The Death of Cinema?

[npcoombs]

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.

It is a Hegelian premise and dialectical, based on the matter of intense irony in society and the arts. Marx's method is dialectical and Baudrillard derives from the Marxist school of thought. Not only is the premise dialectical by the agent of change is capital, as being is subsumed over time. There is no other way to see the "end of art" as being anything other than Marxist, although recent postmodern thinking is also fresh and new in its own way as well. As I said, I agree with a lot of what Baudrillard says, even if his method is in working in extremes. As Adorno once said about late capitalism "only the exaggerations are true".

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

Maybe in his early films, but from Damnation onwards he has moved into a slow, fluid, hypnotic style of potent miserabilism, where his characters who delve into metaphysical questioning or cosmic ideals are either broken or turn out to be fraudsters. Whereas, Tarkovsky's "holy fools" were always the most genuine and pure of characters in the end.

The entertainment school of filmmaking has always had more power than the subvert-power-through-truth-school of filmmaking.

If you believe this you will believe anything. Just look at the USA with the highest output of entertaining drivel on the planet, which of course is a product of the highest intensity of capitalism and cultural isolation in the world. I see very little subversion there. This is not a dig at the States, things can be equally bad anywhere, but everywhere you see entertainment dominating the public sphere, you see political stagnation, the concentration of power in political and economic elites, a crass superficiality amongst the people.

[tlatosmd]

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

What makes me so interesting that I like to see such flashing pictures and single frames? ;) Along with the psycho-pathologogical aspect looked at from the inside, calling for such imaginative and partly innovative imaging, same reason as why I'm interested in psychedelic art.

For the record, I like both Fight Club and Tarkovsky (though the beauty and thrill of Andrey Rubljew evaded me, probably because I saw it in 1:1.66, not its original 1:2.35).

There is no other way to see the "end of art" as being anything other than Marxist, although recent postmodern thinking is also fresh and new in its own way as well.

I wouldn't say so. Armaggeddon and similar culture and civilisation critical/fatalist/pessimist, seculiar theories have been around since long before Karl Marx himself.

The entertainment school of filmmaking has always had more power than the subvert-power-through-truth-school of filmmaking.

If you believe this you will believe anything. Just look at the USA with the highest output of entertaining drivel on the planet, which of course is a product of the highest intensity of capitalism and cultural isolation in the world. I see very little subversion there. This is not a dig at the States, things can be equally bad anywhere, but everywhere you see entertainment dominating the public sphere, you see political stagnation, the concentration of power in political and economic elites, a crass superficiality amongst the people.

Looks like you two have the same opinion. To me what you quoted by Steve seems like he intended to say that the entertainment industry is much more powerful than the art pour l'art party.

And I agree. True art hardly, if ever, is something a majority participates in, not even just participating passively by consuming. Most people just don't care and/or have the time, even if they've heard some of the names.

[steve hyde]

The entertainment school of filmmaking has always had more power than the subvert-power-through-truth-school of filmmaking.

If you believe this you will believe anything. Just look at the USA with the highest output of entertaining drivel on the planet, which of course is a product of the highest intensity of capitalism and cultural isolation in the world. I see very little subversion there. This is not a dig at the States, things can be equally bad anywhere, but everywhere you see entertainment dominating the public sphere, you see political stagnation, the concentration of power in political and economic elites, a crass superficiality amongst the people.

Looks like you two have the same opinion. To me what you quoted by Steve seems like he intended to say that the entertainment industry is much more powerful than the art pour l'art party.

And I agree. True art hardly, if ever, is something a majority participates in, not even just participating passively by consuming. Most people just don't care and/or have the time, even if they've heard some of the names.

...yeah that is more or less what I was saying.

We can talk about the ways that lo-fi filmmaking can play a role in working against the "drivel" you are making reference to. The thing about filmmaking and music is that the big players with all the money have historically worked to price-out and thus *silence* the underground voices....That is why it is the *underground* burried by Power (aka Capital).

If filmmakers believe that films have to look like $$$ as Power seems to insist they must, then they will kiss the ass of Power to get the money to do that.

The truth is Independent filmmakers have the *power* to compete with Power by not buying in to Power's Millitary-style modes of production that true underground indies cannot afford anyway. All that is required is collaboration, imagination and doing our best to tell it like it is.

Steve

[Evan Kubota]

"The truth is Independent filmmakers have the *power* to compete with Power by not buying in to Power's Millitary-style modes of production that true underground indies cannot afford anyway. All that is required is collaboration, imagination and doing our best to tell it like it is."

Surely you don't think this is ever realized? Most 'independent' (really low-budget, not Hollywood independent) work is shackled by a purposeful evasion of comprehensibility or coherence. This is as contrived as Hollywood and no less superficial. It frequently seems like pursuing an 'underground' aesthetic diverts effort from more important things, like meaning, content, and truth.

[steve hyde]

"The truth is Independent filmmakers have the *power* to compete with Power by not buying in to Power's Millitary-style modes of production that true underground indies cannot afford anyway. All that is required is collaboration, imagination and doing our best to tell it like it is."

Surely you don't think this is ever realized? Most 'independent' (really low-budget, not Hollywood independent) work is shackled by a purposeful evasion of comprehensibility or coherence. This is as contrived as Hollywood and no less superficial. It frequently seems like pursuing an 'underground' aesthetic diverts effort from more important things, like meaning, content, and truth.

I never said anything about an "underground aesthetic" - just an underground reality. I do think an aestheitc can emerge from such constraints referenced above, but the aesthetic isn't really pursued - it can emerge from trying to make the most out of limited resources.

Steve

[tlatosmd]

I never said anything about an "underground aesthetic" - just an underground reality. I do think an aestheitc can emerge from such constraints referenced above, but the aesthetic isn't really pursued - it can emerge from trying to make the most out of limited resources.

And thus, we're back at Karl Marx! "Matter determines mind." ;)

[fogo]

The line 'if you believe this you'll believe anything' made me ask the question, what, if anything, do YOU believe in?

What would you risk your life or self (or sense of self) to commit to film?

If this does not describe us as filmmakers, then we must look elsewhere, and perhaps find real (or really 'moving') cinema where people do have this commitment......(and a distribution network!)..and maybe thats not in the 'West' or the English language

Ade

[npcoombs]

The line 'if you believe this you'll believe anything' made me ask the question, what, if anything, do YOU believe in?

What would you risk your life or self (or sense of self) to commit to film?

Good question, but very few directors have followed a strictly ideological program. I believe what underlies great direction is more currents and streams of thought. With Tarkovsky it was spiritual longing, a warning about modernity and its fallout. With Tarr is it social decay, idealistic illusions. With Bergman, psychological unrest.

With my films I believe I have followed a somewhat Tarkovskian stream of thought; trying to touch the infinite, but realising the finite limits of human experience. I have tried to be political, but find it hard (almost impossible) to match these opposing tendencies into a coherent whole.

[Alex_W]

To quote a famous thinker from Brooklyn:

Listen.. people be askin me all the time,
'Yo Mos, what's gettin ready to happen with Hip-Hop?'
(Where do you think Hip-Hop is goin?)
I tell em, 'You know what's gonna happen with Hip-Hop?
Whatever's happening with us'
If we smoked out, Hip-Hop is gonna be smoked out
If we doin alright, Hip-Hop is gonna be doin alright
People talk about Hip-Hop like it's some giant livin in the
hillside
comin down to visit the townspeople
We +are+ Hip-Hop
Me, you, everybody, we are Hip-Hop
So Hip-Hop is goin where we goin
So the next time you ask yourself where Hip-Hop is goin
ask yourself.. where am I goin? How am I doin?

[Evan Kubota]

"What would you risk your life or self (or sense of self) to commit to film?"

Something...

It changes for each project. Not sure that I'd risk my life, but a couple hundred dollars and 25+ hours of time are usually on the line.

[npcoombs]

"What would you risk your life or self (or sense of self) to commit to film?"

Something...

It changes for each project. Not sure that I'd risk my life, but a couple hundred dollars and 25+ hours of time are usually on the line.

I would guess that since I started all this, I have spent about £3000+ plus on equipment, stock, transfer, travel expenses etc..

[mattias]

if we count opportunity cost i've spent six years times $50,000 = $300,000, plus the "real" cost of my entire savings of $50,000. shit, i should have kept my job... not. :-)

/matt

[Evan Kubota]

The question of political 'commitment' is interesting - in states where filmmakers were legitimately risking harm for their work, there was usually a tendency to avoid extreme confrontation with the state - first due to the fact that the state paid for the productions, and second because surviving and continuing to produce was ostensibly more important than a single concerted statement. Look at Wajda, who started off with essentially socialist realism, although edged with subtle criticism, then moved into blatant criticism and social commentary when it was possible. Collaboration can enable criticism later...

Does anyone have examples of filmmakers who sacrificed their lives for a production? I don't know that there are any examples of that conscious act.

[tlatosmd]

Does Orson Welles count, Hollywood's exiled genius?

[Alex_W]

then there's always Werner Herzog, who supposedly claimed that "If I had to climb into hell and wrestle the devil himself for one of my films, I would do it". (imdb.com) You would believe him after seeing Burden of Dreams.