Cinema today . . .

September 25, 2007.

*******

So I've been thinking about the idea of the hero as an archetype and how that relates to cinema.  I quickly checked out Joseph Campbell on Wikipedia  (I know, I know), and this excerpt seems to summarize the theory:

"Heroes were important to Campbell because, to him, they conveyed universal truths about one's personal self-discovery and self-transcendence, one's role in society, and the relationship between the two."

*******

For me the idea of a hero relates to my favorite writers, filmmakers, artists.  I guess I had an epiphany after watching the first part of Ric Burns's doc on Andy Warhol.  You know, the one where everyone is like, "oh there was darkness, and then there was Andy!"  I'm not saying that it isn't true or that the documentary isn't inspiring or educational, but this idea of the artist seems old fashioned to me . . . Old fashioned because now so many people are realizing their potential to make and share art.  Think about that . . .

And then . . . I went on-line and read this:

"The view proposed by the annual "Views From the Avant-Garde" program is scarcely spotless; much of it is dull and derivative. Yet it also lays claim to many of the supreme masterpieces (and most of the significant world premieres) in recent NYFF history: Stan Brakhage's Commingled Containers, Jean-Luc Godard's Origin of the 21st Century, Ken Jacob's Star Spangled to Death, Peter Kubelka's Poetry and Truth, Andy Warhol's Blue Movie, and Luther Price's extraordinary series of found-footage Biscotts."  - N.L.

*******

(Nathan, I'm proud of you for addressing the A.G.  You have my attention & I think that you are a brave writer.  You take risks.  Love that.  But next time you do this, I'd like to ask that you send me an email.  Would that be possible?  I want for you to write about experimental cinema, OMG, I am too tired to do it myself . . . Go ahead! )

*******

Back to the Voice  - I have a bit of a problem with the "dull and derivative" aspect of the review.  I mean, we could grab anyone off the street for that observation, right?  Bloggers, film critics, poets, ask yourself, is anything you write derivative?  Are you re-inventing the English language from nothing?  If you agree that we are all a bit derivative by default, would you agree that what we write has no relevancy?  What about those big Hollywood movies or even David Lynch or Apichatpong Weerasethakul?  Are those films derivative of anything in cinema?  Hmmm, interesting how the rules change when we begin to discuss the New York avant-garde . . .

*******

Anyway, so I was thinking about Andy Warhol and the idea of celebrity and the idea of how I hear over and over that there are essentially no more masters and I wondered how it would be if there were no artists like Jean Luc Godard, no Vertov, no Apollinaire, no Marcel Proust and (even no more celebs!) . . . I wondered at how important they were to me at one point in my life, and it made me realize, that a world without these "great artists" or "auteurs" was very scary!

And yet here I am in experimental cinema, which has no real hierarchy (kind of like the blogosphere).  There are inventors & masters, but they are not treated that differently.  It is an environment where screening films with your friends replaces the one great auteur.  Could this be the cinema of the future? 

*******

(You know how the sun rises each morning?  That's how I feel about cinema.  It is always new.)

*******

What I am thinking is that perhaps searching for the old school version of "master artist" is what some would call "an inappropriate goal."  (FYI, I am the princess of inappropriate goals, so don't take my comments personally!) We don't need another hero, you know?  We have each other . . .

*******

Back in the day, Godard invented the jump cut, and before him Rossellini took his light camera out into the streets, and before him the Lumieres & Edison invented the movie camera, and then there was cinema.  The revolution is still happening.  Open the lens, darlings.  Look at YouTube, look at what people are documenting, how people are spending their spare time, it's marvelous!!! 

*******

Have you picked up a video camera lately? 

*******

I bet you are thinking, oh jmac's just upset, because her movie, Kittypie, is just languishing on the Net.  Well, you would not be wrong.  When I talk about these things they are so inextricably tied in with my identity, wanting recognition, & wanting to see experimental cinema come up from underground.  But in most ways, I choose my invisible world, and somehow I am able to find beautiful friends who can see it too!!!

