Thursday, July 10, 2008

by Ari

I've posted links to Paul Schrader's Film Canon a few times already. It's an excellent list of classic movies from the last century that any film lover should at least consider to review. What I didn't realize is that Schrader wrote a lengthy essay to introduce and explain his inspiration for creating this canon and what his choices mean. You can find it at his official website. Like all Schrader writings, it's one of the most insightful and persuasive commentaries you're likely to read, not to mention one of the most provocative and debatable.

One section is particularly worth discussion, Schrader's response to Pauline Kael's "Trash, Art and the Movies". Kael's analysis is a defense of movies as low art or non art, and that "trash gave us an apetite for art" and is ultimately harmless. I'm in agreement with Schrader's response, which is the exact opposite. As Schrader writes, "Trash does corrupt". That said, I'm far more optimistic about the current state of film than he is. I don't agree that "trash has won the day" (especially after a brilliant year like 2007, a rebirth of sorts for film as "high art", with achievements like There Will Be Blood, Jesse James, No Country For Old Men, I'm Not There and Lust, Caution), but I'd say audiovisual entertainment (to use Schrader's term) is capable of overthrowing everything special about film's essence. While I seriously hope that never happens, it's not entirely out of the question considering how technologically obsessed our culture has become. There's a constant need for instant distraction and amusement (how else do you explain visual entertainment on a phone?) and Schrader is correct to wonder what will happen in the future because of it. I'd like to respond to a couple of his points on the topic of "Trash, Art and the Movies".

Cut to the “Postart” cinema exemplified by Quentin Tarantino and his imitators. (I find Allan Kaprow’s term more descriptive than the more widely used and confusing “postmodern.”) Kill Bill is the apotheosis of Kael’s moviesas-trash ideology. Movies are assemblages of pop culture; the only criterion is “fun.” Is it fun? Is it cool? Is it hip? There’s no distinction between high and low, genuine and ersatz, existential or ironic, melancholy and parody, Shakespeare and Stephen King, Children of Paradise and The Dukes of Hazzard—all that matters is how you put them together. (It’s been said assemblage is the art form of the 20th century and Joseph Cornell its Godfather. If so, Tarantino is its Michael Corleone.) And whatever you do, don’t pretend it has any meaning beyond the moment. Sensation replaces sentiment.

Schrader's analysis is correct. Tarantino and several other contemporary filmmakers do indeed create pop culture assemblages, however I don't think it's all sensation in all cases. It's difficult to defend Tarantino in that regard because as much as I enjoy films like Kill Bill for its sense of fun (quality escapism has merit), it's not about anything. The end all purpose of his work is to be fun, cool and hip, and though he does this better than any other entertainer working in film, I struggle to find any real substance to his work, even with the near flawlessly crafted Jackie Brown. That said, from a historical perspective I believe Tarantino's uniquely trash-meets-art/pop culture sensibility is worthy of study and contemplation simply because it's so unique.

It’s ironic that Kael lists comic books as one of the impetuses for movies because comic-book heroes, comic-book stories, and comic-book situations, once regarded as disreputable, have become prestige fare. The moral scolds have been run from the ranks of film reviewers (and onto the op-ed pages). The academics Kael derided for treating Hitchcock and von Sternberg as artists are applying their analytical skills to The Matrix and The Lord of the Rings. Hitchcock and von Sternberg start to look pretty good in this post–“Trash, Art and the Movies” culture.

I think the problem here is that Schrader picks the wrong examples with The Matrix and Lord of the Rings. Schrader's on record for discussing the negative impact of the comic book mentality on film, but what makes those particular films such cultural phenomenons is the mixture of escapist aesthetic and literary depth. These films have enough intellectual weight and cinematic literacy to elevate themselves above the mindless noise he associates with comic book movies and genuinely inspire dialogue about art. They're not masterpieces, but they're not trash either. I'd say they fall into a category of artful entertainment, if there is such a thing. Sure, Hitchcock is a legend, but is The Birds really deeper than the The Matrix? Is Marnie on the level of Tolkein?

Besides this error I agree with Schrader's view of the matter. There's no reason for an academic or critic to seriously analyze movies like Superman or Iron Man, especially not in the realm of art. And the way certain viewers look to these movies for deep insight has always baffled me. What do they expect to learn from these outsized characters and melodramatic relationships? The demand for comic book movies is greater than ever now because technology has made them possible, but just because their populuarity grows and tickets sell doesn't mean they should all be taken seriously. As entertainment I have no qualms with either of those movies (I enjoy the entertainment value of both, actually), but it is what it is. One of the reasons I appreciate Christopher Nolan's work is because he applies an artistry to his Batman films that makes it substantial, intelligent entertainment. Again, here's a case that falls into that artful entertainment category. Schrader would probably dismiss it as "comic book substance", which is to say it's meaningless, but I'm not sure that's entirely correct in this case. I roll my eyes when I read The Dark Knight reviews comparing it to The Godfather Part II, and I wouldn't say these movies are historical cinematic events with Dostoevsky-level themes, but I wouldn't dismiss a talented artist working with pulp material too quickly either. It's not Bergman, but it's something.

Sidenote: Schrader's near masterwork, Mishima, is available on Criterion dvd now. Buy it.