How Do you Define Cinema in 2010? Part 1

I've been reading a collection of criticisms written by Jean-Luc Godard when he wrote for "Cahier Du Cinema" back in the 1950s. One of the current questions he asks in his writings, and one I couldn't help but ask myself is "What is Cinema"?

I can't think of a better filmmaker to pose this question than Godard. In the 1960s, Godard tested the boundaries of cinema more than anyone else, in my opinion we are still trying to catch up to what he was getting at.

So here we are 50 years since Godard's first film "Breathless" came out and gave a new definition of what cinema could do, and now I think the question should be raised again. What is cinema in 2010?

For me, I don't think I have a straight answer, it's almost like asking the question what is art? Just because a person points a camera and shoots, does that make a film? Are there certain guidelines or steps behind making a film? Can rules be broken? Is there room to experiment anymore?

I remember going to film school and taking a screenwriting course. In the course we were taught of the five steps behind making a screenplay. The first step is having an inciting incident, this must happen within the first ten minutes (or pages) of the script. This was the thing that got the story going, you always had to have an inciting incident. Is this true? Does something always have to happen in the first ten minutes of a movie. For films that deal mainly in traditional story structure, I suppose that is true. I would argue this is the type of film you would see when going to your local multiplex.

I don't find anything wrong with this way of making films, a lot of great ones have been made with this structure, however in this day and age it seems we have become too dependant on it, and I think is the cause of a lot of lazy filmmaking.

This brings me to another question, is plot at all important in a film? I'm probably bringing this up for selfish reasons, for I don't believe plot is at all important in a great film, but I'm interested to know if others feel the same way. What interests me the most in a film is the characters and their psychology, the look of a film, the tone, and the mood. I'm put into a world, if by chance there is a plot than fine.

A recent film that I think works well in psychology, look, tone, and mood, but has been unjustly criticized for its plot is Martin Scorsese's recent film "Shutter Island". Scorsese works in pure cinema, and throughout his career, it's the psychology of his characters that interests him the most. With "Shutter Island", Scorsese has been criticised for being too concerned with the plot points in the film in order to surprise the viewer at the end. I don't think this was his intent. Many people I know who have seen the movie guessed the ending within the first 20 minutes, and as the final line of Leonardo DiCaprio's guilt ridden character suggests, Scorsese was up to something completely different. For me, the surprise of the movie was finding out it wasn't what you thought it was, it was a Scorsese film disguised as something else.

Despite this, the people I know who have seen it were disappointed in the film. So am I wrong to think that plot doesn't matter?

Another film getting criticized for its plot is "Avatar". This film belongs to a special category and one I will probably discuss int he second part of this topic. "Avatar" has become a pulp culture phenomenon and has pushed the technical boundaries of special effects and 3-D. I would argue it's visually stunning, but to break down the plot, you would get as much depth as "Ferngully The Last RainForest".

I enjoyed "Avatar" for what it was, it was an escape movie, a space opera of epic proportions. The problem I see people having with it were they were able to see through its plot too easily. They saw story lines taken from other movies, and what they saw was a very shallow film. This is actually something I did have a problem with. "Avatar" is a shallow film, but it doesn't realize it's shallow. In comparison, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is a shallow film as well, but it knows it is.

"Avatar" is self-important, and doesn't hide its political leanings in anyway, but behind it, is a film with a pretty entertaining adventure story, and stunning visuals that are as groundbreaking as "Star Wars".

"Avatar" attempts a new kind of cinema, and this is what we must ask ourselves, will this define what cinema will become? I would very much like to hear your opinions of this, and I will continue this topic later on.