There may just be periods of history where the creation of art is so constrained that excellence can't get any air. I doubt I'm blowing any minds if I say that most everyone - artists, studios, benefactors, museums, whoever - is more reluctant than they've been in generations to produce anything but pablum. There's just no percentage in it right now.
I wonder if there's any real way to climb out of it. The fact that every single interesting, novel, and boundary-pushing work of art in human history is available to virtually the entire human race in an instant probably argues against it. You could spend the rest of your life and never want for exciting art. That niche is filled by streaming services, Amazon, the internet. Why take any risks with new stuff?
I'm on team "No one tells them no" along with "they're free to ignore all criticism and suggestions." Studio 60 was very revealing on this point -- in addition to the insane mushroom-induced war fantasy plots, it was about a genius head writer (Matt) and his worthless writing staff that never got sketches on the air. The staff eventually quit to make a doomed sitcom called Peripheral Vision Man, and Matt had to write the entire show by himself.
Sorkin is prolific and talented, but he obviously has some control issues that don't serve him. It seems like folks tried to reign him in on West Wing (leading to his departure) but as you observed, he obviously wrote Studio 60 by himself on drugs. If there was a paid writing staff, he rejected all of their ideas and then went back to his office muttering about incompetent amateurs -- and then put that frustration right into the script, further demoralizing the staff. I mean, imagine pitching an idea, and then Sorkin not only rejects your idea, the next episode is about the put-upon head writer blowing off steam about the untalented hacks on his writing staff.
This is why some of Sorkin's worst writing is about race and gender topics. He clearly writes those scenes himself, without soliciting feedback from anyone who is an actual woman or Black person, and the results are cringe city.
On the "nobody will tell them no" attitude. I've noticed also something slipping into a lot of modern art especially media like movies and Tv. This is just my own pet theory but...
We're taken the anti-bullying campaign too far and it's gone all the way around and become anti-critiquing.
For my example I'm going to use the abysmal, boring, go nowhere, safe "Falcon and Winter soldier" Which my girlfriend and I finished by mostly hate watching it.
The thing is everyone we know LOVED it. Which made no sense to us. IT was competently shot and the action was ok..... SPOILERS AHEAD IF YOU CARE.....
But everything else about it was garbage and people looked at us like we had two heads when we said it. I could feel the gears in their head trying to understand it. How could we not like something that had a Black captain America and showed black problems. You know like a forced scene where the most famous black guy on the planet can't get a loan.... Literally one of the most marketable people who exists. A person that helped bring back half of the population. A person that was friends with the richest man on the planet... couldn't get a loan... to fix a boat.
It goes on from there. It got such a pass from the general public (yeah there were some out there that were brave enough to mention how badly it fumbled it's whole message on race). I think that's because people are afraid to be critical of something these days... so long as it looks like it's trying or has a message that they like. Even if they completely garble that message.
I've noticed this even from a lot of critics on youtube who even 10 years ago would lace into this stuff with all the fury of a hurricane hitting a Caribbean island. Have gotten very polite especially with touchy stuff.
Ghostbusters 2016 was another good example. Currently at 74% on rotten tomatoes. 74% for a comedy! Then go read every review for it. I did for funs. Every review is incredibly critical with mostly backhanded compliments but then scroll to the end and 7, or B+, or 3.5 stars or whatever they use.
Because no one wants to sound like the asshole anymore. So a lot of modern media gets a pass so long as it covers controversial things.
EXCEPT that's the worse time for critics to give this stuff a pass! Because sending a poor message and then getting rewarded for it is just causing more confusion.
Sure this isn't all of it, but I have noticed in the past years that critics have gotten way too nice.
Iron sharpens Iron.
I don't think that's all of it. But yeah that's my crazy theory. American over-politeness combined with a decades-long anti-bullying campaign mixed with modern egg shell walking around touchy subjects.
Which leads to pandering. It's not that the intern will tell George Lucas "no" anymore. It's that the audience won't tell the creator "no." 'Cus they're trying.
Right now, I think there's also the "international market" thing screwing with Western entertainment, in that corporate is always looking for things that will easily translate to overseas markets, and that translates to pressure to make things simple and dumb. Probably more of an issue for movies than TV, but I suspect it's there as well.
Here's a cousin of Theory 3 that I'll call the Miyazaki Principle. In The Wind Rises, lead character Jiro Horikoshi is visited in a dream by his hero, the Italian aircraft designer Giovanni Battista Caproni, and told that every artist has 10 and only 10 inspired years. That sets up the stakes of the story: what will Jiro, himself a visionary aircraft designer, do with his 10 years?
I wouldn't be surprised if the Miyazaki Principle holds at least as a heuristic, with artists and thinkers getting max 10 golden years. This looks plausible if I'm right that most people, perhaps creative types especially, will have their shit together for one and just one phase of their life--together enough, that is, to generate and execute brilliant ideas, and not go hungry in the meantime.
Your fave's decade could come when they're young and hungry, full of passion, but it could also come when they're older and matured, enjoying a second wind. Case in point: I'd say Miyazaki's 10 years were 1994-2004, from when he began work on Princess Mononoke to the release of Howl's Moving Castle. (Spirited Away is in the middle of that period.) That's his mid-50s to mid-60s, when he'd just settled into his role as the wise old dean of anime, and was probably best-positioned to tackle his persistent concerns--the horrors of war and the loss of innocence--filtered carefully through Japanese folklore and fantasy whimsy.
I know this post is two-plus years old, but this is the year that The Day the Clown Cried enters the public domain. In June we will see if it un-seats my current champion for Worst Movie, "Tiptoes".
How about Theory 7: You can't fight City Hall?
There may just be periods of history where the creation of art is so constrained that excellence can't get any air. I doubt I'm blowing any minds if I say that most everyone - artists, studios, benefactors, museums, whoever - is more reluctant than they've been in generations to produce anything but pablum. There's just no percentage in it right now.
I wonder if there's any real way to climb out of it. The fact that every single interesting, novel, and boundary-pushing work of art in human history is available to virtually the entire human race in an instant probably argues against it. You could spend the rest of your life and never want for exciting art. That niche is filled by streaming services, Amazon, the internet. Why take any risks with new stuff?
I'm on team "No one tells them no" along with "they're free to ignore all criticism and suggestions." Studio 60 was very revealing on this point -- in addition to the insane mushroom-induced war fantasy plots, it was about a genius head writer (Matt) and his worthless writing staff that never got sketches on the air. The staff eventually quit to make a doomed sitcom called Peripheral Vision Man, and Matt had to write the entire show by himself.
Sorkin is prolific and talented, but he obviously has some control issues that don't serve him. It seems like folks tried to reign him in on West Wing (leading to his departure) but as you observed, he obviously wrote Studio 60 by himself on drugs. If there was a paid writing staff, he rejected all of their ideas and then went back to his office muttering about incompetent amateurs -- and then put that frustration right into the script, further demoralizing the staff. I mean, imagine pitching an idea, and then Sorkin not only rejects your idea, the next episode is about the put-upon head writer blowing off steam about the untalented hacks on his writing staff.
This is why some of Sorkin's worst writing is about race and gender topics. He clearly writes those scenes himself, without soliciting feedback from anyone who is an actual woman or Black person, and the results are cringe city.
And another one. A brilliant comedian, whose every joke is a survivor of the Darwinian hell known as audience testing, starts a podcast.
Here's another one. A group of talented artists get together without adult supervision and have the best time ever. The audience doesn't.
I'm on team "A lot of great artists only really had one good idea to begin with"
On the "nobody will tell them no" attitude. I've noticed also something slipping into a lot of modern art especially media like movies and Tv. This is just my own pet theory but...
We're taken the anti-bullying campaign too far and it's gone all the way around and become anti-critiquing.
For my example I'm going to use the abysmal, boring, go nowhere, safe "Falcon and Winter soldier" Which my girlfriend and I finished by mostly hate watching it.
The thing is everyone we know LOVED it. Which made no sense to us. IT was competently shot and the action was ok..... SPOILERS AHEAD IF YOU CARE.....
But everything else about it was garbage and people looked at us like we had two heads when we said it. I could feel the gears in their head trying to understand it. How could we not like something that had a Black captain America and showed black problems. You know like a forced scene where the most famous black guy on the planet can't get a loan.... Literally one of the most marketable people who exists. A person that helped bring back half of the population. A person that was friends with the richest man on the planet... couldn't get a loan... to fix a boat.
It goes on from there. It got such a pass from the general public (yeah there were some out there that were brave enough to mention how badly it fumbled it's whole message on race). I think that's because people are afraid to be critical of something these days... so long as it looks like it's trying or has a message that they like. Even if they completely garble that message.
I've noticed this even from a lot of critics on youtube who even 10 years ago would lace into this stuff with all the fury of a hurricane hitting a Caribbean island. Have gotten very polite especially with touchy stuff.
Ghostbusters 2016 was another good example. Currently at 74% on rotten tomatoes. 74% for a comedy! Then go read every review for it. I did for funs. Every review is incredibly critical with mostly backhanded compliments but then scroll to the end and 7, or B+, or 3.5 stars or whatever they use.
Because no one wants to sound like the asshole anymore. So a lot of modern media gets a pass so long as it covers controversial things.
EXCEPT that's the worse time for critics to give this stuff a pass! Because sending a poor message and then getting rewarded for it is just causing more confusion.
Sure this isn't all of it, but I have noticed in the past years that critics have gotten way too nice.
Iron sharpens Iron.
I don't think that's all of it. But yeah that's my crazy theory. American over-politeness combined with a decades-long anti-bullying campaign mixed with modern egg shell walking around touchy subjects.
Which leads to pandering. It's not that the intern will tell George Lucas "no" anymore. It's that the audience won't tell the creator "no." 'Cus they're trying.
Right now, I think there's also the "international market" thing screwing with Western entertainment, in that corporate is always looking for things that will easily translate to overseas markets, and that translates to pressure to make things simple and dumb. Probably more of an issue for movies than TV, but I suspect it's there as well.
Here's a cousin of Theory 3 that I'll call the Miyazaki Principle. In The Wind Rises, lead character Jiro Horikoshi is visited in a dream by his hero, the Italian aircraft designer Giovanni Battista Caproni, and told that every artist has 10 and only 10 inspired years. That sets up the stakes of the story: what will Jiro, himself a visionary aircraft designer, do with his 10 years?
I wouldn't be surprised if the Miyazaki Principle holds at least as a heuristic, with artists and thinkers getting max 10 golden years. This looks plausible if I'm right that most people, perhaps creative types especially, will have their shit together for one and just one phase of their life--together enough, that is, to generate and execute brilliant ideas, and not go hungry in the meantime.
Your fave's decade could come when they're young and hungry, full of passion, but it could also come when they're older and matured, enjoying a second wind. Case in point: I'd say Miyazaki's 10 years were 1994-2004, from when he began work on Princess Mononoke to the release of Howl's Moving Castle. (Spirited Away is in the middle of that period.) That's his mid-50s to mid-60s, when he'd just settled into his role as the wise old dean of anime, and was probably best-positioned to tackle his persistent concerns--the horrors of war and the loss of innocence--filtered carefully through Japanese folklore and fantasy whimsy.
I know this post is two-plus years old, but this is the year that The Day the Clown Cried enters the public domain. In June we will see if it un-seats my current champion for Worst Movie, "Tiptoes".
I think Intolerable Cruelty is marginally worse than The Ladykillers.