This commentary is basically my opinions of the year passed.
It cannot be assessed in a vacuum and so references to films of the past and
those to be released this year will be made.
The year 2011 was clearly one for the idealists and the
romantics and those that emphasized the themes of decline and descent. The
decline was clearly linked to the romantic era whereas the descent was linked
to the possibilities of the future. These themes are wound up in the notions
that some thought has to be given to the future by returning to the past. The
best films were able to suggest the dawn of a new era whereas some simply got
preoccupied with the notion of decline with only a hint of future possibilities.
No Country for Old Men (2007) can be
justifiably called a great film for we see its influence in the best films
released in 2011. The themes of old vs. new were dealt with more effectively in
this Coen’s production which never flinched in its portrayal. The films of 2011
that largely emphasized the theme of decline and descent made too many
compromises and so lost some level of integrity. People are forced to come to
terms with these notions of decline vs. descent especially as the Western world
is seeking to invigorate itself and stave off decay especially as the economies
of Euro America are far from enterprising with their high levels of debt. When
discussing decline vs. descent one must refer back to the past which must now
be considered romantic and objective when contrasted with the subjective
present day reality. This return to the romantic past can be symptomatic of a
persistent decline because few films such as Tree of Life (2011) Midnight in Paris (2011), Moneyball
(2011) and The Descendants (2011)
actually showed how the present is changing regardless of old methods. The two
front runners at the academy awards Hugo
(2011) and The Artist (2011) are
rooted in the early twentieth century or the romantic era when film was rapidly
advancing from a creative perspective. Midnight
in Paris also has its protagonist transported to the roaring twenties where
he meets the literary lights of the twentieth century whose influence is
unquestioned. This is all good from a romantic perspective but it is not good
from the modern day perspective when people are looking for films that reflect
contemporary realities. There needs to be stories about lives of today
regardless of the grand traditions of the cinema. Why did no one consider doing
a film about cinema of today and how it is changing, particularly with the boom
in 3D and Imax? It seems that the time is coming when there will have to be
increased emphasis on films outside of the euro American zone where people are
busy telling their own contemporary stories. It is not new to have several
films in one year emphasizing the romantic traditions of the past but the theme
seems more striking this year as America and Europe searches for new creative
possibilities in film.
This is what causes the relative decline of most artistic fields
because it seems that there is only a finite number of ways to tell stories
through that format. These artistic fields then retreat to their enclaves and
can be only appreciated by the purists or the elites however it can never again
capture the imagination of modern day audiences. This year would highlight that
the film industry is encountering a relative decline because it is not being
spurred on by new creative energy. Hugo
(2011) remains an exception because of its use of 3D. The film industry differs
from most artistic formats because of the heavy investment in technology and so
advancements in technology should go hand in hand with the advancement of film.
The stories of contemporary times or those of the past can now be told in
different ways. This is why I am surprised to hear so many people attacking 3D
because that particular technology can be utilized effectively to enhance
certain visual cues. It goes without saying that Imax makes films much bigger
and so stories can now be told in a way to make them seem larger than life
especially when man is in the foreground or back ground. This is why film is in
a state of relative decline only because decline is necessary in order to bring
forth a new perspective. After Avatar
(2009) and now Hugo (2011)
people should be seeking means by which they can make the 3D experience more
effective as dramatic tools because film is all about the visuals. It is true
that the use of 3D amongst the majority of productions is vulgar with no sense
of how to utilize it effectively apart from throwing things in the face of
audience members. However when everyone starts buying 3D televisions you won’t
be able to criticize it forever particularly from your enclave. The use of
technology ensures that film cannot become stagnant for now because there are
still many ways to tell a particular story visually. We need people to be
experimenting with new camera angles or new modes of storytelling which evoke a
sense of the essence of mankind. If you have to revert to the past bring it
alive as Scorsese and his team did in Hugo
by offering new visual cues; in Hugo
those cues are now timeless in my opinion.
The Artist only did this
intermittently and not convincingly. It never really brought the past alive
definitively as some people seem to be ranting on about. The best films are
about the essence of man within a particular context and the only way to convey
this to an audience is through the audiovisuals.
The proliferation of references to the French is also
reflective of this romantic tradition since the French are known for
romance. Hugo, The Artist and Midnight in Paris are all influenced by
the French (War Horse also makes
references to the French when seeking to evoke the peasant idyll). It goes
without saying that the last time the French were truly influential in the cinema was during
the first three decades of the twentieth century. They are not so now but the
aura seems to remain with the older generation of filmmakers who are trying to
transmit this to the modern day audience. The
Artist is also tainted with French blood however this is an illusion for
this is not innovation but pure romanticism which is symptomatic of relative
decline. The innovation only comes with the technology that is utilized to
enhance visual cues. The visual cues in The
Artist are eclectic and hardly original it only made some headway in the
mingling of sound and the silent medium. The silent medium is therefore
incapable of being revived as a result because this film highlights that there
are few new ways to utilize the medium. This is why it would seem so
distinctive if applied to the contemporary perspective. If it was the case that
the film was made for purely emotional reasons by highlighting the diminishing French influence in the cinema then it will only be absorbed within the
existing silent canon and negate the possibility of its own redemption several
years down the line as a source of inspiration for future filmmakers. Winning
an Academy Award does not guarantee that. A great film is measured by its
influence and not the amount of awards. There are several times, however, when
a great film is recognized immediately by the members of the film fraternity as
opposed to a decade later. Hugo is
more significant as a result of the many layers that reflect the essence of
creation and how this is manifest throughout later generations. Scorsese is a
great director and this is evident in his choice of film which for a majority
of the time reflect on how individuals are marginalized in society regardless of
success in the social sphere. This has kept his craft grounded and realistic
and we see those elements in Hugo and
that is why I prefer this film to The
Artist. It does speak of the innovator George Melies, a French, but only as
an abstract within the essence of creation and how this essence can trickle
down regardless of particular forms of
relegation. The academy will do well to give this film the main award over The Artist. Hugo reminds us that the
film industry must continue to strive through innovation or perish. If Melies
was not innovative his works would not have been acknowledged years later by
the populace. The Artist treats the
subject superficially by beguiling the viewer with romanticism. If The Artist does win then so be it but
ten years from now it will not be on the tongue of movie goers especially when
people start looking for sources of inspiration. In Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris the protagonist
learns to embrace the present although the film would have been better served
if it reflected on the progress of the modern day, artistically, over the
traditional forms of execution. When Dujardin can sing the national anthem of his country, France, for winning an award you get the essence of my argument.
The people from the past that we revere so much demonstrated
levels of courage in their works and actions that were striking in their
imaginative pronouncements because there were battles to be fought. The artists and protagonists featured in the films of yesteryear resided in the greatest century known to man, the 20th century, as a result of the rapid
innovations of technology and the clash of the two ideologies that have
characterized how we see the world: capitalism and communism. It was a time
when artistic innovation was necessary to reflect the particular time in which
those artistes resided. It was a time when the West still had to resolve the
issues related to the expansion of capital and the rise of communist states
which thwarted this expansion. The 20th century experienced three of
the greatest wars in history: WW1, WW2 and The Cold War. There was the nuclear
arms race, the space race and the peace race. There were numerous genocides, civil
wars and corrupt dictatorships. There
was also the independence of many territories in the Caribbean, Africa and Asia
from their imperial masters; the rise of China after years of ridicule; the
recognized sovereignty of Israel which fuelled tempers among the Arab spring;
and then there was technological and scientific innovation in the US, Japan and
the Soviet Union with the rise of the software mechanics (PC, video games, the
internet, scientific breakthroughs in physics and medicine etc). Cultural
innovations abounded among the oppressed ethnic groups such as the African
descendants and then there was the liberation of women and homosexuals who are now having more
control over their livelihood. What was taboo becomes accepted as capital sinks
its claws into every area ripe for exploitation and hence profit generation.
There was mass migration of workers from the poor countries to the industrialized
nations and the decreasing influence of Britain in the first half of the
twentieth century and, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the
recognition of the US as the world’s sole superpower. The European Union also
emerged towards the end of the 20th
century. The 20th century
was therefore a period of intense innovation with the expansion of capital and
communism and the quest to discover which ideological base would reign supreme
as a result of these momentous events following the demise of the Nazis. The
artistes duly rose to the challenge and so they seem larger than life to us
little people. There is still something
to fight for now in the present day because the first decade of the 21st
century continued the developments of the 20th century by
continually innovating through technology. Capitalism in the West seemed to
have won but there is now the influence of the PRC (People’s Republic of China)
which is poised to become the world’s top economy in 10 years or so and so
Communism is alive with modifications because it is clear that the communism
practiced in the past did not correspond to the scientific abstract known as
Marxism. Capital has not developed to its full extent to require a communist
revolution in ownership of the means of production. Capital is still innovating
however there has been a Global depression since 2008 and this will not be
resolved unless there is a shift to the east and the many developing nations
where the rates of profit are high such as India. There is now a Russia revival
(see Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011))
and Brazil has taken advantage of its many resources to also make a significant
step forward economically and we see
this in The Fast and the Furious 5
(2011). The drug trade in Mexico needs to be explored further by artists
for Traffic (2000) and No Country for Old Men was just a
start. After these and other possibilities are
exhausted then capital will no longer have a face; neither in the West or the
East. It will be the world market. (Blade
Runner (1982) and 2001: A Space
Odyssey (1968) were way ahead of their time) This should be resolved by the
end of the 21st century. The world will then become truly global and
there will be no need for tariffs and other boundary measures because most
opportunities for exploitation will be exhausted. Almost every country will be
lifted out of relative poverty. Nationalities will become obsolete to a certain
extent and there will be so much money that the possibility of one man lording
it over another will diminish. Technology will become a force of nature and manned space exploration beyond the moon will become more of a reality. So far there
has been an unwarranted war in Iraq and turmoil in the Middle East as a result
of oil and because these territories are coming to grips with their own
nationhood there are stories abounding because once there is
a level of unease or uncertainty or unsettled station of life be sure that
artistic innovation will gain a foot hold. The developing nations are now the
source of artistic innovation because the shackles of colonialism are slowly
but surely being broken or torn asunder. Empires rise and fall and so artistes
are now seeking to explore these issues within the context of various nations. Slumdog Millionaire (2008) was just a
start. When empires rise and fall be sure that there will be some spontaneous
or violent upheaval in the lives of citizens within the various nations and social
philosophy will now come into play i.e. how do we interact with one another? The Iraq War has already produced a best picture winner in the form of The Hurt Locker (2009). There is also
the question of America’s internal security following the surprising events of
9/11. We have seen a symbolic representation in the form of the batman
franchise revived by Nolan and Syriana (2005),
with J. Edgar (2011) and Mission
Impossible: Ghost Protocol (2011) being released in yesteryear. The
glorious past and all its mythic ramifications will be seen as a means to try and
rekindle the spirit of innovation among the west. We have seen this with The King’s Speech (2010) (which
defeated the more contemporary and relevant The Social Network (2010) at the academy awards) and The Lord of the Rings trilogy
(2001-2003). When empires begin to decline a romantic urge seems to be
aroused. With the unresolved debt crisis
in the West it remains to be seen whether the trajectory will be rise or
relative decline. This debt crisis has now called in to question the role of
government because it now stands as a barrier to the expansion of capital. The
bourgeois class seems to be assuming the position of the ruling classes that
preceded it and which it overthrew which is always a bad sign for the closer
you reach to the top you will realize that being at the top does not seem as
infinite because you lose the will to innovate. We will see therefore if this
is the limit of the bourgeois class in the West that once thrived on
innovation.
What I am trying to say is that there are many avenues for
artistic expression and so this nostalgia, which calls into being dead stars
such as Marilyn Monroe in My Week with
Marilyn (2011) or the silent film era with films such as The Artist, is part of a trend of
romanticism as opposed to innovation. There is even an attempt to revisit
Sigmund Freud in A Dangerous Method
(2011). Unless there is something to fight for or some tension surrounding
the place of man in the present world then innovation will be lost in the film
industry in the West. Hugo is
therefore a prescient film when it speaks of innovation. Innovation has to be
sought among those situations where there is some level of unease which means
that there is some measure of growth or decay so that the artist is able to
fill that gap. Dichotomy is the necessary element that the arts thrive on. The
tension between the old and new will be with us always but there must be more
films speaking of the contemporary perspective and what it is like to be living
in the uncertain times of today. I appreciate all of the films nominated by the
academy however the essence of the new and the old thrives when the present
comes more vividly to life as was done when the film industry came into being.
The academy cannot be blamed since it has to work with what it has and so what
else can you hope for? When you are innovating there is no time to be looking
back unless you discover moments in the past that were not portrayed
sufficiently and so you fill the gap by reimagining how this past episode forms
the essence of the abstract known as man which will be immediately identifiable
with present day audiences. You do not revert to the past just for the sake of
evoking visions of grandeur and splendor which on closer inspection are visions
of decadence. The best films that evoke the past suggest that there were
certain hurdles that had to be crossed or that it was not as rosy as it may
seem because for us to be where we are there were certain barriers associated
with more archaic social norms that had to be overcome. The films of yesteryear
address this issue in a bloated fashion but they do not show it by highlighting
how we operate differently in the present day. Midnight in Paris, The Descendants, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,
Drive, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Melancholia, Tree of Life, Pariah, Shame and Money Ball tackle this issue the best among the American films
released this year. The rest seem to be rooted in the past such as War Horse and The Artist. Hugo is more relevant because of its story of the
cinema as an art form and the use of 3D to enhance its superb visuals and so
the past is imagined in spectacular fashion by present day techniques despite
the old fashioned bits. As a testament to the cinema it remains relevant. It is
therefore not rooted in the past.
