Friday, March 14th, 2008

FADE OUT FOR CINEPHILES?

By Professor Echo (c)


How willing are you to not only invest your emotions and intellect into a film, but to actually feel compelled to do so, to absorb a film instead of merely watching it?


Are cinephiles getting to be more and more rare these days? Is our disposable society infecting our appreciation of art as just one more throwaway feeling? How does it happen that you walk out of a truly masterful film and think only, “Well, that was that. What’s next?” Yet it happens all the time, more so now than it used to be, I think, partly because current films are anything but masterful and partly because many audiences today don’t want to challenge themselves beyond movies as entertainment or a mere extension of a greater media onslaught the goal of which seeks only to pass your time, not fill it.


Film isn’t just an art form; it’s an ESSENTIAL art form. What is art? Shared life. Art is someone else’s vision that tries to communicate to you that you are not alone in the world, that someone is there with you and this is what they see. Then you must look at their sight and measure it against your own, deciding if there is anything there you can judge, learn from, befriend, debate, wonder over. Film as art is imagination collected, at its best it represents a group concentration toward one goal, to tell this story with these characters and make us all feel less alone.


But are those of us who allow films to penetrate our very soul a dying breed? I have seen so many film societies around the world come and go and even online while there are hundreds of sites devoted to films, filmmakers and filmmaking, how many are truly interested in the art of films and their reflection and inspection of humanity? The three approaches to film for most cinephiles are usually qualified as HISTORICAL, CRITICAL and THEORETICAL, with the nominal emphasis being on the first two. Yet even with the thousands of online journals, blogs and review sites about movies, are we any closer to understanding the depths of it as art? I wonder. 


Don’t misunderstand me; I’m not trying to be a snob about it all or declaring that I am among the elite in my inherent passion for learned discourse about movies as art. It just saddens me that there do not seem to be more kindred spirits who at the very least feel so affected by film that they can’t stop trying to explore why.  Often it’s not the discovery itself that inspires revelation, it’s the quest, what you discern about yourself as you journey between the art, your imagination and the immersion of both into your everyday. 


Are genuine cinephiles fading out?


I think for me the experience came with seeing BONNIE AND CLYDE for the first time when I was 9 years old. I had never seen anything like that before and it stayed with me or perhaps more correctly haunted me for days after. Of course, at 9 I couldn’t quite ferret out why or articulate what I was feeling to any degree, but I knew within that this was more than just a movie. It had to be for me to have been dwelling on it as much as I did. 


For many cinephiles there is the memory of that seminal moment, the film that caused your perspective to blossom and encourage a commensurate introspection, no matter how mature or sensitive your outlook was at the time.  If you look back on the movies you saw previous to it you may be able to recognize little instances here and there where your inner cinephile was beginning to take root, but in most of us there really is that catalyst which seemed to elevate you to another level, one of new curiosity, complexity and, to risk a contradiction in terms, ambiguous truth.


While there is a tendency to isolate the terms of films being art and define only a select few as such, l subscribe to the idea that all movies have the capability of being art no matter how sullied they may render that denomination in the majority view.  I don’t believe it matters what movies people are affected by, the important thing is that they are affected by it, even if they can never express or expound on just why or how it disrupted their days or daydreams. I used to be on a softball team with a guy who had seen ROCKY III in a theater 9 times in two weeks! When I asked him why all he could really muster was: “I don’t know, man, I just really like it.” This was a guy that didn’t read, was probably never in a museum in his life, never listened to classical music, would probably live to be a hundred and never hear of Ozu, yet something about this movie rocked his conscious and sub-conscious so much he couldn’t get enough of it. Does that make ROCKY III art? Definitely.


I sometimes use December 1974 and the release of THE GODFATHER PART II as the peak of all American popular culture. Although great things would come after and continue to be produced from time to time, it serves as a good cut off point for me because I witnessed first hand the downward spiral of so much of American culture after that. Obviously NASHVILLE in 1976 was still near enough the peak even if it was on the other side, but with the release of STAR WARS one year later the decline hastened. That’s probably a subject for another essay, so I won’t elaborate on it any further in this space other than to use it as an illustration of where my personal indulgence in the art of film began to wane a bit.


