Thursday, August 30, 2012
Condescension Toward "Pop Culture"
Toward the end of his "Notes on Film Noir," Paul Schrader complains that "American film critics have always been sociologists first and scientists second: film [to them] is important as it relates to large masses . . . " In other words (my reading — speak up if you disagree), the critics saw movies as "mass culture" and were interested in what their popularity reflects, what their existence says about Americans, and big issues like that, rather than paying attention to aesthetics, style, or even writers of specific movies. Forty years later, film — or at least some film — is taken a lot more seriously as art. Is there still condescension toward "pop culture" though? Do you see some art forms or media or genres that are still mostly talked about "sociologically" and not taken seriously as the work of artisans and artists making deliberate artistic decisions that are worth analyzing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe a lot of films are made not for the artistic ability of the writer/director, but just as one big money-making scheme. Many films contain lots of action, violence, big name stars, but very little plot. So many films are created just for the special effects, yet people will still go and see them, and the box office will most likely make a killer. Many films are not worth analyzing for the art form because they were clearly made just to make money. Personally, films should not be looked at in a way of "mass culture" if they are truly good quality films, as opposed to big blockbusters that cannot be judged for their artistic integrity. Certain genres, in general, can tend to be less artistic than others, unless done in a properly way. I believe not a lot of blockbusters have the best writers, which is why they tend to be more about the special effects/humor or whatever else they're aiming towards. It really all depends on the audience and whether or not they want to make art, or money.
ReplyDeleteWhile Heath Ledger was posthumously recognized for his work as the Joker, and Christopher Nolan's Batman movies were greeted with something like legitimacy (still often with a "sociological" approach) superhero movies specifically and action movies generally are received with condescension as pure commodities. I'm too lazy, right now, to find an actual number supporting this, but just think of the numerous reviews of action movies that mention the budget of the movie and its likelihood of making that budget back. A movie like "John Carter" was panned for being a commercial failure, not necessarily an artistic one. (Then again, I didn't see it, so I can only speak to its paltry returns.)
ReplyDeleteAnd then you have a director -- one I greatly admire -- saying this:
“A superhero movie, by definition, you know, it’s comic book. It’s for kids. It’s adolescent in its core,” explains Cronenberg. “That has always been its appeal, and I think people who are saying ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ is, you know, supreme cinema art, I don’t think they know what the f**k they’re talking about.”
The suggestion that directors like Christopher Nolan have elevated the genre doesn’t resonate with Cronenberg:
“I think it’s still Batman running around in a stupid cape… Christopher Nolan’s best movie is ‘Memento,’ and that is an interesting movie. I don’t think his Batman movies are half as interesting, though they’re 20 million times the expense. What he is doing is some very interesting technical stuff, which, you know, he’s shooting IMAX and in 3-D. That’s really tricky and difficult to do. I read about it in ‘American Cinematography Magazine,’ and technically, that’s all very interesting. The movies, to me, they’re mostly boring.”
http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2012/08/david-cronenberg-on-dark-knight-its-still-batman-running-around-in-a-stupid-cape
******
I'm probably not the right person to address this specific criticism because I'm not a big fan of the Batman trilogy, the Batman franchise. I think *someone* could make a case for them as artistic achievements. But it's understandable how Mr. Cronenberg could feel that way, especially given the terrible way in which even 'literary' comic books (thinking Alan Moore) have been neutered to fit your screen. Even non-superhero comic book adaptations (I don't care for the term 'graphic novel') like the works of Daniel Clowes are sanded down to merely quirky indies to be rerun on IFC in perpetuity. Where as an author like JG Ballard, himself working in the previously disrespected SF genre, gets adapted by the likes of David Cronenberg, and we -- thinking analytically -- pay attention. The only counterpoint that springs to mind is Persepolis.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we are a lot more open to "genre fiction" these days than we are to "genre films," and a lot of that has to do with the inherent limitations of filmmaking -- art by committee. Jonathan Lethem and Michael Chabon have very few obstacles if they choose to write superhero stuff. They're good-looking white guys who've already written books: the NYT's exact criteria for considering fiction "literary."
There will always be a sense of condescension towards 'pop' culture, people hate to think that they can relate with the entirety of society, all the dregs and such. What is important to remember with terms such as "Pop" or "Mass" in reference to media or art, is that these terms largely reflect capitalistic business conquests gone horribly right (at least from a financial standpoint). These terms are largely business terms, and have little to no real artistic merit. Though some may consider "Pop" a genre of music, for the most part these buzzwords (Mass Media/Pop) exist to reflect the success of the marketing put into said works, and how much money was taken in. Because the very terms describing these artistic works have an obvious capitalistic soul, it is hard for the discerning individual to accept them as legitimate works of art. Thus, people look at the works in purely sociological terms.
ReplyDeleteThis is not to say that everything popular is unjustifiable in its artistic merit, just that the idea of Pop culture in itself is that of a bloated enterprise, invented by a team of businessmen to simply make money in the theaters/concert halls/etc. The culture is popular because it was created to be so. Condescension towards Pop culture will always occur because no matter how bad Adam Sandler gets (for example) in his movies, they will still be supported by multi-million dollar budgets, and have extensive marketing campaigns thrown behind them.
Now, genius is something hard to find, and yet most people have learned to accept genius as simply selling a ton of records or making money at the box office. Just because something makes money does not make it good from an artistic standpoint, and conversely just because something is obscure does not make it bad. But what is true is that no matter how bad Adam and his movies get, the film companies will hammer it into our head that he deserves our attention, our money, our time, and people eventually believe it. Pop culture is simply a game of who can reach the most eyes first, and money is always good at doing that, thus becoming popular or pop. True artistic merit is not always going to reach a ton of eyes, but money will, whether or not the product is good.
TO me, the statement Schrader makes on film critics being sociologists means that they will critique the film based on how they feel the work ranks and is accepted by the standards of that day in age. For example,now ratings could be based on all the technical stuff that goes into movie making like special effects, etc, while before more attention was probably paid to the story line and acting and interest, maybe even novelty and originality. Now that so many films have been produced, the standards have becomre more complex and in order to make a good film, one has to put much more into it than previously. Pop culture decides what is good and what is not. I do agree that many critics do base their judgements on how they feel the film will add up in today's day in age- and that does say something about mass culture. I think the film of 40 years ago and that of today was still based on the quality, but standards do change so today there are more requirements for a good film. That doesn't mean that before there was less art to it, they just worked with what they had to produce the best they could. Now the standards for good film has steepened,so it is more of a challenge for originality and quality to surpass the others. Who is to say what art is? Is it the standards of that day? Are caveman paintings still art? Since they didn’t have the tools necessary to create extravagant works, they worked with what they had. Using creativity to make a statement is art.
ReplyDeleteThe second part of the question about art that may not be worth analyzing makes me think of a class i am taking now, about postmodern fiction. Many people can think that post modern writing is so abstract that it's hard to even critique, but it is just an original way of writing- so i dobelieve it is art. SInce there is no formal standard, and the writer basically has complete say in the direction he or she wants to take with their work, it's hard to analyze it based on a grading scale. If one enjoys it, then I think it is worth it.
There is usually a difference between the enjoyment of films by critics and the enjoyment of films within the popular culture. Films that seek out an intended audience or cater to a specific demographic are primarily made as a way to make money and are usually panned by critics. Some film genres, like romantic comedies or action movies, typically lack the plot development, dialogue, and other nuances which make a film that is artistically significant. Although most large budget movies entice their audiences with special effects and celebrities, blockbuster movies lack the heart which is evident in some independent films.
ReplyDeleteI think that critics tend to spend more time analyzing and seeking out independent films due to the ingenuity and intuitiveness of the filmmakers. Most indie films are low-budget and value dialogue and storytelling over making money at the box office. Critics may tend to gravitate toward movies where it can be seen that the filmmaker’s intent was to make something thought provoking and interesting. With indie movies, it seems that the storytelling comes first and the numbers at the box office come second. Although some indie films bridge the gap between being critically acclaimed and favored in pop culture, like Juno or Little Miss Sunshine, these movies lack some of the broad appeal of an action movie like 2012’s Battleship.
Action movies and romantic comedies lack analysis by critics simply because there is nothing to analyze. These movies tend to lack deep symbolism or analogies since they are catered to appeal to a wide demographic. While making a movie with broad appeal, filmmakers tend to make the plot simple and the characters one dimensional.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that American film critics still approach their object(s) of criticism one-sidedly -- which is what I think Schrader may have been pointing to in terming their approach 'sociological'. Even today, at a time when - it may be argued - the distinction between an 'art film' and a 'blockbuster film' is readily apparent, I have noticed that many critics never take this distinction into account in their critical process. They read onto and into the screen of the film, letting us know 'what this film is saying'. The problem with this 'thematic', 'sociological', one-sided approach is that a true 'art' film - as 'art' - is a film that has a critical relation to itself built into the film itself. It seems that in American film criticism, the critic standing in a critical relation to the film itself is often the limit of their critical engagement. Although many American film critics - often, rightly - lament the popularity of superficial, big-budget movies and glorify the off-beat, their 'critical' readings of such 'art' films effectively contributes to their sterilization.
ReplyDelete