I may have mentioned once or twice, either on this Blog or in person, that I have a somewhat tricky love/hate relationship with Sony: A company partially responsible for jumpstarting the modern age of digital cinematography that, ironically, continually makes horrible movies. As a gearhead when it comes to cameras, I am always impressed and excited to hear what Sony will bring to the table next. Much like Panasonic, Sony has done significant business with filmmakers by paying attention to their needs and desires and applying that input to each subsequent new camera. Creating brilliant photographic machines the likes of which have even surpassed celluloid film. However, a great camera does not make a great movie, as evidenced by Sony's embarrassing and frustrating track record of failed launches of franchises, painfully clear corporate sellouts, and an inability to put their money where their mouth is. Sony has so much potential to be more than they keep trying to be and it annoys me that they either don't recognize that or don't care. So, if you have a minute, I would like to share with you all my complicated relationship with Sony, and what I think they could do to revitalize themselves before it's too late because I do believe that Sony can do great things if they would take a step back and listen.
First, a little history.
One of the many goals of the founder of Sony, Akio Morita, was to create a digital camera which could make images on par with celluloid film. Their first step was to build standard definition consumer level camcorders utilizing CCD (Charged Coupled Device) technology initially developed at Bell Labs. This technology created decent quality video images but was very obviously not on par with the likes of celluloid. At the time, these cameras were primarily for the average consumer looking for a decent video camera for family and business purposes, and the idea of using them for cinema, outside of film school, was unheard of at the time. That is until a group of filmmakers in Denmark started a little event called Dogma 95, a filmmaking movement with a very fixed set of rules intended to remind people of the real values of movie creation: These include profound stories, robust acting, and relevant themes. Some of the regulations put in place included no elaborate special effects, production was to be on location, and handheld camera operation only (as in no gimbals, cranes, or other such external camera devices were allowed).
Director Lars Von Trier is shooting his Dogma 95 film on a Sony camcorder.
These rules drew the filmmakers to the conclusion that shooting on video was more substantial. As such, the vast majority of films created in the Dogma 95 movement were shot on consumer level Sony camcorders. Much to everyone's surprise, despite the original fear of not being taken seriously because of their choice of capture format, many of these films were well received and kickstarted many filmmakers careers. It was the Dogma film The Celebration (photographed by Anthony Dod Mantle) that inspired director Danny Boyle, then known for the Leonardo DiCaprio lead blockbuster The Beach and the Scottish comedy Trainspotting, to collaborate with Anthony on the films 28 Days Later and Slumdog Millionaire. Both of which used digital cameras and the latter of which earned the two men Oscars.
Anthony Dod Mantle and Danny Boyle on set.
That was the moment when the idea of digital cinematography was on its way, and Sony was arguably the front-runner. Even so, it hadn't reached Hollywood yet until a legendary filmmaker joined forces with Sony to get the ball rolling. In the early 2000s, renowned filmmaker George Lucas was in pre-production for Star Wars: Attack of the Clones (yes, I know, please don't run off, bear with me for just a minute). After shooting the first Star Wars prequel, The Phantom Menace (which George Lucas shot on celluloid), he was determined to capture the next film on a digital format. So, he approached Sony saying he wanted to help them build a bigger and better camera system for motion pictures. Thus, Sony and George put together what is arguably the very first high-end digital camera, the F900, which was then used to shoot the second Star Wars prequel. So one of the few things we have the Star Wars prequels to thank for is helping to kickstart the use of digital cameras in primetime Hollywood.
George Lucas on set with the Sony F900.
Since then, Sony has become a household name in digital cinema camera technology and has continued to design and build more powerful and versatile machines for making movies. Within the last ten years, Sony has developed many cameras with better light sensitivity, superb color quality, and robust amounts of detail. Though they may not have the same prestige as other major cinema camera manufacturers, like Arri or Red or even Panasonic, Sony has managed to proudly cement their place in the world and history of digital cinema.
The Venice. Sony's latest entry in high-end digital cinema cameras and the camera that will be used by James Cameron for his upcoming Avatar sequels.
So...why are Sony's movies so horrible (most of the time)?
Having a great camera will not guarantee a good or even greater film. Nor should one expect any given company to have a firm understanding of storytelling just because they manufacture one of the essential tools for doing so. However, a company that regularly produces tools for making movies according to storytellers specifications, improves and upgrades said tools by listening to filmmakers, works closely with talented storytellers especially in their video game department, and owns a movie studio, it stands to reason that said company would know a thing or two on how to make proper films. Instead, the vast majority of theatrically released movies from Sony have been one of three things. Elaborate feature-length commercials for Sony products (as well as other blatant product placements), overly extended moments of toilet humor, or an apathetic and lazy attempt to cash in on a fan base or fad that has either already been done better by another studio or was already outdated before they started. Sometimes, it's all three of them at once.
Sony's adaptation of The Smurfs from 2011 is a prime example of what I'm talking about. If you have not seen this movie, I would highly discourage you from doing so. Aside from being a lazy and incompetently made story (another thing Sony is infamous for), it has all the issues as mentioned earlier of an overall Sony production. To go over all of them here would take up too much time, so instead, here is a list of five things that actually happen in this movie.