There were not much movies dealing with the lives of the
ethnic minorities. Once again we have to subscribe to the trials and
tribulations of white people. Understandably they control Hollywood and so if
blacks are afforded any roles it is as a result of a quota. Prior to the
release of Red Tails (2012) George
Lucas claimed he was unable to put forward this project back in the day because
Hollywood did not want to hear of stories related exclusively to black people. This sort of propaganda cannot
disguise the fact that a film about The Tuskegee Airmen was released in the
1990’s through HBO pictures. The Lucas production house is only trying to make
money off the topic and it is no surprise that the Lucas version is receiving poor
reviews because it cannot be as sincere as the HBO production as a result of these
propagandistic reasons. Well it is no
surprise that the film executives refused to have an all black story portrayed on film for the whites rule America even if Obama is in the white house. They
need to portray their values while acknowledging that they have made mistakes.
This is made clear in The Help (2011) a
sanitized portrayal of the maids in the
Jim crow south. Black people are portrayed as victims and heavily
reliant on the fortunes of the white protagonist who appears to be enlightened. There is some notion of being apologetic in
this film and some of the whites are not all that bad so lets move on while denouncing the
unfortunate ones who were stuck in the past. The film was average but for one
or two eccentric moments that failed to be incendiary and only achieved moments
of hilarity. This is a sign that the battle is over and blacks are now fully
integrated particularly following the rise of rap in the musical scene and that
street smarts are being replaced by corporate business ethics. The struggle
seems to have disappeared and we seem to be in the period of ‘ I Have a dream’
failing to realize that a large proportion of blacks and the latinos still
populate the prisons when compared with their population numbers in America and
this group is still marginalized economically to a large extent. The rise of
the hip hop and black pop stars and their compromises with the white hierarchy
cannot mask this epidemic because the occupy wall street movement clearly means
that this is now the struggle of the working class and all races will now have
to unite in the struggle against the excesses of capitals exploitation which
is reinforced by the lackeys in The Help.
The
Help would only seem relevant if
there were still incidents taking place today to suggest that the struggle continues. This is
why a film about the mean streets that blacks, latinos and other ethnic groups
reside in was largely absent in the films of yesteryear. Everyone wants to give
the impression that the dream is being realized. Precious
(2009) was the last serious effort to accurately portray the current urban
plight of the ethnic minorities. The struggle continues with Tyler Perry I
suppose but if he did release a film last year, which I think he did, it is no
surprise that it is forgotten. Tyler Perry must realize that melodrama does not
carry you anywhere without a proper context which requires a certain
distillation and not necessarily a proliferation of stereotypes. He is a
conformist and that is why he cannot be as assertive as a Spike Lee would be in
his dramatic works. Tyler Perry wants to be loved by all and so his weakness is
reflected in the direction of his films. Women would have gotten a kick out of The Iron Lady because it would help to
reinforce the trend that girls can run the world. This is how it will serve as
a source of inspiration for contemporary audiences. It is hardly necessary for those reasons
alone because women have made sufficient strides in the world market. I suppose
they needed an extra kick. The backward
and poorer nations still resist these sort of notions unfortunately.
Films from outside the Euro American zone I cannot comment on although I am hearing a lot of talk about A
Separation from Iran. If the Academy Awards wants to extend its influence
it should abolish the foreign film category and embrace all films. This will
come eventually and obviously the retrogrades will resist such a move for
awhile. You cannot claim to be the biggest film award ceremony in the world and
still have a Foreign language category. The world will soon refuse the Euro
American centric views as definitive. If a so called foreign language film is
good enough it should be nominated in the best film category. If that particular film meets the
requirements for other categories then it should be nominated. The case of Cidade de Dues (City of God) (2003) is
a classic example for the director, Fernando Meireilles, received a nomination in 2003 for Best director and was released under the umbrella of Miramax. He went on
to direct The Constant Gardner (2005)
which was a good film and did not have the American feel of a film such as Blood Diamond (2006). He offered a
fresh interpretation to a subject in Africa that would be sanitized and denuded by the
typical American or European director. The Academy forces a lot of foreign
filmmakers to make compromises to be considered the best film of the year. When
the Academy does abolish the Foreign language category it will aid in
invigorating the film industry globally and so people will be more willing to
accept film as a medium of expression instead of being dependent on film as
expressing the Euro American way of living which is trumpeted as the best.
