Two statements on the state of cinema

Introduce yourself to the community or chat with other users about whatever is on your mind
dardan
Posts: 313
1636 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 9:08 pm

Re: Two statements on the state of cinema

Post by dardan »

As long as filmmakers are experimenting with and are trying to innovate the medium

I don't agree that filmmakers wanting to win Cannes is the major factor contributing to the homogenization of the supply of film, but that rather this is a symptom of an increasingly globalized culture making unique perspectives more difficult to attain. Is a modern day Tokyo Story, a Pather Panchali or a Grand Illusion possible today, or is it, like these films suggest, lost like small shops are to big corporations such as Wal-Mart? This isn't to say that smaller production companies have been usurped by such companies, though to some extent they might--I truly lack any expertise in the field to make any such judgement, but it is to say that these cultures have been, and that, as you suggest, the methods or rules by which films are created have been.

Quite strong evidence to the contrary and in line with my opening premise are the recent films of Apichatpong Weerasethakul and Terrence Malick. The former has managed to put to screen profound intricacies via innovation and creation of mechanisms by which narrative can operate, and by which, as Dheepan indicates, others are--thus far mostly failingly--trying to operate with as well.

In a bar, after an evening of debating in the debating club :geek: , I got into an impossibly long, impassioned argument as to why The Stranger by Camus is trash (it is), and in doing so I managed to give a moderately comprehensive account of why the above films are better, but I seem to have forgotten a lot of it. The core argument, though, was predicated upon there being little aesthetic value in 1) directly presenting themes and doing so 2) in excess as Camus did in his first lines: (Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know.) (ugh). Apichatpong (and to a lesser, but still major extent Malick) 'hide' these themes behind behaviours almost entirely contradictory to our expectations of what those behaviours would be like given the set of circumstances presented to us. Apichatpong uses described contrasts and the outermost symptoms of root mechanisms Camus would have directly pinpointed as if they had material value in the operative structures of the narrative, creating multilayered interaction between a bunch of said symptoms (and hence themes) to truly elucidate the meaning and significance of those themes.

Inland Empire, relevant due to the cheap camera Lynch used to shoot the whole thing, likely as a means to enhance the power of the middle finger he presented to those in the Inland Empire and Hollywood, would also have been included as strong evidence if it weren't already 11 years old.

Having noted all that, I actually am fairly optimistic in regards to the future of cinema. Simply too much power resides in the decrease in costs and barriers to make film and the inevitable increase in wealth of nations and the corollary of increased demand for all types of cinema, even those types you would derive more joy out of.

dardan
Posts: 313
1636 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 9:08 pm

Re: Two statements on the state of cinema

Post by dardan »

djross wrote:
a period that has also seen the rise of the suburban cineplex, the growth of merchandising and the increasing infantilisation of filmgoers, film critics and the films themselves (note: the infantile is opposed, not to the intellectual, but to the adult).


A nuance I would add is that it isn't as much an infantilization of the populace visiting the cinemas--new generations nearly always beat previous generations in most measures such as crime rate and intelligence--but rather the problems as identified stem in large part from the expansion of the populace visiting the cinemas, thereby causing production companies to accomodate in their biggest productions to this larger, indeed (on average) more infantile audience. This is also, I suspect, a problem rampant in universities throughout the world, but that is a different discussion.

Suture Self
Posts: 545
2704 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 7:30 am

Re: Two statements on the state of cinema

Post by Suture Self »

Great post. I think, more than ever before, filmmaking, especially high-budget filmmaking, has become a demographics game. Film producers sit in their boardroom and figure out ways to employ a team of statisticians and demographic wonks that calibrate which films can appeal to the broadest possible audience, and then those are the films that get the money, because they are risk-averse and profit-motivated. The problem with this trend is that it squeezes out 1) a lot of mid-budget films (films Scorsese is particularly known for, so it's no surprise he feels the way he does); and 2) a lot of high-budget films that might be a risky gamble. In addition to that, it motivates people to continue making sequel after sequel, because if Jurassic World is a blockbuster success, the money made from that can flow directly into Jurassic World 2, and the cycle continues ad-nauseam until one of the sequels finally fails and the series isn't profitable anymore.

However, I think a mistake is being made by *some* people in assuming things can't possibly change. I've read many essays and comments and posts on the internet and elsewhere about how cinema is dead and we're all doomed. Things can change and things could absolutely change for the better. I read an article in The Atlantic the other day that mentioned the phenomena of sequel fatigue, not just as a critique of the content of the films themselves, but a financial critique. Many sequels in 2016, for example, completely failed to make a profit. Maybe this will continue to happen and filmmakers will gravitate towards more original content. One can only hope. Of course, placing hope in the so-called "free market" is unwise, so I understand why people are gloomy about the whole situation...

Of course, there's always the chance that things could get even worse, so I'm not actually convinced that cinema is dead, because it certainly could be more dead, and I think that's a point many people are failing to consider. djross, I like your characterization that cinema isn't gone, but that the desert has grown. I think that's a good way of putting it. I will say, though, that the amount of films being made has grown, too, so like you mentioned, perhaps there is still hope in digital filmmaking and low-budget films. I'm of the opinion that there is, because there are still a lot of great indie flicks out there being made by persistent and motivated filmmakers.

lisa-
Posts: 286
1907 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:22 am

Re: Two statements on the state of cinema

Post by lisa- »

the films themselves, as mentioned, are only half of the equation. the vast desert of death that is modern cinema would not in itself be a problem if there were meaningful film criticism to clear away the dust and allow us to snatch a glance at the, um, oasis. yet "critics", just like the rest of us, seem content to cram themselves with sand and call it a meal. undoubtedly the issue is clouded by the obfuscation of aggregation, but in the spirit of aggregation, here are the tomato scores for a few mass-produced animations i have seen recently:

86% - pirates, band of misfits
79% - madagascar 3
73% - megamind
45% - hotel transylvania
73% - rise of the guardians

each of these so-called "films" is a meaningless chasm of nothingness and yet in all but one case the considerable majority of syndicated, professional, well-read critics consider them to be, at the very least, "good". the penguins are good, in madagascar, you know. very good penguins.

djross
Posts: 1212
5318 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:56 am

Re: Two statements on the state of cinema

Post by djross »

The herd-like way in which critics seem to function doesn't just apply to cartoons and so on. It's even more true for genre-called-Cannes-type movies. Looking at Rotten Tomatoes for the last few years:

    Carol. 96%
    Son of Saul. 96%
    Boyhood. 98%
    Calvary. 89%
    12 Years a Slave. 96%
    Gravity. 96%
    The Great Beauty. 91%

This is not a group of films that deserves this kind of extreme praise and critical consensus. It was for this kind of reason that I mentioned the film critics of the 1950s and 1960s who would go on to become the great directors of the French New Wave.

The first time I've ever looked at Rotten Tomatoes, by the way.

SimonJones96
Posts: 18
477 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:36 pm

Re: Two statements on the state of cinema

Post by SimonJones96 »

I really don't think Rotten Tomatoes should be seen as an indicator of what the greatest films are. It's simply a binary "did you enjoy this movie or not", and that isn't a measure of greatness but it still is a measure of appeal. Often times movies in the 90%+ reach that level because they are inoffensive. I'm more interested in looking at films where a mix of critics had strong contrasting opinions, because it means that there's probably more to discuss, and that's really why I love movies anyway.

In regards to OP's comments on television, I don't really agree that cinema has any inherent advantage over TV. TV has several advantages that film simply does not. Movies have the power to awe and inspire on a technical level, but the benefit of the greater length of time TV provides allows for a much deeper emotional connection with characters and stories than film. Though, honestly I feel that in a world where television is increasingly no longer being watched on television, cinema is increasingly being watched at home, and film is decreasingly being shot on film these days we may as well just begin to consider moving pictures to be a single process anyway.

