|
||||||
|
|
Defining “Quality” In Cinema. And Is Cinema, As We Know It, Dead? (An Addendum)
First, in that post, I mentioned the need to pour more resources into the financing and production of “quality” black films, as opposed to distribution and exhibition. In her comment, KindredSun asked me for my definition of “quality” cinema, something that we can all agree is an individual thing. As part of my response, I said that I’d make a post out of it, and ask you all to define what a “quality film” is to you, if only to see how varied our appreciation for cinema is. So, the first questions is, what do you look for, when you’re on the hunt for “good” or “quality” cinema? What does that mean to you? Maybe examples would be useful. And secondly, there were 2 comments (from AmazingKarma & Miles Maker) suggesting, in short, that we look to newer models and rethink the ways in which we produce and distribute films. Certainly nothing that hasn’t already been previously stated in recent years by many others in industry – especially with the explosion of new technologies. Although it doesn’t hurt to repeat!
In reading their comments, I was instantly reminded of the below video clip from 2 years ago, featuring one of my all-time favorite directors, Peter Greenaway, being asked to further explain his theory that cinema, as we know it, is/was dead (he’s not alone in that thought, by the way), urging a shift in the way we create and distribute films, reinventing cinema by incorporating more interactivity. Again, all ideas that aren’t new, so we’re not breaking novel ground here. Regardless, we really haven’t had these conversations on this blog, and I thought I’d start here, and see what, if any, kinds of comments both above questions inspire. So, read the comments from the previous post, watch the video below, and leave your own thoughts on all of the above. And if you don’t have any to say, that’s fine too 9 comments to Defining “Quality” In Cinema. And Is Cinema, As We Know It, Dead? (An Addendum) |
  
|
||||
|
Copyright © 2010 Shadow And Act - All Rights Reserved  View in: Mobile | Standard
|
||||||
:
Well it’s obvious this forum doesn’t care about quality cinema or else you wouldn’t be hating on JUST WRIGHT all the time which stars Queen Latifah and is in theater next Friday by the way.
Interesting… the video, that is.
I’m not sure that I’d agree that cinema is dead, but it could certainly do with a bit of shock treatment to keep it out of it’s near vegetative state.
What Greenaway is doing is interesting, but I feel it’s just a gimmick – something trying to be cutting edge in the face of intelligent cinema going to the dogs. Then again, he is an artist first and foremost (i.e. the painting kind) so finding new ways to use film in an artistic manner (counter to Hollywood) is probably a natural departure for him.
People like him, Steve McQueen and Sam Taylor wood will always make cinema that pushes the boundaries of traditional narrative cinema. It almost makes me wish that more filmmakers were artists, first and foremost. These days we hear all too much about the bottom line – the dollar – as if polluting the cultural landscape is fine as long as someone’s making a buck.
The quickest way to make a buck in cinema seems to be to dumb down… titilate or shock gratuitously… or 3D!
…Or at least please young white men aged 15 to 34, or whatever the kerching demographic is.
Sadly, too man black filmmakers seem to be eager to follow the Hollywood formula. Trouble is, they usually do not have either the money or the resources so end up making films that lack artistic integrity and technique.
The trusth is, as long as all we want to do is emulate or appease Hollywood (and it’s mainstream audience), we’ll keep making lack-lustre or even dire films rather than imaginative ones with any real cultural credibility.
And as to Greenaway’s suggestion that narrative cinema is dead… People always have and always will enjoy hearing/watching stories unfold. The trick is in finding one that will entice anyone to sit in rapt attention in the dark for two hours and yet both entertain and give food for thought.
Yeah, Greenaway’s move does seem gimmicky, and it hasn’t really worked yet, with the last 2 projects he produced, both multi-media.
Studios are clearly looking for new ways to create and distribute cinema, to keep audiences engaged and returning, and I think, as you said, it’ll take “outsiders” like Greenaway and others (I guess as it almost always has been), to forge new paths. When successful, Hollywood will copy.
For me, quality cinema has high production values; meaning the elements of the film are meticulously developed. I don’t like over-polished films, but too often I find myself watching films that seemed to have been rushed. Across the globe there are filmmakers mastering the elements I name below, exploring new techniques, and leaving their personal comfort zones to push the limits of storytelling. “Black cinema” (which I’ll define simply, for my part in this discussion, as films written and/or directed by black people) rarely pushes the limits- and I’m mostly talking about the commercially successful films/filmmakers.
The elements that I (like most film lovers)pay close attention to most are: story, cinematography, direction, editing, sound and score, and performances. For me, quality is broken down this way:
Story: Well-developed character and plot. This is broad, and vague, but I’m surprised at how many films have one-dimensional characters (with absolutely no growth from beginning to end) and scattered plots with no resolution. Also, the tone and pacing should be unique to the story. Many horror films these days, for example, could be directed by one person (take your pick)- even the way that the trailers are edited are the same. There’s no clear ‘mark’ of an author.
An example of a great writer/director for me is John Cassavetes. His characters are complex, yet realistic, his plots (for the most part) are quite engaging, and he doesn’t mind making the audience uncomfortable with his character’s actions– at least they’ll *feel something*.
The look of a film: I can’t stand films that look as though no thought went into the cinematography. The camera should be mostly active, not passive. The color pallet and lighting should be well thought out. Jean-Pierre Jeunet has a very firm grasp on lighting and color pallet (and many other elements as well).
Production design: It should be seamless, yet effective in conveying characterization and setting– it should not be an IKEA ad. Bo Welch (best known for his work with Tim Burton) is an excellent production designer, in my opinion.
Direction: The staging should be meticulous, purposeful, and engaging. It should not simply be “by the script”, but it should go beyond the script. I love to watch a film that shows that the director has done his/her homework, that they’ve challenged the actors, and that they’ve taken a leadership role in all departments (esp. camera and production design). Guillermo del Toro is quite fastidious, highly visual, and has a master plan for every department.
Performances: An actor that understands the character they are playing and embodies them. There are a lot of “actors” who simply play a slightly modified version of themselves– in a different setting, and under controlled circumstances. Again, though, a director who acts as a creative partner to the actors is key.
Editing: The editing is not meant to just assemble the scenes but, in my mind, it should be an extension of the cinematography, and it should effectively set the pace. The infamous “Bonnie and Clyde” execution scene is a great example of this.
Sound and score: Why don’t we see films like “The Conversation” anymore? I haven’t been awestruck by any sound design (save for “Wall-E”) since I saw that film ten years ago. Also, a film’s score can really make a good film great. Examples of this are Errol Morris’s documentary “The Think Blue Line” featuring an original Phillip Glass score, and Michael Mann’s “The Last of the Mohicans”- a near perfect score which is almost solely responsible for setting the mood for that film.
Okay, that was probably more than you bargained for, Tambay, but that’s my response to your question. Nothing groundbreaking, or new, but these are the things I’d like to see more often in black cinema, and these are things (in part) that I personally strive for as a filmmaker.
Curious what you mean by “The camera should be mostly active, not passive.”
I mean the cinematography shouldn’t have the feel of a quick point and shoot, or like a camera set on a tripod with some mediocre tracking or panning. It should feel like the camera is an active participant in the action. And I don’t mean the nauseating “cinematography” of “Cloverfield” either. Take, for example, Pedro Almodovar films. The way he films two people talking is quite interesting (I noticed this in his latest film “Broken Embraces”). In some scenes, the camera will pan to person B while person A is talking (just like the end of their last sentence) so that person A’s audio is O.S. while we’re watching person B. It’s hard to explain, but he does it so well that you’re completely engaged in the scene. That’s because the camera is an active participant, not just a bystander. I hope this provided some clarity.
To address the “quality” question: My idea of a quality film is one that has successfully executed a confident singular vision. I want to feel like what i’m viewing/experiencing couldn’t have come from any other filmmaker (or team of collaborators). The originality, intentions or influence of that vision are all debateable, or course, but I can respect confidence as “quality” cinema.
Is Cinema dead? Don’t know, but what I do know is that I’ve never been the sentimental kind when it comes to cinema. Sometimes you’re selling the content, sometimes you’re selling the filmmaker(s), and sometimes you’re selling the social experience that the content facilitates. As an audience member, I’ve bought all three, sometimes pleased, other times not.
Yes it’s important to be an “artist,” with a unique point of view, but you can’t be vaccuous and self-indulgent either. Cinema isn’t like other artforms. It’s not just you emoting in front of a canvas or computer screen (usually). Economically, it is a much more “efficiency-challenged” endeavor. There are (usually) more human resources involved to execute the vision. There are fiscal and managerial responsibilities attached to what you’re doing that are much more demanding than in any other artform… which, I think, is a huge part of what makes Cinema so powerful when it works.
Tambay, I’m glad you decided to continue this discussion. So, great story and plot would be my initial response to your question regarding what I look for in “quality” cinema. It has to be something that engages you–either emotionally, mentally or intellectually. It goes without saying that there be excellent directing,acting,editing,lighting,etc… I don’t want to get long-winded but KindredSun detailed a few of those aspects. Some examples include The Color Purple, Bagdad Cafe, Run Lola Run, Do The Right Thing, Frozen River, Schindler’s List, Antwone Fisher,The Professional, etc…
Now…is cinema dead as we know it? I would have to say yes and no. I think the “art” of storytelling is timeless. However, the way we tell a story will eventually be altered. It doesn’t mean we will “get rid of movie theaters” but I believe our viewing experienced will definitely be enhanced. Isn’t that what VOD, Netflix and 3DTV are about? So I feel Mr.Greenaway is spot on to a large degree. He’s a great visionary and they are the ones that usually dictate society’s direction…without anyone realizing it until later down the road. Case in point, how many people predicted–at least more than thirty years ago–people would be sitting at TV-like receptacles interacting with people across the globe that would later be aptly named “the internet”?
I really don’t watch a film with specific expectations of what it should be. I just let the film play out and there should be some pattern or system of communication that the filmmaker employs that allows me to understand what’s going on in the film. The stronger the system is the more competent the filmmaker is in my eyes.
Cinema itself is a product of technological advancement and the advancements that have taken place since its inception have been largely enabled by advances in the technology used to make films. With that in mind a filmmaker has to understand the technology that is available to make films and understand the pros and cons of choosing one tool over another.
I think many of the films at the black film festivals suffer because the people making the films simply lack the knowledge and discipline that it takes to make a coherent system of communication that also reflects the state of the art. If your ideas require a technology you can’t afford you have either wait until you get the money or change your ideas to suit your budget. Many aspiring filmmakers seem to have chosen whatever camera was available to them with no consideration for how the camera responds to the types of images they want to create and they have no idea how to get the most out of the camera when they do shoot.
I think the advances in digital video have contributed to an overall lack of discipline on the part of inexperienced filmmakers. The price for making a mistake is much lower and the amount of knowledge needed to get started is so low that people don’t feel like it’s necessary to plan things out like you would when shooting on film.