Faux-Outrage of the Week: Youth Culture is Killing THE HURT LOCKER

It all started with a throwaway line in a John Horn column.

You remember John Horn, the LA Times writer who we like to pick on for declaring YOUNG@HEART an unmitigated disaster (what with box office topping out just shy of $4 million).  Well, in a recent column, Horn wrote about the surprising success of Kathryn Bigelow's excellent new film THE HURT LOCKER, which - at the time - had just passed $7 million and seemed like it was eluding the box office troubles that beset other Iraq War films (both narrative and documentaries).

In the midst of praising Summit Entertainment (the upstart distributor behind the TWILIGHT franchise) for their handling the release of the film, Horn suggests a possible dark lining for his silver cloud:

"For all of the film's early commercial and critical achievements, Summit now faces a HURT LOCKER test nearly as tricky as the film's central theme of disabling Iraqi improvised explosive devices. Younger moviegoers are not flocking to the film, which could limit its ticket sales."

Something about that last line has shaken both Roger Ebert and blogger Jeffrey Wells to their very core, leading both to write hysterical, sky-is-falling screeds against young people for turning their backs on such cinematic excellence.

Says America's favorite film critic in a posting entitled - get ready for it, "THE GATHERING DARK AGE":

"If I mention the cliché "the dumbing-down of America," it's only because there's no way around it. And this dumbing-down seems more pronounced among younger Americans. It has nothing to do with higher educational or income levels. It proceeds from a lack of curiosity and, in many cases, a criminally useless system of primary and secondary education. Until a few decades ago, almost all high school graduates could read a daily newspaper. The issue today is not whether they read a daily paper, but whether they can." (emphasis his)

Wells goes even further:

"Excuse me? The Young and the Empty are paying to see big-studio CG crap but they're steering clear of a genuinely cool, gripping and seriously thrilling film that is unquestionably among the year's best and which runs circles around the filmmaking chops of Michael Bay and Stephen Sommers? And the youth of the nation can't be bothered? There's really and truly something wrong with these guys, honest to God. A deficiency in their souls."

Balderdash.

First, how either man could sustain this level of doom-is-near outrage over this benign sentence - "Younger moviegoers are not flocking to the film" - a sentence with no supporting statement, is beyond me.  Where's the demographic report that we're supposed to see attached to this kind of quip, such as "70% of the audience is over 35" or really anything to suggest that the audience for THE HURT LOCKER is any different than the audience for NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (for example) or some other highly praised, art house film. 

And if that's not the case, then where are the older crowds?  Why aren't they turning out in larger numbers?

And why couldn't Ebert or Wells read the three paragraphs that preceded the sentence that, for them, summed up today's callow youth better than any other.  And if they could/did read those paragraphs, why didn't they quote from them, because they certainly put the "young moviegoers" quote in some perspective:

"From the start, Summit viewed THE HURT LOCKER less as a movie about combat and more as a story of valor. "What we saw was a movie about a hero, not just a movie about the Iraq war," says Rob Friedman, Summit's co-chairman and chief executive. "And knowing the previous history of similarly themed movies, we immediately set out to create a different release strategy."

The first HURT LOCKER trailers noticeably emphasized the characters' gallantry ("To do this job," the trailer's type said, "you have to be brave.") and the film's first round of critical buzz. The sales pitch was directed toward moviegoers older than 25, with coming attractions previews appearing ahead of STATE OF PLAY, ANGELS AND DEMONS and PUBLIC ENEMIES among other adult-oriented dramas.

Instead of opening THE HURT LOCKER soon after the Toronto festival, Summit placed it smack in the middle of the summer, directly opposite TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN.  The idea was simple: Give critics and cinéastes who had been knocked senseless by summer's mass-appeal onslaught a movie that excited them. As laudatory word-of-mouth built, Summit slowly added the film to a few dozen more theaters each week."

Directed toward moviegoers older than 25.

Coming attractions appearing ahead of STATE OF PLAY (STATE OF fucking PLAY?) and ANGELS AND DEMONS.

Give critics and cinéastes a movie that excited them.

But the fact that teenagers haven't discovered this film means that civilization itself is at peril.  Gathering dark age my ass.

No, instead of blaming Summit for not running trailers in front of TWILIGHT, instead of taking them to task for not marketing directly to teens (and remember this is an R rated war film), instead of questioning why the hell THE HURT LOCKER was submitted for the Spirit Awards last year (leading to two acting nominations and no nods in the Best Picture or Best Director categories), we've gotta blame the kids.