Thanks for reading!  Love to all!  See you at the NYFF!

Comments

[Maya]

Jennifer: Thank you for inviting me to comment on your recent musings. With regard to Joe, I think what stands out the most with regard to his stand on artists is that they have replaced the saints of yesteryear. Which is to say they suffer a commensurate martyrdom. And I think to qualify he is specifically speaking about artists who suffer through or because of their art. In an era of business where the difference between art, artifact and artistry have become heedlessly undifferentiated, that would probably refer to most artists trying to live in a business-like world. Rare is the artist who is content with his or her process without somehow struggling over the product.

And yet, also thinking of Joe, that is exactly what he might have suggested: that it is the artistry, the creativity, which often wellpsrings from the transgressive, from the breaking and readapting of forms (like Godard's jump cut), that is the true basis of heroism. But to also earn that ascription, there must be a certain authenticity to the process and the project. It isn't just about breaking and adapting forms; but, if somehow in the honest expression of one's creativity, that occurs and its occurence marks some definitive advance, then the creativity, being transgressive, is heroic.

The catch is, perhaps, to save the transgressive from the derivative (which appears to be transgressive but is, perhaps, trying too hard to be so).

I hope those thoughts add to your own articulate feelings.

[jmac]

Thanks so much, Maya! You are the go-to person for J.C. It's so cool that you studied with him. I love that about you! :)

I guess I have questions about Joe's thoughts on being transgressive as being heroic. Personally, I think that my heroes have uncovered profound unquestionable truths that rock to the core. :) The jump cut isn't what I'm identifying with, but the persona of Godard's existence. Because Godard (the hero) exists, this poetic world became visible to me, and I apart of it. I guess I'm questioning why we need to receive these ideas from accepted auteurs. Why can't we just accept these windows from our friends? If the explosion of cinema and art happened in the 1960s, then after 40 years, any contemporary film/video artist has all of that in mind. In my video, Kittypie, I guess I am trying to transgress. I'm trying to transgress the war in Iraq, the disillusionment I feel, the cheapness of our celebrated culture, for example . . . I spent a year making a work which celebrates my pet cat!

[jmac]

P.S. I'm a bit all over the place with this post, but I think that what I'm trying to describe in contemporary cinema is the paradigm shift! The post-modern world or whatever description you want to use does not work by the same rules as it did with Jonas Mekas in the 1960s. I'd like to see some of the disappointed film critics get in synch with that. For example, searching for film movements and the next Stan Brakhage or the next Godard, seems to me to be old-fashioned. Not to mention that this mind-set may cause some to overlook the innovations happening right now, i.e. contemporary experimental cinema! I just had to say this!

:)

[Zach]

So the question seems to be--where are our heroes? And do we need them anyway?

We don't need to find "the next Rossellini" or "the next Godard"--after all, Rossellini and Godard weren't the "next" version of anything prior to themselves, were they? My take is that as cinema (or 'moving image art/technology') continues to go forward into the future, it will provide us with plenty of candidates for "sainthood" or whatever.

At the same time the circumstances of our cinema history-yet-to-be-written will cause us to recalibrate our notions of worthy cinema. (Just one instance: as this thing "cinema" moves towards greater portability, I predict that we'll hear less essentializing about how cinema bears an escapist function.) I think we're also well-stanced on the possibilities of somewhat more anonymous, or perhaps highly authorial but very "minor," works of cinema--consider:

- the YouTube diarists who command large personal followings, as well as the anonymous people who rip, edit, and compile a number of videos (sports compilations, or footage of a beloved pet set to a favorite pop song)

- television, where author-hero status is usually relegated to the status of writer and/or producer, who is sometimes quite removed from the production of the text itself, and exerts more intangible, top-down influence; as a result many of the more formal & aesthetic qualities are, I think, learned to be appreciated precisely in their relative anonymity (away from authorial intention yet not always away from thematic seriousness)

- the explosion of research into very early film history as well as genre cinema in academic and critical circles (post-New Waves)

Just a few thoughts. I'd like to follow up on this, Jen, you've opened a great can of worms. Sorry to ramble on so much already!

[jmac]

Thanks, Zach! This is awesome. I would like to hear more, a lot more!

Okay, you are making me work with the "next Godard" thing. Touché! I am referring to the idea of people looking for the new big auteur, the one person who will change all of cinema for them again . . . I don't think like this!

Your ideas about how there will continue to be a cinematic evolution into different types of sainthood and an openness to amateur video art sound good, but I still wonder. If everyone becomes an artist, won't the idea of at least sainthood be outmoded? From my experiences in experimental cinema, the sainthood hero thing is over. :) There are greatly varying levels of ability among the artists, but not in this "us" and "them -- the great great auteurs" way that I'm picking up on in the media. Also the concept of critical recognition of contemporary experimental cinema is next to dead in the traditional media, on the blogosphere it breathes a bit, but the heart is not racing! And should it matter? Is the reward in making the films that bring you to dazzling friendships and the soul within soul within soul? :)

Thanks for this discussion. I'm confused now.

:)

[Zach]

Jen, I'm not saying you personally are looking for the 'next Godard'--sorry if I wasn't clear on this.

More musings--a lot to chew on.

I think if cinema becomes more of a "popular" art, then a lot of the saint/heroes will disappear. (Or, more likely, they'll become very localized within communities--whether real or virtual.) By "popular" of course I'm contrasting the artform to "mass." Cinema has always been a mass art, right, made by a few (and of course mostly in the interests of the powerful few), but with DIY there's a possibility that it can become an art for the people--like a 'folk art,' something that takes skills but which anybody (and many 'anybodies') can partake in. In this sense it's like folk music, furniture making, weaving, even traditional cooking: frequently but not necessarily all anonymous; heavily tied to communities; an impossible-to-catalogue number of works; innovations that come only gradually but prove quite sturdy ... there's no Godard of quilting, but there are still "heroes" (e.g., your grandmother or your Great Aunt Edna).

This is what I think of when I think of the cinema, its whole culture, becoming radically democratized. (Hopefully concomitant with that would be a means for sociopolitical action & dialogue on this huge, level scale too.) The reward, as you say Jen, will very much be in the relationships one makes in making/spreading/seeing these films.

Next questions to think about--how likely is any of this 'radical democratization' actually to happen, and is it necessarily a good thing? (Maybe old-fashioned heroic Godard, or Warhol, or Rossellini, is precisely what we need? I dunno.) If I were to bet I'd say that in the future cinema will stay fundamentally a mass art with a few movements in the direction of the popular. I do think the saint/hero phenomenon is around to stay, even with modifications. Good or bad? Could go either way. It's up to people like you, and all of us, to push around and make room for the popular to grow as much as it can ...

[jmac]

Hi again, Zach. What a cool way to think about things! The idea that cinema could be like folk art is really interesting and a new approach for me. I love the idea of grandmas making videos! :) That is so rad!

I think that experimental cinema is part grandma making a pie & part Rimbaud inventing the most radical symbolist poetry. :)

It's inspiring that you think that we can make our cinema popular. Are you serious? :)

The hero/saint thing is so confusing to me now. It's difficult for me to see clearly, when films that are more important than the features being distributed (I said it :) are omitted from the media. It sooo matters. Just not as much as making a film or having a blog . . .

Thanks a million! This discussion has helped me understand where I'm at. You are so patient . . . I'd like to hear more from the bloggers about what they are drawn to in film, i.e. the long shot, the close-up, sometimes it is easier to understand each other in those terms. I'm listening . . .

[Dave]

Jennifer - This is a great post that brings up some important questions. Some off-the-cuff thoughts:

"A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man." - Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces

That sounds like a spectacular summary of the quest of the artist. One might look at Campbell's 5 stages of the monomyth to understand the project of art-making as heroism, with the caveat that only successful heroes are enshrined and celebrated in song.

I'm with Zach as far as believing that cinema will become a folk art as far as production is concerned, but I don't think it will necessarily decrease our consumption/admiration of the works of masters.

I might compare it to music in the era before recording technology, or the writing of novels, where there is a clearly established group of 'artists' (of the professional variety) at the top of a hierarchy of... [what - authenticity? respect? commerciality?], and a much larger group of amateurs - in both sense of the word - who practiced their art 'publicly' but to no larger-scale acclaim. The democratization of the tools of cinema will create a folk-cinema culture, but in any folk art the vast majority of practitioners are not celebrated in any larger sense - while a very few are. (Which is to say, there are candidates for the 'Godard' of quilting - e.g., Harriet Powers).

I think that folk-cinema is a good thing insofar as it allows for the practice of cinema, but I suspect that it will do very little to 'advance' the 'art form' in any substantive way. As a social good I support the development of folk-cinema, and as an artist I support anything lowers the barriers to admission, but I also suspect that, like many folk arts, little of this newly possible work will carry much merit on an artistic level. As Franco Moretti points out in his work on the novel, Britain produced perhaps 30,000 novels in the 19th century; today we read, to be generous, 200 of these. I suspect that the less time needed to create in a given medium, the higher the ration of chaff to wheat (and creating cinema of the YouTube variety has become much easier than completing a novel).

I also wonder whether the use of cinema-language by the masses can be said to constitute a 'minor literature' in the Deleuze-and-Guattari sense... that's a theoretical question I will need some time to struggle with.

[jmac]

Dave, thank you for the Joseph Campbell excerpt. I love that! I love the whole idea of a folk cinema, and I've never heard of it before today. I love the idea of everyone having the capability to make a video, that more people can be the heroes (not that they are not already, but you know what I mean.) I think that a world of artists would be a better, less brutal world. Make videos not war! :)

I really want to emphasize though that experimental cinema is not a folk cinema. We have our masters, but they are invisible. The heroes that the media selects are not my heroes. For example, why doesn't New York Magazine cover artists like Bradley Eros, Nathaniel Dorsky, Bruce McClure, Jennifer Reeves, Zach Layton, Marianna Ellenberg . . . ?! I think Bradley for instance is truly Rimbaud spit back on the Lower East Side as a cinematic prophet, but the greater cinematic world in New York(!) misses the poetic cinema. How is that even possible? (Although the curators at The Whitney seem to be in touch!) I guess I haven't asked you how you perceive avant-garde cinema. So you can tell me! :) I just want to say that the cinema we do here is as good as Apollinaire's poetry, as good as Antonioni, as good as Stendhal, Ovid . . . One day I just have a feeling, people will remember not what this culture celebrates, but what it doesn't celebrate. :(

Maybe the blogosphere will change things. A lot of beauty happens out here . . .

Thanks for this dialogue! Sorry to be so depressing. I truly admire your ideas.

[Zach]

I stand corrected on the Godard of quilting!

I think we can distinguish between different levels of a 'democraticization' of cinema production; the more likely scenario would be like what Dave outlines, I think--lots of people making things, plenty of hidden gems or even folk-masterpieces, but mostly lots & lots of "chaff." (Franco Moretti is awesome, btw.) And the power structure of the cinema industry would remain essentially intact--changed, of course, but capitalism is flexible like that & the powerful will work to accomodate themselves nicely through their own production.

A more fundamental democraticization would see some replacement of industry by popular production; the public sphere of (post)modernity and its technologies would become more fractured by communities that would be, I think, most often a mixture of real & virtual. Lots of people would make films & they'd be incredibly meaningful (Godard-meaningful!) but just to a small group of people. And there'd be lots of these 'Godards.' I feel like Jen is already describing something quite like this in her personal experience. How do we get more people on this wavelength?

[jmac]

Lots of "Godard"s describes cinema today perfectly!:)