films that have either been released in recent years and will surpass this threshold at some point in the future, or, alternatively, films that were released long before IMDB was an established website and are now so historical that finding access to them would pose a challenge to the average viewer.

It seems improbable that a resource exists which compiles a greater number of audience ratings per film than IMDB. When considering the debate between subjectivity and objectivity, despite the amount of data available, the ratings still remain a reflection of the widespread subjective reception of any particular film. That being said, it is only through an awareness of how a film has been received by an audience that an argument can be made for whether or not a film is objectively good or bad. While the opinion of the majority will never be truly objective, the greater the size of the audience who share a similar opinion, the more compelling the argument becomes.

What conclusions can be drawn from IMDB’s “Top 100” list, then? Using the turn of the century as a reference point, thirty-six of the one hundred films included in the list were released during the 21st century. Of these thirty-six films, sixteen have been released since the year 2010. Statistically speaking, the number of films being released which audiences consider worthy of being considered some of the best of all time appears to be dwindling year over year.

The decade of the 2000’s is widely considered one of the most successful periods of western cinema, with many film genres seeing a resurgence in popularity during this period. Fantasy films, in particular, dominated the box office over the course of this decade, with many franchises being established which would later become household names.

Advancements to computers during this period led to the implementation of CGI (computer generated imagery) within films, a technological development which allowed directors to create effects, landscapes, and other important elements of film significantly cheaper than was previously possible. Fantasy films, therefore, which rely heavily on otherworldly elements and landscapes to bring life to their stories, were suddenly being produced in their masses, often displayed in cinemas as marvellous spectacles the likes of which audiences had never seen before.

Included in IMDB’s “Top 100” is the entire trilogy of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings, the only fantasy franchise to emerge within the early 2000’s which made the list. Acclaimed for its action, acting, music, cinematography, and special effects, the production of a trilogy of such magnitude was viable thanks, in a large part, to CGI.

In the wake of the widespread success experienced by fantasy franchises at the turn of the millennium, emerged a new era of comic book superhero films, the likes of which we are all far too familiar with today. Marvel Studios has been a juggernaut of Hollywood since the success of Iron Man (2008). Despite, however, releasing a total of thirty-two films in what could be considered the “new era” of Marvel Studios productions, only two of these have received enough critical acclaim and support to be featured in the “Top 100” list. Avengers: Infinity War, 2018, and Avengers: Endgame, 2019, both earned their places in the “Top 100” list as the number sixty-six and number sixty ranked films, respectively. The success of both of these films is due, in large part, to the sheer magnitude of their ensemble element; that is, the gathering together of an immense, star-studded cast.

The majority of Marvel Studios productions, however, have long been criticised for being made as “commodities, like hamburgers”, as opposed to truly engaging and thought provoking works of fiction (Ken Loach, Sky News, 2019). In an era when viewership consists of little more than streaming from the comfort of your own home, Marvel Studios are condemned by many as the pioneer behind production methods based primarily upon quantity over quality. In 2015, Simon Pegg discussed his thoughts on the state of cinema.

I’m very much a self-confessed fan of sci-fi and genre cinema, but part of me looks at society now and thinks we’ve been infantilised by our own tastes. We’re essentially all consuming very childish things – comic books, superheroes, etc. Adults are watching this stuff, and they’re taking it seriously! It’s something of a dumbing down because it’s taking our focus away from real world issues. Films used to be about challenging, emotional journeys. Now we’re really not thinking about anything other than the fact that Hulk just had a fight with a robot.

(Simon Pegg, Radio Times Magazine, 2015)

Even the highest-ranking film produced since the turn of the 21st century, Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight (2008), is another comic book superhero film. Ranking at number three on the “Top 100” list, the film has been acclaimed for its action and stunts, its dark and gritty take on the superhero genre, its storytelling, cinematography, script, and, of course, Heath Ledger’s unforgettable performance as the infamous Joker. Despite the acclaim, however, the film remains yet another retelling of a popular comic book superhero story.

Looking further down the list, ten of the thirty-six films included in the “Top 100” list which were produced and released since the year 2000 are re-imaginings of comic book superheroes, or, in the cases of Coco, 2017, Wall-E, 2008, and Toy Story 3, 2010, films tailored towards an audience of children. One should also consider that it is extremely unlikely that children will be involved in rating these films online, meaning that the older generations are those primarily involved in providing these films with such positive scores.

The fact that films of such a genre are written with such nuanced, emotional, and memorable stories that they provoke such a reaction from older audiences as well as younger ones is not necessarily a bad thing. Depending on which way you view the debate on the current state of film, however, it may conversely appear that audiences have developed a desire for films with themes which are easier to digest—an almost childlike appreciation for cinema.

Are we, then, a generation of moviegoers with an innate desire for a sense of nostalgia when viewing films, or have Hollywood and the wider film industry simply lost their ability to craft fresh, stimulating, and provocative stories which can be adapted to the big screen? When considering the latter, streaming services are often targeted as the primary driving force behind depreciating the quality of films in favour of the quantity produced. Legendary filmmaker Martin Scorsese discussed the devaluation of cinema as an art form in a recent essay:

Flash forward to the present day, as the art of cinema is being systematically devalued, sidelined, demeaned, and reduced to its lowest common denominator, ‘content.’” As recently as fifteen years ago, the term ‘content’ was only heard when people were discussing the cinema on a serious level, and it was contrasted with and measured against ‘form’. Then, gradually, it was used more and more by the people who took over the media companies, most of whom knew nothing about the history of the art form, or even cared enough to think that they should. ‘Content’ became a business term for all moving images.

(Martin Scorsese, Il Maestro: Frederico Fellini and the lost magic of cinema in Harper’s Magazine, March 2021)

Despite his critique of media companies and their involvement within the film industry published in 2021, Scorsese himself did actually work with one of these companies, Netflix, in 2019 in order to produce The Irishman. Whether his critique of Netflix and similar companies transpired as a direct result of working with Netflix remains unclear, however, it should be noted that Scorsese is not the only director to have both criticised and worked alongside media companies that offer streaming services: Steven Spielberg, Denis Villeneuve, and Patty Jenkins are other prominent examples.

The Irishman succeeded in receiving critical acclaim upon release, notably for its biographical efforts to depict the entirety of a man’s adult life. Where IMDB is concerned, the film was not rated high enough by viewers to be included in the “Top 100” list, however, the film did score a respectable 7.8. By comparison, the lowest ranking film on the “Top 100” list, Ikiru, 1952, has a score of 8.3.

Another film that endeavored to depict a biographical account of the life of a historical figure is Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, released earlier this year. The film currently sits at number twenty-one in the “Top 100” list and, as previously mentioned when referencing The Dark Knight, is not Christopher Nolan’s only entry into the list. In fact, as a director, Christopher Nolan is responsible for seven of the thirty-six films featured in the list which were released after the turn of the 21st century.

All things considered, a rather benign picture is painted when considering the current standard and future of cinema. As an audience, it appears that we rely heavily on directors who are already well established to continue producing critically acclaimed masterpieces – a rather unsustainable practice in the long run. Furthermore, our tendency to crave films that inspire feelings of nostalgia—reboots, remakes, and re-imaginings—is something which respected individuals within the industry claim only worsens the situation. As an industry, on the other hand, it appears an introspective assessment is required as to whether or not leading media companies actually have the best interests of cinema, when considered as an art form, at heart. According to many decorated directors, the answer is a resounding no, yet those same directors continue to partner with and work alongside the media companies and streaming services they claim are destroying cinema. Despite his critique of media companies, Martin Scorsese’s upcoming film, Killers of the Flower Moon, 2023, has been produced in partnership with Apple TV.

On the contrary, recent trends seem to promise a brighter, yet alternative future for the film industry. A24, an independent American entertainment and production company, has blossomed into popularity in recent years through their release of original, captivating, and occasionally downright quirky films, which more often than not receive critical acclaim. Furthermore, history was made in 2020 when Bong Joon Ho’s Parasite, 2019, became the first ever non-English-speaking film to win the Oscar for Best Picture at the 92nd Academy Awards.

Perhaps the future of cinema as an art form lies not within Hollywood, where it is stereotypically considered to reside, but overseas, or with independent production companies willing to give lesser-known directors an opportunity to shine. Whatever may happen in the future, it is the responsibility of both the creator and the consumer to protect and cultivate an art form cherished by so many.

The aim of this piece was not to draw a conclusion on the standard of cinema in the modern day. This is due to the fact that providing an objective answer to the debate on cinema is, as previously discussed, an impossible task. Furthermore, offering a subjective answer, such as my own opinion, would ultimately be unsatisfactory. Instead, the purpose of this article was to open a debate on the topic and consider both sides. Art, of any kind, is something created with the goal of evoking an emotive response from those who consume it. When it is stripped of its beauty and essence to nothing more than a product, a practice it appears artistic cinema is suffering from at the hands of media companies, it begs the question as to whether what is produced can truly be considered art at all. If, however, it is still enjoyed by some, despite being considered by others a mere “commodity” or “content”, should it not still be considered art? To conclude, I would like to end with a quote that hopefully leaves you, the reader, with something to consider.