cinema needs to be shaken, not stirred (squid vs truth)

[polkablues]

I like what Losing the Horse is saying.  Look at what Richard Linklater was able to do with a genre movie in School of Rock.  It can make for interesting juxtaposition when independent auteurs are forced to work within a genre.

"School of Rock" is a genre flick?  Just by virtue of being a comedy?  So any comedy about anything is thus a genre movie?

What, then, is a non-genre movie?  It can only be drama, presumably, and it can't be set in the old west, or in space, or in a historical era, or in a war... It can't have ghosts or monsters, or car chases or explosions... it can't have anyone coming-of-age... or solving a mystery.... really, the only movies that seem to apply are present-day-set dramas in which the characters do everyday things in a realistic setting.  So isn't that sort of movie then a genre itself?

Could it be, perhaps, that the term "genre movie" is meaningless?  Or, more accurately, the distinction between a "genre movie" and a "non-genre movie"?

Or is genre just a code word for "formula"?  To use an analogy, it's like the distinction between limericks, haikus, and sonnets versus free verse.  Free verse has no limitation, but most of the great poems of all time fit into a known structure.  Is that kind of what Losing the Horse was saying regarding genre films?  Do I sound as confused as I am?  Should we perhaps define some of the terms of the debate before basing our arguments on them?

?

[Ravi]

School of Rock is a different take on the formula of the new teacher whose radical teaching style greatly inspires the students and causes opposition from the Establishment.  

Horror and comedy are genres.  Genres have their own specific formulas, conventions, and cliches.

[JG]

Yes, School of Rock is more of a formula movie, and it may have not been the best example.  Nontheless, what I meant to convey was that when you put an Indie director in a Hollywood setting, something interesting can be happen.  Linklater was restricted from doing a movie where all the characters to do is talk the whole movie and there is no resolution, and was force to do a family comedy, resuting in a very well done Hollwood movie.

[Jeremy Blackman]

I think cinema should be the purest expression of man, and that man can only be that pure as the observer. Which is easiest to do when?  In genre.

Genre is only an artificial purity. If you're trying to get to "the expression of man" and "the truth," genre seems a shallow place to do it.

I don't see the necessity of genre. I think the medium provides enough structure, if you're sufficiently unafraid of possibilities.

Are you saying that "the purest expression of man" is found only in observation? That people are what they observe? Or is that just hyberbole?

I think a lot of contemporary filmmakers settle for the ideas in their head.  Rather than attempting to progress the art of filmmaking, rather than attempting perhaps to reflect on what has come before them, the importance of their work, their role as artists, their potential influence on an audience

I think this statement is at odds with your initial disdain for irony. Recontextualization, deconstruction, irony... postmodernism in general I think is largely on your side in terms of reflection, but it also does not declare itself the end. It's simply criticism to make way for new ideas. Tearing down (and exposing the absurdity of) the old in favor of the new without actually providing the new. Someone has to do it. And it won't be done in genres.

The general public can only appreciate what has already been established as art.  They only like films which have built on other films.  Other expectations.  Once something new comes along, there are very few who appreciate and embrace it.  Star Wars was built on Kurosawa's foundation.

Were the majority of Star Wars fans familiar with Kurosawa?

I think it has more to do with inner-circle artistic influences, passed down from generation to generation and medium to medium. You can almost unconditionally find that something that seems new was influenced by something old, sure. But I think the connection you make between that and public perception is weak. If the public thinks something is new and loves it for being new, and only the artists know it's old, how can you say they appreciated it for its heritage?

Also, I think there's something innate in humans that compels them to seek the new. They have to be trained to expect things.

Again, cinema is about perception.  A filmmaker is presenting to you a perception of reality, saying for you to take it as what it's worth.  This is what I see, and I'm presenting it to you.  How well you respond to it says a lot about how valid you perceive that perception.  The more successful films, you'll note, always sell the audience on the idea that the perception of reality presented is feasible.

What about the hypothetical? The imaginary? The abstract? (No wonder people are stuck with genre.)

[Gold Trumpet]

The general public can only appreciate what has already been established as art.  They only like films which have built on other films.  Other expectations.  Once something new comes along, there are very few who appreciate and embrace it.  Star Wars was built on Kurosawa's foundation.

Were the majority of Star Wars fans familiar with Kurosawa?

I think it has more to do with inner-circle artistic influences, passed down from generation to generation and medium to medium. You can almost unconditionally find that something that seems new was influenced by something old, sure. But I think the connection you make between that and public perception is weak. If the public thinks something is new and loves it for being new, and only the artists know it's old, how can you say they appreciated it for its heritage?

Also, I think there's something innate in humans that compels them to seek the new. They have to be trained to expect things.

I like what JB said here, but would like a slot for correction. Star Wars was not built on the foundation of Kurosawa. Their ties are as slim as slim can be. Star Wars comes from old serials Lucas watched as a boy in the 1940s.

It's a good discussion. A spirited one that leads to larger thought. I just do not feel compelled to get in the thick of this and argue. The points are too general. It also requires the idea that in film there lies a great theory. I'm much too circumstantial for that.

[killafilm]

The general public can only appreciate what has already been established as art.  They only like films which have built on other films.  Other expectations.  Once something new comes along, there are very few who appreciate and embrace it.  Star Wars was built on Kurosawa's foundation.

Were the majority of Star Wars fans familiar with Kurosawa?

I think it has more to do with inner-circle artistic influences, passed down from generation to generation and medium to medium. You can almost unconditionally find that something that seems new was influenced by something old, sure. But I think the connection you make between that and public perception is weak. If the public thinks something is new and loves it for being new, and only the artists know it's old, how can you say they appreciated it for its heritage?

Also, I think there's something innate in humans that compels them to seek the new. They have to be trained to expect things.

I like what JB said here, but would like a slot for correction. Star Wars was not built on the foundation of Kurosawa. Their ties are as slim as slim can be. Star Wars comes from old serials Lucas watched as a boy in the 1940s.

It's a good discussion. A spirited one that leads to larger thought. I just do not feel compelled to get in the thick of this and argue. The points are too general. It also requires the idea that in film there lies a great theory. I'm much too circumstantial for that.

I'll go one further and say it's (Star Wars) more Joseph Campbell, the universal story.

[polkablues]

I like what JB said here, but would like a slot for correction. Star Wars was not built on the foundation of Kurosawa. Their ties are as slim as slim can be. Star Wars comes from old serials Lucas watched as a boy in the 1940s.

Exactly.  "Star Wars" came from Kurosawa the same way that humans came from monkeys.  Common ancestors.

[Gold Trumpet]

The general public can only appreciate what has already been established as art.  They only like films which have built on other films.  Other expectations.  Once something new comes along, there are very few who appreciate and embrace it.  Star Wars was built on Kurosawa's foundation.

Were the majority of Star Wars fans familiar with Kurosawa?

I think it has more to do with inner-circle artistic influences, passed down from generation to generation and medium to medium. You can almost unconditionally find that something that seems new was influenced by something old, sure. But I think the connection you make between that and public perception is weak. If the public thinks something is new and loves it for being new, and only the artists know it's old, how can you say they appreciated it for its heritage?

Also, I think there's something innate in humans that compels them to seek the new. They have to be trained to expect things.

I like what JB said here, but would like a slot for correction. Star Wars was not built on the foundation of Kurosawa. Their ties are as slim as slim can be. Star Wars comes from old serials Lucas watched as a boy in the 1940s.

It's a good discussion. A spirited one that leads to larger thought. I just do not feel compelled to get in the thick of this and argue. The points are too general. It also requires the idea that in film there lies a great theory. I'm much too circumstantial for that.

I'll go one further and say it's (Star Wars) more Joseph Campbell, the universal story.

That I disagree with. Star Wars is soap opera compared to that man's work. George Lucas just likes to quote that book as reference for his films to garner the series respect the same way he does for Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress.

