A "Financial Crisis" genre cycle?

We have all heard that the main goal and purpose of movies is to “entertain and provide escape from daily life”. It would seem that what better time for this but when audiences across the board are going through hard times and need a break from reality. A time, say, like when the country is in the middle of an economic crisis.

In recent articles published by the Village Voice and The Star-Ledger, the authors explore the past and future of Hollywood amid financial crisis by way of reviewing a film series going on this month at New York’s Film Forum. The series consists of hits from the depression era that celebrate “the pre-Code, the Socially Conscious, and the Screwball—three manifestations of the richest period in Hollywood history”, as the Village Voice’s J. Hoberman puts it. It has been given the oxymoronic title “Breadlines and Champagne”, which aims at satirizing the discord between the country’s poor financial state and the artistic wealth of Hollywood films of the time. But by “rich” Hoberman is not speaking of these films’ whimsical or distracting effect as would be expected, but instead their ability to deal with the economic, political, and social problems at hand.

He points out how during the Depression, while the US was experiencing financial downfall, the Hollywood industry was thriving creatively. Even though audiences barely had the money to go to the movies, and the main studios were loosing capital, some of the best films in Hollywood history were being made. But the key to the success of the majority of these films was not that they provided escape from the worries of everyday life (those came more with the Production Code of ‘34). Surprisingly, the films of the early 30’s were dealing with the problems at hand; as the Star-Ledger’s Stephen Whitty writes, “Popular entertainment doesn't only have to offer an escape; it can also provide a refuge, where worried audiences can both reflect on their problems and ponder possible solutions.” No matter the genre, there was a sense of relation to the country’s problems. The protagonists were outcasts, underdogs, antiheros, and working-class people experiencing a certain kind of desperation. The genres ruling were horror to reflect the fears of the U.S population, films dealing with sinful or gangster behavior as a way to show that people were relying on other modes to get ahead, screwball comedies that poked fun at symbols of wealth and luxury, and even musicals were singing and dancing about unemployment and politics.

The question that arises is whether we will see (or maybe already have seen) a resurfacing of this “Financial Crisis” genre given our current situation—or will we just get something closer to the later, post-code, more idealized and glossy escapist films? Do today’s audience’s even care enough to continue to give up $12 a pop to go to the movies or will the industry just fall into demise (or into the hands of the internet)? It is interesting that when looking at how genre is constructed, current events and the state of the country can change audience reception, and whatever path the genre cycle was on may have to be turned on its head in order to comply with what people want to see (or not see). Just looking at our recent roster of films like High School Musical (3!), Friday the 13th, Paul Blart: Mall Cop, and Confessions of a Shopaholic it doesn’t really seem like the country is ready to use films as a way of dealing with its problems. Or then again, maybe He’s Just Not that Into You is Hollywood’s way of telling America that right now the economy’s just not that into us.