• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Watching HBO one night, I caught a segment of “Project Greenlight,” the brainchild of Matt Damon and Ben Affleck’s production company, “LivePlanet,” which hopes to give new filmmakers a chance by having them make a film with TV cameras in pursuit.

On the show, Pete Jones, the director of “Project Greenlight’s” first film, “Stolen Summer,” was calling a barrage of people, screaming for Aidan Quinn to star in his film, as if he was a baby and Quinn was his toy. At first, I thought this was absurd, since bitching obnoxiously is annoying, and in reality it would probably get him nowhere.

But then I realized that this was not reality. Jones was on TV, acting stupid, and crying and bitching on TV does get you somewhere.

For one thing, it does get you Aidan Quinn, who became the star of “Stolen Summer,” which makes its West Coast premiere at UCLA this Wednesday.

If “Project Greenlight” indicates anything, it’s that science is being used to create art. Statistics based on demographics tell advertisers what will sell to the “nth” degree, with your interests divided into subgroups of sex, gender and socio-economic group. Artless people utilize statistics to quantify the world, and insist that this is the most accurate way of understanding the world, and therefore it is also the way to create good art.

Just imagine if the television show advertised the movie at the same time the movie advertised the television show. Why, that would send the statistician with lab coats into a teeth-chattering frenzy!

Now, there’s no problem with creating things scientifically. I enjoy driving my car, watching movies on Dolby Surround Sound, and browsing the Internet on my computer. What I don’t like is when science attempts to create art, amusing as it is.

Films have long been made scientifically. Stars often had to play the same role over and over again because a single hit “proved” that it was a successful formula.

Now studios are not content to have formulas define their films. Now they want viewers to see it happen, as if the directors were a bunch of rats in maze and at the end of the maze was a bona fide “hit.”

There’s no trouble with showing the artistic process in action. I actually believe that being aware of the decisions that must be made in art is a good thing for audiences. For its sheer documentary-honesty, I like it.

However, the process is being shown as a mere ploy for viewers. The tagline to “Stolen Summer” says it all, “You saw the back-stabbing. Now see the final cut.”

Instead of advertising quality, they are advertising the advertisement (namely the TV show). Sure, behind-the-scenes shows are cool and often make those special DVD editions worth buying, but those documentaries are interesting only if the film is interesting.

I want to know how “The Godfather” was made because I love the film. Only recently has the test-tube version of art become a staple: You’ll love it because you saw all the trivial petty squabbles.

What is missing from the equation is quality. Unfortunately, science is quantitative and requires South Campus mavens to calculate success based on ticket sales, TV ratings and pop surveys. Thankfully, emotions and catharsis are not yet privy to quantification and humans have the ability to experience art as art, not as some Frankenstein of approval ratings.

“Stolen Summer” may be a good movie, but does anyone care? It is a movie and that’s good enough to keep the factory running.