[modage]

can't it be "ALL"?

[killafilm]

I can't think of another film that details the 'Heros' journey, as interpreted by Josheph Campbell, as well as A New Hope.  The films structure is flawless.  The man himself, Campbell, was a huge supporter of Star Wars.

I also think there is a direct link from The Hidden Fortress to C-3P0 and R2.  Not just thrown out there for 'respect.'

[pete]

the last time western cinema was truly shaken was when Dogme 95 kicked everyone's ass with fun nongenre movies (then it slowly became a genre.)
the eastern cinema's slowly settling right now, but it bursted out in the early 2000s with a strong of over the top genre movies, be they action, martial arts, gangster, sci-fi, animation, or comedy.
and middle eastern films, the little that I've seen from festivals and such, have been pretty radical (women filmmakers breaking out, as well as politically subversive films breaking out) but I haven't seen or read enough to determine whether or not it's shaking shit up.
I think both generic and non-generic pictures can stir the cinema, you just need enough bored filmmakers.  nothing's wrong with being dormant, cinemas can be viewed in cycles and movements (mostly in hindsight, of course), and without the occassional sitting and collecting, how can it be shaken?

[Gamblour.]

I agree Dogme 95 was a great movement for cinema.

[w/o horse]

I think cinema should be the purest expression of man, and that man can only be that pure as the observer. Which is easiest to do when?  In genre.

Genre is only an artificial purity. If you're trying to get to "the expression of man" and "the truth," genre seems a shallow place to do it.

I don't see the necessity of genre. I think the medium provides enough structure, if you're sufficiently unafraid of possibilities.

Are you saying that "the purest expression of man" is found only in observation? That people are what they observe? Or is that just hyberbole?

I think a lot of contemporary filmmakers settle for the ideas in their head.  Rather than attempting to progress the art of filmmaking, rather than attempting perhaps to reflect on what has come before them, the importance of their work, their role as artists, their potential influence on an audience

I think this statement is at odds with your initial disdain for irony. Recontextualization, deconstruction, irony... postmodernism in general I think is largely on your side in terms of reflection, but it also does not declare itself the end. It's simply criticism to make way for new ideas. Tearing down (and exposing the absurdity of) the old in favor of the new without actually providing the new. Someone has to do it. And it won't be done in genres.

(This analogy will properly employ the homeless man, an American favorite):  If I ask a homeless man to make a movie about himself, I will probably get a melodramatic, overblown recount of what I can already gather, with perhaps the additional information he eats rats.  Or maybe he'll make it realistic and I could have just followed him around.

Now, if I ask a homeless man to make a movie about a rich man, and then see how he views wealth from the vantage point of a homeless man, I could learn a great deal more about the psychology of a homeless man.

I am quicker to trust material and be receptive to material in which I feel that the artist was caught not looking.  In which the artist was forced to imagine himself inside of a person not himself.  I think that is a great deal more telling than actually putting yourself on screen.  Woody Allen's films not about Woody Allen tell more about him, I think.  Not his mannerisms, the places he goes, the girls he likes, the things that happen to him, etc, but more about the nature of Woody Allen.  

The genre film is simply the writer imagining himself as someone else.  Which is my favorite way to receive material, and, more important to the conversation, a method which demands creativity.

I agree that the new will not come about in genre form, but I disagree that the post-modern movement is an advance.  I'd say it's a couple of steps back.  I really want to see what the steps forward are going to be.

I think pete had a really good line:  "I think both generic and non-generic pictures can stir the cinema, you just need enough bored filmmakers."

I'm bored as fuck.  Personally.

[modage]

I'm bored as fuck.  Personally.

how can that be true when not even a week ago you had  the best theatrical experience you have had in your lifetime?

[JG]

Losing the Horse. makes a good argument, regardless of whether or not you agree with it.  

I don't know if genre films are the way to go, but cinema certainly needs to be stirred again.