I also hope I don't come off as one of those pretentious narrow-minded arthouse snobs since I do love a lot of commercial cinema as well. I learn a lot from discussing with you and I honestly appreciate your view of film (and all art).
There are certainly elements of what you appear to be saying which are in common with "those pretentious narrow-minded arthouse snobs", but I don't believe you are as narrow-minded and I don't think you are pretentious, so my more vociferous rants were not aimed at you personally but at what some of your comments often represent.
I actually feel like I made an unfair comparison when comparing Rihanna with Beethoven, of course they work in different time periods and musical styles. There are popular musicians that I like that are better than Rihanna, but that's not the point. Rihanna (and her music production team) are giving their fans what they want, and I'm no one to judge their taste. I don't like her music at all, but it certainly gives pleasure to many people so just for that I think it must be valuable somehow.
I'm not sure it was an unfair comparison, in many ways it was a very good comparison because Rihanna for me epitomises current commercial popular music culture, how manufactured it is and how marketing and the manipulation of youth culture issues trumps the skill and talent of the performer/front man. As different as Beethoven and Rihanna (when I say Rihanna I mean the music created and marketed under her name) may appear, there are certain artistic fundamentals they have in common.
I don't believe that modern culture has "evolved," I don't view art as a progression. The development of technology does not improve artistic expression IMO.
I'm not sure I see what rationale or factual basis you have for this belief? All art evolves and has always evolved as both a mirror to cultural evolution and a driver of it. Hayden and Mozart created a new style of music, one which reflected the huge cultural and socio-economic changes of the industrial revolution, the move from the patronage system to the self-employed business model and the resultant need to entertain an audience. Both were highly formulaic composers, virtually no composer is/was more formulaic than Hayden, and improving technology had a dramatic effect on what they composed and how they composed it. Beethoven's greatest contribution IMHO, was the realisation that shock, horror and unpredictability could also be employed as entertainment tools rather than only the creation of predictable sublime beauty which was largely the basis of Hayden, Mozart and the Classical Music period. It's hard to reconcile critical opinion of the time with the public perception of Beethoven today. Critics of the day printed reviews such as: "Beethoven always sounds to me like the upsetting of bags of nails, with here and there an also dropped hammer." or "We found Beethoven's Ninth Symphony to be precisely one hour and five minutes long; a fearful period indeed, which puts the muscles and lungs of the band, and the patience of the audience to a severe trial ... . The symphony we could not make out; and here, as well as in other parts, the want of intelligible design is too apparent.". Beethoven was a musical revolutionary but by today's standards he is as institutionalised as just about any artist in history! Cultural evolution and technological improvements (in the manufacture of instruments, concert venues, etc.) were the enablers/drivers of this new style of music composition, as indeed they had been for the likes of Hayden and Mozart and the evolution from the High Baroque to the Classical era. Improving technology has always had a dramatic effect on artistic expression throughout history and not just in music but in all the arts. For example, without new types and methods of paint manufacture the French Impressionist movement would not have occurred. Contrary to your statement, new technology provides new and/or enhanced methods of artistic expression but whether or not this is an improvement is a matter opinion because it depends on how that technology is employed by the artist. The method of artistic expression was very different between say Gauguin or Van Gogh and Da Vinci or Raphael but whether Van Gogh is better than Raphael is a matter of personal opinion.
I've deliberately used historical examples of evolving artistic styles, evolving culture and improving technology just to demonstrate that it's always been the case but I could just as easily have used more modern examples such as 1960's pop/drug culture, multi-track recording and The Beetles, synth pop in the 80's, digital audio with gangster rap, house and various other genres in the 90's plus countless other examples. And of course, this all applies just as much to fimmaking as it does to all the other arts. The earliest films such as "Arrival of the Train" had audience members fainting and running screaming from the auditorium but by the 1920's audiences were far more sophisticated and wouldn't have batted an eye but new technologies and filmmaking techniques in films like Nosferatu which were truly chilling. By the same token, today's modern would find Nosferatu about as chilling or horrific as watching paint dry! The pacing and lack of realism or believability is just too great for the vast majority of modern audiences to feel involved.
I don't agree about the mainstream audiences' bias, it shows that they don't really care about cinema as art and only see it as a way to waste time.... I've seen Citizen Kane and I've seen the first two Transformers, I believe that the former was a much superior cinematic experience regardless of what today's mainstream audience thinks.
If that were true, no commercial film would ever contain any art because it wouldn't make commercial sense to spend the time, effort and money creating it. This brings us back to the points I've discussed in the past about what constitutes art. At a fundamental level all art is a method of communication, if what someone has created does not communicate with an audience, that audience will not easily be able to appreciate the art. So, just because an audience can't see or appreciate the art does not mean it's not there, it could just as easily be a failure of that particular audience. This statement is just as applicable to an audience of the general public as it is to an audience of critics or aficionados. As you mentioned, some critics can't see the art in films like Avatar but you (and many others) do, you can't see the art in a film like Transformers but others can, you see the art in Citizen Kane and most others wouldn't or even if they did, it wouldn't be enough to make Citizen Kane an enjoyable experience. Technology has moved on but technology itself is irrelevant, it's what the technology represents, what it allows in terms of creative filmmaking techniques to communicate with modern audiences. So again, we are back to what I said about ignorance and snobbery and of films which communicate through art with us personally. What you again seem to be saying is that art does not exist beyond your personal biases and therefore that mainstream audiences don't care about cinema as art. Just as some critics state that Avatar is without any artistic merit, your statement says more about your personal biases and limitations towards art than it does about mainstream audiences'!
I just personally don't want to watch formulaic films new or old. I guess I don't have a problem with people enjoying what I consider to be formulaic or mediocre films, I have a problem when you start saying that filmmakers and critics are incompetent at evaluating film.
Again, this first statement in untrue! At least in your second sentence you save yourself a little by stating, "what
I consider to be formulaic". Of course, Citizen Kane is also formulaic to a degree, otherwise it would be a completely abstract film. So in fact, you are not saying that you don't want to watch formulaic films, you are saying that you don't want to watch films in which the formula is too obvious beyond a completely arbitrary point, a point dictated by your personal biases. And, just as with aesthetic artistry, what falls outside your personal biases you describe as formulaic and what falls inside is not. In reality though virtually all narrative film is formulaic to some degree and the distinctions you are making either do not exist or are far broader than you appear to believe and it's rather insulting to those who have either broader definitions than you or narrower but different definitions (as is often the case with mainstream audiences).
This goes to the heart of why there is so often a difference of opinion between some filmmakers/critics and the public and why some filmmakers/critics are often incompetent at evaluating film. Regardless of the fact their definitions of film art may be broader than that of mainstream audiences, it is frequently still relatively narrow and unfortunately often too narrow to appreciate the art which is aimed at mainstream audiences, and this is why they are incompetent!
I also have a problem when films like Citizen Kane are called "poor cinematic experiences compared to today's standards." Are today's standards even good?
The technology is obviously far superior, how filmmakers are employing that technology is a different question though. Most no/lo budget filmmakers are using certain aspects of cinema technology extremely poorly poorly or more commonly not at all (!), and even some high budget filmmakers are not always getting as much out of it as they could. But overall, today's commercial cinematic experiences are in a different league to those of Orson Welles' day and indeed, from what I know of Orson Welles, if he were alive and making films today he would be at the forefront of pushing the boundaries of our current technology, just as he was with the technology and filmmaking techniques of his day. Exactly the same would almost certainly have been true of Mozart, Beethoven and probably Da Vinci as well!
Another reason people watch blockbusters is because they don't like expanding their tastes or challenging themselves with a film.
Blockbusters of today are quite different from blockbusters of 20 years ago and even more different to blockbusters of 40 years ago and 60 years ago. Blockbusters are therefore evolving which means that audiences do like their tastes being challenged, although maybe not in the way you feel their tastes should be challenged.
I don't know about limiting myself to a specific style of aesthetic value but I appreciate films of all countries, time periods, styles, and genres. As I stated in an earlier post, I see value in both Jean-Luc Godard and Steven Spielberg (in fact, Spielberg is one of my heroes while Godard is not). I think it is mainstream audiences that have narrow tastes when they usually limit their cinematic taste to North American commercial films that are shot in color and not made before 1967 (or 1980).
I think mainstream audiences do have narrow tastes, tastes influenced by contemporary culture, to which film itself contributes. It is far more difficult to enjoy a film which is designed to communicate with a different culture, either a different culture in time or geography. Hence another reason why say silent and foreign films don't do well in North America, however, films from the UK often do reasonably well in the US because the culture is not so different in some respects.
Regarding the first 'but' I must say that I no longer seek to be a commercial filmmaker for a wide audience. When I was younger I used to dream of being a Steven Spielberg or George Lucas, however, as I fell in love with the art of film (and filmmaking) I realized that making commercial films is not for me. I want to make films because I love cinema, and like Jia Zhangke (a filmmaker I mentioned earlier) as long as my films are viewed by an interested audience I'll be happy.
Well, there's the rub! Unlike for example commercial pop music, which is all made for domestic consumption, cinematic filmmaking ultimately requires a cinema and unless you've got pots of cash to privately rent a cinema that means making films with at least some serious commercial considerations, even if it's for a relatively limited/fringe target audience.
Well, when cinema is viewed as art whatever kind of Dolby sound system is used or whatever camera is used is irrelevant. Both the use of sound in Citizen Kane and Gravity are stellar IMO, because it is used to enhance the film and make it more engaging.
No, used well, the sound in the film contributes significantly to how involved the audience feels. Citizen Kane had excellent sound for it's day and for the audiences of that day, but that day is long gone. Modern cinemas can no longer even play a mono only soundtrack!
At the end of the day, the personal connection the viewer has with the film is all that matters. A film is "good" when the viewer enjoys it.
To a very large extent that's exactly what I've been trying to say. Of course though, one has to accept that culture and tastes change over time and therefore most works of art eventually fail to create a personal connection with the audience. The exception to this rule are those incredibly rare masterpieces which speak to those fundamental elements of human culture and society which change relatively little. Which is why there is still a demand for performances of Beethoven's music even though it's now a niche market rather than the mainstream market of Beethoven's day.
G
)
