Matrix is an interesting case, actually. The predominant influences there are the "art violence" school that came largely from HK, and that favored subject of highbrow bashing, MTV. Modern cinema actually owes a huge debt to MTV, which has been a proving ground for a huge range of new developments in editing, cinematography, effects, lighting, and choreography. I would not really consider Matrix to be a work that pushed the envelope; it just took the envelope-pushing work of others and put it into a slicker, smarter package. I liked the movie, though.
Schindler's List is, of course, a different sort of animal altogether. At any given point there are a very few moviemakers who have sufficient name-power - generally earned by the production of a large quantity of successful market-oriented work - to get financing for a risky movie. These things do happen, and sometimes very good work results. Sometimes very bad work results: I'm thinking of a Coppola film that was an absolute disaster, can't think of the name.
None of this, of course, in any way invalidates my belief that the industry's trend toward sex and violence is market-driven. I'm not saying that it is impossible for a movie that does not feature sex and/or violence to succeed. I'm saying that the most reliable route to financial success is sex and violence, and that the dominant trend within the industry will always be in the direction most likely to achieve returns on investment.
I really don't think it has anything to do with an attempt to manipulate the culture. |
