Film Rockism-friend or foe?

I am anticipating its goodness!

Well I understand rockism in film to be something similar to what it is in music - Perhaps a too-eager subscription to canons and a certain pre-conceived idea of what is "good" or "worthy". Is it auterism? Is auterism part of it? I don't know. I think it's a very frustrating term because it remains still somewhat undefined. Obviously, there is the converse argument - that there is nothing so pointless and reactionary as a deliberately populist pose and a self-cultivated fear of canons.

Like auterism, I think this COULD be a productive way of looking at film, but this whole thread could also degenerate into a chaotic mess.

Or get no new answers at all.

Apparently I am one because I don't think the lord of the rings movies are "cutting-edge" cinema...

;)

I'm kidding, but see what I mean?

this is the ultimate rockist compliment i think

Are you happy spending your money on film/music that has contempt for you? That laughs at you as you plonk down your dosh?

Back in the UK, where there hardly is an "industry" to speak of, most productions would probably fit the American independent model, even the ones that aim simply to entertain. Genuinely independent DIY-style filmmakers like Ben Hopkins (whose Nine Lives Of Thomas Katz was rarely even seen in England) are fighting a losing battle and they must know it. Not that that makes their films any more interesting or valuable than any other, I might add.

Or i guess it could work with "You only like films that came out in before the 80's". But some of our best filmmakers are obsessed with the cinema of yore--woody allen comes to mind, the douglas sirk fascination by both fasbinder and haynes.

I think such namecalling usually happens because people want to accuse others of what they're guilty themselves of--not wanting to see the other side of the fence, and realize that people are enjoying films they know nothing about. And that's where the elitist phrase comes in, which is usually pronounced out of either jealousy or intimidation.

People simply need to define they context in which they view cinema--are you watching to be entertained? are you watching to learn? are you watching for form or content? are you watching for all of these, and if so, in which order of importance? when you finally define these things for yourself, you can feel comfortable in your opinions towards movies or film, however you choose to define it. Either way, the most important thing is being a critical viewer, which is why I think people contribute to sites like this.

It brings back the issue of film viewing being "subjective," another area where the tagphrase of "elitist" usually pops up--"hey mr. film critic, you can't say this film i like sucks, because it's all subjective!" well, that's true to a certain extent. But what matters is being able to define (even if just for yourself) exactly WHY you like/dislike a particular film. Telling a film critic that his idea is no more valid than your own is like telling your surgeon that you are just as qualified to perform open heart surgery as he is, or telling michael jordan you can dunk like he can. Critism requires discipline, years of study, debate, reading, etc. There are film scholars who get doctorates in film studies, spend years of their lives studying art movements & techniques. Knowing what a good film entails is no more "subjective" than being able to tell a hundred dollar glass of scotch from a shot of old grand dad--it takes a disciplined and developed pallete. and if that's elitist, then this old snob will just take his smoking jacket and gucci slippers elsewhere.... :)

Suddenly, when faced with a character whose motives are perhaps NOT so obvious from scene 1, or a scene where two people actually TALK for more than a minute, or an ending that perhaps requires you to THINK -- then all hell breaks loose. Panic sets in. Actually, just a “this sucks” or “snooze-fest” or “……”.

I remember a few years ago The Godfather was screened here in NYC at a huge theater. I could NOT believe how often audience members got up to walk around, get more popcorn, make a phone call, or just fidget. Too slow, I guess? Too long between scenes of people getting shot?

I’m sure each of us has met at least one person who has said the following. “I hate black and white movies.”

couldn't agree with you more jaymc. you would think "rockist" would describe someone with a taste for formalistic cinema perfectly.

"I’m sure each of us has met at least one person who has said the following. “I hate black and white movies.”"

Yeah, just like the people who say "I'm not watching a film with subtitles!" (unless it's "crouching tiger, hidden dragon" of course!)

'art' vs. 'commerce'
'art' vs. 'entertainment'

while these distinctions may exist, i doubt anyone can apply them with any real consistency or meaning.

Oh come on! This is really starting to border on the ridiculous! Is it all just a level playing field for you?

Shouting cries of "Elitist!" or "Snobbery!" at one who questions the artistic merit of the latest Ashton Kutcher vehicle is to really do a disservice to film and film lovers.

There was a time when Hollywood cared about their output -- they made quality films, with quality directors, writers and actors. That's pretty much gone now.

Those of us that have scorn or sneer at the titles at the multiplex are doing so not because we want 12 screens playing "all Resnais all the time"!, but rather we don't wish to see a wonderful art form reduced to television quality. (Product placements abound, sitcom-style screenplays, etc.

I love film. It's my greatest passion. I've been an avid film-goer since I was a young child -- when NYC still had many revival theaters. I think film has a tremendous power -- I don't wish to see that destroyed by corporate interests, polls, and crass commercialism.

BabyBuddha--I appreciate your last post, and I think it sums up our feelings exactly. It's not a blind dismissal of all commercial film and everything that comes out of Hollywood or is popular or has made money--it's a condemnation of the limitations that filmmakers put upon themselves to achieve such goals as "box office receipts" and appealing to a mass audience above the goal of creating something meaningful and essential. If the lord of the rings movies end up being the most influencial films of our generation, and somehow "change peoples' lives," I truly fear that we've degenerated to a group of souless, passive people who prefer to delve in the mindless mass fantasy rather than engage in the world that we live and explore our own dreams.

if this happens then LOTR will have attained a meaning far beyond what most films can hope--and guys like you will be telling us that modern films just can't compare with their brilliance anymore because everyone is chasing money.

Haha!

Now then: are there certain filmmakers more than others that I revere as artistic geniuses, for the intelligence and beauty their films evoke? Certainly. But at the same time, pleasure is pleasure, and if I receive as much pleasure from a non-genius as I do from a genius, I don't want to second-guess what I felt.

Haha, well yeah, that too.

And nobody's asking you to! But this adherence to blind pleasure and ephemeral enjoyment as a measure of artistic worth is nonsensical at best. I feel it takes more than creating "pleasure" or some other immediate emotional/physical response in a human being to create art. Cheap thrills are for the realm of entertainment.

"it's made me question why ephemeral pleasures are necessarily considered less worthy experiences than, say, philosophical challenges. And I think using words like "simple, passive, manipulative, escapist" do much to color these kinds of experiences in a negative light."

look, if wanted to just shut off my brain and something that gave me the "warm fuzzies," I'

but we're not kids, we're adults (i assume at least most people on this site are over the age of 21?) and we have critical reasoning powers (i.e. brains) that are capable of giving us experiences beyond the unquestioning "that's funny" and "that's scary" & so forth. and i've never said that there's anything wrong with turning your brain off & giving into the fun of a film, but if you plan to have a serious, meaningful (i.e. beyond surface-level ephemera) experience, you should be judging with your brain first and your instincts second.

sorry if this sounds harsh, but i'm lacking patience today & i'm always wary of the type of thinking that results in doctoral dissertations about "kangaroo jack", etc.

That's interesting. I think I'd probably reverse it. Which is not to say that thinking is NOT important, but that almost all of my positive aesthetic experiences have been rooted in some form of pleasure (which you'll note I'm thinking of broadly) that I've then found a way to intellectualize. Nothing turns me off more than the kind of modern art that requires an artist's statement (or other wall text) to become interesting. If it hasn't attracted me with its aesthetic properties first, I'm not that interested. (Or, to be charitable, I'm interested in it in a much different way.)

the people who contribute to this site are educated and passionate about film. and i respect everything they say and truly feel about film, but i lose respect when they can't dismiss something as trivial, meaningless or even stupid, just because some other people who have zero knowledge about film might happen to like it.

you seem to be saying that every film out there deserves an in-depth analysis

i dont care to analyze every film because i dont care--some films dont seem worth it to me once i see them.

thing is, i dont understand how you can automatically know what films will reward analysis until you analyze them?

well, my tastes in painting reside along the lines of pollock, kandinsky, klee & rothko, so that may be our problem right there! :)

i will say that formalism is a huge factor for me, in all of the arts, including film. there are many different ways of defining "aesthetic properties" and your definition may be quite different from mine.

the fact that painting and music have come into this discussion are important, seeing as i wish film were judged by some of the same criterion as these other mediums. (and i don't buy into a "lack of history" excuse either).

and lastly, i don't see how someone who is capable of intellectualize a film after watching it isn't capable of doing it while watching the film. it should be a natural thing. i just don't understand why a person wouldn't want to look at art with an uncritical eye. entertainment maybe, but not art. art is to be engaged with, not just experienced.

"i dont care to analyze every film because i dont care--some films dont seem worth it to me once i see them.

thing is, i dont understand how you can automatically know what films will reward analysis until you analyze them?"

ok, i little analogy. you eat a rotten apple. you know you don't like it, it gave you diarrhea, you know that there is something obviously inherently wrong with rotten apples.

so why keep eating rotten apples? do you keep trying them in the hopes that one might not make you sick? analyse what type of food poisoning each gives you?

no, you classify if as something you don't touch. you have reasons why you don't touch the rotten apples anymore.

somethings, after practice, just become clear. i don't need to watch "dude, where's my car?" to know that its not going to change my life. you get older and more experienced & you don't have a need to question every little thing in life. i knew a person once who had this need to press himself to the limit just to prove the effects to himself. he would stay up for days at a time, touch hot stove burner, etc. he knew it wasn't good for him, he knew what the effects would be, but he did it anyway.

i just don't see the point in wasting my time to analyzing or trying to give higher meaning to film that is nothing but shallow surface, and what's worse, was never meant to be analyzed as anything more than a shallow surface.

that's what's great about artists like stan brakhage and peter kubelka--they force you to change your priorities!

you say tomayto, i say red spherical fruit...

true, but you have to admit from that that art must be something more profound than just eye candy--otherwise we would have never gotten past the pastoral landscapes and reclining nudes phase.

