As a full-time, bona fide, see-'em-all movie critic for two decades back in the day, I attended and reviewed some 250 theatrical films each year. Not counting the occasional straight-to-video title, specialty screenings that rolled through town and the annual marathon known as the Sundance Film Festival.
In the beginning, it seemed like a dream job. After all, I've been a movie buff all my life. When I was a kid, my dad used to joke that my first word was not "mommy" but "movie." When I was a teen, I went to so many films that my parents' friends used to ask me for recommendations.
Yeah, I know: weird.
I loved celluloid storytelling and tried to keep up with everything that was coming out. But it was still just a hobby. Then, about the time I turned 30, my hobby became my job. And it didn't take long to come to the realization that, dream job or not, this was going to be work.
Even though I used to go to many, many movies each year when I was younger, I slowed down through the '70s, due to compromises in time and money while raising my young children, working two or three jobs, yadda, yadda. And I don't think I had quite grasped just how much movies changed during that time.
I began reviewing for the Deseret News in 1978, but it didn't become my full-time job for a couple more years. When I started movie criticizing in earnest, it was in the early '80s, during an explosion of sleazy teen comedies and gory slasher flicks — all those "Porky's" and "Friday the 13th" sequels and their requisite rip-offs. And it was a bit of a shock to the system.
When I was growing up, a bad movie was just a bad movie. It may have been idiotic or poorly made but it wasn't as disgusting or offensive or difficult to sit through as were many of the movies I was now required to see.
All of a sudden, or so it seemed, moviemakers could say and show anything they wanted — so they did.
Some of my peers in the movie-reviewing community used to give me grief about being a prude, a reputation that still clings. To me, however, that's not really an insult. I'm not embarrassed at being put off by explicit content.
It just seems that since movies are such a biggie-sized, literal experience from the get-go, a bit of subtlety isn't a bad thing. By their nature, theatrical films are over the top. Never mind IMAX, the average screen image is already 40 feet high. For good or ill, every aspect of the imagery is bigger than life.
So, if a filmmaker decides to pull back a bit rather than put graphic images of sex and violence on full display, that's all to the good. There's something to be said for shutting the door after going into the bedroom, instead of allowing the camera to trail along and record every detail. And while I don't want to go back to the days when a bullet hit someone and there was no blood, I also don't think we always need to see it gushing like a geyser.
I understood that '70s cinema was trying to make it more real, but, as I used to joke, it's also realistic to throw up and go to the bathroom, and no one wants to see that. Who knew that it wouldn't be long before we would see such things depicted in movies on a regular basis?
Frankly, I wish moviemakers would worry more about logic and connective storytelling and dialogue that moves things along and plot holes being plugged, instead of whether a person stepping out of the shower would really cover up with a towel.
And, if it isn't asking too much, could we perhaps, just every now and then, see a bit of class instead of a lot of crass.
Not that in-your-face cinema is new. It's always been around. It's just never before been the majority of what is offered. These days, trying to find a movie about human beings who demonstrate wit and have an engaging story to tell, without something — or a lot of somethings — thrown in strictly for shock value, is difficult at best.
Unfortunately, movies like "Get Low" or "True Grit" or "The King's Speech" or "The Blind Side," to name just a few recent titles you may know, are becoming more and more rare.
Sorry, but the plethora of animated features and comic book- and toy-driven movies and the "Hangovers" and the "Saws" and the Judd Apatow oeuvre just don't do it for me.
Not that I don't enjoy a good cartoon or superhero movie here and there. I also enjoy a greasy hamburger or a bowl of ice cream on occasion — but not as a steady diet.
Is it asking so much for the same consideration in my cinematic diet?
EMAIL: hicks@desnews.com