Here’s something of a novelty, a journalistic piece about contemporary Hollywood that for once adopts a balanced approach to the subject of whether or not the studios still make any of the kinds of films that are still critically lauded for broad notions of ‘quality’ status. I’m referring to a ‘state of the industry’ piece in The New York Times by its two main critics, Manohla Dargis and A.O.Scott, one which expresses plenty of personal reservations about the nature of many Hollywood films but that combines this with a more than usually level-headed approach to the picture overall.
Normal journalistic practice is to exaggerate this kind of ‘trend-spotting’ – either to proclaim the death of such films, or to express wonder when a few seem to come along at the same time. The truth is, indeed, that there’s very much more continuity than is suggested in that kind of reporting.
Which, of course, brings me on to the subject of my new book (surely not a plug?), which is due out soon, Quality Hollywood: Markers of Distinction in Contemporary Studio Film. The argument about the continuity of production of what are defined as ‘quality’ films is something I make here, along with digging down quite a lot into what exactly is meant by a term such as ‘quality’, one that, in this use, entails a particular kind of position in a prevailing hierarchy of value, and how exactly this tends to be manifested in studio features. More news on this soon, including the cover, once the text on the back page has been finalised.