Oh, to Be Young and Gross in the Movies : Youthful tastes are defining box-office success in ways never before seen, prompting filmmakers to keep pushing the envelope.

In Washington, it was a year when the world was riveted by a tasteless presidential scandal involving such how-low-can-you-go subject matter as oral sex, a semen-stained dress, secretly taped smutty chatter and masturbation with a cigar. The result: The House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment against President Clinton.

In Hollywood, it was a year when audiences cheered a gleefully tasteless sex comedy involving such how-low-can-you-go subject matter as a zipper-stuck tuxedo, an electroshocked dog, clumsy disabled people, masturbation (without a cigar) and a semen-stained hairdo. The end result: “There’s Something About Mary,” one of the most profitable films of the year, having sold $173 million worth of tickets in North America with a worldwide gross that will soon hit the $350-million mark.

Others can grapple with what this says about the split personality of American politics and pop culture. But in Hollywood, the lowbrow triumph of “There’s Something About Mary” was a defining moment in the movie business. After years of limp, forgettable comedies, it was a film that gave young moviegoers the same subversive charge they get from the raunchy antics of Jerry Springer, hip-hop star Master P and pro-wrestling behemoths like Stone Cold Steve Austin.

“Godzilla” misfired. “Lethal Weapon 4” sputtered like a rusty used car. But seeing Adam Sandler tackle Col. Sanders or watching Cameron Diaz discovering a bodily-fluid hair gel gave young audiences just as big a kick as Bruce Willis blowing up an asteroid.

“In our minds, comedy is about surprise and pushing the envelope,” explains Peter Farrelly, who directed “Mary” with his brother Bobby. “For the past 10 or 15 years, comedy has been very safe and sanitized. No one wanted to offend, so you knew right away what was going to happen. Our favorite movies were comedies that really went for it, like ‘Blazing Saddles,’ ‘Airplane!’ and ‘Animal House.’ And now, because we took things a step farther, you’ll see even more movies that don’t play it so safe.”

Put simply, “Mary” opened a door in Hollywood that will never be closed again. Take Mike Nichols, famed director of such sophisticated delights as “The Graduate,” “Heartburn” and “The Birdcage.” His new project (with Garry Shandling): a comedy about an alien who is sent to Earth to procreate, armed with a detachable penis.

“ ‘There’s Something About Mary’ did for Hollywood what Monica Lewinsky did for Washington,” says one producer. “Watching the videotape of Clinton’s grand jury testimony, not knowing whether to giggle or be outraged, all you could think of was, that’s exactly what it was like seeing ‘Something About Mary’ with your 12-year-old son. It was one of those trash-culture moments you just couldn’t avoid.”

In years past, the mood of movieland has been defined by films with more dramatic heft, be it the adrenaline rush of “Jaws,” the gung-ho blast of “Top Gun,” the sexual fizz of “Fatal Attraction” or the ambitious reach of “Titanic.” But this year, even though “Saving Private Ryan” is the odds-on favorite to win the Oscar for best picture and could eventually pass “Armageddon” as the top-grossing film released in 1998, it has no coattails--it would take a lot of detective work to find a studio executive who’s been scouring the library for a male-ensemble World War II script.

“People want to have fun at the movies,” says producer Brian Grazer. “I was laughing so loud at ‘The Waterboy’ that my wife finally said, ‘This is the guy I married?’ ”

Even if you set aside “Mary” as a happy accident, the year’s biggest Hollywood hits, in terms of investment versus return, were almost exclusively youth-oriented escapist comedies. The biggest breakout hits of the year were modestly budgeted films made for between $23 million and $32 million: “Mary,” “Waterboy,” “Rush Hour,” “The Wedding Singer” and “Rugrats: The Movie.”

“It was the best news we’d had all year: Our audience is getting younger, hipper, smarter and more interested in movies,” Disney Chairman Joe Roth says. “The boomers have lost their passion for moviegoing. It’s a busy world, and they have too many other distractions. We never really plugged into Generation X--they had other things they were interested in. So we’re aiming for this new generation of kids. There are going to be more of them than any other generation, and collectively it’s their tribal rite to go see movies.”

The generational shift reflected a new moviegoing sensibility, influenced as much by the brash exuberance of hip-hop as by the visual splash of MTV and video games. Another hip-hop-inspired influence: Race is no longer an issue with young filmgoers. The hottest pairing of the year was Chris Tucker (black) and Jackie Chan (Asian) in “Rush Hour.”

Roth’s 14-year-old son and his friends can’t wait to get out of the house and see a movie. “It’s a simple equation,” Roth says. “The more adults stay at home and watch something on TV or video, the more teenagers want to get out of the house. So if you look at who’s available to see movies, there’s only one way to go--young and inexpensive.”

The movies that made the most profit were either films armed with an instantly identifiable concept or pictures cast with such fresh faces as Sandler, Diaz, Tucker, Ben Stiller (“Mary”), Drew Barrymore (“The Wedding Singer”) and Christina Ricci (“The Opposite of Sex”). Family fare also performed well, especially films--like “A Bug’s Life” and “Dr. Dolittle”--that offered something for parents and children.

With the exception of holdovers from last year’s Oscar season, it was a bad year for serious films. Outside of “Saving Private Ryan,” audiences shied away from dramas, dismissing them as too earnest or stodgy. Even “Beloved” failed miserably, despite the combined efforts of the Disney and Oprah promotional machines. (Oprah Winfrey starred in the film and was one of its producers.)

The biggest disappointments were overpriced movies burdened with top-dollar stars in roles no one wanted to see them play: Brad Pitt in “Meet Joe Black,” Bruce Willis in “Mercury Rising,” Dustin Hoffman in “Sphere,” Nicolas Cage in “Snake Eyes,” John Travolta in “Primary Colors,” Eddie Murphy in “Holy Man” and Michael Douglas in “A Perfect Murder.”

Banking on big stars is still a crapshoot. Murphy helped propel “Dr. Dolittle” into the box-office stratosphere, but once audiences smelled a stinker, no amount of star power could turn “Holy Man” into a hit. Surrounded by a strong ensemble and playing a familiar tough-guy character, Willis brought home the bacon in “Armageddon.” But his star presence had little impact on the clunky “Mercury Rising” or the preachy “The Siege.”

“On paper, it’s OK to invest in a big-star movie--any studio would’ve made ‘Meet Joe Black’ with Brad Pitt and Marty Brest,” says New Line Cinema chief Mike De Luca. “But the older demographic is becoming a much more expensive demographic to reach, so you really have to pick your spots. This year really proved that the audience who’ll go to see movies without one of the Top 5 stars or directors is bigger than ever.”

*

As always, the movie business is about being responsive to ever-changing audience tastes: out with the old formulas, in with the new ones. The studios that suffered were inflexible and resistant to change.

Even when Universal realized that “Babe: Pig in the City” couldn’t withstand a two-pronged Thanksgiving-week onslaught from “A Bug’s Life” and “Rugrats,” it didn’t move its film off the date, paralyzed by the studio’s corporate-imposed emphasis on quarterly cash flow and worries that it would antagonize consumer product firms involved with studio merchandising tie-ins. Warner Bros. had another miserable year, churning out films weighted down with tired concepts, aging stars and over-the-hill producers who’ve saddled the studio with a string of expensive flops.

“It’s become a very tough business,” says Roth. “Baby boomers made actors like Mel Gibson a movie star, but the new young audience is looking for their own stars. And when a movie studio is part of a big conglomerate, it’s hard to be responsive to change. You’re trying to stay contemporary in a business where it takes two years to go from idea to product.”

The studios that took risks were rewarded. At year’s onset, Sandler was considered a goofball who only appealed to sophomoric teenage boys. By year’s end, he was a phenomenon, with “The Waterboy” far exceeding anyone’s wildest expectations. When it came time for him to sign a new deal, he had virtually identical offers from Disney, Sony and New Line. But Sandler went with New Line, which had tirelessly promoted “The Wedding Singer,” the film that made him a star.

As always, it’s easier to explain this year’s hits than predict what will happen next year. It’s a lot foggier gazing into a crystal ball than a rearview mirror. Too often studios follow conventional wisdom, forgetting that what’s fresh one year is formulaic the next. This year saw the first wave of “Scream” teen-horror knockoffs, but with the exception of “Urban Legend” young moviegoers stayed away in droves.

“Our business is a lot like the stock market--as soon as you understand what’s working, it’s too late because the audience has moved on to something else,” says “Dr. Dolittle” producer John Davis. “It’s what makes the movie business so unpredictable. People don’t want to be programmed, they want to be entertained. And the best way to do that is always to make movies that feel fresh.”