1
The cast features the voices of Jeff Foxworthy, Joan Rivers, Paul Reubens, and John Oliver who all only have, at most, two lines of dialogue for a set of background characters who are just featured within the first five minutes of the film.
2
There is a scene in which the villain of the film, Gargamel (Hank Asaria), while in a fancy restaurant, mistakes a water pitcher for a chamber pot and proceeds to urinate into it on the spot in full view of the patrons as well as the audience. This was apparently supposed to be funny.
3
Despite being of Belgian origin, The Smurfs in this movie spend the majority of their time in modern day New York City, seemingly to only serve the purpose of advertising Sony's BluRay home video format and Blue Man Group, thus removing, however unintentionally, the fantastical element of The Smurfs.
4
Every single electronic item used in the film is from Sony, and the camera cannot help but remind the audience of this at every opportunity. Including an overly long, unnecessary, and unentertaining scene in which the characters play a round of Guitar Hero on a Sony PlayStation 3.
5
Despite being in all of the advertisements, having the most screentime in the trailers, and having the movie titled after them, The Smurfs are not the main focus of the film. Instead, the story focuses on a young advertising executive (sigh) who is coming to grips with becoming a father. Which, if you ask me, is about on par with making a military drama that suddenly throws in Ponies for no reason other than name recognition.
Also, when Sony isn't pandering to the absolute lowest common denominator in the audience, they're wasting their time trying to build up their own multi-movie franchise. One of the unfortunate side effects of the success of Marvel Studios is that every other movie studio (that is to say every Studio not owned by Disney) has been desperately trying and miserably failing to put together their own version of a Cinematic Universe. There are many reasons they haven't worked out, but the one factor that all other Studios have in common is that they keep trying to build up their multi-movie plans in the first film they put out. In contrast to what Marvel did at the beginning, which is to put out one single movie that can stand on its own, which gave a promising hint at something more extensive on the way at the very end.
This was the very first film of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It tells a single story, develops a handful of characters, and provides a small wink at something more abundant at the very end.
Needless to say, Sony has been no exception to this phenomenon. While it is reasonable to want a franchise to build a profit from, it is entirely unreasonable to do so in a manner that has already proven to be incorrect. Aside from completely bombing their attempt to reboot their Spider-Man franchise (short version, Sony owns the movie rights to Spider-Man, sort of) Sony has been spending the better part of the last few years throwing all of the franchises they can grab the rights to on the screen and trying to make it stick. A more recent example of this misguided business plan would be with last years failed Sony blockbuster The Dark Tower.
This was intended to be the first in a series of films based on the multi-book series by Stephen King. Instead, they completely blew their chance right out of the gate. Rather than tell a single story with a few relatable characters, exploring one part of this new world to start with, and providing a satisfying conclusion, Sony just repeated every mistake made by all other studios before them. The movie spent the vast majority of its albeit short runtime building up teases for sequels, establishing plot points that have no relevance to the immediate story, and only providing the audience with walking archetypes with little to no relatable personalities instead of three-dimensional & sympathetic characters. The movie was less of a narrative and more of an elaborate power-point presentation of Sony's long-term plans for this franchise, which, needless to say, never happened.
Sony's latest at trying to build a franchise and jumping onto a Band Wagon that has long since left the station.
By now, I'm pretty sure that you're asking a distinct and vital question. Why do I even care? What is the point in my going on about a corporation that everybody knows puts out awful products that insult audiences, panders to corporate greed and puts no real effort into their creations? To be honest, it's because Sony doesn't need to be that way. Yes they are a big company, yes almost every other major movie studio does this kind of stuff (though maybe not as regularly as Sony seems to), and yes, not every movie in the world has to be a masterpiece of art. I am not an elitist! I don't expect every single film I see to have the artistic purity of a Snowflake. All I ever really ask of a movie, no matter what company produces it, is that it has heart. A film should make me feel glad to have taken time out of my day to give it my attention and emotional investment. Make me feel like I'm in another world, make me care about a character that I can relate to in some way, and give me a story that makes me feel as if my life has been enriched in some way. None of these things are possible if I'm watching a film that relies too heavily on fart jokes, outdated pop-culture references, and one-dimensional characters.
Sony has the power to become better than they have let on to in recent years and I genuinely hope they eventually make an effort to transform. If for no other reason than if there is going to be at least one movie studio not owned by Disney, I would prefer that it be the one that can make all of its own movies in-house and be satisfied with smaller stories of success. Sony has enough power and stamina to stand up on its own without any kind of multi-movie franchise. At least, I'd like to think they do. As much as I enjoy the films produced by Disney, especially from Marvel Studios, I don't want to live in a world where all of our entertainment is dominated by one entity.
Sony, you need to take a step back. You need to seriously overhaul your business practices. You need to spend less time trying to be like the big boys and start being your own thing with smaller and more original projects that, believe it or not, we as an audience genuinely want. Give us something we haven't seen before, or at least haven't seen in a long time. Give us something fresh, something unheard of, something that the big boys at all of the other major studios aren't doing right now. Stand up and stand out. Because if you don't, then who will?
Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment