I, much unlike most cinephiles and snobs, was born after the war was waged, by competing media and technology giants, for the video market. In the early 1970's home video cassette recorders (VCRs) first became available. On April 16, 1975 the first consumer-popular video format was introduced: Sony's Betamax. A year later, in an act formerly considered market-suicide, The Victor Talking Machine Company of Japan, Limited (JVC) denied the dominance and popularity of Sony's Betamax by inventing a videotape format of their own, VHS. Thus began the long-winded and bloody market battle that became known as "the videotape format war." It wasn't until a decade later that a clear victor in the battle had emerged, and that victor stood in contradiction of technological superiority (aside from running time, Betamax was superior to VHS in every way). I was forced into this world in 1988; it was the same year that Sony conceded defeat and began to produce VHS cassettes. [1]
In 1975 Opening Soon at a Theater Near You premiered on WTTW (PBS Chicago). The show starred print-critics Gene Siskel and (now) jawless-celebrity-status Roger Ebert. In '78 the show was retitled to Sneak Previews. In '82 the two critics left the relatively popular public broadcast in order to create their own show under Tribune Entertainment called At The Movies. Four years later the thumb-wagging duo signed under Buena Vista Entertainment (Disney's television division) and became the hosts of Siskel & Ebert & the Movies. In 1989, when I was nearly a year old, the series' title would change for the last time before Gene Siskel's death; "The Movies," was taken out of the title, "Siskel & Ebert" was all that remained. That same year the phrase "two thumbs up" was trademarked. This coincided with the show's immense success. It was becoming increasingly lauded and integrated into the public conscious. Arguably, this also coincided with a disheartening decrease in academic or scholarly film criticism. [2] American film critic Pauline Kael, who wrote for The New Yorker magazine from 1968 to 1991, was once asked by a prideful Ebert if she had seen his show. She responded scornfully, “If I want a layman’s opinion on movies, I don’t have to watch TV.”[3]
All this serves to inform me of the commercial and consumer orgy of video-media I was born into. Intelligent criticism had been replaced with thumbs, film was being seen merely as a "fun" time-wasting entertainment only academically considered by smelly eccentric hoarders, and "Blockbuster" was becoming a household name. I'm lucky though, really. I was born into the first wave of the information age. I have a world of knowledge at my disposal: this is actualized autodidacticism. Without any of this, I wouldn't even have my passion for cinema, let alone the ability to communicate it to you (anyone want to start a tape trade?).
In my small room, my mother's small apartment, the small town I live in, I am a sort of film aficionado, a real "cinephile": I know who Jess Franco, Frederick Wiseman, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Dušan Makavejev, and Andrzej Zulawski are. However, this is not to say that I truly know anything about them - because, essentially, I don't. Despite the fact that I have been gifted with the rare opportunity to see some of the work of each of these artists, all of those instances have occurred in the last year, were dependent on some sort of (more or less) freak accessibility, and have only served to marginally ascend myself towards any degree of so-called snobbery. In my little town I'm a particularly knowledgeable and well-viewed movie-goer. However, in the perverted and exceedingly expansive terrain of underground network cables - the world-wide-web - I'm somewhat of a foolish, infantile, and half-blind insect. I'm small and insignificant in comparison to the verbose, well-read, and projection-absorbed elite who live inside of the corners of the most obscure world-cinema.
Despite all this, I have my own aspirations and that is what moves me to start this blog. I truly do have a love for film and a passion to dedicate myself to its study. Film has transformed, defined, brightened, and devastated my life - it is a force and power that I could not, for anything, oppose. Because of this, I have resolved to watch at least one movie a day. I have the hopes of genuinely expanding my knowledge of cinema and I not only want to catalog this journey for myself, but possibly give others insight into the process and the procedures it entails (finding some of these movies is impossibly stupid). Further, I need something - I have a deficiency in discipline - to keep me anchored and on task... I'm watching a movie a day.
--------
[3]. What we Don't Talk About When we Talk About Movies by Armond White
In 1975 Opening Soon at a Theater Near You premiered on WTTW (PBS Chicago). The show starred print-critics Gene Siskel and (now) jawless-celebrity-status Roger Ebert. In '78 the show was retitled to Sneak Previews. In '82 the two critics left the relatively popular public broadcast in order to create their own show under Tribune Entertainment called At The Movies. Four years later the thumb-wagging duo signed under Buena Vista Entertainment (Disney's television division) and became the hosts of Siskel & Ebert & the Movies. In 1989, when I was nearly a year old, the series' title would change for the last time before Gene Siskel's death; "The Movies," was taken out of the title, "Siskel & Ebert" was all that remained. That same year the phrase "two thumbs up" was trademarked. This coincided with the show's immense success. It was becoming increasingly lauded and integrated into the public conscious. Arguably, this also coincided with a disheartening decrease in academic or scholarly film criticism. [2] American film critic Pauline Kael, who wrote for The New Yorker magazine from 1968 to 1991, was once asked by a prideful Ebert if she had seen his show. She responded scornfully, “If I want a layman’s opinion on movies, I don’t have to watch TV.”[3]
All this serves to inform me of the commercial and consumer orgy of video-media I was born into. Intelligent criticism had been replaced with thumbs, film was being seen merely as a "fun" time-wasting entertainment only academically considered by smelly eccentric hoarders, and "Blockbuster" was becoming a household name. I'm lucky though, really. I was born into the first wave of the information age. I have a world of knowledge at my disposal: this is actualized autodidacticism. Without any of this, I wouldn't even have my passion for cinema, let alone the ability to communicate it to you (anyone want to start a tape trade?).
In my small room, my mother's small apartment, the small town I live in, I am a sort of film aficionado, a real "cinephile": I know who Jess Franco, Frederick Wiseman, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Dušan Makavejev, and Andrzej Zulawski are. However, this is not to say that I truly know anything about them - because, essentially, I don't. Despite the fact that I have been gifted with the rare opportunity to see some of the work of each of these artists, all of those instances have occurred in the last year, were dependent on some sort of (more or less) freak accessibility, and have only served to marginally ascend myself towards any degree of so-called snobbery. In my little town I'm a particularly knowledgeable and well-viewed movie-goer. However, in the perverted and exceedingly expansive terrain of underground network cables - the world-wide-web - I'm somewhat of a foolish, infantile, and half-blind insect. I'm small and insignificant in comparison to the verbose, well-read, and projection-absorbed elite who live inside of the corners of the most obscure world-cinema.
Despite all this, I have my own aspirations and that is what moves me to start this blog. I truly do have a love for film and a passion to dedicate myself to its study. Film has transformed, defined, brightened, and devastated my life - it is a force and power that I could not, for anything, oppose. Because of this, I have resolved to watch at least one movie a day. I have the hopes of genuinely expanding my knowledge of cinema and I not only want to catalog this journey for myself, but possibly give others insight into the process and the procedures it entails (finding some of these movies is impossibly stupid). Further, I need something - I have a deficiency in discipline - to keep me anchored and on task... I'm watching a movie a day.
--------
[3]. What we Don't Talk About When we Talk About Movies by Armond White
Posts
+five-thrity+in+the+morning.jpg)
4 comments:
Crass commercialism has always been an inherent part of film. The ouvre of the greatest major American works was produced in a period of time where the creation, production, and distribution of said films was controlled by less than a handful of major studios. I don't think that commercialism and the intrinsic and artistic value of a film are mutually exclusive.
Since the beginning of 'the talkies', film has been used as entertainment. Perhaps no other period in American history did people flock to the theaters than they did during the Great Depression. Cinema at that particular point in time served as a way of escaping real life, and this sentiment has been prevalent ever since. Cinema as 'fun time-wasting entertainment'is not a new development. Yes, we devour everything indiscriminately, and this is very symptomatic of our generation. However, the way that we watch films has not changed much, if at all, during the last 100+ years.
Also, thanks for commenting on my past post. I'm new to this whole blogging thing, and wasn't sure as to what exactly the etiquette is in terms of responding, particularly to someone I don't know. Needless to say, your comments were very insightful and thoughtout. Kudos.
Largely, I would agree (especially given the not-so dichotomous nature of cinema). Film is a relatively new art form, and, (depending on how you look at it) an unfortunately expensive medium of expression. To actualize a vision (outside of Dogme 95 aspirations), you're going to need some source of funding. And, unless you make at least that much back, you're going to be hard-pressed to make another feature at an equal budget. This makes commercialism (especially during the period of film's infancy) essential to the the entire production and distribution of a film. And, as you said, I don't exactly think this hurts the artistic potential of film as a medium... however, I do believe it has certain (somewhat dangerous) implications.
I suppose the point of this post was to just frame my experience in a sort of atmosphere... insofar as that atmosphere is removed from the world of cinema past, I can't be certain (and I would be tempted to agree with your assessment). But, nonetheless, I feel drowned in a near meaningless cesspool of media excitement... I mean, when film news equates to celebrity news, and "behind-the-scenes" gossip, there is still something going on. And, today, I think, in the very least, there is more of this information than ever before and everyone wants a bite (think of your concerns with Dark Knight).
P.S. Thanks for commenting!
P.P.S. Screw etiquette!
P.P.P.S. Nonetheless, it's good that you were so thoughtful. I think we could give one-another quite a lot to think about, you know? Super cool.
Wow, cool thing. I did have the plan some time ago to watch one movie a day, but i NEVER made it happen, due to the fact that I knew I wouldn't have the disciplin to go through with it. AND I think it's great you're doing it.
You say you don't "really" know those people you listed - I had the honor of meeting Dušan Makavejev in a one week block seminar at my film classes in Hamburg, Germany, 3 years ago. Very inspiring human being, director, filmmaker... He showed some of his films, too. But I'm not the film philosopher kinda girl, I just want to make movies. I'll still be eager to read your blog, so hopefully there'll be a lot of film diary stuff going on! Greetings from another continent.
If your mother had a basement, you would live in it!
Post a Comment