Aesthetics and Meaning
Win Hollywood with one weird trick
Studios, networks and filmmakers have to raise the bar on aesthetics and meaning in film and TV to succeed in the next phase of competition. To make this happen, standards need to evolve for execs and producers.
When we look back in time, most earlier eras appear misguided in ways that seem quite obvious to us in our present, enlightened, state. Perhaps they had a penchant for spats, believed the Earth was shaped like a dodecahedron, considered leeches and claret to be the cure for most illness, or all of the above. Our era will likely be no exception to this.
One area that may leave future cultural historians wondering is our very recent film and television output, which, while it has had bright spots, has declined substantially in daring and even aspirations to high quality over the past seven or so years. It feels like most (not all) studios and networks have gone from aspiring to greatness to aspiring to anodyne, or “broadcast,” “pretty goodness.” Though there have been bright spots, is there a film or television show released since 2019 that on a good day might break into your top 10 or even top 40 of all time? There is Oppenheimer. And maybe Everything Everywhere, House of Dragons, or White Lotus? OK. But we have gone from a strong era of Inception, A Bigger Splash, Get Out, Breaking Bad, Lady Bird, La Grande Bellezza, The Sopranos, Mad Men, Iron Man, Fleabag, Social Network, Moonlight, Veep, In the Mood for Love, La La Land, Better Call Saul, Her, The Boys, and Birdman to … a lot less I think. Not to nothing of course, but there is not much at the same level that was not developed pre-2018 (Succession and Yellowstone btw are pre-2018 vintage). It is my impression that there has been an aversion behind the scenes to anything too ambitious, especially on TV.
This comes at a bad time. Studios and networks need to grow and build their brands. Hollywood as a whole needs to regain, not lose, cultural strength.
Not coincidentally, I think, we are simultaneously going through a dark era for debut novels and even opera — the NY Met has seen better days.
There are a lot of root causes for this to be discussed another time, but there are two major improvement opportunities in film and TV, which have to do with aesthetics and meaning. These are opportunities for individuals, for networks and for the industry.
The trend toward pretty good TV and film is strategically backwards (and has yielded bad results). This is especially important as we must now compete variously with TikTok, YouTube, Fortnite, and AI, which I would predict will not overindex on great, original, aesthetics and meaning. So let’s play to our strengths.
Films and also television must take advantage of their big screens, their aesthetic capability, and their ability to mean something and connect with people over two hours (or more in the case of a series). Films should have a look and should have something to say. Too many films and TV shows today don’t.
Except occasionally for their animation, Netflix in general seems to have settled into a sort of flat, bright, television style. (With exceptions.)
A lot of people around town have been inclined to follow Netflix’s lead, pursuing the “gourmet hamburger” strategy. It’s never a good idea to copy the leader. I would argue that Citadel was a “no vibe” show. Despite the kajillion dollar budget it just came off to me (and the audience) as a broadcast show from ~2000.
The spectacle of a film, the aesthetic, not only reinforces the story and puts you inside the story, — makes you put down your phone — but also creates a unique magical dreamworld that no other artform (and definitely nothing on TikTok) delivers in the same way; it can make the film great in itself.
From a financial point of view, big films are bringing in 20% or so of their domestic box office through IMAX and other premium experiences. But these “big films” aren’t all superhero or action movies. Super Mario premiered to $21MM in IMAX alone. Oppenheimer made $188MM in IMAX and it was by no means an action movie. Even films that aren’t dominating IMAX but are doing well are delivering a cinematic experience. M3gan made $95MM domestic on a $12MM budget, to a large extent because it managed to sell a cool look. It’s not whether the films have explosions, it’s whether the film is worth paying attention to. One reason horror and animation have been doing relatively well is that they tend to have a look and be worth watching.
A powerful aesthetic can be associated with a high budget spectacle, but it can also be attained on a smaller budget, as we have seen with diverse works such as M3gan, Blair Witch Project, L’Avventura, A Better Tomorrow, Ex Machina, Reservoir Dogs, Napoleon Dynamite, Everything Everywhere All at Once, Tetsuo: Iron Man and so many others. These films stand out and are rewarded, and as the demand for customers’ time becomes all the more competitive, films need to pull this lever.
This is harder to accomplish in television than in film. But it can be transformative.
The “no vibe” style leaves something on the table for the film and making it the unofficial Hollywood style leaves something on the table for the industry.
Many people in showbiz have a quite limited sense of the aesthetics of film or aesthetics in the world. I think this is because execs come up primarily doing notes on scripts. Scripts get a lot of attention but the aesthetics of a piece, including the music, are (often) discussed only conceptually in one or two meetings. And then people wonder why the movie comes out somehow … average.
5 things to do:
Develop more execs and producers who are not just script focused. Maybe hire more film majors?
Cultivate filmmakers and writer producers with strong visual takes
Develop with filmmakers and care who the DP and production designer are.
Develop and cast STARS
Be the world leader in delivering cool, transporting aesthetics
MEANING
I find that increasingly there is a fear of meaning. There is a preference for true crime, sports documentaries, sports and reality shows which really don’t have to take a point of view. It’s a cop out. Films that shy away from taking a stand or lack a clear point of view lack emotional resonance. There are many films and shows now that close the curtain without making a statement. It’s superficial and flippant.
If you give people a satisfying denouement that not only wraps up the characters’ wants and needs but also wraps the world into a ball and, without being heavy handed, turns it into some sort of interpretation of what we have seen, — and even of life — viewers (and critics) go from like to love.
There are too many films to name but Joker, for example, was not bashful about having aesthetics and meaning. People talked about it and loved it. Its strong point of view made it more than just a visually compelling film; it became a cultural touchstone.
Meaning is what gives a story its soul. It’s the element that stays with audiences long after the credits roll. It makes it all so much bigger.
I don’t have five ways to get this done but you need to keep working on the script until you have it. Because you want it to be great.
I propose that we are getting to the end of this little era/fad that we have just been through. I think that because nothing lasts forever and no one (but Netflix) is doing very well, so by definition the current approach cannot be sustained. Therefore, few should think that they can keep surfing the same wave as the last few years. No one but Netflix has made money doing it, and the wave is about to crash. Everyone should always be looking to evolve — but never more than now. And this is the way.
The opportunity, to get ahead of the curve, is to ask film and TV to do everything it can do, to set one’s sights higher, for greatness, and to start here with aesthetics and meaning. This is just a matter of priorities but, at companies, like everything, priorities comes down to people. It will be necessary to identify, cultivate, train and support a new wave of producers and executives to bring about a new era of aesthetics and meaning.
Roy Price was an executive at Amazon.com for 13 years, where he founded Amazon Video and Studios. He developed 16 patented technologies. His shows have won 14 Best Series Emmys and Globes. He was formerly at McKinsey & Co. and The Walt Disney Co. He graduated from Harvard College in 1989.
Blame it on the idolatry of 'the story' and the misguided idea of filmmakers as 'storytellers'.
I wrote about this https://substack.com/home/post/p-106441594?r=1kxhhl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
In TV it's even worse, there is the fatal notion that a writers room and a bunch of execs can make it work. They do, but 'make it work' has never been synonym for great. And it's not as if the aesthetics of a movie can be left to art directors or directors of photography either. I recently saw a movie at Tribeca Festival that showed very strong DP choices/aesthetics in every single shot and yet, was unwatchable as a whole. Aesthetics is not solely a question of visual choices it's a thought process that comes from the director. What's lacking in today's films and TV series are simply directors as authors. Bring them in and both meaning and aesthetics will follow.
I think this is one of the reasons why A24 has done as well as they have, because many of their releases (and especially the ones that broke through) show that consideration was given to aesthetic appeal.
There is a lot of stuff being released that seems to exist as CONTENT or MATERIAL to fill a pipeline and the aversion to marketing content has made it difficult for films or shows that might be meaningful visually appealing find an audience. 15 years ago, AMC invested and made sure people knew that new episodes of Mad Men and Breaking Bad were on their way and built anticipation. It used to be better.