Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 69

Thread: Film Popism

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    deptford
    Posts
    537

    Default Film Popism

    I had an argument the other day with a chap who works at the NFT. I mentioned that I wrote part of a MA thesis on Fassbinder and got an (often quite funny but anyway) tirade about the evils of film that doesn't entertain and so forth, and on the primacy of spectacle, the box office and whatnot- and that to ignore this is to miss the point of film itself.
    Obviously this argument can be demolished easily enough, but what I thought was curious was that I might have made a similar point about music- I can imagine defending the 3 minute pop song much more than I ever would the blockbuster. I remember being incredibly annoyed by Freaky Trigger's Top 100 films for instance- the anti-canonical in discussion of film just comes across as irritating and trite, 'why tony scott is better than kiarostami' or whatever. But up until around the 70s, most of my favourite films are in some way crassly commercial...sooo...the question I'm asking in a garbled fashion is-
    what is film popism? What is its canon, and what makes it different from musical popism? (which i may disagree with, but share many of the musical tastes of its proponents) does anyone fancy arguing in favour of it?
    also anyone who wants to call me a ponce for preferring watching Cries and Whispers for the millionth time rather than any of the Lord of the Rings films is welcome to do so

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,886

    Default

    i suppose the central plank of film popism would have to be the hollywood of the 1970s. scorcese, altman etc. entertainment which managed to tick just enough of the requisite critical boxes, thus seemingly able to out-perform art cinema even on its own turf.

    actually with movies i cant get poppy enough. this may be because as a visual spectacle the blockbusters cant be beat, while inversely it's the sonic spectacle of underground music which is fabulously rich. pop music, with maybe a few exceptions (usually the bombastic spector/horn) is a sonic desert.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South London
    Posts
    791

    Default

    O come on Matt, give this anti-pop thing up, it's mad....

    Film Popism wouldn't be the film of the 70s (I think that Scorsese-Coppola axis [I'm discounting Altman who I, alone I know, think is shit] would be the equivalent of postpunk, i.e. what popism cannot admit the existence of). Film Popism, very much to the contrary, would begin with the END of that period, something that can be dated very punctually with the arrival of one film, Star Wars. What ensues is the era of the blockbuster (the pop equivalent would probably be Thriller) - and here I find myself totally at odds with Matt again lol. I just can't see that the visual spectacle of blockbusters is in any way engaging or compelling; with very few exceptions, the blockbuster is visually unimaginative and pretty much unwatchable once the halo of hype is removed. Blockbusters have certainly got worse the further they've got from any influence of art cinema. Who now can watch Independence Day without cringing, or, perhaps worse, shrugging? Gladiator would have to go down as one of the worst films ever made. Have a look at the top-grossing films and oscar nominees of the 70s, then compare it with similar lists from the blockbuster era of the 90s.... and weep...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    brooklyn
    Posts
    1,273

    Default

    yeah, i'm definitely with k-punk on this one

    which isn't to say that i go in for the merchant-ivory fare either

    rather, this is what i said on the top ten films thread

    and the latest "serious" and "ambitious" film that i've seen seen and liked is marco bellochio's "good morning, night" -- which re-imagines the encounter b/w Aldo Moro and his Red Brigade kidnappers
    Last edited by dominic; 12-12-2005 at 04:59 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    deptford
    Posts
    537

    Default

    woebot, there is surely some mistake here!

    eg, xenomania and the sugababes may form the uk pop mainstream. the uk film mainstream is richard curtis and guy ritchie. i don't think that's being overly selective either...

    reminds me of a point someone made once about how something as shiveringly otherworldly as aaliyah's 'try again' was made for the soundtrack of something as lumpen and prosaic as (the already utterly forgotten) 'romeo must die'...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k-punk
    O come on Matt, give this anti-pop thing up, it's mad....
    (doubletake) well i dunno if it's mad, but it's certainly a decent wind-up. you may have to scout around here for my Madonna "Beautiful Stranger" thread, there's more on Pop there. Anyway, I'm actually validating a Popist position with regards to film here.

