Have movies gotten worse or do bad movies just get more press?

A common refrain heard today among critics and in film buff circles is that movies have gotten demonstrably worse than they were in the past. Let's say the split comes at some point in the 80's when studio-dominated, market-tested blockbusters and high-concept fare (Top Gun, Indiana Jones)  became the dominant mode of production in Hollywood. Thus ending the small amount of creative, experimental, and director-driven space that had been opened in the New Hollywood era due to wider societal/cultural changes, shifts in taste, and political upheaval, typified by works such as Bonnie and Clyde and Taxi Driver.

However this thesis either doesn't take into account, overlooks, or chooses to ignore the number of low-quality films that have been made in the past. To be fair, that precise amount can be hard to arrive at, as we've winnowed down what movies are known and discussed through critical reflection and popular knowledge, but the concept is at least worth considering for a minute. Theater-going was viewed in a drastically different way before the invention of television. Since there were no other sources of on-screen entertainment, watching movies was a weekly, or even daily, activity that often included shorts, serials, cartoons, and newsreels. It wasn't seen as an event in the same it is now. Given that fact, it makes sense to conclude that at least the same number (probably more) of films were being made back then as they are now. Furthermore, the studios had even more of a lock on what got through the system and a well-oiled PR/infotainment/tabloid machine was already in place. Given these characteristics, it makes sense to conclude that, yes, there has always been a pretty high level of sub-standard product being pumped out by tinseltown.

So if overall quality hasn't changed, what has? The biggest difference between now and then is more in the way that movies are marketed and consumed. With the proliferation of other forms of video distraction, first TV, and then video games and the internet, the situation has gradually worsened for the silver screen. As different forms of media began competing with viewers' attention spans, the stakes got higher and executives decided that less risk-tasking and sure-fire hits were the only way forward. Hyper-intensive advertising campaigns and focus group-testing followed suit, severely limiting what type of films got made, what topics and ideas could be explored, and how much aesthetic/formal experimentation was allowed. This was not the same kind of dominance that the studios had between the 30's and 60's. Yes, there were sever limits to honestly and openly tackling subjects like sex, violence, and radical politics, but directors, stars, and producers were allowed a certain level of freedom if they stayed within certain limits. The careful, though-out framing; intense, shadowy cinematography and brooding, troubled characters of The Maltese Falcon were only possible because the film was a genre picture and the bad guys got their comeuppance at the end, following the conservative morality of the Hays Code. Such complexities would not be rubberstamped today due to higher-ups' (wrong) fears that they would alienate potential ticket-buyers.   

With the executives' media blitzes fully operational and the rise of a sycophantic internet film culture, it has become nigh impossible to avoid projects you have no desire to see or have an advanced, negative critical reception. Case in point, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. If you've simply existed in the past month, you're guaranteed to at least have heard about it, let alone read/see any in-depth coverage. It doesn't matter if you're entirely fed-up with superhero flicks or find their faux natural/gritty aesthetic visually uninteresting. No matter you're stance or opinion, you've likely been bombarded with images, reviews, news, stats, and trailers. Anything that can be written about the film has been written and has been propagated throughout all levels of the internet and television.

And woe is you if you wanted to cut yourself off from all the babble. Even the better websites have had to at least review the thing. This has had an extremely damaging, limiting effect on what can be talked about online. Akira Kurosawa's birthday (he died in 1998) occurred during the same week as Batman v Superman was released. While there were short news items about the event and a few overviews of one or two his most well-known works, I have yet to see any longer, more in-depth retrospectives on any sites except for random blogs. That the birthday of one of the greatest cinematic artists of the 20th century was overshadowed by the latest $100 million+ superhero ad is a sad statement on the state of film criticism.

How can the corporate takeover of film culture be stopped? The easiest pressure point would be for editors, writers, film buffs, and cinephiles to ignore blockbusters, stop reporting box office results, and take a more selective approach about the type of news that gets disseminated. It would quite difficult, and possible suicidal, to get such a project going, but that (plus a commitment to analyzing older, foreign, and lower-budget fare) is what's required to start incubating a considerate community.