Part Three: Sustaining the New Era
By Meseret Haddis
In this three-part examination, I will look at cinema as an industry and as an art form. In Part One, I examined the dying industry; in Part Two, I examined the rebirth of the industry and, in Part Three, I will examine how to sustain it.
Everyone’s a critic
One of the most important elements for sustaining an artistic medium is criticism. This can mean both professional and amateur critics. The general population of filmgoers are amateur critics. You might think: “I’m not blogging my opinions or giving speeches about them, so how can I be a critic?” Making the choice to see a film makes you a critic. Once you spend those twelve dollars on a ticket, you have just made a critical choice.
When The Dark Knight swallowed hordes of money at the box office this summer, most viewers said, “We like this film. We like action, we like drama, we like suspense and I think you would like it, too.” A critic’s job, when deconstructed and simplified, is to get people to see a movie. Bad reviews are often defended because they protect the audience member from wasting their money - but who asked them?
One argument says that critics should use their power to showcase great films that aren’t getting attention; the other argument questions whether or not these same critics should be trusted at all. Let’s look at it this way: If you are a critic for an entertainment publication or company (i.e. E! or Rolling Stone) that depends on selling papers or getting website hits, don’t you think you would feel pressured to hand out positive reviews? The other alternative is to be an independent critic and, well, if no one reads your reviews, then you might as well keep them to yourself. It’s a tricky position to be in, as we need independent critics who can cut through the complacency of the mainstream critical establishment.
The Internet’s ability to give weight to a variety of smaller voices has benefited independent criticism (just like the idea that digital cameras could save independent cinema by giving more people an opportunity to create films). However, quantity does not always mean quality. It does, however, give opportunities to those who hadn’t previously been given a voice.
Critics are as powerful as the art form. When art forms suffer, so do their critics. Not in their talent but, rather, in their potential to influence audiences. When an art form thrives, everyone’s a critic.
Two Audiences
I’m not someone who believes that there are two audiences: audiences that are passionate about the art form and those that are merely casual participants. When something transcendent happens in an art form, it will affect both audiences. This is proof that the distinctions between the two audiences are arbitrary. What we have is a collective audience that everyone - artists, critics, fanatics and casual fans - share and experience together. Thus, distinctions between audiences are arbitrary, because we all experience the human condition. Yes, we might live in different places, know different people, like different things, but that doesn’t change the fact that we get sad, or happy, or angry, or depressed. It’s not surprising why successful films are so successful. They capture something that isn’t defined by the physical or regional, but by the whole, which we all experience. It’s like string theory. It’s an idea that forms the fabric of all our lives, something that we know is there, but can’t grasp or manipulate.
What has happened, with the audience, is a conscious split between them. This again goes back to artistic and economic cinema. A film that caters exclusively to one of those audiences has a much better chance at being successful (financially) than trying to please everyone. Independent films, for example, have limited releases, because that’s the best way to effectively spend limited resources while getting a profit. People who appreciate independent cinema are not necessarily fans of commercial, popcorn films; however, when a film is great, these distinctions collapse. The only catch is to make great films.
How do you make great films?
To call a film great is subjective, of course, but what can do is measure great films by their reception (financially and critically). Case in point: Hollywood’s Golden Age. The rate at which films were made during this period was enormous, producing terrific work. Of course, with every great Golden Age film, there were about fifty mediocre releases on the side. The good releases, however, were most certainly good: romantic comedies (The Philadelphia Story), crime dramas (The Big Sleep), war films (Only Angels Have Wings), westerns (Stagecoach), and so on.
Besides the obvious rate of production, another difference between films being made during this period and those being made now is the quality of collaboration. Howard Hawks worked with Ernest Hemingway and William Faulkner on screenplays. Internationally, Jean Cocteau wrote dialogue for Robert Bresson’s Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne and, later, worked with Jean-Pierre Melville on Les Enfants Terribles. Dalí worked with Buñel, as did Pasolini with Fellini.
Great films around the world are able to speak to both audiences; they examine something important. The great films of the past eighty years all share a passion about telling stories through images; 8 1/2, Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Bicycle Thieves, Seven Samurai - all are films made by auteurs, by filmmakers who are telling stories with a unique eye and a particular worldview. Importantly, another common thread through all of these films is that they are inspirational. That is, they are influential for future filmmakers, they encourage them to want to make films.
Learning should be cheap…
Education, of course, is important for sustaining a growing community. Free education, however, should not mean bad education. One place of learning that has become exceedingly costly is the movie house. In New York City, for instance, I have yet to find a single dollar theater. Here, when asked why they don’t go to the movies, most people reply that the cost of admission is too expensive. Why do you think Netflix is such a successful company? It’s because it’s become less expensive to watch a film at home than at the theater. However, watching films in the cinema is still unsurpassed by any recent technology or alternative; films, after all, are made for the big, silver screen.
One way for cinemas to combat complete financial ruin is by showing older films inexpensively. Here in New York, we have a number of movie houses that feature extensive retrospectives of older films and filmmakers, but these venues still charge the same prices as other theaters.
In Conclusion…
To be at the cusp of artistic change is frightening for artists and for audiences alike. And I can assure you that we are nearing the cusp of such a change. Artists will take chances and audiences will grimace and complain, but there has to be an understanding. A change artistically can’t happen unless time warrants it. That’s one big issue I’ve had with Jean-Luc Godard and some of his later films; they weren’t about the audience anymore, it became about the revolution, the change, the method. Godard is someone I admire and think has altered modern cinema forever, but he moved too quickly for his audiences. You can call him boring, you can call him pretentious, but you can’t deny that the man takes chances and is willing to put it all on the screen. How many filmmakers (let alone artists in general) would you say do that same thing? He’s not a successful filmmaker because of these choices, but that’s the price you pay for trying to instill change in your audiences. Don’t get me wrong, one day Godard’s films will have a significant place in our culture, where casual audience members and students alike will look at them for artistic and cultural understanding, but for future filmmakers we can’t lose sight of that important thing we are making our films for: the audience. As filmmakers, it is your job to not lose sight of that. We have to understand, we have to study, we have to relate, we have to disagree with our audiences, but the moment we think we are above them, it’s over.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment