As some followers of this blog are aware, I co-host a monthly series titled “Cinema and Conversation” at our local book store (Story and Song).  The host each month screens a favorite film, then facilitates a discussion around the central theme and how the director, actors, et.al. present that message.  I have only one hard and fast rule when it comes to each month’s selection.  NO BLOCKBUSTERS.  The metric I use is all-time domestic box office.  I have never chosen a movie that is ranked in the top 2,000 (the threshold domestic box office being $47.4 million.)

How does this affect the selection?  Since the inaugural event in June 2018, not a single movie among my past choices has been dependent on action sequences (especially car chases) or special effects, with the possible exception of Andrew Niccol’s “S1m0ne” in which a supposed CGI generated actress is portrayed by the real Rachel Roberts.  What they do have in common is exceptional screenplays (many of which have won or been nominated for Academy Awards) and outstanding performances by actors who breathe life into the screenwriters’ words.  Concerning the latter, I find I subconsciously pick films which star individuals who do not qualify as cinematic idols, but time and time again deliver memorable performances in secondary roles.  For example, the cast on multiple occasions has included Joan Allen, Patricia Clarkson and William H. Macy.

Prior to last November’s election, the central themes of my selections revolved around a social or political issue,  They included:

• Bend It Like Beckham (cultural biases)
• The Front (blacklisting and censorship)
• Eye in the Sky (the ethics of drone warfare)
• Flash of Genius (protection of intellectual property)
• Man of the Year (electoral integrity)
• Defending Your Life (personal reflection)
• Good Night, and Good Luck (the role of a free press)

After the election, cognizant of my audience’s exhaustion about all things political, I decided to opt for films that address my personal bias about the filmmaking industry.  Why do so many new releases depend on action or CGI instead of the screenplay?  The answer, of course, lies in the conflict between cinema as a art form and filmmaking as commercial enterprise.

I discovered the best way to explore this dichotomy was through three movies about the process by which movie studios evaluate and cull potential projects, and how once picked, they evolve from original concept to production to final edit.  The first film in this trilogy was Robert Altman’s 1992 production of the “The Player” starring Tim Robbins in his first leading role.  Some critics call “The Player” Altman’s middle finger to Hollywood following his exile after disastrous big-budget, box-office flop, “Popeye.”  In one interview, Altman says he wishes he had been more vicious.  “I think we were too nice to Hollywood in the film.”

The central theme is Hollywood’s reliance on seven formula elements on which success are dependent.  In the following sequence, producer Griffin Mill (Robbins) explains this process to his latest girlfriend June Gudmundsdottir (Greta Scacchi) and why Mill rejected her previous boyfriend’s script.

Griffin: It lacked certain elements that we need to market a film successfully. 
June: What elements? 
Griffin: Suspense, laughter, violence. Hope, heart, nudity, sex. Happy endings. Mainly happy endings. 
June: What about reality?
Griffin:  You’re not from Iceland, are you?

To prove Mill correct, all you have to do is look at the domestic box office numbers for the 10 films nominated this year for the best picture Oscar.  As of March 1, only two exceed $100 million in ticket sales:  “Wicked” ($472.9 million) and “Dune: Part Two” ($432.5 million).  Neither received nominations for best screenplay, original or adapted.  Not unexpectedly, “Dune: Part Two” took home the Oscars for best sound and best achievement in visual effect while “Wicked” won in two categories: achievement in production design and achievement in costume design.  In contrast, the two front runners for best picture both won screenplay Oscars:  “Anora” (original screenplay) and “Conclave” (adapted screenplay).  Yet, their March 1 box office totals were $15.7 million and $32.2 million, respectively.

While “The Player” focuses on efforts of screenwriters to pitch their concepts to studio executives, the second film in the trilogy, Spike Jonze’s 2002 film “Adaptation” takes a different tack.  In this narrative, the studio hires a screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (Nicholas Cage) to develop a screenplay based on a unique book “The Orchid Thief” by Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) for which the studio has already purchased the rights.  In the end, the film demonstrates the difference between a movie “based on” a source work and one “inspired by” the original material.  “Based on” requires the script be largely true to the source.  “Inspired by” suggests only that the story draw on the narrative, characters and/or settings from the original material.  “Adaptation” explores how this line gets blurred when balancing the competing goals of art versus commercial success.

Due to Story and Song’s licensing agreement with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), we cannot share the name of a film or the actors in promotions for “Cinema and Conversation.”  At this time, all I can say about the third film in this trilogy is that it demonstrates how the process of bringing a story to your local theater or streaming television can go completely off the tracks.  If you live in NE Florida, I hope you will join me next Wednesday (March 19, 2025) at 5:00 pm at Story and Song for the final episode of this trip through Moviemaking Wonderland.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP