|
Film is Art
The flavor of the month for dvd’s is The Godfather. This is not without reason. This brilliant packaging is stocked with a commentary track by Francis Ford Coppola on each film, and there is an extra disc loaded with deleted scenes, documentaries, talent files, and pretty much anything else you could hope for.
This is not a review of the dvd’s, although I am pleased I bought them, and I’m very pleased that I paid less than $30 for it. The transfer is crystal clear, with sound and picture looking better than even the special edition release of 1997. But these things aren’t what I’m talking about. The point I’d like to go into is the idea of film as entertainment.
That I speak about The Godfather in relation to the idea of art vs. entertainment in film makes sense here. In many ways, it isn’t a pleasant film to watch. There are graphic murders, the main character essentially gains the world and loses his soul…it’s a dark and rather depressing film. However, it is good because it is excellently written, and the acting is perfect. Gordon Willis’ cinematography is peak form (although apparently the man wasn’t too happy with the usage of moving camera). This is why we should watch the movie. It is art.These ideas haven’t recently come to fruition with me, but instead they are renewed for a few reasons. First of all is my re-visiting of The Godfather. Secondly, I saw From Hell two weeks ago. From Hell is not a great film in many ways. It suffers from an occasionally weak script, and Johnny Depp plays Det. Abberline a little too drolly for my tastes in some scenes. However, it is a film of great and profound beauty. It’s horrific, bloody, and vile. But the difference between this brutality and the brutality seen in films such as House on Haunted Hill (see previous postings) is the word “gratuitous.” It’s a dark and haunting beauty that grows on you. It haunts your mind not only in its evils, but also in how you can respect such a thing.
The final reason is a throwback to my previous comments to CAP. In many of their insane “reviews”, the screwball writer makes the point that, “entertainment doesn’t need this.” This is true. That’s why the word “gratuitous” is in our vocabulary. But could The Godfather exist without the violence seen? Could From Hell pack the same power without the grisly confessions of Jack the Ripper? Possibly, but it wouldn’t be the same film. Films like this pack their power through violence of this nature. Profanity is used as a literary device. Simply put, these otherwise detestable things work simply because these films are not entertainment. To be entertained, you see a bear riding a bicycle.Another example…not long ago, Roger Ebert’s Movie Answer Man answered a question from a reader who wanted to know if Citizen Kane should be considered in the same way now that it has been historically because it’s dated. Besides answering the question, Ebert stated something along the lines that great films are not necessarily instantly likeable. When you first watch Citizen Kane, you may or may not like it. Great films require work to appreciate them. It requires the viewer to pay attention and begin to understand what the film is saying. Now, many may disagree with me, but sometimes great films are not entertaining at points. To see the infected track marks on Requiem for a Dream is not a pleasant experience. It never gets any easier to see Michael Corleone gun down Sollozzo and McClusky in The Godfather, but seeing this movie over and over allows for a greater understanding of what this means.
So what’s the point here? Do I advocate film strictly as art, that having fun is out of the question? Certainly not. Pure popcorn films often have points of artistic integrity, and artistic films would not be able to exist without the ability to keep the audience captivated.
But perhaps this difference between art and entertainment is what keeps great films from becoming immediately recognized. When film first became available, it was a novelty. You’d pay a nickel and watch Charles Atlas flex for a minute. This idea’s held true for the last century, even though the reality hasn’t been this for nearly the entire history of film. But as a result, people are often turned off by the idea of having to appreciate film. Plot becomes a liability, and great movies are left by the wayside in favor of the latest Pearl Harbor. I can’t completely blame American audiences, considering this stigma film has. It’s like thinking of a writer as lazy, even though your average writer puts him/herself through more hell than nearly anyone else. Filmmakers are criticized for making $10 million on a picture, and audiences don’t seem to notice that directing a movie (or having any other part in the film) is in fact a very strenuous job. To be an artist is hell. To put out a great film is to deal with demons and be strong enough to put your weaknesses in the public perception. And they’re ignored because they’re not fun enough.
I suppose it’s not making it any easier when the MPAA shows even more inconsistency than was ever thought possible. In an era where people (erroneously, in my opinion) think of films as a source of real violence, everyone is wary of going to films which could potentially warp junior into a psychopath. As a result, many films are slapped with hard ratings for small errors, while more child and teen-themed movies are given PG-13’s to keep people going. Case in point, Amelie received an R rating for having the nerve to show the expressions on people’s faces during orgasm. However, Black Knight shows several scenes of violence, including decapitation, as well as borderline gratuitous profanity, yet it was given PG-13. I’m not complaining; I just can see how such faltering in logic can further keep people from seeing intelligent work in favor or “entertaining.”
Surely film is entertaining, but this is not its full purpose. Imagine being in love. The pain of it is a pain you don’t want to do without. It’s something that doesn’t just hit you on first viewing, but instead grows with appreciation over time.