Originism

There is a type of film that packs movie theaters across the country, the type of films that create this communal experience and those are franchise films. These franchises are the multitude of comic book films such as Marvel and DC, or the modernized remakes of the classic films. Although these are great ways to get people to go to the movies and have that movie theater experience, we cannot pump more non-original films than we do original. The state of cinema and the community of cinephiles are always at throes of what cinema is but the real concern should be on the quality of cinema now. From the arguments of Martin Scorsese versus Marvel fanboys in which Scorsese clearly wins to the streaming versus traditional cinema, the gap for original stories gets wider and wider. This construction of original storytelling is what will be the foundation for creating quality films that don’t follow the exhausted franchise formula. “Originism”, filmmaking in which the story is original and not based on anything prior, it can be inspired but loosely inspired.

When thinking about the state of cinema and the quality and quantity of original films, we often look at the creators behind these rare films which is how A24, Annapurna, and many more have crossed the threshold of being original. Originism is not something but there has never been a clear-cut answer to how Hollywood could make original films made normally by independent filmmakers and giving them a bigger platform. Most of the time, “original” stories are often made from independent roots and not studio-type films, however, the goal for “Originism” is to normalize the creation of original films on a commercial level. Now, this is not to say that these films don’t exist because they do (look at Paul Thomas Anderson, Denis Villeneuve, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Mati Diop, etc) but they don’t exist on a larger scale the way Christopher Nolan films exist. In many ways, the incline for more non-original films are birthed from capitalism; in 2019, Disney grossed around $11.1 billion dollars at the box office and they were all non-original films (Star Wars, Marvel, and non-original Disney animated films). Originism seeks to dismantle this toxic idea that capitalism controls art that only valuable films are the ones that were already created. Instead, Hollywood needs to slow down and gravitate towards the smaller ideas and focus more on how they could improve and help up independent filmmakers without bastardizing their story. This is to emulate the type of respect studios had for their writers and directors back in the 1940s-1980s, which is where most of the original classics and cult films come from, but since then nothing new or exciting has been as explosive as the days of Scorsese in the 70s and 80s. It is also important to note that it is really only American-made films that have this problem; most international films are the most original stories and are what cinephiles are gravitating towards. It is also important to understand that with Originism, it works away from normal building stories from other stories and instead invents and uplifts fantastical original storytelling. That’s one thing that is different about Originism because even though it works to have a similar type of structure of “artist above studio” it goes further by uplifting “intersectional artists above studio” which is where I feel the studios have always gone wrong. Obviously, there is an uptick in diversifying in Hollywood that has taken its toll but the problem before was that BIPOC filmmakers were never being listened to and right now they are the filmmakers who are pumping out originality, they are the “auteurs” of the 21st century.

I find that the singular quality in why we need Originism is to salvage, protect, and strengthen the world of cinema. Through the decades, cinema has turned to this long-standing monolithic business that capitalizes on artists’ work and in using Originism, it forces these original, unfiltered, and honest stories that hopefully reflect the essence of cinema. The state of cinema’s authenticity is at an odds with what it was and what it could be but it has to be understood if there in an uptick in originality it forces studios whether big or small to fund those films. The goal isn’t to eliminate franchises and action films but it is to even the playing field between David and Goliath. Take A24 for example of Originism, the distribution company has had its fair share of film jokes but the fact that A24 is seeking original and off the wall films from small artists is what Originism aims. However, A24 is not very commercial to broader audiences but in the same nature is companies like Annapurna who essentially find gripping original stories on a commercial level by partnering and working with high-profile industry leaders. This is not to say that Annapurna and A24 are the only film companies that are working towards this and they certainly are not the first to streamline films of their caliber because IFC, Sony Pictures Classics, Focus Features, and many film companies have been doing this for years the only problems is these same companies are lacking the inclusion of intersectionality when uplifting their filmmakers or films. Originism works do keep up the good work these supporters of originality are doing but also works to improve and creates a more qualitative and original landscape for cinema so that commercialism of unoriginality does not become the new normal.

In fact, Originism can be compared to the films of those in the Golden Age to those of the 70s and 80s. In those eras, the birth of the first peak of Hollywood came into play and the emergence of starlets and leading men in roles that helped audiences escape. However, the most shocking thing is how the films made then are no revered as classics and some of the greatest films of all time and they were mostly original works. And this could be due to the fact that back then, directors and some writers had leverage and autonomy but shortly after the 80s it was the executives and studios running it. Now when you think about Originism as a concept it is simply asking to make something original. This does not mean that whatever films you make have to be particularly abstract or acutely made within the same vein as other original works but that the story at its core is genuine and the intention of being made is besides the point of money. See, you can’t compare Endgame to Midsommar, they are two different entities that simultaneously came out the same year. However, compare maybe Pacific Rim to Godzilla and Godzilla vs. King Kong, and you start to notice that Originism is more of a judgment on what is being distributed and how the film industry distributes, greenlights, and creates the films has everything to do with it. The reason I use Pacific Rim to Godzilla and Godzilla vs. King Kong is because both films are action/adventure spectacles and have had successful films critically and box office sales. However, the only major difference is that Pacific Rim is an original film; I like Pacific Rim because it is a great example of original work being successful, considering that the film gained a sequel and critical praise, it’s the workings of Originism. Moreover, I find that Pacific Rim did for the action and adventure genre was revive the originality of what it means to have action. And that’s a compliment in a time where there are eight Fast and Furious movies but that’s to say they aren’t good or fun movies but it gets the audience wondering when will be there something other than another sequel? Originism works not only to uplift original storytelling but also unique storytelling. See, what we love about Endgame is the same reason we love the branding of each genre; if not for the cliches of the action/adventure or the cliches of rom-coms there is no divide between genuine storytelling but what if that’s what need. As I said, Originism has its own relationship with the Golden Age and it has to be that within Originism are works that are not to be compared and is not supposed to be on a side of good or bad but rather presented as its own work without comparison of nicheness.

The basis of Originism is to create films that are not based on anything and insteads work to have plots and characters that are wholly created from the writer. However, Originism also works to normalize and create an influx of original work to force down the franchises’ upperhand. As Originism is used to uplift small independent writers and directors and try to maximize the talent of BIPOC. The fight for better films is not just ingrained in the way we write but in how we dsitibute them and it is up to not only us to make original films but to understand how what we watch and what we choose has a big impact. In fighting against the bigger franchises and studios, Originism is made to be the outlet where the little guy and the big guy are on leveled playing field.