The B-movie used to be a low-budget genre film that accompanied the feature film. Back in the day, this differentiation made sense. You could tell which movies were on the A-list and which were on the B-list, much like you can tell the difference between Kellogg's Raisin-Bran and Star Market's Raisin-DeLite. One was infinitely better than the other.
But now, B-movies seem to include almost everything that isn't considered "A-list," and this is an era where A-list movies are an endangered species. People seem to think that's a bad thing.
There's a lot of talk about movies recently. The movie studios are whining to the general public that no one goes to movies anymore, which is sort of like that annoying kid who keeps asking why you never made it to his open-mike night debut. Duh, because you can't sing to save your life. The same goes for the movie industry. As the popular argument goes, stop producing crap and I'll pay money to see it.
This might not be true. When we hear of a movie, the first thing we do is interpret the title. This is an all-important step, the first filter we run a movie through. The movie studios haven't seemed to grasp this, though.
Here's a tip: don't name a movie "Cinderella Man" and then make it about boxing. It confused a lot of people. I myself was watching the preview and my thought process went a little like this: "1930s? The Depression? Boxing? I might actually go see-wha-a-a-a-a?" It doesn't matter if you were trying to romanticize it or attract both genders to the movie, you don't tack on a fairy tale heroine to the opposite gender and make it a serious film. "Snow White Stud" or "Sleeping Beauty Guy" could be about a man in a coma, but the former comes off as an equestrian documentary and the latter sounds like a lame super-hero movie. "Goldilocks and the Three Gentlemen" would have to be porn.
But I digress.
Once we think the title is interesting, we turn to the reviewers, and here is the movie industry's second problem. A. O. Scott tears movies a new one weekly, but he works for the New York Times, so even if he likes it, his opinion is automatically pretentious and tainted with condescension. Then there's Ebert, who throws the phrase "two thumbs up" around like confetti, and there are the daily blogs of half-wit morons who feel better about themselves when they trash movies. The reviewers don't help us decide what's good and what's bad anymore.
Personally, I think the main problem with movies today is the general public, whose high standards are based on a flawed system. These days, the only things considered "A-list" are Oscar-bait movies. Studio X has assembled a crack team of human awesomeness to bring you the best historical reenactment/portrayal of a famous trial/event/battle. The critics love 'em, and the general public is pigeon-holed into believing that this is the pinnacle of cinema, and everything else is useless dreck.
But since when were B-movies bad? I'll name off a few to warm you up: "Independence Day," "Air Force One" and "Star Wars." "Independence Day" was a great movie except for all the cheesy one-liners. "Air Force One" brought us the dream of Harrison Ford as the president of the United States, but it was obvious that the movie was cooked up around the unsolvable mystery of how someone could hijack Air Force One. "Star Wars" might have defined the cinema experience and ushered in a new era of film, but it sounds like it was written by a 12-year-old.
And yet these are classics, watched over and over and over again by the viewing public. They are B-movies. The problem with B-movies is the unfair implication that comes with it: being associated with all other types of movies that now fall under that category. "Boondock Saints" is not the same as "Bad Boys II," just as (dare I say it) "The Fast and the Furious" is not the same as "2 Fast, 2 Furious."
A good example about why we need to differentiate between good and bad B-movies is the era of disaster films that began with the startlingly impressive "Twister" and ended with an unimpressive "The Core." The apex of this series of films was the asteroid movies.
We all remember "Armageddon:" superb cast, somewhat terrible script, and Aerosmith wailing in the background. Most of us have chosen to forget "Deep Impact." The casts were equally good: Bruce Willis, Steve Buscemi and Liv Tyler on one, Morgan Freeman, Elijah Wood and Tea Leoni on the other. Both were laden with special effects.
The difference was that "Deep Impact" took itself seriously, while "Armageddon" continued to make light of the situation. You can choose to watch Elijah Wood marry his sweetheart so that she can accompany him underground while he waits out the fallout of the comet striking Earth. Or you can see Steve Buscemi go crazy and play with a chain-gun. The choice is obvious for me.
If you don't agree with my taste in movies, that's fine, but I think we can all appreciate the fact that the grading system is outdated. As a viewing audience, we are more complex than simple As and Bs. And if little Sally can go to an alternative school and get a purple crocodile for her work on her Civil War project, then we can revamp the movie grading system. We should have C, D and even F-movies. Then the viewing public, much like those who don't strive to overachieve in college, can be OK with a B, and stop complaining.
Alex Sherman is a senior majoring in architectural studies. He can be reached via e-mail at alexander.sherman@tufts.edu.
