The New York Times reports that 2006 was a year of cinematic sorbets -- that the American people, sated by the heavy political messagework of such 2005 films as Syriana, Crash, and Brokeback Mountain, opted for lighter visual fare:
They showed no appetite for a critique of their eating habits in “Fast Food Nation.” They weren’t ready to fly along on “United 93,” no matter how skilled its expose of homeland insecurity. They didn’t care to see combat or suffer its after-effects in “Flags of Our Fathers.” And even Leonardo DiCaprio couldn’t interest them in touring the ravaged Africa of “Blood Diamond.”While Al Gore’s prophecies in “An Inconvenient Truth” produced a respectable $24 million for Paramount, it was the message-movie exception that proved the rule. The big money was to be made making people laugh, cry and squeeze their dates’ arms -- not think.
“What worked was classic, get-away-from-it-all entertainment,” said Rob Moore, Paramount’s marketing and distribution chief. “What didn’t was things that were more challenging and esoteric.”
The hits this year included Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean, which brought in $1.7 billion at home and $3.3 billion abroad, Ron Howard's Da Vinci Code, and films from box office favorites Adam Sandler, Will Farrell, and Will Smith. Fox's Ice Age: The Meltdown grossed $200 million, and Happy Feet reached $176 million last weekend.
The Times contrasts these draws with the comparatively small showings of such films as All the King's Men and Babel, Sean Penn and Brad Pitt vehicles whose star power flagged in the face of audiences eager not to be taxed with serious themes. The message of the article seems to be that American audiences evinced an unwillingness to bring their brains with them to the movies. But what the article avoids asking is whether, in an era when Hollywood has shown a distinct tendency to preachiness and didacticism, spending the price of admission on less intellectually ambitious films isn't the truly smart thing to do.