But to what degree. I think before even the dinosaur studio heads (as they were called by some) took chances, and did care if it was good. Though they were businessmen, they loved film. After "Jaws" for example, they know what it takes to make a guaranteed success. Maybe the directors' intentions are good, but they're only given a chance if they think the movie will make a lot of money.
What's this based on, though? Anecdotally it seems like lots of weird films with very little chance of being a rousing financial success (
Birdman, to pick a recent and prominent example) are getting made with more than enough in the way of budget to see their visions through.
This started in the 80's, but test audiences had quite a lot of influence. 30 people in a room would push a button when they liked something, and another when they didn't.
Sounds to me like you're not describing films in general, but global blockbusters with 9-figure budgets.
I think it's becoming more of a factory business industry. And you might be right that the Best Picture winner is the best, but look at the last 20-30 years, and compare that to before. Even looking at the AFI's To 100, 90% of movies are very old...
There are three big flaws in this argument:
First, when a list spans almost a century, nearly all the films on it would be "old" even assuming a normal distribution of quality among each decade.
Second, virtually all films are unofficially required to withstand some kind of "test of time" level of scrutiny to find their way onto these kinds of lists. So right off the bat, probably half of your "20-30 years" cutoff should probably be discarded.
Third, it's not even literally true! There was a spike in the 60s and 70s, but the 1990s had just as many entries (11) as the 1940s, and nearly as many as the 30s. And if you apply some kind of grace period wherein newer films probably wouldn't even be considered yet, the proportions look pretty unremarkable. Certainly not lopsided enough to support the idea that cinema is declining in quality.
Looking at the absolute best of the best wouldn't be a great way to measure this, anyway, since the strength of the modern film industry is in the breadth of the types of films being created, which vastly exceeds anything at any other time in the medium's history. I don't think it's even close.
It's just sad for me because I think there are a lot of able people who are never given a chance. There's no reason why we can't have the greatest films in history coming out. It's so much easier to make a movie now than it ever was.
Exactly. Budgetary constraints are far, far, far less of a factor than they ever were before. We have far more movies being made (of all kinds), and niche films are more economically viable than ever--and easier to create even when they're not economically viable. This doesn't square with the idea that money is oppressively curbing cinematic expression; just the opposite.