It is often noted that ordinary people, fans watch ‘movies’, whilst academics and cinephiles view ‘films’ or ‘cinema’.
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:
A Streetcar Named Desire, Elia Kazan, 1951.
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.