New York Times Talks More "Mumblecore"

Seems any article mentioning the DIY movement that the press has frightfully dubbed "Mumblecore" can't rest on a blog or website long before legions of "anti" comments follow it. Such is the case of this latest New York Times piece that seems to simply highlight this adverse but in some ways similar group of films and filmmakers. Here is some of it after the jump:



Despite a record-setting, recession-proof box office, the movie business has lost its middle. Blockbusters, based largely on toys and comic books, which can be turned into hugely lucrative franchises for the studios, have all but replaced movies aimed at a smaller and perhaps more discerning audience. In the recent past, the studios wanted their slates to contain all sorts of movies at different budgets, but today certain equations seem to dominate. Will the movie have a star attached? (Add $20 million to your cost.) Will it play around the world? (Add a no-English-necessary action component.) Will it appeal to the widest possible audience? (Meaning, males 18-49.)

In autumn, around awards season, the menu shifts toward more adult fare, but the studios’ emphasis is still on big. Last year, for instance, Warner Brothers decided not to release “Slumdog Millionaire” because it felt no one in America wanted to see a movie set in Mumbai, partially in another language. Despite the film’s low budget, the Warner execs decided that the considerable cost of distribution and promotion would far surpass the estimated profits. Instead, in 2008, they preferred to spend their money on hugely expensive movies like “Speed Racer” (which lost tens of millions of dollars) and the record-setting “Dark Knight” (which made $530 million). Like most studios, Warner preferred the big gamble to the small. And when “Slumdog” was scooped up by Fox Searchlight, where it made more than $140 million and won the Academy Award for best picture, Warner said it did not regret its decision. The thinking seemed to be: better a loud, super-expensive popcorn extravaganza than a quieter, smaller (and riskier) film.

In this big-is-better environment, a new independent movement has emerged. It has the (unfortunate) title of “mumblecore,” a cinematic genre that focuses on characters, mostly in their mid to late 20s, who are caught somewhere between college and adulthood. Although the characters in these films don’t actually mumble, they are, mostly, in a state of in-between-ness. Emotions are keenly felt but, as in life, not always clearly enunciated. Characters are neither poor nor rich, particularly successful nor unsuccessful — they’re a little aimless, but aware of that aimlessness. It’s a limbo world: stories of ill-timed love affairs, small misunderstandings between friends, missed cues and minor victories. The intimacy of the genre is its strength; the nature of youth — and all that represents, even into middle age — is the heartbeat of these movies.

Read the full piece HERE.