Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Riske Business: Kevin Smith, Rob Zombie and Movie to Fathom

by Adam Riske
Does a director owe it to an audience to deliver the movie their fans want to see?

This is the question that ran through my head last week after seeing separate Fathom Events screenings of Kevin Smith’s new movie Yoga Hosers and Rob Zombie’s latest, called 31. I didn’t particularly like either, but the intention of this article is not to review those films. Instead, I want to consider some of the comments that came with these movies in the form of pre-or-post film Q&A’s from their respective filmmakers. In the case of Yoga Hosers, Smith said that the movie was made not really for his core audience but rather for the daughters of his fans. It’s the movie he hopes pre-teen girls would stumble upon on Netflix and become a favorite of theirs. With 31, Zombie explicitly said he made the movie he thought his fans want.
Let’s start with 31. Rob Zombie making a movie he thought his fans would want to see was borne out of a couple of things: 1) He said he was trying to make a different movie and wasn’t able to get that one off the ground so instead he made 31 more or less out of frustration; 2) This is Zombie’s first movie (that I am aware of) to be funded partially by crowdsourcing. Movies made out of frustration can be good. Look at After Hours, for example. That movie was a quick cheapie made by Martin Scorsese when he couldn’t get The Last Temptation of Christ made (it later did get made but only post-After Hours) and it turned out to be a great, underrated movie in his filmography. Much could have been the case with 31, but one of the issues with Zombie’s movie is that it so heavily repeats the playbook of some of his earlier films. It’s Zombie’s homage to himself instead of breaking new ground like After Hours was for Scorsese.

To address the second point, I really do think Zombie felt beholden to pleasing his fans because they partly paid for the movie he was making. And that’s a real shame. One of Zombie’s strongest attributes as a filmmaker up to 31 was that he was his own man. No other movie was like a Rob Zombie movie, and sometimes the results were mixed but some turned out to be real gems (The Devil's Rejects, The Lords of Salem) and they were all unique. I don’t want to see the Rob Zombie movie that fans want. I want to see the movie Rob Zombie wants to make. Audiences don’t know what they want until they see it and that’s something filmmakers can forget. It’s better just to do your thing and let the chips fall where they may.
There might be a fine line to this, though, and that’s how we come to Kevin Smith. Smith is an odd case as a filmmaker these days. He’s just as much a brand as he is a filmmaker and that’s his prerogative. After feeling burned by critics years ago, he basically said “fuck them, I’m making movies for my fans.” And I don’t blame him. It’s better to make want you want to make and not worry about appealing to a consensus. That’s one of the reasons I love Tusk. It’s so weird and I think equally horrific and funny much in the way of Eli Roth’s Cabin Fever.

However, Yoga Hosers might be tipping the scale too far in the way of personal filmmaking. Yoga Hosers is barely a movie for Kevin Smith fans, and Smith has said that it’s basically a midnight movie for young girls who are too young to see midnight movies. So, in those terms, he’s made a movie so personal that it’s kind of for no one except himself, his family and his friends. This is what I was imploring Rob Zombie to continue but, for whatever reason, I can’t decide why I may be against that advice for Kevin Smith. Am I worried that if Rob Zombie goes further down the “made it for fans” path he’ll wind up like Smith? (Yes) Am I over Kevin Smith as a filmmaker? (No, I am still interested in his work). So what is the thesis of this article? I don’t know if there is one.
The best I can come up with is maybe we’re all looking too hard at movies. What I mean by that is maybe we should stop analyzing them so much and just go back to an old adage of F This Movie!, which is “are you with a movie or not with a movie?” That’s perhaps the most perfect way I can sum up an evaluation of whether or not a movie works for you. You can love a movie with a ton of flaws and not like a movie that is good by most objective accounts. No amount of mental gymnastics about Kevin Smith or Rob Zombie’s intentions are going to change what I know in my gut to be true – I didn’t like their new movies. I can torture myself about why or I can just shrug it off and move on to the next movie, whether that be Kickboxer: Vengeance or Morgan or whatever else.

What do you think? Should filmmakers make their movies with the audience in mind? Is it better to analyze why you did or did not like a movie or to just let it be?

23 comments:

  1. I don't think a filmmaker should make a movie with a particular audience in mind. It should be their own personal expression and the audience should be "whoever wants to see this thing that I made." I don't know, I'm having trouble articulating the way I feel beyond that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can still make a movie for your fans that is personal vision simultaneously. That's what Yoga Hosers is. That's what 31 is. The issue is that while they're trying to get other movies funded and hitting road blocks, Rob and Kevin were able to make something that will still keep their names public while they continue to try to find funding for those other films.

