Narrative...Psht...
Been confronted with wanting to go to the movies lately and having reservations paying $25 (including popcorn and a drink) to see films unconcerned with story. Critical culture and the culture of film schools pooh-pooh plot as one of the lowest of all concerns. And perhaps, aesthetically speaking, they are noble in their pursuit and celebration of "pure cinema." But it brings up the $25 question.
In the last month, I saw Place Beyond the Pines and Stoker. Looking at the other options this weekend - Upstream Color and To The Wonder - and I'm guessing about the later, but sure about the former, plotting was of basically no concern to filmmakers. Mood. Attitude. Style. Imagery. All these were of higher order priority.
So why pose as a narrative if one is so dismissive of plot? Why not make an experimental film? Why not make a short? We all know the answer: money. There is no economic model to fund shorts or experimental films, only narratives. So what should be said of filmmakers who are concerned with the experimental, but sell their products as narrative? Are they artists or hucksters? What would say of a hamburger joint who sells us tofu burgers? We call them crooks.
Stan Brakhage, Chris Marker, Godfrey Reggio all made their films, but didn't pose them as mass-audience narratives. They didn't try to sell them as remakes (Stoker) or crime dramas (Place Beyond The Pines).
These filmmakers want it all ways. They want artistic cred, financial remuneration, critical praise, and shiny awards. They want a wife and a mistress. I don't think this deserves praise. And it certainly isn't worth $25 a pop.
4 comments:
Don't worry, Ben Affleck has another movie around the corner.
Once again you'll be able to return to the security blanket of cinema with the knowledge that your hard- earned $25 is going to a safely, formulaic movie which molds to your standards of Hollywood craft.
a very disingenuous and reactionary comment, mr. davis. is narrative exclusive to hollywood? have i ever praised affleck as a director? on the contrary, i prefer to be invigorated and inspired by cinema, but do not find it in the incoherence of the arthouse. find one comment praising formulaic hollywood craft in all of public musings, it will not be there, i assure. shame on you for not comprehending the point.
I don't argue with your general assessment of these movies interest in things outside of narrative often to their detriment but I think you're way off the mark roping in filmmakers as hucksters especially with To the Wonder and Upstream Color. Granted, I haven't seen the movies either but on one hand you've got a guy making a film completely outside the Hollywood system, no name actors, production companies etc. And he's releasing the movie himself, cuts the incredibly confusing trailers himself and never attempts to sell the movie as something easy to follow or that everything will add up. That's a huckster?
And Malick on the other hand. If you don't know what you're getting at this point then you're only deluding yourself, love or hate it.
The bigger question that I do think you get at is why it feels like the critical arm of the film world and cinephiles at large keep claiming these movies to be masterpieces at the drop of a hat, whether they are just thirsty for anything outside the narrative cliches so much of film had become. I don't know, its certainly worth talking about it.
yes, i can agree with the point re: malick and upstream color not falling into the hucksterism category fairly. i am more thinking of place beyond the pines, stoker, and spring breakers because of the way they represent themselves. and because i'm mad at the $ i paid to see those films and feel like i got gypped.
and yes, there is a separate conversation about critical adoration of such films, which overlaps both types: the ones i categorize as huckster and those which are genuinely experimental and represent themselves that way.
i did some thinking about this critical notion yesterday after reading positive reviews of both to the wonder and upstream color, neither of which made me want to see the films. there is a joylessness, esoteric quality to the discussion and they manage to make cinema seem as appealing as a vegan lunch accompanied by a lecture on derrida.
Post a Comment