From the first seminar of Cinematic Modernism, our lecturer Dr. Melissa Hardie got us thinking about the different modes of viewing a piece of cinema, and the accompanying implications that each encompasses.
What are my aesthetic expectations for a Friday night screening of He’s Just Not That Into You (2008) at Greater Unions with a friend after work? What if we were watching Gus van Sant’s Milk (2008) instead? (We honestly planned to see Milk but there was only one session that day at 4pm.) Do I value the ‘social cinema’ experience more than that of, say, watching a DVD of Ingmar Bergman’s Cries and Whispers (1972) on my laptop, alone in my bedroom? What about illegally downloading and watching a screener copy of The Reader (2008), just so you could see if Kate Winslet really has a chance of winning the Oscar this time around. [See video bar]. 
How do I feel about accidentally catching a broadcast of Woody Allen’s The Curse of the Jade Scorpion (2001) (considered to be the worst in his whole repertoire) on television with intervening commercials and all? Is my excitement, attention span and aesthetic experience the same for all? Do some films need to be seen in certain contexts? Do I hierarchise certain cinematic experiences over others?
The answer to most of these questions is: “different/same/yes/no.” When I am about to view a ‘serious’, critically esteemed film my open-minded thinking cap is consciously turned on – something that a good cinephile should always have on; meanwhile, if I am watching a run-of-the-mill action or romantic comedy feature then I just fall asleep. The ‘who-what-when-where-why’ part of the viewing experience does matter in getting me in the mood, but inevitably the content of the film delineates the value of that particular cinematic experience. The question now is what distinguishes the serious from the run-of-the-mill, and where can I get more of the good stuff?
Does there exist a ‘Cinematic Canon’ like there is a Western Literary Canon? And how are people accessing the films in this canon? I personally access this imaginary canon every time I log onto www.oscar.com or http://www.festival-cannes.com. I appreciate award ceremonies (Academy Awards, SAGs), international competitive film festivals (Cannes, Venice, Berlin) and critics’ lists (1001 Movies, Time Magazine) for being near-objective entry points into the canon. These invaluable sources advise on which auteurs, directors, screenwriters, actors and actresses to follow and which to retrospectively study and celebrate. And now that most of the edifying cinephile theatres have closed, these sources do seem to be the best alternative places to acquire both a(n) (abbreviate) history of cinema and viewing tastes.
It is indeed from those places where I first encountered the films which I now liberally consider my top 10 favourite films:
Long Day’s Journey Into Night, Sidney Lumet, 1962.
Cabaret, Bob Fosse, 1972.
Annie Hall, Woody Allen, 1977.
The Piano, Jane Campion, 1993.
Dancer in the Dark, Lars von Trier, 2000.
The Piano Teacher, Michael Haneke, 2001.
Lost in Translation, Sofia Coppola, 2003.
Brokeback Mountain, Ang Lee, 2005.
Volver, Pedro Almodovar, 2006.
Hi Matt,
ReplyDeleteYou probably know about these sites already, but I find www.metacritic.com and www.rottentomatoes.com excellent sites to browse through, especially for film reviews. Both also publish end-of-year 'best of' lists.
Isn't it wonderful that we can view films in such different contexts? I think DVD extras, for example, completely change how you view the film in retrospect.
I would also count 'Lost in Translation' as one of my favourite films, and I'm a big fan of Annie Hall as well - maybe we can watch it together sometime. =)
I'm very postmodern, so I don't believe in one objective filmic canon. That said, watching films popularly identified as 'classics' is usually a worthwhile experience. However, not everything is for everybody - I had to turn The Godfather off because I just didn't find it very engaging, for instance.
Great entry, looking forward to reading more from you... =)
Great top ten (and post)! Your point about having a film canon in the style of the literary canon struck me as to why this is so. People have favourite movies, and awards are handed out every awards season, however I don't believe a strong, or obvious, film canon has been developed in the 100+ years film has been existent as a medium. There are classics, Streetcar, African Queen, Apocalyse Now, for example, however do these stand up as the Chaucer of Shakespeare of film? Does film appeal more to a judgement of taste rather than a logical/aesthical judgement? I don't know if I agree with the first post, if there should not be one objective film canon, because I think if film was to be judged aesthetically rather than by taste, 'postmodern'films of craftsmanship would be able to sit alongside more conventional classics such as Streetcar etc.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting point you have raised Matthew, I look forward to reading more from you soon!
I think it is difficult to talk about cinema in the same way as literature, especially a literary "cannon", because cinema has been around for a significantly shorter period of time (hundred v thousands).
ReplyDeleteAnd using awards to define cannonical or "the best" films is also flawed, because they are awarded based on the competition from that year (or thereabouts) that are eligable for nomination (and meet certain critera - i.e. if you are low budget you are less likely to be even considered, which is obviously not the case in literature), not against a complete history of films - if that was the case I think you'd find a type of cinematic cannon may emerge.
Especially when you consider how young the medium is, and how continuing advances in technology affect the medium (special effects, locations, sound, 3D, etc) and make certain narratives that once would have been deemed impossible to translate to film possible.
And also length and presentation - books can be as short or as long as you want, and as teologically complicated as the writer desires, allowing the reader numerous attempts if needed to comprehend the book. People are more tolerant to re-read books until they understand them. People are less inclined to have numerous screenings of a film, which is why the medium has developed films into a standard time frame with stock standard structures (narrative framework etc).
However, if you are to loosely define a cinematic cannon as something that has either (or both) made major leaps towards the progression of film or perfected the craft of film making - I think there are a number of films that have done so and will continue to do so.
Maybe unlike a literary cannon, the film cannon should be not examples of classical narratives (that takes you hundreds of years to enter) that writers to aspire to, but instead grow with the new changes and innovation in the film industry to include films (such as Memento) that aim to change our perspective of how we see and experience film.
I just can't wait for the first film (or TV show) to incorporate the use of smell in a film... somehow.