Sometimes people make automatic assumptions about someone based simply on differing opinions (and I'm just as guilty as anyone else). I'm not talking about ethical issues or the big questions like whether or not we're ruled by some higher power, I'm referring to things that are just a matter of taste or opinion like the quality of a film. Why do we do this? Why do we put so much emphasis on value judgments, rather than simply leaving things as a matter of difference? Why are some movies, shows, songs, etc. thought to be "good" while others are just inherently "bad"?
An interesting thing (among many interesting things) brought up in a class discussion today was the notion of films or directors that are considered by the general public to be "cultured." The instructor pointed out that, despite the mass popularity of films like The Avengers or Transformers, the directors of these films are not considered to be "artists," unlike say, the directors of more high-brow (although they can still be considered high concept Hollywood) films like The Godfather or The Artist. We think that films can only be categorized as art if they make you think or engage you in some other way, but this raises a question of why certain films are seen as purely entertaining while others are only viewed and truly appreciated by those who have "superior" knowledge of the cinema.
I think one of the key elements of this problem with high culture vs. low culture is that what is considered "real" cinema (or, as my film professor in Korea liked to say, a "film" vs. a "movie") is determined by self-proclaimed experts of the field. If the most renowned experts in film criticism say a movie is terrible, then those of us who buy into this kind of bullshit automatically believe them. If a film is not nominated for an Oscar, it must not be worth seeing. If someone we originally thought to have acted brilliantly in a movie is pegged as being the worst actor in history, we automatically dismiss our original judgment. The influence of so-called experts in any field is so great that they indirectly (albeit, probably not always unintentionally) shape the views of the audience.
This also relates to the concept of "national cinema." Because of Hollywood's monopoly on the film industry worldwide, America tends to view films from other countries as distinct national cinemas - when in reality, films from outside the U.S. are often times just replicas of Hollywood blockbusters (re: The Man From Nowhere) or not actual representations of that nation's culture and people (re: Judou). (Which then also brings us to the issue of whether or not you can actually say something is "authentic" and representing a nation as a whole - but this is another discussion altogether). And yet, we approach foreign films as unique or different or innovative or art cinema, something only "cultured" people watch - which is why there is only one category for Oscar nominations that includes foreign movies, and which is why they never show up in theaters. People (from any nation, really) often dismiss any cinema that isn't Hollywood as being inferior or having just a selective audience of film critics or academics, when in reality, these "national cinemas" aren't always so very different from Hollywood - nor are they completely inaccessible to foreign audiences.
Just because someone enjoys a high concept film, a film with a rather simple, linear narrative or one impacted by star-power or one that rolls out of Hollywood, it does not mean that that person dislikes low concept films or that they're inferior. It just means that they enjoyed watching that particular film. I love Requiem for a Dream, which might be seen as a more "art house" type film, but I also love Disney's Aladdin. I don't like Avatar because I think it has a predictable storyline, but I like Titanic from the same director, with a probably just as predictable plot. I will always be up for paying to see new horror movies, simply because they are fun to watch. I buy into the Quentin Tarantino hype, even if his films are just more big-money blockbusters.
Film as an industry is just that - an industry. Films have always been made to make money, but at the same time, isn't film also an art form? Even if a film is not categorized as low concept or high class, can it still be considered a product of creativity? Can directors of computer-graphics-driven, fast pace, action-packed blockbusters still be in it for more than just the money? Can a film critic still be considered reliable if he reports that the latest super hero movie was artistic gold? Why do we hold value judgments in such high regard when they are simply a matter of opinion? Can anything really be categorized into purely "good" or purely "bad"?
No comments:
Post a Comment