Why is it Called Film?

Our language seems to be full of anachronisms. I love the fact that on-line digital editors still refer to what they're doing as "cutting" and the finished product as "film". The whole notion of using the verb "filming" is equally amusing. This is hardly a novel observation, but there are few better illustrations of how language changes a lot faster than technology.

One of the things I'm excited about these days is the opportunity to actually shoot and edit real film. I recently acquired a Super 8 movie camera, projector and screen at a used charity store, and I'm in the process of hunting down film and developing facilities. It may be cost prohibitive, but it certainly would be a different experience to physically cut and paste pieces of film together. I'm sure it would give me an interesting insight into how the process of "filmmaking" (there's another anachronism) has evolved from the early 20th century 'till now.

I realize of course that the pros still shoot on 35mm film, but how long is that going to last? Even Superman Returns, I gather, was shot on 24p digital video. It's only a matter of time before "filmmaking" really passes into history.

All Movies Are Modern

Akira Kurosawa always claimed that he didn't make "period" films. No matter what the characters were wearing or what historical period they seemed to be inhabiting, Kurosawa always saw his films as modern-day films, dealing, perhaps somehwat metaphorically, with modern-day issues. This is obviously not a new idea, but it is interested to view historical films as metaphors for their period of production. Film scholarship is all about context (this is also true of Art History and many other scholarly pursuits of the arts). You can't view "Ben Hur" and "Gladiator" as period films in quite the same way, even though the period of history they ostensibly cover is comparable. Their production context was completely different, politically, economically and historically. "Ben Hur" would never be made today, or if it were, it would be substantially different.

People often comment that modern movies are "more realistic" than historical films of the past. The production systems certainly have made it easier to suspend disbelief, but let's think about what we mean by "realistic" for a moment. Any Western that portrays the white settlers as the "good guys" would be considered "not realistic" by today's audience, but entirely believable by an audience in the mid-1940s. It's all about the politics of today, not of the 1880s. Besides that, the attention to historical detail would be different today (even though the "wild west" is myth, not history, but that's another discussion...), allowing a modern audience to more readily plug into what's being presented as being "realistic". As an audience, our physical burden of proof has increased enormously from the 1950s to today, thanks to modern special effects. So, realism in film really consists of two things: how well the behavior of the characters reflects the social norms (and politics) of the production time (not the historical time) and how much attention is paid to the physical re-creation of the world the characters inhabit.

So, the next time you're watching a period film (or, for that matter, a science fiction film), think about when it was made, not when it's set. That's really its historical period.

Bad Movies Make Money

Every now and then, I read a "best of" and "worst of" list. We've all seen these atrocities of serious film scholarship. They appear around the turn of the year and seem to be designed to serve the ostensible purpose of film criticism, namely helping people decide what DVD's to rent. The problem with theses lists is that the format allows so little room to breathe in the writing that the critic has no time to undertake a serious analysis of the film's strengths and weaknesses. Too often bad movie reviews boil down to "not bad, three stars". The lists encourage that kind of writing.

With that disclaimer, they can be illuminating when you stand back and look at the lists in terms of cultural contexts. Inevitably, one comes to the conclusion that you've heard of (and probably seen) most of the films on the "worst" list, and you're hearing about at least half of the "best" list for the first time. Nothing new there. We've all noticed by now how movie exhibitors show the films that will fill the house for the opening weekend, as often as not simply the film that has spent the most money on marketing. Quality is rarely a factor in determining success - it has always been this way.

So why is that nearly all the movies on a "worst of" list have made money (sometimes stupendous amounts) and most of those on a "best of" list never even played in theatres? The system seems designed to perpetuate the bad and actively discourage the good. DVD and home video have made a slight difference (and channels such as IFC help, too), but for the most part we have to accept that we'll always have bad movies, because bad movies make money. Roger Corman figured this out 40 years ago, and Hollywood followed suit shortly after that.

The reason given by the industry for this vicious and destructive cycle is circular logic itself: If the people going to see films are largely males aged 14-18, we're going to make films that appeal to males aged 14-18. Aside from the indie boom of the mid-90s (and look how fast the industry grabbed hold of that and made "indie" into a brand-name), bad movies have consistently done better than their more important counterparts.

The system is broken, and it doesn't look like it will ever be fixed. As appreciators of good cinema, we have to simply accept the fact that the best films won't be at the cinema, the best films will always struggle to be born and the worst films will always make money. The public has been trained to have no taste and then rewarded for it. They're consumers, habituated to plopping down their money to the movie having the biggest poster. In the immortal words of a good (therefore, unsuccessful) film, "Buy... buy more.... buy more and be happy"

Disney Slashes Jobs

Here's an interesting industry-related story. One week after having the most successful movie in box office history, Disney announces that they're cutting back production and slashing jobs. Here's a story from the Globe and Mail about it.

Their logic? Perfect, by the diminished artistic standards of the modern film world. Essentially it boils down to "Why make movies that might flop when we can make a big theme-park movie that can spawn toys, video games and all kinds of residual markets?" Say goodbye to the Coen Brothers, say hello to Gore Verbinski.

Icky.

Summer Movie Binging

In our little town, there's quite a bit of cultural activity, and no shortage of things to do, so this is not meant as a gratuitous swipe at semi-rural life, but the movie theatres, to coin a phrase, suck. I'm sure that there is a population base around here to support an "artsy" theatre, showing challenging or foriegn films, but this doesn't seem to be the opinion of our local theatre owners. There are a grand total of two theatres within a reasonable driving distance, neither of which is really worth the trip. The one in town is nice enough as a building, but the sound system is rank awful (one tinny MONO speaker behind a ragged and smeary screen) and they seem physically incapable of projecting a film in focus. The alternative, however, is a small "multiplex" one twon over that, while technically competent, seems physically incapable of showing a good film. Each week, they seem to pick the five worst films in general circulation and show them to cinema's bread and butter target audience: 15-year-old local boys.

Which is why I try to get to Vancouver (six hours drive away) every few months to go on a binge of first run movies. In the past week, I've managed to catch "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest", "A Prairie Home Companion", "Superman Returns (IMAX version)" and "V for Vendetta". A good, hearty helping of summer movie, methinks. I'll be back next time with reviews, but reflecting on it now, maybe it's a good thing that our theatres have lost me as an audience member. Summer movies are, after all, junk food, the kind best enjoyed as a binge.

Movie Musings

Hi Readers

I know what you're thinking: no one needs yet another blog featuring some amateur rambling about movies. Maybe I disagree, or maybe I'm not an amateur (I probably am guilty of rambling). I post on www.mindjack.com regularly, but here's where you'll see more personal thoughts on films, and hopefulyl intelligent and insightful observations concerning the medium of film.

I'll be posting more shortly. In the meantime, welcome.