An Attempt at a normative theory of film
What is an ideal film, that is an almost impossible task to account for all the different ways in which people interact with films. Short films are used by film students to try and learn techniques and big budget adventure films are used as family rituals. So perhaps it is possible to look at the philosophy of filmmaking to try and find a possible normative theory of film (rather than the technique which can also vary widely).
The first thing I will say is that film should not be about filmmaking and it should avoid being directly about the filmmaker. What Nerdwriter described as Nolan’s meta metacinematic style is brilliant and his execution of that philosophy is a testament to his skill, but it makes (as many have noted) his films less emotional. People seem to interact with them in the same way as they would with one of nerwriter’s video essays and the more he repeats this in a film the more people are aware of the fact that they are expected to be thinking.
Lars Von Trier also uses construction rather than deconstruction but he turns the film into an expression of individual experience. His films make me think of solipsism and expressionism, totally focused on individual/subjective reality. They are so engaging, entreating the viewer into a world that is every bit as subject as theirs but is someone else’s (usually someone ill). Making the film about the film makes it a closed loop and turns it into an egotistical comment on the value of the filmmaker. Not only are Von Trier’s films easier to engage with emotionally but they present something that is not settled in the filmmaker’s mind as the central theme.
It is oft said that a good piece of art gives more questions than answers. Which brings me to the second thing that I will say which that a film should never be about: Any issue that is resolved in the heart/mind of the filmmaker. The films of Hiyao Miyazaki and Akira Kurosawa have something in common with some of the best Coen Brothers films: a moral and ideological ambiguity. A filmmaker’s films should be about the things that still hurt you that you are still unsure about, that you are still hurting from; when the topic is fully developed into the theme of the film it results in a film with the right kind of polysemy to allow audiences to interact with it in many different ways. When Von Trier designs his visuals it is almost as though he is trying to describe mental illness to himself as much as to the audience, Miyazaki is always asking questions about morality and humanity to which he does not have the answers himself.
Different filmmakers have expressed widely differing reasons as to why they make films and goals that they have with their filmmaking, looking at this underlying philosophy of any given film is a much more useful tool for determining its value (from a film analysis perspective) A film's value can be judged, in short, by how clear it's goal is to the viewer (including different kinds of viewers); I call this the intention of creation or philosophy of creation but will refer to it as the goal for brevity. A film could be looked at in terms of how well it's themes are communicated and how close it got to it's intended goal, how well it created emotional connections. This could perhaps be done by categorizing films based on their potential intentions and then analyzing their use of cinematic tools which would be matched against the cinematic vernacular native to their intended core audience.
Films with a high minded attempt at performing a social function or challenging the dominant ideology could in this way be curated on equal footing with film which only wanted to distract a 10 year old for twenty minutes without there being a problem. Some films such as Linklater's before sunrise trilogy are read differently as a collective some such as Vertigo (1958) convey new meaning when watched the second time around and yet some like Django Unchained (2012),Ex Machina (2014), Big Fish (2003), Citizen kane (1941) can deal with several themes and be read from completely different perspectives. This last category I think is the most effective for the way film can be consumed as opposed to other artforms, films which deal very deeply with several issues , carry several emotional connections to different characters, that can say entirely new things when watched again or looked at as part of a collection; that is to say films that not only reach their goal but set a film specific (and difficult) goal.
Spike Lee for example often wants to investigate common frustrations and ideologies in black communities, Lars Von Trier is the master in terms of films which put the viewer completely in the mindset of another person, The Coen brothers create some very good ideologically ambiguous films, Gore Verbinski creates memorable protagonists who's ideological underpinnings are veiled in an enjoyable plot, Linklater looks at human relationships, Alex Garland is quickly developing a reputation for creating characters who find themselves in the unknown. All these people's films can be looked at in terms of how their goals differ or based on goals (or portions of goals) they share, and two films with the same or similar goals could be more effectively compared.
This is my worst essay, I hate normative theories but I tried. Camp is a legitimate form of interaction with art. It cannot be said that form, content or reception define a good film there are too many exceptions for there to be a rule. But I’d argue that there is a measure of consistency in the value (artistically and for audiences) of films when divided based on the philosophy of creation.
This is my third attempt at this essay, this topic still needs to be revisited again. I wrote it upon request but it still needs to expanded on in parts and rewritten for clarity and improved upon for better application. Perhaps some day I'll remove the post script above for now this is my worst essay.
Comments