Cinema History You Think You Know

 

- Illustration by Benoit Rouilly -

Read also at Screenville:

• Presumptuous Best Film in the World

Cinema Generations (Unspoken Cinema infographics)

 

Download the PDF here

From its inception in 1895, the history of Cinema has changed drastically and I imagined a parallel between software generations to depict the evolution of narratives and aesthetics through the years. Thus this infographic map that I designed to summarize the trends and paradigm shifts that shaped Cinema history in successive stages.

The first prototype is "Alpha" also known as Verisimilitude, represented by the cinematographic views of Louis and Auguste Lumière. Cinema was in its infancy, without any visual grammar (editing) or any fancy storytelling. Its purpose was mainly to record life and show off the motion that Photography didn't have.

Soon thereafter a new prototype "Beta" was released for beta-testers, the Filmed Theatre, available in silent mode only, where stage actors and playwright used theater and literature, well known and mastered ancient arts to exploit the possibilities of this new invention. You could argue this Beta stage featured some of the greatest artistic experiments of the medium, but for the most part, slapstick comedy and famous plays dominated.

Once Griffith introduced the first editing grammar and shot conventions, Cinema could tell stories visually and not simply through mimes and cue cards. "Cinema 1.0" could be released publicly. As JLG described it, "all it takes to make movies is a girl and a gun", which will define the genres of this art for decades and decades. Imminent threat, high stakes, a young glamor damsel in distress and an (older) buff hero to save the day, is the bread and butter of 90% of the genres as we know them...

The next paradigm shift was described by Gilles Deleuze (in Cinema 1 & 2, Movement-Image and Time-Image), where he points to the tragedy of WW2 as a transition in Cinema aesthetics from Movement to Time, before and after the war, yielding to the emergence of Modernist Cinema. First with Neorealismo, then with La Nouvelle Vague, and all the New Waves of the 1960ies. This is “Cinema 2.0”. We see a change in the auteur’s POV, in the narrative structure being deconstructed and the form reinvented.

Along those lines, in the margins of Modernist Cinema, Generation Alpha was to be rebooted in the 1970s by the “Greatest Film of All Time” (according to Sight & Sound decade poll), Jeanne Dielman by Chantal Akerman. This is how Contemplative Cinema was born! In 1964, Andy Warhol revived Lumière by taking it to the extreme, with Empire, an 8h long cinematographic view that Lumière could have never dreamt of at the time. Then came Wiseman, Saless, Kiarostami, Tarr, before paving the way to the most recent proponents of this aesthetics in the 2000s.

“Cinema 3.0”, was born in the same circumstances as “Cinema 2.0”, while the later developed an inclination for the fiction and the narrative, the former was more oriented towards the documentary, the commentary, and the collage/montage of found-footage. The Essay Film is first and foremost the self-portrait of a narrator, it’s a homage to cinema through citations and images.

A new iteration of “Cinema 1.0” arose in the 2000s, which we shall name “Cinema 1.5” as it repeats all the tropes only with a difference in degree (with all the knobs at 11 so to speak). A girl and a gun on steroids! This is the emergence of the superheroes movies, and later video games movies. These films didn’t learn anything from Cinema 2.0 or 3.0… they just abuse the technology available to push all the narratives and stunts to the extreme. Green screen CGI, choreographed wire stunts, and hypercut editing. It’s always a damsel in distress, but they also need to save the world (or the universe) to stack the deck of high stakes threats.

The last generation which we see more and more of nowadays is “Cinema 4.0” or Mise-en-abyme, where the suspension of disbelief (of the Beta version) is put into question for the first time. The film we are watching is only a film, and doesn’t hide its own making. The film within the film, its backstage is revealed, and all the ropes of filmmaking are exposed. Dogville is a good example even if it remains classically narrative. Charlie Kaufman in the USA or Quentin Dupieux in France offer a complete deconstruction of filmmaking and tell stories without the safety net of the make believe of the cinema facade.

The History of Cinema (Alex Day)

 

The History of Cinema (1874-2023) | Full Version (YouTube) 8h44'
Alex Day (30 Dec 2023)

The history of Film Movements (cinemawaves)

 A formidable new blog, Cinemawaves, is offering to cover the history of film movements in cinema history : 

A film movement signifies a wave of cinematic works, usually following a particular trend in cinema, shaped by and reflecting the time, people, culture, and political events of the location from which it emerged. These cinematic works frequently draw inspiration from cultural roots influenced by events of national tragedy, popular culture or social issues. Often, these film movements are instigated by filmmakers or film critics who develop concepts through discussions on how to craft films and then translate those ideas into cinematic practice.

Check out also at Screenville:

• Nuances in "Art Cinema" History
• Historical map of the aesthetics, schools, trends and genres
• Parallel Histories of World Cinema Developments

Parallel Histories of World Cinema Developments

 

World Cinemas history infography (made in 2012)

Read also at Screenville:

• Historical map of the aesthetics, schools, trends and genres
• Nuances in "Art Cinema" History

Aesthetic Cinema Matrix (New Wave edition)

That's why "New Waves" are not a monolithic "style", each had their own aesthetic penchant, aspirations and contingency

Related :

• Cinema Aesthetic Matrix (Paintings edition)
• Academic Film Styles Matrix / Nuances in "Art Cinema" History
• Cinema Aesthetic Matrix (Anglophone culture edition) 

Movies History According to the USA

If you can spell "neo" and "new wave", namedrop "Spielberg", "Scorsese", "Coppola", "Tarantino", "PTA", "JLG", if you hate the intellectual elite and indulge in your own personal guilty pleasures, if you can make favourite lists and rate movies with a percentage, you're ready to publish in the NYT or Film Comment or any film page in the USA. Don't bother learning cinema history, or how to think critically cause you'll never have to defend your choices or refer to anything else beyond "Neorealism" and "The New Wave"... Make sure to regularly bash anything going on outside of the USA, like film festivals, festival films, and find everything non-Hollywood boring and slow. Don't read the foreign press, and stay at home watching TV instead of saving your arthouse circuit.

The hardest part is probably to synopsize movies every week without ever dealing with "Cinema" material, only treating each title as pure subjective entertainment, but many succeed, it is doable. Never use the word "Cinema", too elitist. Finally, if you see anybody attempt to open a debate about serious issues, make sure to shut it down right away, with raucous contempt and an air of desperate fatigue. Remember your target readership is the 13-to-24 yold spectacle consumer. Even the 24 yolds aren't adult, they're just regressive adulescents, so keep it simple and fun oriented. If it isn't fun reading, then how else could culture be possibly worth reading???

Hollywood has a short memory, they prefer we forget they made bad movies in the past, or not remember the ones they try to remake today (to get us to pay again for something that didn't work the last time). Sure, Hollywood is focused on making profits TODAY. Why should they care if silent films that are not restored are being lost for ever? These are not profitable items! So why bother? Even old Hollywood classics, aren't screened, or restored, or digitized today, because it would add low-profit titles into an already long list of yearly releases. The Hollywood motto is to save ALL commercial screens available for whatever the big studios put out NOW, so they can rack up the optimum opening weekend gross (take the money and run before the first viewers tell others how disappointing it was and ruin the buzz).

If we could understand the financial logic of selfish Hollywood (although a studio should also care about its past culture, or the cinema culture in general, selflessly, at least for a small part), it's harder to understand why movie reviewers would share the exact same imperatives as studio executives... American movie reviewers only care for whatever the American distribution market (i.e. Hollywood) feeds them. They only care for HERE AND NOW. They dread showing interest for something out of fashion already (like last week's release), and are bored by courageous artfilms that don't make B.O. money... If there is no stars, no fun, no surprising plot twists, no exciting edits... they don't care enough to make an effort, and shout it out loudly to show how demanding is the consumer. 

Related :

• Nuances in "Art Cinema" History / Ruptures esthétiques 1-2
• "Asian Minimalism" (Bordwell) / To America Everything Foreign is SLOW / Reductive Foreign Stereotypes / Forgotten Obsolete English word #8: Tradition / Inaccessible Hollywood Movie Narratives 
• Film Theory Branding / Neo-Neo / Wolves are not alone (the critic who cried wolf)
• The sad state of the American "Cinéphile elite" / The myth of an "arthouse circuit" in the USA / Theatrical Ad (ironic) 

S&S 2012 Canon (2) : Numbers

Giving all titles on each ballot the same weight gives a more balanced canon. But the top spots are still way above everyone else, out of reach... This is not a healthy competition, nor a credible one. Even if Vertigo and Citizen Kane are THE best films there ever were (which is at least debatable), they shouldn't be superior to the runner ups by a factor of 2 or 5! Because voters gave 10 titles, not just one on their ballot. The head-start is suspicious, most likely due to the myth surrounding the canon status quo : i.e. These films are always cited as the best films, so I must put them on my ballot or else I'll look like a fool. This kind of mentality allows a given film to raise above the rest by sheer popularity alone. Is Vertigo TWICE as great as Tokyo Story or La règle du jeu, which would justify why it gets nominated twice as many times by voters? Hell no! This is B.S. Maybe in 1930, there were a couple masterpieces that were that much superior to all the rest... But not today, not these titles.

All this becomes mitigated by the fact that Vertigo was only mentioned by 191 voters of a total of 846 participants!!!! That's barely 22.6 % of the voters! That's the GREATEST FILM OF ALL TIME for you... only backed up by less than 1 voter out of 4!!! How great and famous it is then? Not even the FIRST one on the poll is cited by EVERYONE? WTF? And the last on the top50 is "consensual" for 1 voter out of 29.

Let's emphasize this : more than 3 out of 4 alleged "experts" disagree that Vertigo belongs to a top50, and 28 out of 29 "experts" think that La Jetée doesn't belong on a top50, but both films (and all the others between them) end up being enshrined on magazine paper for posterity anyway!

What happens is that there are 50 or 100 people amongst voters who play the rules and vote for the established titles that should most likely top this canon, a convergent goal, a common target, and all the others are just shooting astray for the joke, because they don't take their task seriously enough.

That's what you get when you let people take it easy on a canon contribution, they just push their personal favourites with no regard for the actual titles that MOST EVERYONE should recognize as the CONSENSUAL GREATNESS in film culture. See : Critical Fallacy # 13 : Inconsistent Standards 

* * *

Let's forget about the particular titles cited for a moment, and break down this pseudo-consensus into statistical facts.
With an average of about 3000 films produced in the world every year, the centennial history of cinema tallies, at least, approximately 300,000 films (how many of these have you seen?). 
A Top1000 roughly corresponds to 0.3% of the total of all films that ever existed!!! A Top100 roughly corresponds to 0.03% of the total. A sample of 10 titles roughly corresponds to 0.003% of the total. So we're talking about the absolute ELITE of cinema. These films are not merely supposed to be awesome to you, today, they must be the absolute best according to all possible objective consensual criteria, across over a century of history. And if you've seen 10000 (distinct) films in your lifetime (which isn't the case of the vast majority of voters I safely assume), a ballot of 10 titles corresponds to 0.1% of your movie consumption (put that in regard to all the films you haven't seen!). It's much easier for you to select 10 films out of a 10000 seen, than it is for a canon to elect a Top10 out of  300,000 titles in cinema history.
Think about it : every film on this Top100 canon is there not because voters deemed it worthy of placing in a their Top100, but they promoted them as TOP10 MATERIAL!!! 

TOP 10

AUTEURS : 100% Male
No double citation for a single filmmaker (which happened for Chaplin in 1952, Eisenstein in 62, Bergman in 72, Welles in 72 and 82).  But for such a small sample, it's pointless to draw any conclusions on who's missing from the very top of the pyramid (by genre, decades or language)...

GEOGRAPHY : However it's important to note that the films are predominantly from the Western world. Only 4 films from the East made it in a top10 since 1952 (Ugetsu Monogatari in 62, 72; Seven Samourai in 82; Pather Panchali in 92; Tokyo Story in 92, 02, 12; all with decades-long overdue acknowledgements)... the rest are ALL either from Europe or the USA! If this British-made canon proved to be open to the non-English world (France, Italy, USSR, Denmark, Sweden) it never looked very hard outside of their immediate zone of influence (Asia, South America, Middle East), despite a wide spread presence of the Common Wealth British empire throughout the world...

---

TOP 50

AUTEURS : 98% Male / 2% Female

• 4 Godard
• 3 Coppola, Dreyer, Tarkovsky
• 2 Hitchcock, Ozu, Kurosawa
• 1 Bresson, Renoir, Murnau, Lang, Kubrick, Ford, Eisenstein, Fellini, Vigo, Donen, Antonioni, WKW, Lynch, Lanzmann, Scorsese, De Sica, Keaton, Akerman, Tarr, Truffaut, Rosselini, Wilder, S. Ray, Tati, Pontecorvo, Chaplin, Mizoguchi, Marker, Kiarostami

GEOGRAPHY : 50 North / 0 South - 42 West / 8 East

• 25 Europe / 14 North America / 7 Asia / 1 Middle East / 0 South America / 0 Africa
• 14 USA; 13 France; 6 Italy; 5 USSR, Japan; 2 Denmark, Sweden; 1 Hungary, Iran, India, Germany, China, Belgium

GENRE : 32 Classical / 15 Artfilm / 8 Experimental / 3 Documentary / 2 Musical / 0 Animation / 6 Silent

DECADES : 1920s : 6 / 1930s : 3 / 1940s : 3 / 1950s : 12 / 1960s : 15 / 1970s : 7 / 1980s : 1 / 1990s : 3 / 2000s : 2

LANGUAGE : 14 English / 14 French / 6 Italian / 5 Russian / 5 Japanese...

---

TOP100

AUTEURS :  98% Male / 2% Female

GEOGRAPHY : 99% North / 1% South - 89% West / 11% East

• 63 Europe / 31 North America / 10 Asia / 1 Middle East / 0 South America / 1 Africa
• 31 USA; 22 France; 9 Italy; 7 UK; 6 Japan; 5 USSR, Sweden; 4 Germany; 2 Denmark, Taiwan; 1 India, Iran, Hungary, Belgium, China, Spain, Georgia, Senegal

GENRE : 63 Classical / 29 Artfilm / 11 Experimental / 4 Documentary / 2 Musical / 0 Animation / 11 Silent

DECADES : 1920s (or before) : 10 / 1930s : 7 / 1940s : 9 / 1950s : 25 / 1960s : 21 / 1970s : 14 / 1980s : 6 / 1990s : 5 / 2000s : 3

LANGUAGE : 38 English / 24 French / 9 Italian / 6 Japanese / 5 Russian / 5 Swedish / 4 German...

---

A canon should not be built on representational diversity (in order to make everyone happy, and show a politically correct panel), but we may nonetheless take a look at the quota-free poll results, and detect what are the predilections of the voters (not individually, but as a collegiate mind, as a timely mentality). This lack of diversity does not reflect a meaningless canon, on the contrary (if we can trust the voting standards) this shows the hierarchies of the establishment, and possibly the state of cinema in the world.
*IF* the ballots are educated, the first culprit is the world : other countries outside of Europe and the USA just don't make as many masterpieces as well. Which is partly true, sadly, in all objectivity. There are great films made in the world, but when it comes to elect the 100 best films of all time, the competition level is very high (as evidenced by the quality of the films present).

However, we cannot discount the absence of curiosity of the voting panel (which I suspect mainly  consists of English-speaking reviewers or European, even though the electorate increased from 150 to 846 this year). And there are obvious blind spots, overlooked masterpieces that are never included within the "usual suspects". 

There aren't too many candidates which absolutely do not deserve a spot in a top100... it's always debatable to an extent. Personally I would strike out less than 20. Meanwhile, there are more than 20 that I would add to the roster for being superior to the ones locked in... but these choices are arguable (because they only reflect MY opinion). Even though, the ones overlooked would probably improve the ultimate diversity of the canon. Half of the Hollywood-made films, and even some European ones get a free ride, out of deference for an established reputation, out of habit or familiarity, rather than because they persist to earn their spot against newer films. 

The Silent films were all the rage in the 40ies and 50ies, because cinema was half as old than today, there were less existing films, and the sound era was too inexperienced. Gradually, although very slowly, the silent masterpieces met their match and yielded their spot to newer films. Silent masterpieces are still excellent by all means, but 80 years since the peak of the silent era, cinema history lines up A LOT MORE titles, and the number of great films exploded, while the limited space in a top100 doesn't budge. We must judge past history in comparison to today's greatest achievements. Even if most academics and critics are fond for their impressionable youth, truth is we can make films today as great as in the silent era, or the Hollywood classical golden age for that matter.
I'm glad that the canon-making made adjustments in recent decades, not only by stoping this blind worshipping of Citizen Kane this year, but also by letting go of overrated darlings such as Casablanca, Gone With The Wind, Intolerance, The Wizard of Oz, Jaws, Birth of a Nation, Black Narcissus, The Maltese Falcon, E.T., The Red Shoes, Bonnie and Clyde, Broken Blossom ... which belong to a canon of a bygone era; they just look "dull" alongside the greater masterpieces on a list of only 100 bests. And this is not the arguable part of the canon, they lost their edge a long time ago! 

Did you hear anybody complain about the scandalous lack of women in the canon, like it happens every year for the line up of Cannes??? No. Because these clueless pundits don't give a shit about gender equality... they just have an anti-Cannes axe to grind.

Overall (Top50), Godard gets the most citations (4 titles) but fails to place one film in the top10 (161 votes for all his entries). Meanwhile Welles hugged number one for such a long time, but barely place a second film in the top100 (157 votes in total)... Hitchcock is the winner with the most votes (225) from only 2 films.
However Godard is hardly the greatest filmmaker ever! Hitchcock has a defensible shot at the title, but has been surpassed by the apparition of an Eisenstein, a Ozu, a Bresson, a Kurosawa, a Kubrick, a Tarkovsky, a Lynch, a Kiarostami... They are at least as masterful and perfectionist (and Godard doesn't reach this level of perfection). Why would the "establishment" only want to remember one and kind of underplay/overlook the others? We should see at least some fair competition between them, neck and neck, not such a wide gap of notoriety. Welles and Hitchcock already monopolized the laurels for half a century, it's about time to accept to let go of these safe, convenient idols. It's about time to realise the possibility of cinema to improve the quality level (however paramount in its own time) of the Classical age.

Largely overlooked : South America (Mexico, Argentina most notably), China (and Hong Kong), India (obviously), Iran, Taiwan or South Korea. And in Europe we could cite as well Greece, Spain, Portugal, Czech Republic, Poland, Russia, Romania... Or Canada in North America.

If we take a look at the language spoken in the world (or at least in the world of cinema-producing countries), Chinese (Mandarin), Spanish, English, Hindi, Arabic should dominate film culture... However, only English (mainly thanks to Hollywood) really stands out. India or Japan make the most films in quantity, but unfortunately they don't make the best films in term of quality... there should be more canon-worthy masterpieces in the lot.
If China (Wong Kar-wai, Jia Zhang-ke, Zhang Yimou, Fei Mu, Sun Yu) is a mid-range player in the masterpieces field (except maybe Taiwan with Hou Hsiao-hsien, Edward Yang, Tsai Ming-liang who are Top-range), Japan is one of the world's top players (Ozu, Kurosawa, Mizoguchi, Oshima, Naruse, Kobayashi) and is clearly underrepresented in the canon.

I have to say that given the relatively limited spread of French language in the world, France is making a remarkable show in this Top100 with nearly a 1/4 of the films (and tied with English in the Top50!) for such a small country. And there are still "cinéphiles" who think that Hollywood is THE most important contributor to film culture, auteurism and film literature... But let's be honest, if France objectively deserves one of the top spots in cinema history for all its auteurs, films, critics... a quarter of the Top100 for a single country is way too generous, and denotes an obvious bias in the accounts of the cinema legends.

We can also note that Europe gets almost twice as many spots in the Top100 as the USA does. And this is an English-centric canon made by Sight and Sound (so the bias towards Hollywood and British cinema is overinflated to begin with). Where is the cultural hegemony of Hollywood in the highest spheres of film culture? Everybody keeps talking about it, but I don't see it. Must be a self-affirmative mantra that American reviewers and historians love to tell themselves. MY canon would be more fair toward World Cinema and even less partial for Hollywood.

English and French language films take up 62% of the Top100... which leaves a little more than 1/3rd for all other languages in the world! Is it a fair representation of cinema greatness in the world? Or is it slightly inflated by the exclusivity of self-centric English and French film literature? Objectively we can only recognize this consistent quality in research and development of new film forms... the USA and France do stand out as some kind of leaders in the world of cinema; but maybe not to such extent, and such lopsided fashion, which explains why less obvious countries get shut out of the canon. Marginal countries need more supporters among the "expert-voter" (who would qualify to vote if they were).

Related :

• S&S 2012 Canon (1) : Number 1 
• Presumptuous Best Film in the World 
• The 2012 Sight & Sound Poll [Part 1]: Don’t Call it a Consensus
(Andrea Comiskey & Jonah Horwitz; Antenna; 6 Aug 2012)

Affection vs. Criticism (the incompatible dispute)

In a perfect world, this is how the role playing dialogue between AO Scott and David Carr should have undergone (full script included) :


S = AO Scott (16 years old reviewer, self-proclaimed "institutional weight" of American criticism, who doesn't know how to define criticism when asked to)
C = David Carr (11 years old hypothetical whiner unable to conciliate LIKE with evaluation, and wants ALL critics to AGREE with his whimsical crushes)

THE CHEAP SHOT (New York Fucking Times)

C : "Whoa! Welcome back to The Cheap Shot which is a show about the intersection between inculture and covert product placement for Diet Coke and iPad. If this was TV we wouldn't have to downgrade our discourse cause we already are at the widely accessible level of Fox News's cheapest controversies."

S : "THIS is obviously NOT TV. But this raises the questions : 'What is the press? What is the NYT? should we ape the worst TV makes to beg for attention? Are we dying out? Does it show we are desperate for advertising money?' "

C : "Whoa! Here is a pause from our sponsors offering this Public Service Announcement for those of our readers who might not have learnt basic English in school. Since The NYT is only read by children, let's bring the discourse level to the lowest common denominator. As Dubya said, no child left behind... "

---

PSA : 

TO LIKE : I like, you like, he, she likes, we like, you like, they like, EVERYONE likes. And it doesn't require ANY qualification. Regular verb of the English language referring to a SUBJECTIVE feeling a unique INDIVIDUAL experiences;  "to feel attraction toward or take pleasure in. Synonymous : to enjoy" (Merriam-Webster). Antonym : to dislike (same shit)

TO CRITICIZE : A person QUALIFIED to pass judgments on matters of cinema aesthetics and artistic achievements, through film studies and a considerable amount of film viewing, may deliver an EDUCATED OPINION on a work of art, after a thorough attention, enough reflection time and with the appropriate critical distance to the subject.
"to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly. Synonymous : to evaluate" (Merriam-Webster)

These two verbs DO NOT signify the same thing, they are not interchangeable within the same argument. With one you speak of AFFECTION, with the other you speak of CRITICISM. It is impossible to mix them up.

When two persons argue over the SAME point, one says "I criticized this movie A" and the other rebukes "You said you didn't like this movie A". No, NO, NO! Evaluating a movie doesn't deal with audience feelings towards it, it doesn't judge people's personal reactions, it doesn't patronize people's affection. There is nothing personal in producing an artistic evaluation. And vice versa : one says "I like movie A" and the other retorts "Prove this is a masterpiece then!" No, NO, NO! It is possible to LIKE really bad movies without having to justify why, it is possible to LIKE mediocre movies without trying to shove it in any critically approved top10, it is possible to LIKE a blockbuster like a billion other spectators without making a statement about its timeless merits on a canonical scale.
Not everything you LIKE is or will ever be considered a MASTERPIECE. Nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean your feelings are wrong. It doesn't mean criticism is worthless. Get over it.

---

C : "Whoa! I had no idea. If I opened a dictionary before starting this mock-interview, I wouldn't look so stupid now..."

S : "Dead on, pal! And if my definition of criticism wasn't clouded by decades of anti-intellectualism, I would have said it myself"

C : "Whoa! Fancy-pantsy critics at the NYT don't watch TV and give a 'MIXED review' to critic-proof summer movies such as The Avengers. Why? Why am I making stuff up to overblow hypothetical controversies?"

S : "Yeah we are the lowbrow-hipsters. Walking paradox if there ever was."

C : "Whoa! So mister Critic, do you think it is possible to CRITICALLY pan a commercial blockbuster if it has too many fans? Or should you shit your pants and pretend it's the best film of the year just to pander to our artistically uneducated readership?"

S : "Dude, do you think there are people who read an intellectual paper like the NYT and don't know the difference between To Like and To Criticize? between a personal connection with a cultural product and the evaluation of an artistic achievement in cinema?"

C : "Whoa! Of course. If I didn't know and could still find a job here at The NYT, there must be tons of confused Americans out there. Just look at our political elections, our news channels... and that's the serious side of our society! Confusion is the new gold standard."

S : "So true dude, let's not misunderestimate [sic] the power of American anti-intellectualism. So basically, now I have to explain why it is OK to review a movie regardless for its mercantile exploitation and its fanatical following among consumers?"

C : "Whoa! Exactly. So tell us, what is the point of paying you for the job you do at the NYT?"

S : "Well, I'm only speaking for myself here, but I heard there was something called movie reviewing. Movies come out, you watch them before the general public, and if you can jot down a quick run down of what's going on during the movie, then you're a movie reviewer."

C : "Whoa! sounds pretty simple to me. Reverse engineering of a movie pitch. Why can't you DO your job then? Sam Jackson's tweet said so, therefore I believe it."

S : "I don't have to know how to do a decent job, didn't you see that the NYT publishes inane papers like Dan Kois's anti-vegetable diatribe or Rosenbaum's anti-Bergman obituary? It's not like we have any aspiration for intellectual standards here. You should know, you're a free loader too."

C : "Whoa! So I'll just shut up and listen then."

S : "Yeah, I'm the boss here, everybody bows to my critic's pick. Cause MY taste is supreme, and I'm never wrong. I don't even know why I'm not the only name signing the NYT reviews, they all should be my ghost writers."

C : "Whoa! But you're spoiling the fun for millions of fans... Why so mean?"

S : "Because fans are irrational, their depth of field only sees their object of desire and everyone attacking it. They have zero perspective in a more global scale for the rest of the offers available that could be compared to that movie, and they have a very short term imperative : to win all possible critical accolades that will justify their emotional admiration, regardless of all other films that might deserve it more."

C : "Whoa! You lost me there... Could we go back to the talking points on the Hollywood memo our CEO demanded we recitate? Let's remind our readers that here at the NYT we are open-minded about summer movies, which everybody knows are called 'critic-proof', and that we review them religiously, I mean, fairly."

S : "Oops. Lemme add that we worship, respect consumers. We know at the NYT how to pander to the largest demographics, namely blockbuster audiences. So, instead of saying upfront that a critic's choice has nothing to do with the popularity of a movie and that the general level of Hollywood offering is too mediocre to raise the attention of serious critics and cinephiles, I'll just muddle my way out and talk about how 'real critics' like movies big and small, serious and kiddie ones, great and shitty ones... Yeah, because justifying your open-minded taste means you MUST admit you think bad movies are good... or else you'll never be credible in the USA."

C : "Whoa! You're just defending your posse."

S : "If I was a critic I wouldn't answer to this moronic bait. But since we play-pretend, I'll just ignore the fact you try to dismiss the discipline of film criticism in general as a mere corporate clique only formed of acquaintances I have personal interest in protecting. Instead I'll just play along and validate your anti-intellectual side-stepping."

C : "Whoa! May I pronounce random words like 'warm' and 'cuddly' just to interrupt your tentative explanation of critical evaluation?"

S : "You just did, dude. Thanks for cutting up my sentences in manageable soundbytes, so I can never reach too deep a level of conversation."

C : "Whoa! No problem. I'm here for the punctuation. Wait a second. I need to suck up to you here. I love whatever you write in the NYT *awkward tap on the shoulder*, cause you're America's favorite critic for people who think weekly reviewers are the highest possible standards of critical discourse. And I don't understand anything to world cinema standards anyway."

S : *blushes*

C : "Whoa! Let's cut to a candid interview of another NYT staffer who doesn't know how to defend an intellectual discipline against the discredit of populists.

---

Random source who crashes art exhibition luncheons : "Everybody looking at arts seriously, in the bars, on the Tweeter, all vote. Art criticism is a mess. It's liberating."

---

C : "Whoa! Thanks for your 'insightful' contribution, random source. We'll just ignore it and move on."

S : "After spending all my time looking down on movies, on my peers, on online reviewers... now that I'm on TV, I'll fake humility and define my job as merely formulating and clarifying my own ideas, to enter in a discussion, to engage in a discussion  "

C : "Whoa! I've never seen you participating to an informal discussion with spectators, bloggers, other critics or even your own readers, outside of the NYT office..."

S : "Shuddup! We're pretending I'm Mr. Nice Guy."

C : "Whoa! Sorry to blow up your carefully adjusted cover dude. It was almost believable. Now. If you please, indulge my retarded analogy, where I equate negative criticism to destroying the artwork itself in halves. As if an external evaluation of one prevented everyone else from looking at the piece, whole and untouched."

S : "This is not a progressive kindergarten, douchebag! What critics pursue is excellence, truth, beauty... everything that characterizes my assembly-line industrial reviews at the NYT."

C : "Whoa! There is no such thing as OBJECTIVE excellence, OBJECTIVE truth, OBJECTIVE beauty. There is only YOUR SUBJECTIVE version of it."

S : "If I was a critic, I would kick your ass all the way to the MoMA... or to a decent Art School. There you would learn the reason we use the word ART, and ART CRITICISM. It is precisely because people thought some ancient artifacts deserved to be salvaged from the dereliction of passing time, careless handling, looting and destruction. Without OBJECTIVE canons of beauty, generations after generations of fads wouldn't keep a consistent deference for the same pieces of ART, and make sure to preserve them for future generations coming after them.
But since I'm a failed American reviewer, I will agree with you by fear of the Anti-American bureau, which protects our declaration of independence from Auld European Values. OBJECTIVITY does NOT exist."

C : "Whoa! Hobgoblin!"

S : "Right. Let's bow to Ralph Waldo Emerson together cause INDIVIDUALISM, and the supremacy of personal subjective impressions are more important to our lowbrow culture than any millennium-old canons."

C : "What is the 2500 years longevity of appreciation for Greek Antiquity arts (sculpture, architecture, tragedy, poetry) in comparison to MY irrational LOVE for The Avengers TODAY???? Phidias is a figment of subjectivity. There is no way that golden proportions, harmonious compositions, delicate gestures, sense of scale, mastery of the tools, trans-generational, transnational emotions for the same piece of art would amount to anything we could call a pretty good approximation to OBJECTIVE STANDARDS for what is great art and what isn't."

S : "No idea what you're talking about, or else I would present a case to legitimize the profession of art criticism. If Roger Ebert can't find the words to define what is art before ruling out videogames, why would I know any better? In America, we don't need to bother with technicalities, just blame objectivity and indulge your own navel-gazing fleeting taste. It's just as good. And the best thing is that nobody will ever expose your incompetency."

C : "Whoa! I admire your intellectual courage there. Not that my qualification in such matters gives much credit to yours. Sistine Chapel, The Strokes... same shit. So there must be... 'SOMETHING'. Since we're talking about ART, I'm trying to use undifferentiated words without obvious meanings, to show off that I never took a class in Art History vocabulary. Readers like to feel the writer is as dumb as them, to insure they will never LEARN anything from a newspaper."

S : "Instead of explicating this 'something' which would make our 'show' worthwhile, we'll just leave it at that, and feel good about moving the debate to this amazing cultural level of meaninglessness. Maybe it is impossible to define... who knows? If I was a critic, I'd know because the raison d'être of my job would depend on my understanding of this definition. Thankfully I'm not a critic, and I don't work for a reputable intellectual newspaper, so we're safe."

C : "Whoa! So it's not just because you say so?"

S : "I would hate to think that people formulate their opinion just based on what I say. I'm not interested in mind-control. I will just give a star rating to movies Hollywood distributors want me to see, bash major international film festival which make USA looks bad, and tell my readers what tickets to buy and which ones to boycott, and dumb down American culture as much as humanly possible. But other than that, if you ask me publicly, I will never admit enjoying controlling the mind of NYT readers..."

C : "Whoa! After failing to discuss intelligently about cultural concepts, let's just focus on OURSELVES, books WE wrote, OUR tiny little shameless PERSONAL lives, OUR SUBJECTIVE experiences, and we'll base our definition of what a critic should do or not on our frustrated feelings of being reviewed by others..."

S : "Yeah, doesn't sound any less professional and legit than anything we've babbled so far."

C : "Whoa! So have you, AO, -let me emphasize the condescending tone to childish levels - MELLOWED?"

S (pondering) : "... Maybe. But... but..."

C : "Sounds like a little."

S : "Again, if I was a critic I wouldn't feel my reputation of incorruptible ass-kicker threatened by such an inconsequential remark. But I'm not, so I feel I have to justify myself. And to do so, I'll summon my negative review of a CHILDREN distraction like The Lorax. It makes me mad. See! I ain't afraid of nobody, I can punch defenseless babies in their crib. I'm a tough guy. Look at me drum my alpha-male pecs over bashing superhero movies and children entertainment."

C : "Whoa! You're really making reading the NYT a waste of time."

S (cynically) : "Other than that I'm mellow."

C : "Whoa! Who are you to say you're mellow or not. Who appointed you emperor of all things good and horrible? You're a critic of the NYT, you've got a big box of lightning bolts on your desk. It takes a certain form of arrogance."

S : "Guilty as charged."

C : "Whoa! Now just repeat everything I spell out for you, so I get a testimony on camera of a critic who admits being a douche with an unbearable cynical tone in his voice, OK?"

S : "I'm totally oblivious of the way media can edit stuff and manipulate what an interviewee says, so  OK. If I was a critic I wouldn't play along, but, you know, I'm not."

C : "Whoa! that's perfect. Say : 'I'm arrogant. I over-intellectualize beyond reasonable.' "

S : "I'm arrogant. I over-intellectualize beyond reasonable."

C : "Whoa! Repeat this : 'My constituency is people who wants their fun spoiled by me, people insecure and masochistic, people who need their lives ruined.' "

S : "My constituency is people who wants their fun spoiled by me, people insecure and masochistic, people who need their lives ruined."

C : "Whoa! We now really discredited the profession of film journalist, movie reviewer and film critic, while conforting the anti-intellectual reputation of the NYT."

S : "You're welcome. A job well done indeed."

C : "Whoa! By the way, let's edit this video interview as if we had never seen a well edited movie."

S : "Yeah, great idea! So it will match how badly framed we are. How could anybody question the critical authority of the NYT film pages now? Not any children under the age of 5 at least, we got this segment covered for sure."

C : "Whoa! They are the ones who push parents to buy stuff anyway. Let's focus on them, the rest follow suit."


End............... scene.




Related :

• Repeat Whiner (David Carr) Season 2 Episode 5 
• Subjective Reviewing / Deficiant Subjectivity 
• Contra-contrarianism 4 
• Art Criticism (Wikipedia) / Aesthetics (Wikipedia) / The Concept of the Aesthetic (Stanford)  
• Dan Shaw, Film and Philosophy: Taking Movies Seriously (Wallflower Press, 2008)
• Thomas Wartenberg, Thinking on Screen (Blackwell, 2007)
• Call yourself a critic? (Sam Thorne; Frieze; March 2012)

Movie industries outside Hollywood (Phil Hoad)

Phil Hoad does at The Guardian (a generalist newspaper) what Sight and Sound (a specialized revue comissionned by the BFI!) doesn't do... Educating its readers on stories, facts, understanding of the world cinema market that the national-centric distribution system doesn't want you to know about. The pitiful column by Nick Roddick is hardly and seldomly filling this role, unfortunately (hit or miss). Not to mention, Nick James helpless discernment to involve his redaction into the issues that matter to indie cinema and world cinema... This series could give illuminating ideas to bored Film Comment (ex?) editor, Gavin Smith, who can't be bothered to find a topic for his editorials...

Cinema is a planetary art, because its language is universal and because its aesthetic influences know no borders, even if the audience (and critics) aren't always aware of that. It's been true since its very early age, but more so today in the global village of an international economy, and transnational co-productions. So film discourse should be a global conversation. Unfortunately, the film press didn't evolve along with cinema productions, and remained stubbornly insular. There is virtually zero communication between critics working in separate distribution markets... like if cinema literature was zone-restricted like a blu-ray disk! Language is a strong barrier, obviously, but intellectuals/educators in charge of running a cinephile revue should (must) be more polyglot than the average spectator, and help readers to open their mind to the rest of the world. Even when they meet at festivals, they barely talk to eachothers, and when they do, they just exchange commonplace assumptions and reinforce their own domestic clichés. 

Phil Hoad's "After Hollywood" series so far (index here) :

• Will Hollywood ever conquer Bollywood? (14 Feb 2012) 
• Whatever happened to the American blockbuster? (7 Feb 2012)
• Is Jeta Amata Nollywood's gift to Hollywood? (1 Feb 2012)
• The Parade is the pride of Serbia (24 Jan 2012) 
• The Russians are coming: is 2012 the year of the bear in film? (17 Jan 2012)
• Britflicks abroad: Can The Inbetweeners Movie fly the flag? (10 Jan 2012)
• Cinema is terraforming, but Hollywood is still the heavyweight champ (3 Jan 2012)
• The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo rethinks the Hollywood remake (20 Dec 2011)
• Runaway reels: what happened to California's dream film location? (14 Dec 2011)
• Vive la révolution! How France's urban films merked the mainstream market (8 Dec 2011)  
• Playing to home audiences keeps Turkey's cinema scene cooking (22 Nov 2011)   
• Do South Koreans actually love film? (15 Nov 2011)
• Can cinema help China tackle 4,000 years of history? (8 Nov 2011)  
• Has Steven Spielberg lost his mojo? (1 Nov 2011)
• UAE's film industry – all talk no action? (27 Oct 2011)
• Why does Amélie's sweet smell of success linger on? (18 Oct 2011)
• Don Gato – aka Top Cat – rides the crest of a Mexican wave (11 Oct 2011)
• Attack of the clones: Hollywood's mutant movies are on the march (4 Oct 2011)
• Has Hollywood cracked China? (27 Sep 2011)
• Australia's Red Dog: does this underdog know enough tricks to travel? (20 Sep 2011)
• Back in action: the fall and rise of Hong Kong film (13 Sep 2011)
• Can Indian film ever go global? (6 Sep 2011)
• Will Egypt's revolution extend to the cinema? (30 Aug 2011)
• The Smurfs in the US: Something borrowed, something blue (23 Aug 2011)
• Why Brazil's favela films remain flavour of the noughties (18 Aug 2011)
• The rise of the international box office (11 Aug 2011)

Related :

• World Cinema Stats index / World Cinema Online Resource 
• Artificial barriers against free circulation of world cinema
• Cultural Diversity Awareness series

Impasse 1931 (Soupault)

COURRIER DE NEW YORK

Philippe Soupault

La Revue du Cinéma, n° 28, 1er novembre 1931

Bien que cette année, grâce à des metteurs en scène comme [Lewis] Milestone (The Front Page [1931]), King Vidor (Street Scene [1931]), Mamoulian (City Streets [1931]), Richard Wallace, [Josef von] Sternberg, [Wesley] Ruggles, les progrès du cinéma américain paraissent dépasser le seul domaine technique, nous avons jugé intéressant de publier ces notes pessimistes de Philippe Soupault sur la production américaine courante. — (N.D.L.D.)

LE REGNE DU CINÉMA AMÉRICAIN EST-IL FINI ?

Le cinéma aux Etats-Unis n'est plus une distraction mais une habitude. Les Français vont au café, les Américains aux "movies". Il m'était sans doute plus facile qu'à beaucoup d'autres de mes compatriotes d'adopter cette habitude et par curiosité, par entraînement, puis bientôt par habitude, j'allais trois ou quatre fois par semaine assister aux projections de films qui, selon ce qu'affirmait la publicité, toujours tapageuse, étaient de grands succès.

J'ai donc vu tant à New York qu'à Philadelphie ou dans les villes de moindre importance, une quarantaine de films représentant le "meilleur" de la production américaine de 1931.

J'avoue que cette expérience m'a beaucoup déçu. Je passerais rapidement en revue les films les plus caractéristiques et ceux qu'on prétendait être sensationnels, mais il importe auparavant d'indiquer que de France nous ne pouvons juger en toute sincérité et en connaissance de cause la production d'Hollywood parce que nous n'en connaissons qu'une sélection, des extraits plus ou moins judicieusement choisis pour l'Europe et que nous ignorons les films médiocres ou seulement moyens. C'est pourtant par ces derniers films que nous pouvons réellement juger des progrès ou de la décadence du cinéma d'un pays. Pour illustrer d'un exemple ce que j'avance, je citerai le cas des Américains qui estiment que le cinéma français est actuellement en grands progrès, parce qu'ils n'ont vu l'an dernier qu'un seul film : Sous les toits de Paris [1930/René Clair].

En relisant mes notes, en rassemblant mes souvenirs, je suis bien obligé de constater que le cinéma américain ne représente plus une véritable force, qu'il perdra peu à peu son prestige et sa diffusion et pour cette raison assez simple qu'il est incapable de se renouveler. Il perd le souffle. Au point de vue technique, photographie, sons, découpages, luxe, interprétation, les Américains sont encore très puissants et ils perfectionnent encore tous ces moyens, qui, il faut le souligner, ont, sans aucun doute, une très grande importance pour la production d'un film. Mais cette perfection technique, ils la mettent au service de metteurs en scène qui ne peuvent les utiliser avec plus ou moins de talent que pour des films sans grandeur, sans inspiration et sans véritable valeur artistique. Ce sont tantôt des comédies à la manière anglaise, sentimentale et pleurnicharde, tantôt des drames qui font penser aux moins bonnes pièces d'Henry Bataille, tantôt des histoires de gangsters qui sont des répertoires de films qui eussent il y a quelques années remporté un grand succès, tantôt enfin des opérettes un peu bébêtes. Tous ces genres de films ne sont somme toute que des imitations de vieux films qui "rapportèrent de fortes sommes". Ils négligent le véritable esprit du cinéma, ignorent la possibilité de se servir d'un appareil sonore sinon pour enregistrer des dialogues qui font regretter le mutisme des anciens films.

La plupart des films que j'ai pu voir sont presque toujours des scènes de théâtre filmées dans des studios. Le grand air, l'atmosphère, tout l'inconnu et la puissance de la vie sont absents. On serait tenté de se dire que ces erreurs sont momentanées et que bientôt les metteurs en scène s'apercevront qu'ils sont engagés dans une mauvaise voie. Dans aucun film, à aucun moment je n'ai eu la sensation qu'il pouvait y avoir une chance de salut et bien au contraire, plus je voyais de films, plus j'avais l'impression que les metteurs en scène s'enfonçaient dans cette impasse.

On apportera au cinéma américain des perfectionnements techniques, mais je doute fort que la qualité des films s'améliore réellement. Le public, qui est le grand maître, accepte tout sans protester et sans même manifester le moindre dégoût ou une quelconque lassitude. A sa décharge, il faut signaler qu'il n'a aucun point de comparaison. Les films allemands ou russes que l'on peut voir à New York sont annoncés mais on ne fait aucune publicité. En réalité, on ne les exploite pas commercialement et je me suis souvent demandé naïvement si ce silence dont on entoure les films étrangers n'est pas volontaire.

Le public s'endort et ne réagit plus.

Examinons ce qu'on lui présente. D'abord, les plus "grands succès" :

[revue détaillée du scénario de The Millionnaire, 1931/John G. Adolfi]

J'ai analysé un peu longuement ce film car il représente actuellement d'une façon assez précise le genre qui plaît aux Américains moyens, celui que les sociétés productrices s'appliquent à suivre. Dans la même catégorie, on peut encore ranger un outre grand succès : Daddy long legs (Papa longues jambes)

[1931/Alfred Santell], film sentimental au dernier degré avec Sonet Gayrtor dans le rôle de l'orpheline... N'insistons pas.

Un autre genre qui plaît moins, qui compte de nombreux partisans chez les puritains, est celui des tragédies qui font penser aux plus mauvaises pièces d'Henry Bataille agrémenté d'une morale destinée à couvrir de fleurs la femme américaine et à faire triompher la vertu après avoir puni le vice.

Le film le plus caractéristique que j'ai vu fut les Femmes n'aiment qu'une fois [Women love once, 1931/Edward Goodman], avec Eleanor Boardman et Paul Lukas. Mais on peut encore citer les films dont Norma Shearer est la vedette, notamment Une âme libre (A Free Soul [1931/Clarence Brown]), ces derniers étant plus hypocrites d'ailleurs, puisque les trois quarts de ces films nous font assister à des scènes plus ou moins scandaleuses mais assez excitantes, pour nous conduire au dénouement où, enfin, la morale est sauve.

Il y a encore les films plus ou moins truqués de gangsters qui, à vrai dire, sont loin de valoir les premiers films de ce genre. Dans ces films, de nouveau, il faut à tout prix sauver la morale, et les metteurs en scène, sans doute pour faire les sujets moins choquants, nous montrent avec preuves à l'appui et avec insistance que le vice est toujours puni. Après avoir assisté à Young Donovan's Kid [1931/Fred Niblo] (avec Richard Dix), à Night Nurse [1931/William Wellman] (avec Barbara Stanwyck), à The Vice Squad [1931/john Cromwell] (avec Paul Lukas), on finit par trouver que ce métier de gangster est décidément démoralisant.

Le genre opérette sévit mais semble obtenir moins de succès. Il faut citer un très mauvais film avec Jeanette MacDonald et Victor Mac Laglen, les Affaires d'Anabelle [I pastici di Anabella 1931/Alfred Werker], et une production assez remarquable (que l'on verra prochainement à Paris) de Ernst Lubitsch, avec Maurice Chevalier, le Lieutenant souriant [The Smiling Lieutenant, 1931] où apparaît une nouvelle actrice, très étrange : Miriam Hopkins.

Un film de guerre. Chances [1931/Allan Dwan], avec Douglas Fairbanks junior, sans intérêt, un film exotico-policier, très bête, avec Warner Oland, The Black Camel [1931/Hamilton McFadden], et une très mauvaise copie de A girl in every port [1928/Howard Hawks], Women of all nations [1931/Raoul Walsh], avec Victor Mac Laglen. Pour achever le bilan de la production cinématographique américaine de 1931, it me faut encore parler de quelques films assez particuliers mais qui ne relèvent pas le niveau.

Le premier des films sur lequel il faut insister est celui où Will Rogers, s'inspirant d'un roman de Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee [1931/David Butler], s'amuse à faire une satire politique. Will Rogers est cet étrange journaliste qui fut d'abord cow-boy, puis en jouant le naïf publia des articles où il disait bêtement la vérité. Ces articles eurent, il y a quelques années, un succès étourdissant. Will Rogers fit alors des tournées de conférences où il utilisait toujours le même système. Enfin, il fit du cinéma. Peut-on d'ailleurs appeler du cinéma cette conférence plus ou moins déguisée ? Son film n'est d'ailleurs pas ennuyeux.

Enfin, le film sensationnel que l'on présenta à New York cet été fut la nouvelle production de Josef von Sternberg, An American Tragedy [1931], d'après le roman de Théodore Dreiser. C'est indiscutablement un film intéressant, digne de Sternberg, mais qui montre que le sujet n'était pas capable d'inspirer réellement le metteur en scène et d'autre part que Sternberg a mal composé son film, puisque la deuxième partie qui retrace les différents détours d'un procès nous paraît longue et souvent monotone.

Pour achever ce jugement trop rapide, il faut encore remarquer que les films comiques présentés, sauf ceux de Laurel et Hardy, sont franchement mauvais et d'un humour très laborieux.

Le seul domaine où des progrès sont à signaler est celui des dessins animés. Un renouvellement est à signaler. Des nouvelles recherches sont constamment tentées. Le public, d'ailleurs, est très conscient de ces progrès et fait un énorme succès aux dessins animés.

En résumé, l'on peut écrire que la production américaine de 1931 est quelconque. On ne sent, sauf dans la technique, aucune nouveauté. Il manque au cinéma américain un esprit neuf, une tendance. Les producteurs piétinent. Les metteurs en scène en général semblent prisonniers des formules. Les scénarios sont des imitations d'imitations.

Après avoir assisté à tant de films on ne peut être que pessimiste et l'on ne craint pas d'affirmer que selon toute probabilité le règne du cinéma américain s'achève.

Soupault avait tord et raison à la fois. Le règne d'Hollywood est loin d'être achevé... ni dans les années qui suivirent (l'Age d'Or du cinéma Classique Hollywoodien restait à venir!), ni encore aujourd'hui (80 ans plus tard). Mais il avait tout à fait raison sur la nature de cette décadence et sur l'impasse scénaristique et maniériste de la mentalité du Studio Hollywoodien, qui lui n'a pas changé de nos jours. On pourrait faire exactement les mêmes remarques sur les défauts du film de studio en 2010 :

• habitude blasée des spectateurs
• publicité affirmative et tapageuse
• médiocrité majoritaire de la production
• exportation sélective de la crème de la crème
• incapacité à se renouveler
• technique impeccable, perfectionnements technologiques incompris et mal domptés
• comédies sentimentales et pleurnichardes, répertoire de gangsters, opérettes bébêtes (musicals) : imitations de vieux films
• scènes de théâtre filmées
• le public accepte tout sans protester, sans lassitude, s'endort et ne réagit plus
• silence volontaire autour des films étrangers !!! (voir American Isolationism)
• faire triompher la vertu et punir le vice
• érotisme hypocrite
• mauvaises satires politiques
• les scénarios sont des imitations d'imitations !!! (voir Old, New, Borrowed, Déjà-vu)

Ils négligent le véritable esprit du cinéma [..] Le grand air, l'atmosphère, tout l'inconnu et la puissance de la vie sont absents. [..] Il manque au cinéma américain un esprit neuf, une tendance. Les producteurs piétinent. Les metteurs en scène en général semblent prisonniers des formules. Les scénarios sont des imitations d'imitations.

Plus ça change et moins ça change... Le cinéma américain reste englué, 80 ans après (!), dans la répétition ad nauseum de ses recettes toute faites, et ce malgré le souffle apporté par le classicisme de qualité des années 40, et le cinéma indépendant des années 70, qui n'ont vraisemblablement laissé aucun héritage créatif à la production d'aujourd'hui!

Lire aussi d'autres articles de Philippe Soupault sur ce blog :

• Balbutiements en 1929
• Décadence 1929

Related:

• Stéréotypique

2008 Crisis in links

(Photo : Athens, Decembre 2008, a real crisis)

Digest calendar of Film Criticism "Crisis" related articles/events or dealing with the evolution of cinema practice/market and the definition of what is supposed to be Film Criticism today. Don't you like the internet open access archive where you can list such a bibliography accessible instantly at once without running to the libraries? I do. This is a selective list of links starting in December of last year. Please add in the comments anything of interest that I may have forgotten/overlooked. In brackets are links to my take on them posted at Screenville.

DECEMBER 2007

• Vertigo UK : "The Belgrade Manifesto" (12-2-2007) [at Screenville]
  
• "Fonctions Critiques" Roundtable at Cahiers #629 (issue Dec 2007) [FRENCH]
  
  • "Les critiques des CdC et les forumeurs" at the Cahiers forum (12-05-2008) [FRENCH]
• "5 Steps to a Better View. Resolutions to improve NYC film culture in 2008" By S.T. VanAirsdale at The Village Voice (12-25-2008)

JANUARY 2008

• A Pinewood Dialogues with J. Hoberman and A.O. Scott (01-05-2008) J. Hoberman's 30 years career. [at Screenville]
  

MARCH 2008

• Jonathan Rosenbaum retires from The Chicago Reader (03-01-2008) audio podcast / video interview
  
• "Budding Channels of Peripheral Cinema. The Long Tail of Global Film Circulation" By Dina Iordanova (03-02-2008) [at Screenville]
  
• Responsabilities of Criticism (03-12-2008) NYU with Jonathan Rosenbaum, Adrian Martin & Nicole Brenez
  
  • "From the NYU Film Criticism Workshop" By Kevin Lee (03-14-2008) part 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 [at Screenville]
  • "The Said Comes From the Seen" By Filmbrain at Like Anna Karina's Sweater (03-22-2008)
• "Movie critics: Pros and cons" By Jim Emerson (03-25-2008)
• The Reeler : Lower Your Voice: Nathan Lee Laid Off For "Economic Reasons" (03-27-2008) By S.T. VanAirsdale
  
• Variety : "And Then There Were None: Critics on Death Watch" By Peter Debruge (03-27-2008)
  

APRIL 2008

• NYT : "Now on the Endangered Species List: Movie Critics in Print" By David Carr (04-01-2008)
  
• Variety : "Times changing for film critics. Younger generation shuns print for web" By Anne Thompson (04-03-2008)
  
• "Où va la critique de cinéma?" (04-07-2008) Le ciné-club de La Femis with Antoine de Baecque, Hervé Joubert-Laurencin, Nicolas Klotz, Sandrine Marques [FRENCH] [at Screenville]
  
• "The Death of the Print Critic" By Kevin Carr at FilmSchoolReject (04-07-2008)
  
• LAT : "Are they still relevant? Everyone’s a critic." By Patrick Goldstein (04-08-2008)
  
• "Fireworks" By Michael Atkinson (04-09-2008)
  
• Moving Image Institute in Film Criticism and Feature Writing (04-10-2008) With Rochelle Slovin, David Schwartz, Dennis Lim, Michael Barker, Heather Chaplin, Harris Dew, Julie Fontaine, Amy Geller, Carl Goodman, Ed Halter, Molly Haskell, Eugene Hernandez, Tom Kalin, Michael Koresky, Donald Krim, Ellen Kuras, Susan Norget, Gerald Peary, Arthur Penn, Bingham Ray, Kelly Reichardt, Andrew Sarris, Matt Zoller Seitz, Cynthia Swartz, A.O. Scott, S. T. VanAirsdale, Ryan Werner
  
  • Panel with Andrew Sarris & Molly Haskell audio webcast at MI (01-15-2009) 1h20'
    
  • "Leaping and bounding towards… what? The Moving Image Institute starts today" By Kevin Lee at Shooting Down Pictures (04-10-2008) part 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4
  • Moving Image Institute By Doug Cummings at Film Journey (04-13-2008) part 1 - 2 - 3 - 4
  • "Critics v Bloggers Redux (Or: I've heard that song before...)" By Filmbrain at Like Anna Karina's Sweater (04-17-2008)
  • The Guardian : "The view: Is the film critic done for?" By Danny Leigh (04-18-2008)
  • "In a Time of Change, Pondering the Tension Between New Film Journalism and Old" By Eric Kohn at indieWIRE (04-18-2008)
• "La fin de la critique?" By Edouard Waintrop at Libération (04-11-2008) [FRENCH]
  
• Tom O'Neil bashes Sunrise in the LA Times (04-15-2008)
• "Etoiles, pouces et critiques" By Edouard Waintrop at Libération (04-18-2008) [FRENCH]
  
• Le Monde puts up Cahiers du cinéma for sale (04-24-2008) in Libération [FRENCH]
  
• GreenCine Daily : "Critics" By David Hudson (04-24-2008)
  
• New York Press : "What We Don't Talk About When We Talk About Movies. Armond White takes aim at the critics who write with their thumbs" By Armond White (04-30-2008)

JUNE 2008

• "Where Have All the Film Critics Gone?" by Vincent Rossmeier at The Brooklyn Rail (June 2008)
  
• "Thanks a pantload, Michael Atkinson (updated)" By Glenn Kenny (06-09-2008)
  
• "Film criticism: It's not just a job, it's an adventure" By Jim Emerson (06-11-2008)
  
• Rethinking film criticism and theory: Commemorating the 90th anniversary of André Bazin (06-12-2008) Shanghai, China
• "Tartan Films, RIP" By Filmbrain at Like Anna Karina's Sweater (06-29-2008)
  

JULY 2008

• CinEditions roundtables at La Cinémathèque Française (07-03-2008) With Manoel de Oliveira, Antonio Tabucchi, Aki Kaurismäki, Pascal Mérigeau, Gérard Fromanger, Didier Daeninckx, Thierry Lefebvre, Sébastien Layerle, Bernard Benoliel, Claire Vassé, Michel Chion, Catherine Breillat, Jacques Doillon, Pascal Bonitzer, Costa-Gavras, Sergio Vecchio, Florence Delay, Luc Dardenne, Jorge Semprún, Hugo Vieira da Silva, Radu Mihaileanu, Costa-Gavras, Serge Toubiana, Thierry Magnier, Chloé Mary, Malika Ferdjoukh, Nathalie Bourgeois, Carole Desbarats, Charlotte Garson, Alexandre Tylski, Joachim Lepastier, Julien Gester, Frédéric Bas, Luc Lagier, N.T. Binh., Bernard Payen, Alain Cavalier, Michel Marie, Antoine de Baecque, Laurent Le Forestier [FRENCH]
  
  • "La critique de cinéma et le défi internet : de la revue au blog" video at CinEditions (07-06-2008) With Alexandre Tylski, Joachim Lepastier, Julien Gester, Frédéric Bas, Luc Lagier, N.T. Binh. [FRENCH]

AUGUST 2008

• "Everything is Cinema and Criticism is Nothing" By Ed Howard at Only The Cinema (08-02-2008)
  

SEPTEMBRE 2008

• Cineaste (Septembre issue) : A Critical Symposium (09-01-2008)
  
  • "Critics vs. Bloggers, Chapter 387: The Cineaste Critical Symposium" By Filmbrain at Like Anna Karina's Sweater (09-05-2008)
  • "On Film Criticism : Cineaste" By Pamela Kerpius (09-10-2008)
• "Continuity and Innovation: Contemporary Film Form and Film Criticism" An International Conference at the University of Reading (09-05-2008)
• Film Quarterly : "The Rise and Fall of Film Criticism" By Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (issue Fall 2008, Vol. 62, N°1) PDF (09-05-2008)
• "L'état du monde du cinéma" Interview with Charles Tesson in Spectres du Cinéma (09-06-2008) PDF [FRENCH]
  
• Eyeweekly TIFF roundtable (09-15-2008) videos With Jason Anderson, Adam Nayman, Robert Koehler, Scott Foundas, Mark Peranson and Andrew Tracy
  
• "'Critic' is a four-letter word" By Roger Ebert (09-18-2008)
  
• Film Criticism in Crisis? at NYFF (09-27-2008) With Jonathan Rosenbaum, Emmanuel Burdeau, Kent Jones, David Hudson, Jessica Winter, Pascual Espiritu, Seung-hoon Jeong, Gavin Smith
  
  • GreenCine Daily (post NYFF roundtable) podcast By Andrew Grant & Aaron Hillis with Jonathan Rosenbaum, Gavin Smith, David Hudson (09-30-2008)

OCTOBRE 2008

• Sight&Sound (October issue) : Who needs critics? / Critics on Critics (10-01-2008)
  
• "The state of film criticism" By Adrian Martin at Valdivia Film Festival, Chile (10-08-2008) With Lorena Cancela, Gonzalo Maza, Iván Pinto, Quintín, Adrian Martin, Juan Pablo Miranda [at Screenville]
  
• British Publisher Phaidon picked up by Le Monde as potential buyer for Cahiers (10-15-2008) in Libération [FRENCH]
• "Film International Special Issue on Film Festivals (Vol. 6, Issue 4)" By Michael Guillen at The Evening Class (10-28-2008) [at Screenville]
  
• "Cinephilia in India: a search for love and identity" By Nitesh at Winds from the East (10-31-2008)
  
• "Do Film Critics Have a Future? Who Cares?" By David Sterritt at The Huffington Post (10-31-2008)
  

NOVEMBRE 2008

• "Movie Criticism Before (and After) Blogging" interview with Gerald Peary at BU Today (11-12-2008) about his documentary For the love of movies. The story of American film criticism (2007)
• "Active Criticism. The role of film criticism today" Cahiers Seminar at the Estoril Festival, Portugal (11-15/16-2008) With Alain Bergala, Serge Toubiana, Arnaud Mace, Jean-François Rauger, Jordi Costa, Carlos Herdero, Paolo Mereghetti, Enrico Ghezzi, Angel Quintana Morraja, Genevieve Troussier, Peter Vonbagh, Jonathan Romney, Tahar Chickhaoui, Francisco Ferreira, Nick James, Martim Dale, João Lopes
  
  • "Votre blog est nul" By Serge Toubiana at La Cinémathèque Française (11-19-2008) [FRENCH]
• Interview of A.S. Hamrah at TischFilmReview (11-16-2008) [at Screenville]
• NYT : "The Way We Live Now : The Screening of America" By AO Scott (11-21-2008)
  
• "La crisis que faltaba" By Quintin at La Lectora Provisoria (11-24-2008) on the crisis of the festival Mar Del Plata [SPANISH]
  
• Ouvrir Bazin, U. Paris-Diderot (11-25-2008) With André S. Labarthe, Olivier Faivre, Raymond Bellour, Antoine de Baecque, Hervé Joubert-Laurencin, Steven Ungar, Marc Vernet, Angella Dalle Vacche, Dudley Andrew, Marc Cerisuelo, Rochelle Fack, Jean-François Chevrier, Bruno Tackels, Diane Arnaud, Florence B. de Courville, Jean Narboni, Philip Watts, Seugnhoon Jeong, Diana Lemberg, Grant Wiedenfield, Nicolas Thys, Ryan Cook, Jeremi Szaniawski, Michael Cramer [at Screenville]
  
• "Death to film critics! Hail to the CelebCult!" By Roger Ebert (12-26-2008)
  
  • "A refusal to mourn the death, by downsizing, of the metro daily film crit corps"; "The era of the “mom and pop film critic” is over"; "The Hitsville mosh pit: Whither the film critic?"; By Bill Wyman at Hitsville (12-01-2008)

DECEMBRE 2008

• Interview with André Habib at Le Silo (12-03-2008) [FRENCH]
  
• Open Bazin, U. Yale (12-04-2008) With Dudley Andrew, Antoine de Baecque, Hervé Joubert-Laurencin, Steven Ungar, Angella Dalle Vacche, Rochelle Fack, Bruno Tackels, Diane Arnaud, Dominque Bluher, Philip Rosen, Tom Conley, Ludovic Cortade, Tom Gunning, Daniel Morgan, Daniel Stern, John MacKay, Monica Dall’Asta, James Tweedie, Ivone Margulies, Prakash Younger, Colin MacCabe, Jean-Michel Frodon
  
• Où va le cinéma? Inter-professional symposium on the state of cinema in Paris (12-04-2008) With Vincent Dieutre, Chris Dercon, Ariane Michel, Dominique Gonzales-Foerster, Heinz Peter Schwerfel, Caroline Champetier, Charles de Meaux, Jean-Charles Fitoussi, Emmanuel Finkiel, Gilles Gaillard, Benoît Labourdette, Eugène Green, Alain Guiraudie, Christophe Honoré, Mia Hansen-Love, Jean-Marc Lalanne, Olivier Assayas, Claire Denis, Bruno Dumont, Daniel Deshays, Marianne Alphant, André Habib, Hervé Joubert-Laurencin, Joachim Lepastier, Olivier Séguret, Marcos Uzal, Jennifer Verraes, Julien Gester, Emmanuel Bourdieu, Serge Bozon, Valérie Mréjen, Joana Hadjithomas, Khalil Joreige, Omar Berrada, Frederick Wiseman, Nicolas Philibert, Bouchra Khalili, Serge Kaganski, Eric Altmayer, Pascale Cassagnau, Corinne Castel, Frédérique Dumas, Denis Freyd, Sylvie Pialat, Bertrand Bonello, Pascale Ferran, Stéphane Goudet, Benoit Jacquot, Olivier Meneux, Jean-Jacques Rue, Roger Rotmann, Valérie Jouve, Mark Lewis, Clemens von Wedemeyer, Philippe-Alain Michaux, Philippe Avril, Joachim Lafosse, Tudor Giurgiu, Pablo Trapero, Liew Seng Tat [FRENCH] [at Screenville]
  
  • "Qui sait où va la critique : l'Enquête" Le Silo survey on film critics (12-04-2008) With Emmanuel Burdeau, Jean-Michel Frodon, Hervé Joubert-Laurencin, Raymond Bellour, André Habib, Christian Lebrat, Antoine Guillot, Raphaël Bassan, Christa Blümlinger [FRENCH] [at Screenville]
    
    • HarryTuttle's questionnaire at Screenville (01-03-2009)
      
  • "Où va la critique? nouveaux objets, nouveaux supports, nouveaux enjeux" Film criticism panel in Paris (12-05-2008) With André Habib, Hervé Joubert-Laurencin, Joachim Lepastier, Julien Gester, Olivier Séguret, Marcos Uzal, Jennifer Verraes [FRENCH] [at Screenville]
• Deadline Hollywood Daily : "Hungry For More At LA Times" By Scott Foundas (12-09-2008) [at Screenville]
• Variety : "Young reviewers put passion over profit. New voices often find themselves writing for free" By Peter Debruge (12-12-2008)
• GreenCine Daily : "Hard Times." By David Hudson (12-14-2008)
• The House Next Door : HND@Grassroots (12-18-2008) NYC audio podcast with Peter Debruge, John Lichman, Vadim Rizov, Michael Joshua Rowin, Andrew Schenker, Keith Uhlich, S.T. VanAirsdale, and Lauren Wissot
  
• NYT : "In the Big Picture, Big-Screen Hopes" By Manohla Dargis (12-18-2008) + audio webcast [at Screenville]

JANUARY 2009

• GreenCine Daily : "2009 Resolutions for Film Criticism" Audio podcast by Aaron Hillis (01-01-2009) With David Fear, Joshua Rothkopf, Matt Zoller Zeist
  
• Vinyl is podcast : "An unfocused invitation to holler on criteria" Audio podcast by Ryland Walker Knight (01-04-2009) with Kevin Lee, Keith Uhlich, Dan Callahan
• "2008 Film Crit Summits" By HarryTuttle at Screenville (01-05-2008)
• Finally Cahiers officially announces being purchased by Phaidon ! (01-05-2008)
• "Approaches to Critiquing" By Kshitiz Anand at Winds From The East (01-13-2008)
• "The Delhi Manifesto" at Winds from The East (01-16-2008)