    Quote Originally Posted by k-punk
    Film Popism wouldn't be the film of the 70s (I think that Scorsese-Coppola axis [I'm discounting Altman who I, alone I know, think is shit] would be the equivalent of postpunk, i.e. what popism cannot admit the existence of). Film Popism, very much to the contrary, would begin with the END of that period, something that can be dated very punctually with the arrival of one film, Star Wars. What ensues is the era of the blockbuster (the pop equivalent would probably be Thriller) - and here I find myself totally at odds with Matt again lol. I just can't see that the visual spectacle of blockbusters is in any way engaging or compelling; with very few exceptions, the blockbuster is visually unimaginative and pretty much unwatchable once the halo of hype is removed. Blockbusters have certainly got worse the further they've got from any influence of art cinema. Who now can watch Independence Day without cringing, or, perhaps worse, shrugging? Gladiator would have to go down as one of the worst films ever made. Have a look at the top-grossing films and oscar nominees of the 70s, then compare it with similar lists from the blockbuster era of the 90s.... and weep...
    yes you're on the money here. star wars. maybe the equivalent of FGTH, because obviously lucas had his roots in the cinema of the 70s just as ZTT was the last gasp of post-punk.

    but, fraid to report, I just loved star wars, and i'll quite happily celebrate most blockbusters (independence day, that one with bruce willis blowing up the asteroid) above the wretched hand-wringing of art cinema. ok i'll give you herzog. but he was a visionary of visual extremity. all the great russian cinema vertov, eisenstein connects more meaningfully with the total cinema of the blockbuster than it does with the paucity of ambition of art cinema.

  7. #7
    Omaar Guest

    Default

    The problem that I have with these films is not that they're popular, but that they just tend to reinforce all the myths and dreams of capitalist ideology. Not all the time, and there may be some contradictory subtexts going on occassionaly I guess, but on the whole ... not good. However, I often enjoying seeing them, just to try and figure out what sort of values and ideas and being represented in them, and I guess I enjoy a bit of spectacle every now and then. I think the original star wars trilogy is a separate case, for the reasons given above, plus the fact that I quite like the evil empire myth - though I guess han solo does portray this entrepreneur archetype too. The last 3 sequels are a completely different story ... On the other hand, I can't stand art house drivel that masquerades as art but's really just middle class entertainment.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Just for being speculative (i see lots of holes in the following):

    When we’re talking about art cinema i should talk about two streams, one, centered around the little stories, the relationship between the characters or some kind of ideas less or more expressed. That one is really boring, even when in some cases intersects with the second stream, let’s call it the “structural” one. This one is centered in the form, in the use of textures, cinematographic recourses, and how this is related to the core of things the film want to say (or it’s open to the interpretation of the whom watch it). Let’s say hou hsiao hsien or abbas kiarostami.
    A musical equivalent to both kind of films will be indie rock for the first one (from the ones you can’t discern any difference with the mainstream to the sad guys like will Oldham et al) and the second one will be the wire type of records (probably I’m thinking in people like fennesz et al to the electroacoustic side).

    I think mainstream cinema would be an easy equivalent to mainstream pop. Cinema is working with the same scheme of genres, the use of sound, flashbacks, the way the shoots are made, the lightning, et al. Films that are linked to other films (maybe genres, but also films that resonates on other films…, remakes, etc), to the story of cinema (or whatever story), the use of quotes like riffs (the matrix effect, …)
    In music it’s all about the production, just to get the “sound”, verse-chorus-verse, the hang, the tricks with the equipment, the warmth of the recording, the equalization as axis, the amusement of details in the use of speakers… About the quotes on music, I was thinking in ashlee simpson sounding a bit like franz Ferdinand in “boyfriend”, but you could find it everywhere, sound here a little reggaeton, or whatever…
    I suppose that the popism in film (now) (and I still talking about form and not in contents) should be people like sofia coppola et al (even tarantino?) that works with the same elements that mainstream uses, but just something more enjoyable. Like sugarbabes or xenomania (even when I prefer sugarbabes to the cinema examples that i named before)…

  9. #9
    droid Guest

    Default

    Does anyone think that there is a connection between the 'musical/pop cover version' trend - epitomised by the conveyor belt style of shiny Westlife covers - and the relatively recent upsurge of 'film cover versions' - most pointless of late being 'the ring' or 'Charlie and the Chocolate factory'?.

    A snapshot comparison of the box office/music charts from the past 5 years or so might offer up some interesting comparisons - it certainly seems to me that every 5th or so film or single released is a re-hash of some kind.... and symptomatic of complete creative bankruptcy combined with the economic pressure of having to make 'good returns'...

    How many years before EVERY bit of pop or mainstream cinema is a cover?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    South London
    Posts
    276

    Default

    Small aside on the subject of Star Wars. Yes, it's a phenomenon, and yes, it's marks a major turning point for the industry (altho I've heard the same said about "Jaws", which comes out 2 years earlier). But one of the things I've long found most interesting about it is that it's just as subversive & clever as it is big & dumb...

    Check this great anecdote from Walter Murch about the origins of Star Wars:

    "Originally, George Lucas was going to direct [Apocalypse Now], so it was
    a project that George and John [Milius] developed for Zoetrope. That was
    back in 1969. Then when Warners cancelled the financing for Zoetrope, the
    project was abandoned for a while. After the success of American Graffiti
    in 1973, George wanted to revive it, but it was still too hot a topic, the
    war was still on, and nobody wanted to finance something like that. So
    George considered his options: What did he really want to say in Apocalypse
    Now
    ? The message boiled down to the ability of a small group of people to
    defeat a gigantic power simply by the force of their convictions. And he
    decided, All right, if it's politically too hot as a contemporary subject,
    I'll put the essence of the story in outer space and make it happen in a
    galaxy long ago and far away. The rebel group were the North Vietnamese, and
    the Empire was the United States. And if you have 'the force', no matter how
    small you are, you can defeat the overwhelmingly big power. Star Wars is
    George's transubstantiated version of Apocalypse Now."

    Quoted in "The Conversations: Walter Murch and the Art of Editing Film" by Michael Ondaatje, which, incidentally, is an amazing book about one of cinema's great unsung heroes.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    deptford
    Posts
    537

    Default

    all the great russian cinema vertov, eisenstein connects more meaningfully with the total cinema of the blockbuster than it does with the paucity of ambition of art cinema.

    christ matt, have you been reading my PhD proposal?! a large chunk of it is on how the techniques of the blockbuster and of MTV were hijacked from Vertov and Eisenstein, and what happens to them as forms when this transformation occurs. the point is that these were propagandist works, designed to excite, to agitate, to incite and to shock (eg eisenstein wanting to install small electric shocks in the seats). but as omaar points out these techniques are being harnessed to a very diffrerent political project, and this tends to change form as well as content- again see the quote on Star Wars that blunt uses- these things are never neutral.

    i suppose we have to clarify what 'art cinema' is here. if it is chris marker, alain resnais, wong kar wai, vera chytilova, then it can more than hold its own in terms of ambition and spectacle. if it is french rom-coms, chamber dramas and literary adaptations then obv not. but surely there's nothing less ambitious than (say) Independence Day. and christ, i can't think of anything more tedious than the 4 or so hours of my life that were spent watching (one apiece) of the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings films...
    Last edited by owen; 13-12-2005 at 03:18 PM.

  12. #12
    Omaar Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by owen
    i suppose we have to clarify what 'art cinema' is here. if it is chris marker, alain resnais, wong kar wai, vera chytilova, then it can more than hold its own in terms of ambition and spectacle. if it is french rom-coms, chamber dramas and literary adaptations then obv not. but surely there's nothing less ambitious than (say) Independence Day. and christ, i can't think of anything more tedious than the 4 or so hours of my life that were spent watching (one apiece) of the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings films...
    Agreed on the first bit of the above, but in terms of the ambition of lord of the rings in particular, I often hear of people refering to it as a fantastic 'achievement', I guess in terms of orchestrating the production, the fx etc. Ambitious in scale then, but perhaps not in terms of aesthetics.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by owen
    all the great russian cinema vertov, eisenstein connects more meaningfully with the total cinema of the blockbuster than it does with the paucity of ambition of art cinema.

    christ matt, have you been reading my PhD proposal?! a large chunk of it is on how the techniques of the blockbuster and of MTV were hijacked from Vertov and Eisenstein, and what happens to them as forms when this transformation occurs. the point is that these were propagandist works, designed to excite, to agitate, to incite and to shock (eg eisenstein wanting to install small electric shocks in the seats). but as omaar points out these techniques are being harnessed to a very diffrerent political project, and this tends to change form as well as content- again see the quote on Star Wars that blunt uses- these things are never neutral.
    ha! no, but it's there with bunuel and the surrealist films too. yep i'm quite aware that the intended philosophical project may appear to be different. is different maybe. but are you so sure?


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    deptford
    Posts
    537

    Default

    LOL!

    actually i was angling to get the author of the below as my supervisor...

    which posits something of an epistemological break with Snow White into a reactionary medievalism, realism, pictorialism and spectacle in place of the daring, elasticity and experiment of the early Disney...and Snow White can be seen as the prototype of all that Lord of the Rings nonsense.

    difference between Eisenstein and the blockbuster= shock used to incite activity vs shock used to induce passivity?
    Last edited by owen; 15-12-2005 at 05:32 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    226

    Default

    i suppose the central plank of film popism would have to be the hollywood of the 1970s. scorcese, altman etc. entertainment which managed to tick just enough of the requisite critical boxes, thus seemingly able to out-perform art cinema even on its own turf.
    i wd have thought the absolute opposite -- this is the stuff peddled by uncut month after month! i like the 70s stuff fine, much as i like a lot of the musical rockist canon. but the way it's handled in uncut or in (obviously) biskind is *just like* how rock is treated by rockists. male misbehaviour/genius/auteur vision, etc.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •