The Death of Cinema?

[npcoombs]

This is from CinemaSeekers.com

http://www.cinemaseekers.com/requiem999.html

Cinema as an art form is dead. It has been dead for some years now (although NOT corresponding to the timing of Jean-Luc Godard's famous statement.) Cinema's official death can arguably be linked to the passing of the legendary Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky, who almost single-handedly kept the pure flame of cinema art alive. With the subsequent death of Sergei Paradjanov, the "retirement" of Ingmar Bergman and the recent deaths of Robert Bresson and Akira Kurosawa, there is virtually no one out there willing to answer the true calling of cinema as a spiritual art form, as a way of seriously seeking and probing into the great questions of existence (the one possible exception being the film "Mother and Son" by Alexander Sokurov.)

Perfectly reflecting the present state of humanity, the cinema of today has moved past the great questions of existence and into capturing life as an adventure, as a thrill. Thus genuine seeking has been replaced by thrill-seeking (i.e. the stimulation of the senses.) And the general trend is towards greater and greater thrill-seeking as more of the spiritual deadness sets in.

Do you agree?

[Evan Kubota]

I think there are different degrees of death. Someone's nose can be dead tissue, for example, while the rest is ostensibly alive (Michael Jackson, frostbitten climbers).

Claiming that Tarkovsky was the sole bearer of cinema's "spiritual flame" is a little preposterous, IMO. His brand of inquiry was certainly unique and rare, but by no means the only valid mode.

Thrilling narratives and spiritual inquiry don't have to be mutually exclusive, anyway - it's funny that the mention Kurosawa and Bresson together, since both approach truth from nearly opposite tacks.

Is Hollywood "dead" inside? Well, it's largely been that way for a long time. Are other cinemas dead? Not necessarily. Many of the recent independent films from Poland, for example, show a metaphysical or spiritual turn, eschewing exploitative, lowest-common-denominator narrative in favor of contemplation and aesthetic integrity.

The potential is still extant for 'art' cinema in the Tarkovskian mode to return... give me money and I will try ;)

Re: Sokurov - I want to see "Solntse" really badly. It examines one of my favorite time periods in recent history and supposedly has an excellent lead performance..

[timdrage]

Someone like Jean-Luc Godard is for me intellectual counterfeit money when compared to a good kung fu film.
- Werner Herzog

[timdrage]

The potential is still extant for 'art' cinema in the Tarkovskian mode to return... give me money and I will try

Me too please! And a supermag for loooong super-8 takes!

[npcoombs]

Ok course their position is fudged and intent upon forcing reality to fit their polemical position and lyrical requiem for cinema.

But, I do see where they are going. There are few directors nowadays known for psychological introspection or probing theological or moral issues in the 'transcendental style'.

Although I think they have one thing wrong. Its not that there are no filmmakers who would like to continue to carry the flame its just that there is not the support given to these kind of filmmakers any more. The critical community now has lost the autonomy to go out of a limb and encourage this kind of filmmaking.

[steve hyde]

http://www.jayrosenblattfilms.com/

[Evan Kubota]

Bring back the USSR and the occasionally-wonderful results of their state funding...

The 'solution,' to me, appears to be bypassing traditional commercial funding avenues and the constraints that come with them. I have about $16,000 saved, and that will be almost $20,000 by next summer. Would I spend it on a 16mm feature...? Maybe...

[steve hyde]

....I was in a rush above and made reference to Jay Rosenblatt's films because I think he is keeping the art of cinema alive.

If we are to make an intellectual exercise out of theorizing the "death of cinema", I think we need to spend some time defining what this might mean.

Personally, I think the author quoted above is missing the point. The most compelling theories on the death of art (that I know about) are coming from Jean Baudrillard e.g. "The Consumer Society" (c 1970).
“The Conspiracy of Art,” Liberation (May 20, 1996). etc.

I'm no expert on these theories, but my understanding of Baudrillard's theories on "the end of art" is that art has become no different than anything else. What this means, to me, is that "art" (enter cinema if you like) is "dead" because everything has become art.

So rather than working to tease out the complex truths of our existance: psychological truths, sociological truths through visual communication, we see a proliferation of image makers ( and they are brilliant craftsman) engaging in the work of advertising for Capital rather than searching for truth and producing artifacts that are truly representative of the contemporary state of humanity.

It was the same for the Rennisance artists in Florence right? The greatest craftsmen were commissioned to create religious propaganda.

So what does "death of cinema" mean?

Steve

[npcoombs]

I'm no expert on these theories, but my understanding of Baudrillard's theories on "the end of art" is that art has become no different than anything else. What this means, to me, is that "art" (enter cinema if you like) is "dead" because everything has become art.

So rather than working to tease out the complex truths of our existance: psychological truths, sociological truths through visual communication, we see a proliferation of image makers ( and they are brilliant craftsman) engaging in the work of advertising for Capital rather than searching for truth and producing artifacts that are truly representative of the contemporary state of humanity.

I am, of course, inclined to agree with this Marxist kind of argument. But as with any monological theory it misses as much as it hits.

For instance, here in Europe film grants still account for as much of production as does capitalist filmmaking. Challenging films, that go against the base requirements of commercialism, are made but their object of enquiry has changed.

Nowadays challenging films chose issues of identity (as in Iranian filmmaking) or political subjects. The kind of existential angst that charcterises Bergamn's films is profoundly out of fashion, even amongst film-school students.

If we take that grand autuer Bela Tarr with his long tracking shots and 'transcendental style' he would appear a modern candidate for the kind of filmmakers the Pearse's admire. But Tarr's films are anti-spiritualist, ultimately very pessimistic tracts. Beauty is crushed. Ideals shattered. Dreams lost.

I think the move away from the kind of filmmaking characterized by Tarkovsky speaks of something more profound. Yes the aura of the image has been lost, yes capital often trumpts serious filmmaking but people also have lost interest in these films.

Is idealism forgotten?

[tlatosmd]

Nowadays challenging films chose issues of identity (as in Iranian filmmaking) or political subjects. The kind of existential angst that charcterises Bergamn's films is profoundly out of fashion, even amongst film-school students.

Existential angst? Watching Bergman's films, I only felt incredibly, intensely bored (except for Scenes from a marriage which made me raging mad at the hedonistic, egoist main character referring to her vain hedonism destroying other people's lifes as 'emancipation'). Am I the reason why cinema is dead?




"God is dead!" - Friedrich Nietzsche, 1882

"Nietzsche is dead!" - God, 1900

[audadvnc]

"Is the theatre really dead"? - Paul Simon

I'm with Evan on this one. Claiming that cinema died with Tarkovsky is like claiming music died with Bach - and where would that leave the Beatles?

I just saw Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev", what a beautiful, horrible, sensuous, painful, ecstatic film. How often do you find a movie that triggers so many emotions, associations, dreams and nightmares? He was indeed a master, and they didn't even mention him in my film school in the mid 80's - I guess we were a little out of touch.

There are few directors nowadays known for psychological introspection or probing theological or moral issues in the 'transcendental style'.

Perhaps this is merely a symptom of the recent spiritual regression of Western society in general. All of the arts suffer from lack of substance, because it has passed out of favor; simple answers for simple minds are the watchwords for the era.

[steve hyde]

I am, of course, inclined to agree with this Marxist kind of argument. But as with any monological theory it misses as much as it hits.

I'm not sure what makes "the end of art" a marxist line of argument. I think it is meant to provoke questions more than answers. If I understand correctly, Nathan, you are arguing that a lost focus on spiritualty somehow marks the death of cinema as an artform.

I have seen a handful of Tarkovsky's films and I have seen Sokurov's "Mother and Son". I love these films.

What is it for you, that makes these films spiritual?... What makes them more spiritual than say - "Fight Club" for example?

For instance, here in Europe film grants still account for as much of production as does capitalist filmmaking. Challenging films, that go against the base requirements of commercialism, are made but their object of enquiry has changed.

European films have changed into what?

Nowadays challenging films chose issues of identity (as in Iranian filmmaking) or political subjects. The kind of existential angst that charcterises Bergamn's films is profoundly out of fashion, even amongst film-school students.

Questions surrounding identity are purhaps the most important questions of our time. I think Amin Maalouf makes this argument quite powerfully in his timely essay: "In the Name of Identity".

Maybe "existential angst" is out of fashion because Bergman dealt with the theme quite comprehensively. But I personally think existential angst appears in the subtext of many films. "Fight Club" again is a good example.

If we take that grand autuer Bela Tarr with his long tracking shots and 'transcendental style' he would appear a modern candidate for the kind of filmmakers the Pearse's admire. But Tarr's films are anti-spiritualist, ultimately very pessimistic tracts. Beauty is crushed. Ideals shattered. Dreams lost.

In what way are they anti-spiritualist? What makes a film anti-spiritualist?
Bella Tarr is a social realist.

I think the move away from the kind of filmmaking characterized by Tarkovsky speaks of something more profound. Yes the aura of the image has been lost, yes capital often trumpts serious filmmaking but people also have lost interest in these films.

Is idealism forgotten?

Idealism has always been silenced by the power of pragmatics. That is why it is idealsim. The entertainment school of filmmaking has always had more power than the subvert-power-through-truth-school of filmmaking.

[Evan Kubota]

"What is it for you, that makes these films spiritual?... What makes them more spiritual than say - "Fight Club" for example?"

This is a worthwhile question, but I think the definition is very specific and personal. If Tarkovsky's nostalgic quest to revisit his childhood experiences moves parallel to your own filmic desires, his cinema will probably seem very compelling. For someone else, Fight Club could be a representation of "everything they wanted to see" - which would make them a pretty interesting person

Of course, the fact that Tarkovsky was able to approach concretizing something so elusive is remarkable as an act of artistic expression - content aside.

[steve hyde]

"What is it for you, that makes these films spiritual?... What makes them more spiritual than say - "Fight Club" for example?"

This is a worthwhile question, but I think the definition is very specific and personal. If Tarkovsky's nostalgic quest to revisit his childhood experiences moves parallel to your own filmic desires, his cinema will probably seem very compelling. For someone else, Fight Club could be a representation of "everything they wanted to see" - which would make them a pretty interesting person

Of course, the fact that Tarkovsky was able to approach concretizing something so elusive is remarkable as an act of artistic expression - content aside.

What is so elusive about revisiting childhood experiences? I personally think "Phantom Limb" is compelling in the same ways that "Mirror" is compelling. It's self examination that is not contaminated with pretension.

Steve

[Evan Kubota]

Literalizing them onscreen and maintaining the right 'feel' is difficult! As you said, *not* contaminating them with pretension is tough, as well as avoiding falling into the Western trap of Freudian babble. Eastern European cinema seems largely free of that disturbing tendency in American and to a lesser degree West European films. From what I know about Polish cinema, the Freudian tradition is largely absent, so even if the results resemble free association, the derivation is different, as are the expectations of how the audience will respond. Of course, we really have no idea how close Tarkovsky came to recreating his own emotions and thoughts. From the statements in "Sculpting in Time" regarding Mirror, probably fairly close.