I read this passage — which is a kind of epilogue to Pauline Kael’s review of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. It was written in 1969, and what she says seems to resonate with what we are going through today. For your comments / consideration (additions in square brackets are mine):
Just when there are audiences who may be ready for something, the studios [or producers] seem to be backing away, because they don’t understand what these audiences want. The audiences themselves don’t know, but they’re looking for something at the movies. This transition into the seventies is maybe the most interesting as well as the most confusing period in American [or Indian] movie history, yet there’s a real possibility that, because the tastes of the voting audience are changing so fast, the already tottering studios [or producers] will decide to minimize risks and gear production straight to the square audience and the networks [or OTT].
Baradwaj Rangan 
Madan
January 2, 2023
The question that this brings up is has the audience itself defined what kind of movie they want to see and perhaps they would like to keep that definition more unpredictable than what producers would like it to be. Also, is there really THE audience or more about different segments liking different segments?
Also, wasn’t Kael’s thesis at least proven wrong in the 70s when the new wave directors dominated and arguably extended Hollywood to its most adventurous? I mean, likes and dislikes apart, surely nobody could call Clockwork or Taxi Driver as movies intended for the square audience. The backlash happened in the 80s but there was a revival again from the 90s to 00s.
Coming to the Indian context, haven’t the makers of at least big budget vehicles always tended to look for the safest option anyway? It isn’t even restricted to the current phase and arguably movies like RRR or KGF2 (and I didn’t even like KGF2) take more risks than the pedestrian family movie formula of the 90s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
H. Prasanna
January 2, 2023
I agree. Everything definitely needs to be more polished and sanitized for OTT. And that has really stopped producers from letting filmmakers express themselves fully. No matter how eccentric/evolved a viewpoint the filmmaker has, the “product” has to be shot, edited, and sound like the multiplex and OTT mobile/TV viewer wants. Instead of getting a fully raw film, we get ten or fifteen great moments of insight into the filmmaker in a film. A raw film connects with audiences. Content just finds detractors/supporters, likes/dislikes. A raw film is hard to find these days.
LikeLike
Anand Raghavan
January 2, 2023
Will Kantara qualify as raw ? Wasn’t it rustic?
LikeLike
H. Prasanna
January 3, 2023
@Anand Raghavan Kantara is an excellent example of what I mean by 10 to 15 great moments in a polished movie. It is a very well made Masala movie that does not really challenge the genre in any way. The editing, camera, and sound are excellent. I really liked Kantara, but it didn’t really change the way I watch cinema. But many movies have become popular just as exercises in form. For example, the journey into the story in Rashomon. Sam Peckinpah’s violent westerns where people came out saying “they could feel the sand” as continous shots of people rolling in the sand created that effect. The jump cut in Breathless. Soderbergh’s editing style for Sex, Lies, and Videotape.
I really like the staging in Pandiraj movies, especially in humorous situations where multiple characters go in and out of the frame. I feel it is a great “cinematic” upgrade to Bhagyaraj-type set pieces. His efficiency has become better over the years. But, I also know I will never watch a movie where he challenges himself and expresses the story simply through that “form”. Will any studio give him money to simply do a exercise in that form? I don’t think so.
LikeLike
MANK
January 3, 2023
Kael’s assessment was very wrong , at least initially, though finally it did come true with the advent of the blockbuster with Jaws and Star Wars.
Prasanna, speaking of well staged comedies, Priyadarshan’s comedy films are also very good with their staging. Watching “Thenmavin Kombathu” and “Chandralekha” from the mid ’90s is still a vow experience simply from a cinematic form POV. though recently, as witnessed in Marakkar , he has even lost his gift for good filmmaking.
As for Kantara: its greatest achievement is that it’s at once raw, rooted and visceral and also rather polished and fantastical. While the film tells a very rustic tale, the filmmaking is top notch and very polished. By the end it transforms the audiences into a trance like state despite most of the scenes hitting you on a gut level. It does not break any new ground as far as genre or cinematic form is concerned, but it achieves what it set out to do brilliantly. I think Rishabh Shetty’s primary idea was to make a film based on folklore and the ritualistic art forms, and he chose the masala template to achieve it. And since masala genre itself evolved from the epics and myths, it lends itself very easily to that. That’s what made it such a potent cinematic experience.
LikeLike
MANK
January 3, 2023
LikeLike
Madan
January 3, 2023
Haven’t watched that video but unless the title is click baity, I would heavily disagree that it ‘ruined’ cinema. And I wonder if whoever made that video has watched the 1970s Evil Under The Sun movie starring Ustinov as Poirot. And if they have, would they care to explain why Knives Out is so bad compared to that movie. People seem to forget that there wasn’t ever a time when EVERY movie was edgy or raw, not even in the 70s. The same 70s had movies like Poseidon too.
The broad trend I am seeing is rather that with every passing decade, the bang average all-age family movie is more and more daring and subversive while the avant garde itself is more and more bereft of new possibilities/funding. On similar lines, morning news television in the West is replete with double entrendes and a far cry from the stiff formality of 40 years ago. But actual investigative journalism is dying.
LikeLike
MANK
January 3, 2023
Madan, a little bit clickbaiting yes, but they make the point in a very round about way (the knives out sequels going directly to OTT and the death of mid budget cinema etc) which I found interesting and related to the thread.
LikeLike
Madan
January 3, 2023
Ah, that’s a different point then. I will watch it. Glass Onion was released and didn’t gross much. I think the prognosis for small to mid films in Holly is even worse than in India. And the sequel did become a different kind of animal compared to the OG Knives Out.
LikeLike
Madan
January 3, 2023
Watched it, so the video is purely about the economics of film making today and the studios moving away from mid budget films.
LikeLike
praneshp
January 4, 2023
@madan Glass Onion gross doesn’t mean much. You can verify if this was the model in India, but in the US, it was released for exactly one week, then pulled out of theaters and only back in theaters again along with the Netflix release around Christmas.
Luckily, I found out about this nonsense ahead of time and watched in the 1-week window
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
January 4, 2023
praneshp: Ah, well that indeed doesn’t make sense. Like leaving money on the table. But I suppose suggesting as much is, in the words of Russo Bros, “denigrating the digital experience”. Now there’s a five star standard word salad.
LikeLike
praneshp
January 4, 2023
But I agree with your prognosis; anecdotally, outside of marvel/star wars/…, I’m able to just walk into whatever movie I want, whatever time, and get good seats. I just book tickets when I leave work.
6-8 years ago, this would only be possible for the really low budget movies. Not for a large ensemble like glass onion. I’m curious how the next John wick is going to look like; large cast, it’s a franchise but nothing like the superhero ones, I wonder if people will just wait to see it at home.
LikeLiked by 1 person