Because I watch too many Films...

Forgive my rambliness today. Quoting somebody famous ‘blogs are an awesome way to organize your thoughts’ so I’m hoping that some sort of structure will appear out of nowhere; but y’know.

Chronologically I guess. Mystic River. You know when you have a witty retort to those frequently asked questions like: ‘Have you dyed your hair- it looks darker’ in which my response would be ‘If I were to dye my hair I would like to think I wouldn’t just dye it a slightly darker shade than what it already was’. But anyway when people ask me what films I like I say ‘good films’.

Now, Mystic River is considered a ‘good’ film. But I hated it. It’s not a BAD film it’s just so deeply unoriginal and has so little to say. My logic is that you couldn’t find anybody in the world whose favourite film EVER was Mystic River because it’s nothing more than the sum of its parts. I’m not saying a film necessarily HAS to say something. Films like Waynes World (my second film of the day) are just completely idiotic but manage to relate to an audience on a personal, intimate level.

The only definition for the audience for Mystic River would be the Oscar academy guys. Its for sure isn’t for the poor people in Massachusetts who are actually affected by crime. If it were it wouldn’t be filled with overly sculpted and conceited speeches, plot twists and the like. Can I also just point out dear Mr. Eastwood a dramatic revelation works a lot better if you go through it WITH the characters otherwise the audience starts feeling like the characters are just stupid.

I’m not condemning clever speeches and filmmaking conventions but when you tie that up with something that is so sure of itself as realistic you get a contradiction. Film, and art in general, is by its very nature a lie. Darjeeling Limited (third film) is utterly absurd but still manages to convey the friendship of these three brothers painfully realistically. Wes Anderson does this not by creating realism in something that can only create the illusion of realism but by embracing the farce. The fact that there is a garish yellow (his favourite colour) in every shot in this film demonstrates Wes Anderson doesn’t want to remain hidden.

The emotional baggage of their father’s death is metaphorically represented, albeit somewhat clumsily, in the literal baggage their father gave to them when he died. If you think about it metaphors are highly unrealistic too. Take something without any correlation, I know this doesn’t work in this case, and impose meaning onto it. It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t make sense- a jellybean and the corruption of innocence, a mouldy chicken mcnugget and the impending doom of an immoral society. It’s a nonsensical convention but is used because its channels information quickly and efficiently. It allows the filmmaker to not have spell everything out for the audience- leave them with the satisfaction of ‘figuring it out themselves’. Visual information is just that much more effective than dialogue with a motive. That’s why Wes Andersons’ dialogue doesn’t make sense.

Genre Theory- w00t!

So I think in justification of my utterly shite 'Highgate Film Society' talk (put in quotation marks to lend it some sort of legitimacy) I'm going to try post it here- just better.

I started with putting a formula of 80% of all Rom-Coms on the board and the question was; why the hell do you like watching the same film over and over again? People have written tomes, volumes and dissertations on the topic under the umbrella of 'Genre Theory'. I'm going to undermine the passion and work of others by putting it in a roughly written bullet-point format- because I'm lazy.

1. In this day and age capitalism rules all [foot note] especially in relation to the arts. Now, I don't mean this sincerely but for sake of argument- the majority of the population is stupid or ignorant of film as an art form. The 'majority' also presents the faceless corporation with the majority of money and therefore they become the chosen demographic. Stupid people don't want to think and you REALLY don't have to for the countless clone rom-coms out there.

2. Moving on to a slightly less cynical point. To adopt a genre is to acknowledge everything that has come before you. This results in lots of possibilities for the director and immediately strikes a relationship between the audience and the film-maker. 'In-jokes' can be made and in-jokes are a sign of intimacy. The narrower the genre the more specific the joke e.g. The James Bond film: In the most recent Casino Royale when Bond gets asked whether or not he wants his Martini shaken or stirred he says 'do I look like a man who cares' or something along those lines. To see what happens when you completely forsake the genre just look at modern art (I'm a huge advocate of modern art but for arguments sake...) it loses its context- thus is structure. And as so many Dada artists have done- a huge "fuck you" to the art world.

3. Films are short. Now not all directors have the same task in mind in making films; for some its an exploration of character, others narrative, mise en scene, or pure mindless style. Depending what it is you want to do setting up characters or backstory is a waste of time and genre provides a solution. I think I mentioned this before in my 'Se7en' thing but picking the 'buddy-cop' story is as easy as two juxtaposed shots of a clean room and a dirty one- already you have two pre-built, not wholly original but functioning characters.

4. Genre, conventions and formulas, are sweet because when you break them it causes particular impact. As a viewer when something doesn't turn out as it should not only are you upset for the characters but you feel personally betrayed- undermining the audience is one of the key tricks to creating drama. Using a point from Mr. Bovey when a genre doesn't use a certain aspect of a formula, through its absence it still addresses the issue. A Bond film not having and M character or any gadgets immediately makes the point that this is going to be a darker more serious Bond films by merely NOT showing something.

[Foot Note] My foot note is going to be about a way you can tell who has the power in society. Its who controls the artist. For ages it was the monarchy or ruling party who commission paintings to glorify them, tapestries to honour them, giving patronage etc. Then it was the church prancing about with their churches and their stained glass. NOW its the corporation who through advertising and publicity dominate the artist. A particular example of how this is beneficial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W1RLELfHBs Don't hate on my grammar. That is all.