Suffice to say that at least in terms of the film medium (though one could also apply it to popular music, stage and other 20th century media), from the release of SUNRISE in 1927 to THE GODFATHER PART II in 1974, the sublime quality of movies was consistent in ways we may never see again.


This is obviously open to impassioned debate.  Anytime one retroactively deems a specific period as a particularly favored one is perhaps a designation lost in the original time. One must wonder if people in 1939 or 1974 were consciously aware of just how many significant films were being released and even if such a perception existed, it’s doubtful anyone attached any profound relevance to it. 


But that it is precisely the situation which existed for much of the history of 20th century filmmaking. There often was such a plethora of artistic accomplishment, most just took it for granted as being the norm. This blanket acceptance and inherently confident, even blasé, approach to the movie industry has certainly faded away in the last twenty-plus years. Now interesting and innovative and insightful films are the exception and without question few and far between. When you look at some of the best films of the early 70’s they were major studio releases, not independents, and the deterioration of that method has seriously eroded the quality in the years since 1977, when STAR WARS changed forever the way movies would be made and accepted. 


The decades since the 70’s will be analyzed and reappraised at varying times in the future and with as many varied interpretations or conclusions. However, having been alive and an active moviegoer throughout the last forty years, I can say that at no time was there ever a level of preference for earlier periods of film history than exists now. And it’s more than just nostalgia because for many current cinephiles they did not experience the eras first hand. When the Bogart revival scene happened in the mid-late 60’s and carrying over to the resurgence of the Marx Brothers and other icons of past cinema glory, it was an exciting time, but it never usurped the idea that the then contemporary 1960’s films were inferior. That’s what we face now, not just attention and affection for earlier movies, but a decided preference for them over new releases. 


That is not being an old fogey or a curmudgeon with a built-in bias against anything new; I have met teenagers and 20-somethings who detest new films and feel their time and effort is better spent immersing themselves in a hundred years of cinema history rather than allowing the corporate dictated, inferior, derivative, essentially mindless and insulting crap that is released to theaters week after week. The majority of new films in this decade can really be narrowed down to two different types: Those that are largely aimed at teenage boys and those that are trolling for Oscars in order to profit from the (dubious) prestige. 


The industry is in decline and though, as I have often said, great films are still being made and will continue to be made, every form of communication, artistic or otherwise, suffers from an ephemeral technology and a seriously challenged attention span. My take is that movies will go the way of the iPod and be both produced and released for individual downloads until the technology once again surpasses that. Movies will be made much more cheaply and the choices will be as incredibly diverse as music. Due to the gloriously spectacular democratic nature of the internet and its transcendent measures of global communication, we will be inundated with both professional and amateur creators and “movies” of all shapes and sizes. YouTUBE and its copycats will lead the way and the best publicity for new movies will be the buzz generated by cyber word of mouth, not some corporate advertising boardroom bullshit. In essence, the history of film making will have come full circle, with anyone who has the technology being able to shoot whatever they want, ala the Lumiere Brothers, the Edison shorts and the rest of all the unknown, unsung pioneers who launched the medium over a hundred years ago.


One can only hope that the opportunities are not inordinately wasted and we have a bounty of innovative and invigorating communication to once again satiate our desire to bond with art, allowing it to help guide us through the dark passages of all our wonder.

6 Comments:

1. I couldn’t disagree more with this...maybe it isn’t the situation everywhere, but here in Los Angeles I feel like it’s a boom time for cinephiles.  The Aero, the Egyptian, the New Beverly, and the (appropriately named) Cinefile Family at the old Silent Movie Theatre are just four of the venues where people constantly come together to share and celebrate great films.  On any given night I have a tough choice to make between different fantastic film programs, and the more I go the more people I meet--of all ages--who love and appreciate film as deeply as I do.  And enough of this indulgent nostalgia-wallowing about 1939, or 1946, or 1974...how about LAST YEAR, the year that brought us at least a dozen American films every bit as distinctive and thoughtful as BONNIE & CLYDE: I don’t know how anyone can be depressed about a time that brings us THERE WILL BE BLOOD, Coppola’s YOUTH WITHOUT YOUTH (a work of absolutely equal ambition and audacity to the GODFATHER film referenced in this essay), NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOURE DEAD, or Fincher’s ZODIAC--a movie that simultaneously harkens back to those 70’s classics this author seems to love so much and addresses new technological and aesthetic issues raised by the age of digital cinema.  Every era brings us great movies and lousy ones--the only reason 1974 looks so great is because the masterpieces are what live on, not the junk.  Thirty years from now some stick in the mud will be looking back to the stuff the Coen Brothers and P.T. Anderson are making now and complaining about how much better it is than movies in 2038…

