Trazalca
10-11-2007, 09:25 AM
I came across this article, and albeit a tad smug for my taste, was still
thought provoking enough for me to think about what he's saying.
Here's the article:
Famously uncompromising British helmer Peter Greenaway declared cinema officially dead but said interactive forms of filmmaking offered exciting new possibilities.
"New electronic filmmaking means the potential for expanding the notions of cinema have become very rich indeed," Greenaway said during a master class at the Pusan Intl. Film Festival Tuesday.
"Cinema's death date was in 1983, when the remote control was introduced to the living room," said Greenaway, who has shocked and delighted auds, often simultaneously, with classic movies such as "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover" and "Prospero's Books."
The Welsh-born, English-raised helmer shocked the film students in attendance by taking aim at some of the biggest figures in the biz.
"Here's a real provocation -- (U.S. video artist) Bill Viola is worth 10 Martin Scorseses," he said. "Scorsese is old-fashioned and is making the same films that D.W. Griffith was making early last century."
Greenaway then warned: "I like a fight" and he got one too, dismissing a comment on his views as "not intelligent" and "humbug."
He also spoke a line in Welsh, to the Korean translators' horror.
"Every medium has to be redeveloped, otherwise we would still be looking at cave paintings ... My desire to tell you stories is very strong but it's difficult because I am looking for cinema that is non-narrative," he said.
Greenaway went on to knock populism as well. "Cinema is predicated on the 19th-century novel. We're still illustrating Jane Austen novels -- there are 41 films of Jane Austen novels in the world -- what a waste of time," he said.
The director, whose film "Nightwatching" is taking part in the Pusan festival, trained as a painter, and considered cinema a "pathetic adjunct" to that medium.
His visually rich, difficult movies, often based on paintings or visual images, have earned him accusations of intellectual snobbery, but Greenaway said that he firmly believed the changes in how films were made would ultimately be acceptable to a wider audience.
" 'Lord of the Rings' and 'Harry Potter' were not films, but illustrated books," he said.
He also attacked fests in general, saying there were too many.
"Thirty-five years of silent cinema is gone, no one looks at it anymore. This will happen to the rest of cinema. If you shoot a dinosaur in the brain on Monday, its tail is still waggling on Friday. Cinema is brain-dead," he said.
The odd thing about his argument is that I find myself, to some extent, agreeing with
him. Not completely, but I can see his point. Especially about his comment on Jane
Austen, which touches on the debates about so many remakes flooding the cineplexes.
I take it, from what he's saying, is that cinema, as a medium, should do
more than be a straightforward narrative, but that it should offer something more.
Something challenging either on a visual or psychological level: a cinematic translation of the human condition few have ever ventured to ponder or witness. A communication of a point of view few would ever sympathize with had but one brave soul of a director taken the time to develop and create a work that does just that. It's a never-ending quest that many independent filmmakers strive for, and yet, their films either miss the mark and fail to achieve that level, or get little notice save outside of a film festival circuit.
Personally, I believe cinema should be whatever it wants to be.
You know when you listen to the radio in the car (bear with me on this analogy
if you're strictly a satellite / XM user), regardless of how crappy you feel they are,
you have many stations to choose from. Whether it be new rock, old rock,
country, hip-hop, classical, newstalk, or sportstalk, or top-40, you have a choice,
and dependent on your mood, or preference, you make that choice to listen to it
as you drive. If your fave is hip-hop, you'll listen to it, but on some days, you'd
want to hear something else. And you queue up the classical station for something
more mentally stimulating (presumably). Yet with cinema, that is how we treat
movies as well.
Some days, it's good to see something challenging and gets you thinking about
things well after the credits roll. Some days, you're tired. And all you care about
is seeing a flick that requires you to leave your brain at the door. And to me,
both kinds of cinema are valid.
But still, the idea of 'cinema is dead' may be true, or not. What do you think?
thought provoking enough for me to think about what he's saying.
Here's the article:
Famously uncompromising British helmer Peter Greenaway declared cinema officially dead but said interactive forms of filmmaking offered exciting new possibilities.
"New electronic filmmaking means the potential for expanding the notions of cinema have become very rich indeed," Greenaway said during a master class at the Pusan Intl. Film Festival Tuesday.
"Cinema's death date was in 1983, when the remote control was introduced to the living room," said Greenaway, who has shocked and delighted auds, often simultaneously, with classic movies such as "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover" and "Prospero's Books."
The Welsh-born, English-raised helmer shocked the film students in attendance by taking aim at some of the biggest figures in the biz.
"Here's a real provocation -- (U.S. video artist) Bill Viola is worth 10 Martin Scorseses," he said. "Scorsese is old-fashioned and is making the same films that D.W. Griffith was making early last century."
Greenaway then warned: "I like a fight" and he got one too, dismissing a comment on his views as "not intelligent" and "humbug."
He also spoke a line in Welsh, to the Korean translators' horror.
"Every medium has to be redeveloped, otherwise we would still be looking at cave paintings ... My desire to tell you stories is very strong but it's difficult because I am looking for cinema that is non-narrative," he said.
Greenaway went on to knock populism as well. "Cinema is predicated on the 19th-century novel. We're still illustrating Jane Austen novels -- there are 41 films of Jane Austen novels in the world -- what a waste of time," he said.
The director, whose film "Nightwatching" is taking part in the Pusan festival, trained as a painter, and considered cinema a "pathetic adjunct" to that medium.
His visually rich, difficult movies, often based on paintings or visual images, have earned him accusations of intellectual snobbery, but Greenaway said that he firmly believed the changes in how films were made would ultimately be acceptable to a wider audience.
" 'Lord of the Rings' and 'Harry Potter' were not films, but illustrated books," he said.
He also attacked fests in general, saying there were too many.
"Thirty-five years of silent cinema is gone, no one looks at it anymore. This will happen to the rest of cinema. If you shoot a dinosaur in the brain on Monday, its tail is still waggling on Friday. Cinema is brain-dead," he said.
The odd thing about his argument is that I find myself, to some extent, agreeing with
him. Not completely, but I can see his point. Especially about his comment on Jane
Austen, which touches on the debates about so many remakes flooding the cineplexes.
I take it, from what he's saying, is that cinema, as a medium, should do
more than be a straightforward narrative, but that it should offer something more.
Something challenging either on a visual or psychological level: a cinematic translation of the human condition few have ever ventured to ponder or witness. A communication of a point of view few would ever sympathize with had but one brave soul of a director taken the time to develop and create a work that does just that. It's a never-ending quest that many independent filmmakers strive for, and yet, their films either miss the mark and fail to achieve that level, or get little notice save outside of a film festival circuit.
Personally, I believe cinema should be whatever it wants to be.
You know when you listen to the radio in the car (bear with me on this analogy
if you're strictly a satellite / XM user), regardless of how crappy you feel they are,
you have many stations to choose from. Whether it be new rock, old rock,
country, hip-hop, classical, newstalk, or sportstalk, or top-40, you have a choice,
and dependent on your mood, or preference, you make that choice to listen to it
as you drive. If your fave is hip-hop, you'll listen to it, but on some days, you'd
want to hear something else. And you queue up the classical station for something
more mentally stimulating (presumably). Yet with cinema, that is how we treat
movies as well.
Some days, it's good to see something challenging and gets you thinking about
things well after the credits roll. Some days, you're tired. And all you care about
is seeing a flick that requires you to leave your brain at the door. And to me,
both kinds of cinema are valid.
But still, the idea of 'cinema is dead' may be true, or not. What do you think?