Lately, the box office has been looking bleak. Film has become a dying art, overtaken by remakes, sequels, and adaptations. While films such as “The Substance” (2024), starring Demi Moore and Margaret Qualley, and “Barbie”(2023), starring Margot Robbie, emerge as innovative and well-made films, the enjoyment of these films is heightened due to the lack of creativity plaguing most newly released movies. New, innovative and intriguing films highlight the appalling deficiency of originality.
Despite these innovative films being incredible in their own right, what makes them stand out is their creative concepts, designs, and plots, which are illuminated by a sea of monotonous and generic films. Films are made as cash grabs now, made quickly with hopes that they will succeed at the box office, such as the recent slew of Disney live-action adaptations, prequels and sequels, with no regard to historical or literary value.
This money-driven interest in making films leads to more sequels, adaptations, and remakes because the masses will be drawn in. But from a literary standpoint, I don’t care about a half-baked “Lion King” prequel three decades too late, or a third “Sonic the Hedgehog” movie. I’d rather watch another film, like “I Saw the TV Glow,” or “The Substance,” which push the medium of film to its limits, providing a palpable and necessary statement on society.
“The Substance” and “Barbie” are each incredible films because their directors, producers, and cast were willing to take risks. In “The Substance,” characters Elizabeth Sparkle and Sue are fused into the grotesque, monstrous “Monstro Elizasue,” that is an allegory of the societal perception of women, plastic surgery, and cultural rhetoric surrounding aging.
Similarly, in “Barbie,” America Fererra breaks film convention and delivers a two minute monologue in which she tearfully acknowledges and condemns impossible societal standards for women, which frees the Barbies from a misogynist haze.
These films both address often overlooked societal issues, especially those pertaining to feminist topics, “Barbie” exploring the greater patriarchy and the difficulties women go through in society, while “The Substance” focuses on societal perception of aging women, misogyny, and the way society pits women against each other. These films contain real, visceral and necessary statements and calls to action.
There is no statement or commentary in “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.” The film is merely a film-of-the-week to placate audiences because that’s where the money is.
Because of this, “I Saw the TV Glow,” despite being one of 2024’s greatest films, only made 5.8 million at the box office. Contarily, “Mufasa: The Lion King,” a prequel almost 30 years too late, which grossed $476 million only weeks after its late December release.
And while the lack of unique or intriguing films can partly be attributed to money-hungry executives, another major influence is the audience reaction to films that take risks. “Barbie,” while well-received by critics and the general public, grossed over $1.4 billion at the box office.
However, this film drew concerns from alt-right groups, such as political commentator Ben Shapiro, who posted a 43-minute long YouTube video entitled “Ben Shapiro DESTROYS The Barbie Movie For 43 Minutes.” The video features Shapiro burning Barbies, calling the casting of Issa Rae as President Barbie “woke,” and throwing a fit about media which was not intended for him.
Similarly, “I Saw the TV Glow” received mixed reviews upon its release. Many of the poor reviews lacked critical thinking or an understanding of art, such as an Observer review, by Dylan Roth, dubbing the film a “slog.”
What makes “I Saw the TV Glow,” an avant-garde art film unique is its plot structure. The film blurs together in a dream-like style, much of the plot meant to be read between the lines, leaving the final messaging up to interpretation.
While similar structures have been used in the past, such as with the French animated feature “La Planéte Sauvage”(1973) or Tom Stoppard’s absurdist play “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead” (1966), each of those projects were much more well-received than “I Saw The TV Glow,” leading me to believe that critical thinking and understanding of literature is a dying skill.
If critics, people whose entire job revolves around digesting, understanding, and reviewing literature, cannot make sense of a film like “I Saw the TV Glow,” what does that mean for the film industry and the world of literature as a whole?
Industry oversaturation, greed and a decline in critical thinking and understanding of literature have robbed this artistic medium of creative liberty. Filmakers nowadays are choosing instead to create movies devoid of craft or artistry, placating bored viewers with shallow, unmemorable films, replacing the pursuit of knowledge, commentary and beauty with complacency.
