I'm not sure I can answer my own question. What is cinema today? Has it stayed the same? Is it progressing?
I can't help but think of the time of the French New Wave. When Godard, Truffaut, Malle, Rohmer, and others were describing cinema in ways that were new to us, there was excitement in the air. Cinema was now regarded as an artform, the new wavers had different theories and terms such as mise en scene and auteur to describe the film climate.
Today we know all that, film can be described as an artform for sure, and as Tolstoy predicted it has become the artform of the 20th century. We are now into the 21st century and it still is the most popular artform of today, but it has expanded to new arenas, it has also been corrupted.
When we say cinema, we can't just mean film anymore. Cinema is now digital, it's now in 3-D, it's now on television, the internet, DVD, and blueray. It comes with special features including making of documentaries, audio commentaries, and special Easter eggs.
Now more than ever we can learn about cinema in the privacy of our own home, perhaps the class most suitable to take as correspondence. Cinema can now be practised by anyone and everyone, the French New Wavers can claim victory with that.
But let's look at Hollywood, whose films are the ones that are still the most popular and influential in the world. Where to start? Let me say this, Hollywood no longer seems to be interested in films, they are more interested in packages. Hollywood is the breeding ground for amateur filmmakers these days, journeymen with no independent vision but can deliver a package that can be sold to the largest consumer. Artists in Hollywood have become scarce, you will usually see them now in television since their way of thinking is no longer relevant in the multiplexes.
It's hard to tell whether filmmakers in Hollywood know what they are doing, or they have just given up on trying to do anything anymore. Going to the the movies is no longer magical, there isn't even art in movie theatres anymore, each one resembles the other so much, you might as well start showing movies at Wall-Mart.
Should we begin to blame the audiences? At the risk of sounding unpopular, I will say they are partly to blame. Godard describes movie audiences as being "neither stupid nor intelligent", that was in the 60s, I would say today's audiences are either "apathetic or intelligent". I believe the majority of people do demand more from their movies than they are already getting, this includes both young and old. Even at a young age, you are able to tell the difference between an image and a blur, that is in fact the two types of movies that are being made today. Some people have chosen to give up and choose the blur, while others long for the image. For the latter group, going to the movies is more than sitting in a dark room for more two hours watching something that doesn't matter, for the former group, they might as well go to a laser show.
I may sound "holier than thou" and elitist when I speak about viewer apathy, that is not my intent, but I cannot deny that it doesn't exist. Apathy comes from a loss in faith, these people have lost faith in cinema and that's thanks to it becoming a machine and not an artform.
There is hope for this however. The hope might not come from the multiplexes, but from the artists, the real ones who have chosen not to compromise and corrupt the moving image. They think independently, and they may have found a way to work within the system, but for most of them, they have found new outlets. They may not come from America, for we are globalized now and can experience new perceptions and new worlds than we might not have thought imaginable. They might come from film festivals or from students making their first short.
There is joy in these kind of films, because it is fresh, it's original, and it's compelling. To me these are the films that in time will define cinema in 2010, and hopefully I'm right.
In 1967 Godard proclaimed "Cinema is dead". I disagree, long live cinema!
No comments:
Post a Comment