I've been meaning to work this out, but never quite got around to it. I like movies, a lot. Always have. (There was a falling-out once, but we've made up since then.) And of course it becomes something I think about when I get the chance, which isn't often these days. So this is just trying out some thoughts...
I've had several conversations with folks who will say things like "I don't like war films" or "Drama's stupid, I like comedies." Those kinds of statements never used to make me wonder, but now they do.
"Why?" you ask. Because it seems to me that they are basically saying they have no interest in film. What I mean by this is that they're more interested in a certain kind of movie than in the medium of film itself. If they were interested in the medium, they would want to know what could be done with it - in terms of writing, or cinematography, etc. - in any genre whatsoever. They'd read up on film, take a class. Some do, but many don't. So they prefer this form of the art, not the art itself.
(I'm not talking here about conditioned, negative repulsions. Some people are highly sensitive to violence, and avoid films with a lot of it. I respect that. It's a separate matter that is up to the individual to address. What I'm talking about here is a positive attraction to some genres and indifference to others.)
Now here's where it gets a little tougher for me, because I risk stepping on people's toes. Movies, whatever they deal with, if they have anything to say, say something about the human condition. That goes for your slasher flicks as well as the musicals. If they didn't, there wouldn't be anything interesting in them except the medium itself. Even your animal adventures speak to man, by showing our kinship to the animals. So, in limiting your moviegoing to a few genres, you limit the dialogue that's occurring in the darkened theater.
Also, people tend anymore to identify themselves with their interests. (This is especially true with music.) Some people, when they say they like comedies, tend to be talking about themselves - "I have a good sense of humor, I like to laugh,..." It's the "Soundtrack of Your Life" syndrome: the music for who I am, the movie that expresses me. Le film, c'est moi.
And now for the real toe-stepping: I can think of no other word for this than fetishism. If you say you like movies but you only like certain kinds, that's a fetish. Which, by that logic, would mean there's a whole of fetish going on. (I'm not talking here about conditioned repulsions. Some people are highly sensitive to violence, and avoid films with a lot of it. That is a separate matter that is up to the individual to answer for him/herself. What I'm talking about here is an attraction to some genres and indifference to others.)
"You self-righteous bastard! You think you're better than us?" Am I above this fetishism? Am I saying that I am holier than thou, who callest thyself a moviegoer? In terms of film, yes - but I've got my own fetishes in other departments. Music, for instance: I've got definite tastes there, though little by little I'm trying to get over them. Reggae, for example, I just can't listen to it. But it's very popular, and there are great names in there, so it speaks to many people. So my theory is equally identifying a weak spot in moi-self, even while it's talking about movies.
"So why are you posting this? is it somehow timely or relevant to the news?" No, I just wanted to know what you thought about it. Comments and criticisms are all welcome. Dear readers, both of you and your thoughts matter to me.
Addendum: It might be objected that folks are simply unaware of the medium, which is why they have no interest in it. To some extent I can agree, but the degree of self-consciousness within the media makes this claim hard to uphold. The Simpsons is unbelievably ironic and metacritical. Film in particular has long made movies about...making movies; Singin' in the Rain comes to mind, or Borat today. Or little reminders that jolt us out of the genre - The English Patient, when Kristin Scott Thomas bangs her head against a low beam in a room, and breaks the romantic spell that has been set up to that point. Or the brilliant machine-gun shot in Miller's Crossing - yeah, the one where Albert Finney seems to make a day filling one guy full of lead. The outtakes at the end of every Jackie Chan flick. All these things remind us: "This is film, you guys."
And you know damn well it's going to come out on DVD - most likely with the extra features, including "The Making of ___," which are so obviously planned into the whole production from the beginning! When filmmakers themselves exploit this sort of meta-comment regularly, isn't it hard not to notice it yourself? Or have they effectively buried the message?
(Image involuntarily donated by http://cubeme.com/blog/?s=lynch&x=0&y=0)
2 comments:
I would say "'fetish' or 'preference'?"
I never watch slasher films not just because I have a weak stomach for violence but also because I don't have high hopes for the genre. I'll watch a film with violence (albeit sometimes through the cracks between my fingers), if I think there's a point to or a good use for the violence (for example, I tend to prefer war films that are realistically bloody -- futility of war and all that). If someone told me there was an intelligent slasher film out there, I'd watch it, if I sufficiently trusted their judgment. But let's face it, there aren't many of them. Are there any? The closest I can think is "Man Bites Dog," which is a French mockumentary about a serial killer (hard to watch, exceedingly good film).
There's also nothing wrong with having preferences, providing you don't allow them to box you in. Why shouldn't someone be drawn to a certain sort of film, or art, or music, in much the same way one is drawn to a certain director, artist, or composer? I happen to like black comedies and French New Wave. So far as I can see, this is only a problem if it causes me to only watch films that fit in those genres and/or to be blind to the merits of those truly great films that are not in genres I generally favor.
To me a fetish is something different, possibly bordering on fixation, and not based on any objective criteria -- more akin to my obsession with finding the perfect vampire film than with my fondness for French New Wave (because objectively speaking, most of the French New Wave films are just good films -- and there are some really, really bad vampire films out there (I know; I've seen quite a few of them), but that doesn't stop me from being fascinated by the genre).
Why are some people drawn to some genres and not to others? That's another question, part psychological and part sociological, no doubt. But I wouldn't call it "fetishism." If they only watch films that fall into certain boxed categories, I just call it "sad."
Now, my fondness for the preternatural -- that's another thing entirely -- we'll just try not to delve too deeply into that...
That's my proverbial two cents, anyway.
Thanks for the two cents.
Good distinction; I agree whole-heartedly. Preferences within a field are natural and inevitable, though one should still be able to move comfortably from genre to genre. And yes, devices in any film ought to have a place - violence, blood and gore included.
My experience has been that not a few folks have let their preferences box them into certain genres, hence the writeup. The disdain/fear of leaving one's comfort zone may be a "negative" motive for the limitation; the element of fixation I'd say is a "positive" one. So perhaps what I lacked before was clarity on the subject. Good thing I posted this; hopefully more clarity will come along.
As for slasher films, I agree that the genre is pretty limited as it stands. The reason, I think, is its formulaic nature - what Clausewitz would call "methodism": the belief that if you adopt the method, the same results will follow. The trick, of course, is to do something interesting within that formula; and the result is almost invariably dull. But I'd say it could be done intelligently: "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is one case in point - not nearly as bloody as the name suggests; you may dispute that it's horror rather than slasher, but OK. Maybe the first "Nightmare on Elm Street".
That said, I have to add my own two cents' worth about horror. Horror is Napoleon's China, in my opinion - a sleeping dragon of untapped potential. I'd like to see more smart horror flicks like John Carpenter's "Prince of Darkness" or "The Thing" , or George Romero's "Living Dead" films. The ratio of good horror films is lower than that of good drama, which tells me that more interest is in the drama - probably because more popular, hence more lucrative. What a shame that people don't like to have the shit scared out of 'em!
Post a Comment