As we mentioned in class, Film Production Theory by Jean-Pierre Geuens--which I sort of admired for its historical breadth and personal conviction (albeit of the misguided sort)--was perhaps too closely aligned with the Adorno and Horkheimer (Frankfurt) school of thinking regarding "The Culture Industry" for my tastes. Still, I sometimes find it wholly appropriate to appropriate (as it were) certain ideas from the Frankfurt school regarding cinema, yet something--my own critical habits when watching movies, perhaps--prohibits me from ravaging moviegoers or the cinema like Geuens. [Granted, Geuens ultimately concedes that "works of art present the world anew," and, in the best occasions, "radically [refashion] the belief system held by [an] individual" (43)].
For me, I often agree with Geuens' latter points--I'll take this opportunity to officially insert "cinema" in for his "art"--believing that the most moving, provoking, and enticing cinema is compatible with Gadamer's following idea:
"the power of the work of art suddenly tears the person experiencing it out of the context of life, and yet releases him back to the whole of his existence. In the experience of art is present a fullness of meaning that belongs not only to this particular content or object but rather stands for the meaningful whole of life" (Gadamer qtd. in Geuens 42).
I think, having struggled to teach basic college writing to indifferent college freshman, my critical interest in cinema comes from a pedagogical impulse; ultimately, I want my excitement and critical curiosity about certain movies, film movements, directors, etc. to be contagious. Yet, I also respect where others come from and, regarding our "mass" versus "private" visual event, I force myself to watch what my students are likely bringing to the conversation (which, I think, is a fancy excuse for subjecting myself to Paul Blart: Mall Cop). Furthermore, and I have yet to test this, but I think Gadamer's idea could find a valid cultural litmus test in the cinema; in that, simply showing certainly films will elicit some response (visceral or otherwise) from even the most indifferent viewer. For example, here is the trailer for a film that I believe can accomplish everything Gadamer's quote about art stresses:
I don't claim authority on cinema's potential to either liberate or enslave, so I openly invite comments, questions, and discussion. I will say that I am torn on cinema and its ability to move viewers. Forget all the debates surrounding film: the evil machinations of the Culture Industry, the "Who Cares?" playful commentary of the postmoderns, or the escapist pleas of many viewers. What purpose can/does film serve? Yes, I think a film like Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1971) will necessarily provoke viewers, but is it in a way that is more substantial than pure shock or titillation? Additionally, I am referencing a film that, at best, would be considered a cult classic with an extremely selective viewership in 2010. So what then? You can't pull people off the street and force them to watch movies like this, and even getting rooms of bored underclassmen to watch may not elicit Gadamer's shock to their stoic indifference. That is, beyond a ephemeral, "Huh, that was interesting," what can we hope from using films like Sweetback in the classroom or our criticism? That's a lot to digest, I know, but let me know your thoughts.
P.S. As a substantial amount of the second chapter of Geuens also addresses the work of creating art, I was reminded, again, of a film. This film's central purpose seems to be to metaphorically contextualize the difficult--the sometimes impossible or insurmountable--tasks required in creating unique and enriching art (as a sidenote, I particularly enjoy the lyrical quality of this trailer*):
Any others come to mind?
* Which, as a tangent, makes me realize that there is a paper or perhaps video essay waiting to be done on film trailers and culture (what changes between eras, budgets, genres, etc.).
P.P.S. Modern culture may, at times, feel like a wasteland (and I'm purely speculating personally here), but it also contains so many great nuggets, like finding Polanski's short that Geuens discusses, that it's hard to pout:
Polanski.Shorts - Two men and a wardrobe
Uploaded by superyiyi. - Full seasons and entire episodes online.
P.P.S. I tend to be windy, if you couldn't tell, and I really want to use this blog to work on that too. As for this post: mulligan.
1 comment:
The films that you have chosen are great example of how modernism and mass culture (pop culture) have melded into postmodern cinema. I thought it was interesting that Geuens wrote on Polanski's "Two Men and a Wardrobe." I remember watching it for a film class I took on Polanski in 1994. There are some great images in the film.
I enjoyed Geuens' essay - even though he may seem elitist - his voice is needed to be included with the visual culture / postmodern / modernism discussion. The problem with Geuens is that he will not acknowledge that modernism now co-exists with popular cinema, and not in either/or dynamic. I am thinking of filmmakers like Todd Haynes, Sofia Coppola and Gus Van Sant. He blames Star Wars and Jaws as the decline of American New Wave Cinema of 1970s. But it was the counter-culture spirit of the New Wave that allowed Lucas and Speilberg to make those films.
There is a great essay by Edward Shils called "Daydreams and Nightmares: Reflections on the Criticism of Mass Culture" that is worth checking out. He doesn't write on cinema specifically, but raises interesting issues about academic intellectuals and mass culture.
Post a Comment