Image: Paramount Pictures
At a recent engagement at BFI Southbank in London, Sir Ridley Scott expressed some bold opinions regarding contemporary cinema. According to Metro, the esteemed director remarked:
There are millions of films produced today all over the world. It’s not just thousands; it’s millions… and most of it is s**t.
Perhaps 80%, or 60%, or even 40% is subpar, with about 25% of that 40% being decent, while 10% might be remarkable, and only the top 5% stands out as truly great. My math might be off, but in the 1940s, with merely 300 films released each year, around 70% of them felt very similar.
This is because many modern films rely heavily on costly digital effects, compensating for what they lack in solid storytelling. Focus on the screenplay!
Everywhere I turn, I hear lamentations over the deterioration of culture—be it the dubious lyrics of Taylor Swift’s Wood, or the trend of a banana taped to a museum wall, or Marvel churning out yet another formulaic blockbuster. While some critiques hold merit, the overall picture isn’t entirely bleak.
The current film landscape most certainly has its imperfections, as highlighted in Seth Rogen’s The Studio. Like many characters in that show, I find myself rolling my eyes at CGI-heavy films with scripts that barely span two pages.
However, it becomes evident that individuals like Scott, who cast sweeping judgments on modern film, music, and art, often fail to see the quality work that still exists beneath the surface.
It’s widely recognized that the film industry is facing challenges, largely due to the rise of streaming services. In the 2010s, as a wave of TV series emerged, audiences gravitated toward platforms like Netflix and HBO Max for their engaging, multi-episode narratives that films often fell short of.
Since then, numerous changes have taken place, including the tendency for films to have brief box office windows before they become available digitally. Hollywood has undermined its own long-term viability by opting for quick profits without considering the consequences of hastily making new releases accessible at home.
This is merely one of the several missteps of the movie industry. Studio execs pour substantial amounts of money into certain projects, convinced that a grand spectacle will draw audiences to theaters. Consequently, inflated budgets hinder films from recovering their costs (even critically lauded films like One Battle After Another), so the tendency is to lean on established franchises rather than gamble on original narratives.
An excessive dependence on CGI coupled with a reluctance to experiment artistically leads mainstream films to feel like lifeless imitations. When paired with lackluster screenwriting and tokenism, Scott’s critique starts to hold some weight.
20th Century Fox
Nonetheless, directors like Christopher Nolan, Denis Villeneuve, Yórgos Lánthimos, and Alex Garland continue to produce both breathtaking visuals and compelling narratives. Iconic filmmakers such as Martin Scorsese and Guillermo del Toro are still contributing noteworthy films. Additionally, the horror genre is witnessing a significant revival with innovators like Jordan Peele, Robert Eggers, Parker Finn, the Philippou brothers, and Zach Cregger paving the way for fresh perspectives.
If Scott finds the current landscape unappealing, I’d suggest he explore European cinema and the works of filmmakers such as Coralie Fargeat with The Substance, and Justine Triet’s Anatomy of a Fall. He might also appreciate hidden gems like The Girl with the Needle by Magnus von Horn or The Devil’s Bath by Veronika Franz and Severin Fiala, which might impress the director’s appetite for gripping narratives.
It’s accurate to say that the 70s, 80s, and 90s delivered phenomenal films and franchises. However, it would be misguided to presume that the majority of films from that era were masterpieces. Without in-depth analysis, it remains challenging to ascertain the ratio of exceptional work to poor quality. Scott’s dubious statistics lack credibility.
Mubi
Scott concluded his critique of modern cinema with a rather surprising admission:
What I’ve started doing—though it feels terrible—I’ve been watching my own films, and truthfully, they’re quite good. Moreover, they just keep their quality over time.
Let me clarify—I hold great admiration for Scott’s previous works. Titles like Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Alien, Thelma and Louise, and Blade Runner shaped my teenage years and revealed to me the magic of film. However, his recent projects suggest that he may be straying not only from his creative vision but also from sound judgment.
With far-fetched narratives and underdeveloped characters, Prometheus tarnishes the legacy of Alien. The Counsellor is a bewildering jumble, while Napoleon plays out as tedious historical fluff, with Joaquin Phoenix offering what might be his weakest performance. As for Gladiator II, it looks to be an overblown spectacle devoid of emotional resonance.
Apple
Thus, Ridley Scott ought to be more cautious when making sweeping generalizations about modern films. He finds himself guilty of exactly the same faults that he criticizes: absurd concepts, inadequate writing, and excessive reliance on visual effects.
Certainly, Hollywood could cultivate more bravery and creativity to enable the creation of works like Oppenheimer, The Brutalist, and Sinners. Yet, they often require a skilled director with significant influence behind them.
So perhaps instead of bemoaning the urgent need for change within the industry, Ridley Scott should embody the transformation he yearns to witness.