      Delete
  2. While I understand the point which this article is trying to make, a lot of directors make films for themselves which their fans love. Take John Carpenter for example. Carpenter makes films for Carpenter. And most of these films are terrific. And none of these films stoop to the level of Tusk or Yoga Hosers.

    If Smith wants to make movies for him and his family, that's fine. But don't subject the public to that dribble. Not only are Smith fanboys annoying, but they're loyal as fuck. And this is evident by Yoga Hosers. Sometimes the director you once thought was genius turns out to be shit (or turns into shit). And yet, every Smith fan seems to be apologizing on his behalf or making excuses for his recent trilogy. But Kevin Smith isn't doing this.

    I bring this up because there's a great danger in ignoring critics and making films for you and you only. You start to isolate yourself. Both Smith and Zombie love the smell of their own farts (Superbeasto anyone?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ignoring critics? Hardly. https://youtu.be/DaF_aX85teI

      Delete
    2. And he attacks critics in the film...which makes no sense whatsoever. You can't make a shit film and then get mad at people for not liking it (critics included). Plus, Smith has already attacked critics in his other films. So now it's just tired and cliched when he does it.

      Delete
    3. He doesn't attack critics in the film. The antagonist in the film has a grudge against critics in the film. The girls are there to stop him.

      Delete
    4. I see both sides. I do think that YouTube video is smug in a way. He could have easily not addressed the bad reviews but he makes a video to poke fun at how much they don't bother him. It's a little weird. Then again he is a brand and brands have to create content in order to survive.

      Delete
    5. If he wasn't such a public person, he probably wouldn't have been so vocal about the reviews. He might have made a passing remark and then moved on, like we see many filmmakers and cast members do. I would have described it differently, but yes, I agree, he is a brand. And he's recording content almost every other day -- be it one of his four podcasts, or Comic Book Men, or Geeking Out, or his Q & A appearances. The guy is always busy. If a filmmaker has something constructive to say about the criticism they receive, I think that's fair.

      Delete
  3. Personally, I'd rather our artists keep working on projects that personally interest them. True fans of that person's work will continue to be on board for more of it, even if they don't like a particular piece.

    My problem with Kevin Smith isn't that he's making movies that don't personally appeal to me, but that he's kind of smug about it, as if by making a bunch of weird, out-of-left-field movies makes him somehow better than the people who don't like them. That's not the way it works.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How has he been smug about it? He's been pretty straightforward and humble about it, from my point of view. He makes a point of explaining, quite frequently in fact, that he only makes the movies he wants to see, and that is all he's ever done. Sometimes, with luck, the movie he wants to see happens to be the movie his fans want to see. All he can hope to do is keep the budget low so he can pay back his financiers, which he's been able to do up till now.

      Delete
  4. There's another reason why Rob and Kevin made these films. Rob makes a direct point of it in his Q & A, while fans of Kevin who follow him on Twitter and listen to his podcasts know what he's been going through with other projects.

    Rob mentioned that 31 came to be while he was trying to find financing for his movie about the '70s Philadelphia Flyers, Broad Street Bullies. In his frustration over toiling these past couple years over the financing of that movie, he vented (I think) to his manager (or it could have been a financier), "I just need to get a movie made. It should be easy. I could make a movie, I don't know, about a group of carnies who get kidnapped on Halloween night and are chased by clowns trying to kill them." And his manager (or was it a financier?) said, "I think I could finance that."

    With Kevin, he's still trying to find a home for his Mallrats television series, his Buckaroo Banzai television series, Clerks III, and his own hockey movie, Hit Somebody.

    The trouble is, these guys are trying to stretch creatively while at the same time deal with a system that only funds recognizable content. It's harder to get unproven concepts (by directors of 'type') funded.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While I'm not defending the "system," gatekeepers do have merit. As movies become more affordable to make, we're going to become inundated with content. This is already starting to happen with TV. Furthermore, movie execs are looking for original ideas now more than ever. So while it's easy to bash the system, there are also flaws in the alternative.

      Delete
    2. I'm not bashing the system as much as I'm just presenting the reality inherent in the system. But I do agree with what your saying.

      Delete
  5. I'm glad you're a fellow Tusk lover, Adam. The first couple of times I saw it, I didn't really know what to make of that wonderfully weird movie, but by the third one I realized I think I love it, because I keep wanting to return to it.

    Yoga Hosers, on the other hand, doesn't look good. Like, at all. I'm sure I'll see it at some point, though.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I could see this argument if Smith started making murder mysteries and Zombie had decided that he wanted to direct a Nicholas Sparks film.
    In that case I'd say the fans need to deal with it if they can't appreciate more than one kind of film.
    If this is a case of (in Smith's situation) of "Yeah, it's a comedy but it's not a stoner comedy so you let me down"...that's also on the fans.
    If it's the case as with Yoga Hosers where it's "Dude, I'm glad you think Canadian accents are funny...and Conroy agreed to show up and do his Batman voice...but that's not a movie." Then the fans have a point.
    And while I haven't seen "31" (and don't plan to), I would say that Zombie owed fans some English subtitles during the Spanish speaking parts.....

    ReplyDelete
  7. Are they "good" movies? Good is such a relative term... hahaha! But did they entertain me? Yes. On a grindhouse level, I was entertained. 31 was basically a grindhouse package all on its own. Two music videos, then the movie, then the Q & A, then thirty minutes of what promises to be a much longer making of documentary on the forthcoming blu ray release. My screening of 31 was packed. That may have also contributed to the gun I had. I'm pretty sure I'll never have the same experience watching 31 again. Unless those videos and the Q & A are on the blu ray.

    There weren't as many people at the Yoga Hosers screening. Not by a long shot. But as the film wound ever closer to its conclusion, the patience of the girl in the aisle in front of me, sitting with I'm guessing her bf and one of his friends, was reaching its limit. As the film became more and more ridiculous, she would shout at the screen with annoyance, befuddlement, and surrender. Her outbursts actually made my viewing of the movie more entertaining. Kevin's dialogue always puts a smile on my face anyway, and there were enough podcast and View Askewniverse in-jokes to make me laugh. Ralph Garman's impressions always make me hoot and holler. Good? Bad? It's a midnight movie. I just had fun.

    31 and Yoga Hosers would make an excellent double feature.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great column, Adam. As a lifelong Kevin Smith apologist, I'm happy that he's making movies like Yoga Hosers. They're not for me, but I'm still on his side. The guy caught shit for two decades for never rising to the promise he showed in Clerks, and now he's just going with what feels right to him. I think the very least we can ask of an artist is to be honest about what they're presenting to us. Speak your language and say what you feel. It's then our prerogative to listen or not.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's fine for critics and audiences to analyze (or over-analyze) film, that's the nature of fandom. People content to let a film pass without examination are the rank and file moviegoers. As fans, we want to understand the why. Why do we like it? Why does it work? Or ... Why don't we like it? Why does it fail? We also want to share the experience with others. It's not much of a conversation to say, "I liked it. The end". We're looking to hear other people's opinions, to discuss the meaning beyond the surface, to delve behind the scenes.

    Filmmakers themselves are also fans, and may be prone to over-analyze the feedback of their own films. Filmmakers should be in the mindset that they know best when it comes to making their movies, but they shouldn't outright ignore feedback. Making movies is collaborative, it's not a question of IF you will incorporate ideas or feedback from others, it's a question of WHEN. And to varying degrees that includes audience feedback.

    Knowing WHEN to incorporate outside influence is something of a soft skill for filmmakers. Sometimes they take the audience into account from the get-go, and sometimes that works. I like Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, for example, and that movie seems tailor made for Smith's fans.

    Mostly I just want to see filmmakers put work on screen that they have passion for, that they were inspired to make; the inspiration can come from anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's a bit of a leap in prestige and fandom, but I think this ties in with Lucas and his persistent tinkering with the Star Wars trilogy that we all hold so sacred. I think art belongs to the artist, there's rarely "rapings of childhood" involved. If Lucas wanted to go back and add space farts to his work, it's his right. The fact that artistic vision and financial realities are ever able to combine and spawn something people connect with is a miracle to be celebrated. If Yoga Hosers was made by Pete Peterson, it wouldn't be on anyone's radar, but because it's part of folk hero Kevin Smith's "fuck it" phase, it's gonna generate a lot of hate. It's a near impossible task to ride the razor's edge between giving your fans what they want and repeating yourself like a tired, old hack.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wow, I'm watching the Blub and it's great! Hope that's what Riske meant. FThisMovie! Im with it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kevin Smith changes his mind so often, I doubt he really actually knows who his films are for.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's a tricky issue but I'll say this much - I'd rather filmmakers go to the fans for funding and be somewhat beholden to them, than the seemingly inevitable alternative (in response to general audiences not wanting to pay for movies and needing new revenue streams) which is being forced to make the movies that Pepsi, Ford, Nokia, etc. want them to make.

    ReplyDelete