Suture Self
Posts: 545
2704 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 7:30 am

Re: Two statements on the state of cinema

Post by Suture Self »

SimonJones96 wrote:I really don't think Rotten Tomatoes should be seen as an indicator of what the greatest films are. It's simply a binary "did you enjoy this movie or not", and that isn't a measure of greatness but it still is a measure of appeal. Often times movies in the 90%+ reach that level because they are inoffensive. I'm more interested in looking at films where a mix of critics had strong contrasting opinions, because it means that there's probably more to discuss, and that's really why I love movies anyway.


Agreed.

djross
Posts: 1212
5318 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:56 am

Re: Two statements on the state of cinema

Post by djross »

SimonJones96 wrote:It's simply a binary "did you enjoy this movie or not".


Really? That's how it works? Just a thumbs up or thumbs down? Sheesh. Why does anyone ever look at it?

SimonJones96
Posts: 18
477 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:36 pm

Re: Two statements on the state of cinema

Post by SimonJones96 »

Yeah, RT should definitely not be treated as any sort of bible, but I do find it quite useful. It gives me a good indicator of if the movie is worth my time or money. I can decide how much I like/dislike a movie for myself, but when you have a busy life you do have to pick and choose a bit. Thankfully, since finding Criticker I have a much, much better indication of what is worth my time as PSI's can be very accurate for me.

Jorg
Posts: 123
4362 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:44 am

Re: Two statements on the state of cinema

Post by Jorg »

I agree with some posters here that this decade has seen many overrated movies. Notable examples:

The Tree of Life (2011) - this seems to have quietly vanished from every Criticker top collection in recent years.. maybe because Malick made some real turds since and people began questioning his talent (I do like his earlier films)
War Horse (2011)
Hugo (2011) - http://250.took.nl/title/tt0970179
Argo (2012) - http://250.took.nl/title/tt1024648
Skyfall (2012) - http://250.took.nl/title/tt1074638
Looper (2012) - http://250.took.nl/title/tt1276104
Silver Linings Playbook (2012) - http://250.took.nl/title/tt1045658
Life of Pi (2012) - http://250.took.nl/title/tt0454876
Django Unchained (2012)
The Master (2012)
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Lincoln (2012)
Gravity (2013) - http://250.took.nl/title/tt1454468
Her (2013) - http://250.took.nl/title/tt1798709
Dallas Buyers Club (2013)
American Hustle (2013)
Boyhood (2014) - http://250.took.nl/title/tt1065073
Interstellar (2014)
The Imitation Game (2014) - http://250.took.nl/title/tt2084970
Whiplash (2014)
Son of Saul (2015)
Spotlight (2015)
Bridge of Spies (2015)
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
The Martian (2015) - http://250.took.nl/title/tt3659388
The Hateful Eight (2015)
Selma (2015)
Carol (2015)
Marvel stuff, e.g.
The Avengers (2012) - http://250.took.nl/title/tt0848228
Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) - http://250.took.nl/title/tt2395427
Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) - http://250.took.nl/title/tt1843866
Captain America: Civil War (2016) - http://250.took.nl/title/tt3498820
Deadpool (2016) - http://250.took.nl/title/tt1431045
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) - http://250.took.nl/title/tt2015381
X-Men: First Class (2011) - http://250.took.nl/title/tt1270798

Most of these movies are perfectly watchable, but imho none of them deserve the amount of praise that they received. Many of them were initially overhyped by critics and ended up high in the IMDb Top 250 and even got nominated or won Best Picture, but the years after the release the scores and general consensus on these movies dropped significantly. Others remain overhyped because in the eyes of the fans, the director can do no wrong (e.g. Nolan and Tarantino). Some of these movies relied on gimmicks to fool critics, e.g. Boyhood had the "aging" thing, and Gravity the 3D immersiveness in space.
The standards of cinema seem to have lowered significantly during the last decade or so. Superhero movies and other franchises seem to be the main focus of studios these days, and it's hard to find movies these days that really manage to succeed in conventional storytelling and "classic" genres. I hope that "La La Land" will be one of those exceptions, and that it will be more sincere than Whiplash (which I thought was very constructed and manipulative).
Last edited by Jorg on Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:33 am, edited 15 times in total.

Post Reply