Is there an issue with getting young people (18-34) to connect to independent film in the way they did in the 1990s?  Yes.  No one's arguing with that.  But that concern didn't start and won't end with THE HURT LOCKER.  It's a question of delivery systems, competition from other media - not to mention quality and, yes, marketing.  And it affects those of us in nonfiction as much as it does those in narrative filmmaking (how much of MAN ON WIRE's audience was under 35?).  It has little to do with "deficiencies of soul"

So, attention America's youth, don't you know that you shouldn't be watching the big, goofy, summer, escapist, comic book blockbusters, you're supposed to be going to the movies that the cinéastes want you to see?  It may not even be playing in your town, but shouldn't you find a way?

Don't you know that you've ruined Roger Ebert's day?

Damn kids.

Comments

[eb]

Ebert wasn't saying the failure of teenagers to "discover" The Hurt Locker (or, rather, that they're flocking to Transformers 2 and G.I. Joe) means that "civilization is at peril", but that it is emblematic of the dumbing-down of modern culture. In case you missed it, the final paragraph of his journal entry begins:

"There has been an overnight outpouring of response to this entry, and most of the posts are from young readers who sadly agree with me about their generation."

So apparently there's plenty of young people who don't think Ebert's opinion is "balderdash."

[Erin Donovan]

Well put, AJ.

[Chuck]

I wrote a short rant about Ebert's "doom is nigh" post the other day. eb is correct to summarize Ebert's argument as implying that Hurt Locker's "failure" is "emblematic of the dumbing-down of modern culture."

But even that argument misses the point, given the film's R-rating, its marketing to people over 25, and the film's slow roll out. My guess is that if Hurt Locker had been marketed to kids, many of them would have seen it and many would quickly agree that it's better than most of the CG-laden blockbusters.

The kids are alright. Except when they try to write a paragraph in my composition classes.

[Dusty]

You hit the nail on the head right here, AJ "Is there an issue with getting young people (18-34) to connect to independent film in the way they did in the 1990s? Yes."

But the thing no one dares speak aloud is that a big part of it is not the fault of delivery systems, or marketing budgets or distractions from twitter or sexting or cuddle parties or anything else. A large part of the blame has to go to the filmmakers.

The reason young people got excited about indie film in the early/mid 90s was simple: Pulp Fiction, Clerks, Trainspotting, Bound, El Mariachi, and on and on. There were independent movies that were accessible, exciting and appealed to young people. Where are those movies today? They're nowhere to be found. Critics can rave about 'Silent Light' or 'Manufactured Landscapes' all they want, but no one with all their original teeth is ever going to be able to sit through movies like that.

No self-respecting, intelligent person under 30 would be caught dead listening to a Top 10 album. But they only see Top 10 movies. Why is that? Despite obvious inequalities in marketing budgets, etc., I think the biggest part of it is that there are very few good independent movies aimed at young people.

Please contradict me, fellow commenters. But if anyone says (500) Days of Summer, I'm going to punch them in the face.

[Arne]

This is the oldest old movie critic trope in the universe...Ever since radio arrived and allegedly turned an entire generation into idiots, there have been waves of cranky old men condemning a generation they don't understand. The truth of the matter is that in this age young people are exposed to more diverse, international and artsy media than they ever were when any previous generation was growing up. Roger Ebert probably has some kind of nostalgaic glow in his brain about the era of Fellini and Bergman, but how many people really had access to those films then? Maybe one art house in every other state? If that? Most 17 year olds have seen more foreign cinema on DVD, cable, online and elsewhere than even made it to the states in bygone eras. When I was growing up there was one great movie theater in Portland and we just waited for whatever they would show, crossing our fingers that a new Chinese film would make arrive. Fast forward to the mid-90s when I took a job at Le Video here in San Francisco and we were making Dario Argento sections and advising teenagers on which Takeshi "Beat" Kitano films were best...

We certainly didn't have a mind-boggling box office success, but it still overwhelms me that a little documentary was able to reach so many young people at all. 20 years ago someone would've laughed in our faces if we'd said we thought we could get some teenagers to a theater to see a documentary. And who knows how many have seen it now on DVD... In fact, when we were shooting our film, we recorded a discussion amongst a bunch of 14 year old girls about whether they like Mad Hot Ballroom or Spellbound best. And later an eight year old quoted Spellbound.

As for Hurt Locker, yes it was good. But I have no idea why anyone would want a teenager to see it for chrissake. It's extremely tense, has moments of extreme violence and gore, and is about very adult issues.

The kids are alright.

[Ina]

I don't know why they released the film this summer. Dumb move, and promoting it as Katherine Bigelow's masterpiece probably didn't do anything to drag the guys in.

Kids can play video games that have more violence and gore, so I doubt those elements are keeping younger audiences away.

Why didn't they open it in the fall, at theaters near large college campuses?