What's wrong with Hollywood?

This has been a terrible year for movies.

I said the same thing last year. And the year before. I meant it both times, but this time I really mean it.

The year is nearly half over, and the only genuinely entertaining new release I've seen outside the film festival was Spider-Man.

Why is that? With the scads of money that Hollywood film studios throw into their productions, one would think that they could do a bit better.

To be fair, they can do better. As easy as it is to criticize Hollywood studios for their greed and cynicism, they are also responsible for creating some of the best films ever made. But while not every film can be Citizen Kane or North by Northwest or The Godfather, that's no excuse for the unwatchable dreck it's been pumping out lately.

One problem is that the studios focus on only certain times of the year. There are really only two interesting times to see movies: summer, when the action-movie blockbusters come out, and the end of the year, when the studios unleash their Oscar bait. Anyone wanting to watch a movie during another part of the year (say, January through May) is better off going to the video store.

Another problem is the worsening economy. The more difficult it becomes to make money through producing films, the fewer risks studio heads are willing to take. And even in a good economy, the movie business punishes risk-takers more often than not. Putting together a film production is not the safest of investments, and studios try to minimize their risks whenever possible. They are, after all, corporations out to make money, not the National Endowment for the Arts.

Many people, fed up with the lack of creativity coming out of the Hollywood studios, consider independent film as the savior of film as art. While this may be the case for a very small niche audience, independent film production companies suffer from the same financial problems as the major studios, and those that haven't been co-opted into the Hollywood studio system have serious trouble finding a large number of venues for the theatrical release of films. The notion that the independents have the potential to be purveyors of cinematic art to the masses is patently false.

But this is not a criticism of art cinema over Hollywood blockbusters. Hollywood, as I have said, has put out some wonderful films in the past, and I'm sure we'll see a few more once the end of the year rolls around. The point is simply that the major studios have the most money backing their production and distribution arms, and that for most people who live in the United States, Hollywood is the only game in town. And Hollywood has largely failed to come up with many films worth watching.

Obviously, there are people out there who like the current crop of films. Someone, after all, is going to see them. But as an art critic once said, there are people who like "Dogs Playing Poker" better than Monet. That doesn't mean it actually is better.

For those who want more from the movies they spend their time and money on, the solution, as in all things involving Hollywood, comes down to money. As long as people pay money to see bad movies, the studios will have no financial incentive to change. If you're dissatisfied with the kinds of movies you're seeing at the theater, try voting with your wallet and dropping by the video store instead.