Mmmmmmm......reclining nudes.

This is a REALLY interesting statement, and it's something that I've never reconciled with myself as well. I stare at the solid black canvas. I've been told it's genius. I don't get it. Is it me? Sure, I don't want a painting to immediately speak to me ("Oh, look at that lovely painting of a chair") but if I don't get it, I want to at least know/feel that the artist really had something to say and wasn't just crawling up their own ass.

However, I don't think such things exist in film nearly as much. Film just requires time -- esp. time to reflect on what you saw. Perhaps you need to view it a second time to be sure. Sure, it may not be evident at first that the cabbage is meant to symbolize man's struggle with God in the late 20th century, but it will come to you if you think about it. All the pieces to understanding are there on the celluloid and soundtrack (if there is one).

I get the impression from many people that if the film doesn't immediately present the guy, the girl and the gun then it's an art film and not worth the time. This pisses me off, and is partly responsible for my 'rockist' comments now and then. Certainly not EVERY film has to be a complex, complicated work, but better that than films that TELL and FORCE you how to feel. Yuck!

Admittedly, avant-garde film does take a bit of work. But that's part of the fun. Perhaps it's because I love film as a medium that I'm willing to work through a Maya Deren film but not a black canvas. I don't know for sure. . .

That's not to say there aren't avant-garde films that are full of shit, mind you.

I probably saw more Hollywood product in 2003 than I have in a long time, but I had some specific interest in each one - (i.e., I didn't waste my time on any cookie-cutter nonsense.)

Yes - most Hollywood films these days DO suck. (Is that 'rockist' enough?) But then again, more and more American 'indie' films are starting to suck more and more.

Ever since I got this digital recording device from my cable company, I've been recording a lot of lesser-known films from TCM and Fox Movies -- have really discovered some hidden gems (but I'm getting off-topic here.)

fair enough, i absolutely agree with this even. but part of what made me upset way up-thread is what seemed to me an attitude that because you dont care about a certain movie enough to analyze it it becomes an worthless movie that NO ONE should take seriously. it just seems that your arguments all end with you being the authority, rather than any objective criteria.

i still would like to see where i ever said that i'm the final authority on cinematic art....

all i'm saying is that there are criteria which the discerning cineast, after personal experience combined with study of cinematic theory and history, learns to develop to determine which films are worth taking seriously. and both ryan and jaymc have admitted to using such criteria themselves, whether it be in foreseeing the "dude where's my car" won't be the masterwork that causes their great cinematic enlightenment, or the fact that jaymc chooses not to watch a lot of hollywood movies. you watch, you learn. that's all i'm saying. i never said i had any kind of final say on what "makes the cut"--i'm saying that history has a say.

i think Buddha brought up a great point with his analysis of modern painting vs. film, especially in regard to our conversation regarding the cinematic chicken or the egg--emotional response or intellectual response being the criteria that draws us to a film. it's a good argument for the latter being the viable choice in regard to cinematic art.

when i first watched stan brakhage's "dog star man" at sixteen or so, i thought it was boring as hell, but i was intrigued because i saw elements that led me to know that there was something deeper going on. and this was before i knew of the film's "importantance" and being listed in the national film registry, etc. as far as i was concerned, this was just another film some guy put together, but i recognized some element of greatness behind all of the seemingly random images & bad photography.

so i watched it again. and again. and again. and after a decade of re-watching this film, i've come to a greater appreciation and understanding of it, and i still realize i have more to understand and i look forward to viewing it again in ten years and seeing how my reaction will be different and what else i can gain from the film.

there are few hollywood films i can say the same for. i can watch "jurassic park" ten years from now & i doubt i'll gain any substantially new insights from it. same with lord of the rings. and this is where i draw the line between entertainment and cinematic art--art grows with you as you grow with the art. maybe this is "rockist" because i think that some films having a lasting, growing timeless quality, but you know what? i don't fucking care--good art is timeless, no matter what some hipster dilletante music fan wants to say because his crappy band's hit record only lasted three days on the college charts. there's a difference between the ephemeral and the timeless, a difference between the complex and the simple, and there's a difference between good cinematic art and easy commercial movies. and i find no shame or conceit in identifying it as such.

Uh, if this is supposed to be a caricature of ILM, it's a pretty inaccurate one.