A devolution from rich variety to consistent bland mush

I think I have mentioned that I am informally testing a hypothesis that older movies, before the advent of globalized movie and CGI, had better acting performances and stronger story-lines. My hypothesis is that globalization has functioned much like fuel efficiency regulations in the automotive industry. Since aerodynamics are a big contributor to fuel efficiency, tight fuel efficiency goals is driving car manufacturers to a broadly identical car shape compared to the great variability that existed in the past. If you are going to hit your fuel efficiency targets, your car will have to adhere to the physical optimum, and therefore your car exterior appearance will be very similar to any other car. Car appearance is being driven, not by customer preference but by regulator preference.

Analogously, once Hollywood started making movies for the global market rather than just the local market, it had an indirect, but material affect on production. If the movie is to be seen across cultures, you have to reduce the script (fewer words to be dubbed or subtitled). With less dialogue, you have to rely on more action. More action involves more CGI. A global audience also means variant cultural norms so narrative has to be shorn of particulars down to the lowest common denominator. You move from Jane Austen to Boy-meets-Girl.

That's my supposition. I am attempting to watch more older movies with this hypothesis in mind. It is purely informal and therefore not testable. But the limited experience so far seems consistent with the hypothesis.

But in doing this viewing of older performances, I am seeing another divide which I did not originally anticipate. Global movie distribution occurred in the same time frame as the emergence of serious CGI capabilities. But it also coincided with the emergence of political correctness and postmodernist/critical theory speech suppression.

I am seeing scenes and hearing dialog in movies only thirty or fifty years old that it is hard to imagine being written or filmed today. Airplane, for example. Blazing Saddles is another. What I am finding is that not only was the narrative and dialogue stronger, but it was more variant as well, richer. Writers were not writing defensively, afraid of some lone sole taking offense. They were bolder.

Again, it is most apparent in humor - perhaps the most dangerous spoken art form.

All brought to mind by an early SNL skit I saw today which I am confident could not be performed today. The Job Interview with Richard Pryor and Chevy Chase.


Double click to enlarge.

Are we better off without such humor and without such bold writing. I doubt it. But it has surprised me the difference in scope, level of creative writing and narrative, level of theatrical performance, etc. between then and now. The older films suffer from low production quality compared to today but they are far richer in thematic content, writing quality, and theatrical performance. We have gone from rich variety to consistent bland mush.