   Posted by Jim Hemphill  on  03/16  at  04:51 PM

2. I am very passionate about this topic, too.  Not only as a cinephile, but as a filmmaker, as well.  I grew up in the seventies and was affected by movies from an early age, perhaps six or seven, just when the so-called ‘decline’ of American cinema was beginning.  I completely agree that there was a shift in movie-going taste in the mid-70s, and that the 70s was perhaps the last great era of American film.  But we need to consider the reasons why that shift, toward more commercially-driven, broadly appealing films, happened. 

   There were many reasons.  The collapse of the studios in the 60s, the rise of television in its place, and the new ‘breed’ of filmmakers emerging then, are some of the reasons.  Political and social changes also played a huge part in changing what the public wanted when they went to the movies.  I won’t go into the specifics of these events because they have been discussed so often before.  What I want to point out is the similarity of what happened then, to what is happening today.

   When I was a teenager, I was watching movies on laserdisc, and telling everyone how amazing it was, watching a film in widescreen, with the director’s commentary and behind the scenes features, not to mention far better sound and pictures than VHS.  Most people responded, “So what?” Ten years later, they were all buying DVDs like hotcakes.  These ‘average’ movie-goers, not cinephiles, were not only buying new movies, but old ones as well.  For the first time, they were seeing classic films restored to their former glory, (albeit, on TV at home) fuelling a renewed interest in old movies that didn’t exist before.

   Now, another ten years on, we have many more ways of seeing movies - new and old.  And, as Glen Grant points out in this article, younger movie-goers are beginning to appreciate ‘old’ movies like never before.  So, as a filmmaker and lover of the cinema-going experience, I ask myself, “Will the purpose and meaning of watching a movie with an audience ever die out?” I’m not as concerned about the loss of cinephiles, to be quite honest, as I am about the loss of the ‘group experience’ of film-going. 

   Yes, times are changing and the number of ways we can watch a film are constantly expanding, and, becoming less about sharing the film with others.  So, how do we challenge this?  As a filmmaker, I am excited about the idea of independent filmmaking and distribution.  The structure of our society has changed so much since the 1940s, when the studio system was at its most prolific (using almost a production line system of production), that the only way to encourage creative freedom has to be through independent film production.  And that is what seems to be happening.  The studios want less to do with production every year.  They just want to distribute films that make money.  And if there are a dozen ways to show a film, then the films can appeal to ALL kinds of audiences, because many will be shown in far less expensive venues, such as online, or straight to video (no matter what form video takes in the future - it’s still video).  So, the films don’t have to be “Blockbusters” all the time, because they are not competing with films shown in theaters.  And releasing a film in a theater is a very expensive proposition.

   If the cinephiles are dying out, they will soon be resurrected, but they might not all meet up at the local art house theater anymore.  That’s my opinion.

   Posted by Sean Ellis  on  03/17  at  04:14 AM

3. Many good points, Sean.  I think the communal spirit of moviegoing is alive and well, but you’re right that it may soon shift from the theatres to the home.  Yet once all the kinks get worked out of digital distribution it will ultimately make theatrical releases far less expensive, so I don’t think the studios will ever abandon big screen releases...and neither will audiences, no matter how big their TVs at home get.  People still sell out football stadiums even though they can watch the games at home, so I think there will always be those of us who want to see films in a theatre, with a crowd.

   Posted by Jim Hemphill  on  03/17  at  08:32 AM

4. I agree there will always be a demand for the theatrical experience.  And, I am optimistic about the greater choices that are available today, and will become available to audiences in the future, compared to 30 years ago.  I just think that smaller, dare I say more ‘artistic’ films will be appreciated in more often at home, but, by the same token, art-house theaters will be able to afford to show more films due to digital presentation.  I hate to pigeon-hole movie types like that, as the article is about cinephiles and seeing the art in all films, but from a distribution point of view, it all comes down to what people want.  Diversity is the key.  It would be shame if all these new ways to see films were controlled by the studios alone.

   Posted by Sean Ellis  on  03/20  at  05:41 AM

5. In the months since I wrote my essay I have had cause to reflect upon the responding comments by Jim and Sean and also a bit of introspection with regards to aspects of my character. 

   I have been reading and posting quite a bit at http://www.davekehr.com, one of the more erudite film sites around, moderated by my all time favorite film critic, Dave Kehr.  From the experiences and encounters therein I have found occasion to amend some of my previous considerations on cinephiling or lack of same thereof. 

   In retrospect, I think my original piece above may have been more, shall we say, bitterly dismissive of our present state of film study and appreciation than I ever intended.  I say this after having been exposed to true curmudgeoning of the highest sort, both at Kehr’s site and other online forums about film and media.  Although I went to some length in my essay to try and stay optimistic and avoid letting my predilection for earlier eras of film history inordinately distort my perspective, I can see now that might not have been communicated as well it could and should have been. Certainly the intelligent responses from Jim and Sean were warranted and brought a fresh counterpoint which to me was as inspiring as I hoped my essay would be.

   The truth is, while I would not say that our current state of filmmaking is as illustrious as it once was, there is no question, as Jim so correctly points out, that it will someday seem so to someone.  And, after all, that is both the inherent beauty and charm of cinephiling, that contrary to what some may dictate, there shouldn’t be right or wrong way to invest yourself in film, historically, theoretically or critically, the main facets of a dedicated cinephile.

   A recent discussion at Dave Kehr’s site focused on the trend in the last 25 years to embrace more populist cinema, e.g. Asian exploitation, Italian horror, etc., and how this may or may not spell doom for the more established and traditional studies of classic film.  It’s been a fascinating discussion and has only helped enlighten me to how much more open people should be when it comes to films of all kinds from all eras, whether they have any pedigree to them or not.

   Here is what I posted there as a response to Dave Kehr’s contention that every generation shapes and reshapes its culture to further their claim to individuality:
   ----------------------------------------------

   ~~~~I think Dave’s comment about this being a generational shift is the most sound and compelling point in this discussion. The ever shifting tides of what comprises and defines art will never-and in my opinion SHOULD never be-so absolute. Each new young world conquerors will always try to bust the boundaries of old and more power to them. Rather than fall prey to that insidious natural tendency to become more conservative, i.e. petrified, as we get older, I say allow this brave new world to create a direction for itself, even if its legacy is only YouTube and JACKASS. Back in the early 60’s while Bergman was turning out some of his most memorable masterpieces aging cinephiles were bemoaning the popularity of Frankie and Annette. Ingmar, Frankie and Annette all survived it. Perhaps all of this crosses the line from being a film historian/theorist/critic to a pop culture one, but isn’t that somewhat inevitable anyway? We may be living in a ghetto here on davekehr.com, but for the majority of people out there MOVIES are a form of pop culture and not necessarily art. There’s nothing wrong with making a conscientious effort to differentiate and delineate the two, but I would humbly suggest one not get too dismayed, disconcerted and reactionary if the two happen to cross paths every now and then. We would hardly be celebrating films noir today if French critics hadn’t dared to elevate them above the American perception that most of them were just typical programmers and potboilers. No one is saying you have to arbitrarily abandon all your standards and criteria and suddenly embrace a new aesthetic that you don’t understand and/or appreciate on any level. But I also think that consistently curmudgeoning it to death accomplishes nothing. Explore it, test it, challenge it, challenge yourself and all your pre-conceptions, be that angry young man again and piss in the kitchen sink every now and then. Or as Ray Bradbury once composed in a poem: “Go not with ruins in your mind.” Take Dave’s lead on this and get the bigger picture. Staking out new territory and “liberating” cinema has been around forever, so too its advocates and detractors. You may not always understand it or accept it, you’re not necessarily supposed to, but nor should you always wallow in ruins and wail over lost civilizations. As David Bowie sang: “Turn and face the strange.” Or as some choose to hear it, “Turn and face the strain.” Same difference.

   Posted by Professor Echo  on  06/16  at  02:16 PM

6. Well put, and the point about Bergman and Frankie and Annette coexisting is a perfect distillation of all these arguments.  Thanks for starting off (and now ending) a fascinating discussion.

   Posted by Jim Hemphill  on  06/16  at  05:18 PM