A small stand for quality

If “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” can make more than a billion dollars worldwide, does anyone even care about quality anymore?

The truth is, yes, some do.

This summer, a small group of American moviegoers spoke with their wallets and demanded something more from our Hollywood studio system.

These people made a stand for quality in their films, and behind the haze of more sequels, remakes and reboots than any year in history (we’ll have 27 by year’s end), we’ve found a glimmer of hope in our studio system.

Hollywood knows it’s limping. Its answer to get people to see movies on the big screen has been 3-D, and more than 40 films will be released in this medium in 2011 alone.

But the technology has yet to prove itself in any film this side of “Avatar.” A large number of the movies in 3-D were shoddily converted from 2-D in post-production, and no one looks forward to paying an extra $3 at the box office.

But when “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides” makes only 37 percent of its $239 million gross from 3-D sales, Hollywood takes that as a sign. We won’t put up with three dimensions if the junk they’re delivering is no better than it is in two.

Hollywood wants to know where that money went instead, and it’s blind to the fact we invested in quality films.

The first is none other than the finale of the most profitable franchise in film history: Harry Potter.

The real reason Harry Potter has remained such a durable moneymaker for a decade now is that the franchise has always put effort into strong casting, storytelling and filmmaking. No, none of the films are masterpieces, even this new one, but they would not have survived without a certain level of integrity.

Our voices have also been raised in support of some of the most critically acclaimed and historically respected directors working today.

Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” has slowly but surely become one of the crowd-pleasing smashes of the summer. Steadily making more than 50 million dollars domestically since May, this whimsical, fantasy-driven comedy and period romance became the highest grossing film of Allen’s long career.

Sony Pictures Classics is only now taking the hint and re-releasing the film in more than 1,000 theaters for a small Oscar push.

On the other hand, Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life” not only became the first American film to win the Palme D’Or at Cannes since “Fahrenheit 9/11” in 2004, but it’s also the most intensely debated and controversial art house title of the year.

Malick’s expansive, operatic and unconventional narrative comparing a suburban family to the birth of life itself has earned fervent support as well as hatred. But all the people who have seen it know the director’s and stars’ (Brad Pitt and Sean Penn) pedigrees and have engaged in the film and the act of discussing it wholeheartedly.

The passion behind “Harry Potter,” “Midnight in Paris” and “The Tree of Life” is a rare thing in a summer full of superheroes, cars, pirates, hangovers, zookeepers, penguins and Smurfs.

That same passion has been translated to original blockbusters such as “Super 8” and “Bridesmaids.” It’s been seen in bigger, faster and louder indie films such as the sci-fi “Another Earth,” the apocalyptic drama “Bellflower” and the alien invasion comedy “Attack the Block.”

The sights at the multiplex do not have to be this grim. We can make a difference. We know what’s good — now we just have to prove it.