Empires are on the rise and they will not take kindly to this sort of ideal.
Jamaica saw the release of Ghett’ a Life
(2011) which was not very good but a step in the right direction for
indigenous cultures need an outlet of expression that are not being afforded by
the Euro American way of living. Lesser
films were released documenting the Jamaican experience in America but
they still remained highly forgettable. The major films up for contention at the
Academy Awards are reflective of a Euro American tradition and if you check the
box office figures these films did not do so well internationally outside of
America and Europe. Is it that the Academy Awards caters to the fact that the
Euro American way of living is the ideal? This is symptomatic of decline when a
particular subject is continually posited as the ideal. There is a wealth of new interpretations
begging to come to the fore and public recognition in the west only comes about
when the foreign film bears the stamp of a prominent independent American
company. The film industry is thriving but from a Euro American perspective it
is not looking as vibrant because what more can you say having attained all of
this wealth. What is there to look for in the West apart from decadence
associated with too much privilege from plunder? The ideas of Empire inherited
from Rome still loom over the practices of the Western countries like a grey
storm cloud (no it’s not black). Admittedly the film industry in America and
Europe has access to the better technology but this is why workshops should be
established to encourage the spread of the medium by the major studios into
other countries so as to bring forth new talent. As humans we are able to
identify with the plight of others and this will become even more relevant when
the world becomes increasingly internationalized through the continued
expansion of the world market under the umbrella of capital. Fortunately African and Asian films are making a resurgence.
The blockbuster did fairly well with the two prominent ones being Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt, 2 and Twilight Breaking Dawn, pt 1. This seems to have perpetuated the competition
between the two with the former coming out on top with over a billion dollars
at the box office internationally. Harry Potter was well received while
Twilight, which appears to be a farcical version, was maligned as usual. All is
right with the world I suppose. It was an emotional send off for the fans of
the Harry Potter franchise as this is the final installment in the series. The
Twilight saga will also be wrapped up in 2012 and so filmgoers will now have
to await the next major series that will see them flock to the cinemas in droves. Pirates
of the Caribbean and Transformers
also made a lot of money with new entries to their franchise. They were
critical failures but made a lot of money and they are now forgotten. How is
that? Their essence seems to be what carries them forward. In Transformers it is the idea of watching
mystical machines transform and in Pirates
of the Caribbean it is all about Jack Sparrow. This essence seems to
resonate with a particular market that has likened it to a TV series as opposed
to a movie franchise with one current storyline. The superhero genre also got a
boost in 2011 from Thor and Captain America and a premier trailer
of The Avengers (2012). Thor was
eclectic with nothing definitive and Captain
America seemed to coincide with the release of The Avengers this year and it too lost its way. These two seemed to
be extended advertisements. DC comics and Warner Bros. floundered with the
release of The Green Lantern (2011) which
was a complete disaster financially and artistically. It was an outright
abomination; a 1990’s patch job probably. There was hope as The Dark Knight Rises (2012) debuts
this year and is assured of 1 billion at the box office. The release of two
trailers and the first six minutes of the film in 2011 have more than piqued
the interest of movie goers with tickets from IMAX theatres selling out in only
a few hours. It will be a major film and let us hope that Nolan does not make
too many compromises which will see the entire franchise crumble under conformist
ideologies as did the Schumacher versions. He took the right approach in The Dark Knight (2008) by highlighting
that there is no definitive answer regarding the good vs. so called evil issue
although he is still limited by the stereotypes. The Rise of the Planet of the Apes was a surprise hit because the
moral values that it embraces remain relevant; the notion of challenging the
existing established order. The superhero genre seems to be a substitute for
the absence of something to fight for in the West of the current day. America
is still imagining threats externally from outer space and in the form of people with Red Skulls and
black masks which help to feed the nightmares of children born within its
sphere of influence.
2011 was not a remarkable year for American filmmaking
because of romanticism however this is the calm before the storm and this is
one moment of the cycle. The year of dearth (2011) before the year of plenty
(2012) maybe. 2012 will hopefully see filmmakers rise to the challenge of
innovation that is required for film to ensure its continuity. It is hoped that
more foreign films outside Europe and america, will be included in the mainstream in the years to come if
only to provide a choice to filmgoers such as myself that are searching for the
next great moment in film be it European, American, Asian, African or the Middle
Eastern. This year it does not matter who wins the Academy Award because
romanticism has stifled any hope of competition which is brought about by high
levels of innovation in the way we see the world of today.
