Sunday 23 November 2008

Celluloid junkie...

...

What makes film so addictive? Of course, anything can be addictive, depending on the person. But why have I felt such a strong bond with films, stronger than with anything else? Film I believe is particularly addictive; if you want evidence, look no further than Film General on the IMDb; a conglomeration of film buffs, geeks, fanboys; whatever. I am one of those. I'm a celluloid junkie and I need a hit every few days, and not all of them work so I need to keep searching. The root of the addiction is obvious - there is no experience like watching There Will Be Blood at the cinema. There is no experience like watching Mulholland Dr. at home late into the night; hypnotized by beauty and the dream. Great movie experiences like this that can get people hooked on film. But experiences like those don't come around very often. You have to search for them, and that leads to the discovery of obscure films and the formation of a film buff.

My performance in school has always been seriously hampered by a number of distractions over the years; Star Wars, Lord Of The Rings, video-games, LOST, but all of those fizzled out and turned out to be mere "phases." Film on the other hand, I am obsessed with; unhealthily. But those were simply outlets; something to do at the weekend when I was bored. Film I've come to discover is not just an outlet but an art form, and something that can be penetrate the soul like nothing else. As I've progressed through adolescence I've not only obtained a passionate involvement with films but with the making of films, and my taste has changed greatly over the years.

But I think what most makes film addictive is the fantasy element. Films are dreams, and they can sweep us up with their images; the snow-drenched sled in Citizen Kane, or a screaming Janet Leigh in Psycho. Many are not just escapist but cathartic, and reach a greater truth through imagination and fiction than anything else...

...of course, there is a real danger in this. Films can act as a facillitator for violent and disturbed thoughts. This can be a good thing, as well as a bad thing, for it can release these thoughts, but it can also encourage them. Of course, blaming films for violent actions is stupid, although so many do it. Quite simply, it's easy to blame films, which is why so many do it; it's an easy answer to a hard question. Of course, films can be very irresponsible, for instance Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers, which stupidly stylizes violence to the point of worshipping it. And that's a film that's supposed to be against violent media. Hypocrite = Oliver Stone (although he's made some fine films). I think a lot of films, even great ones, tend to harbour some perverse awe of or yearning for violence, especially those of Martin Scorsese and David Fincher. This is also quite irresponsible, though not to the extent that Natural Born Killers is. Other directors are very responsible with violence; showing how horrible and painful it is, like Paul Thomas Anderson. And some directors (looking at you Mr. Tarantino), can find humour in violence. I daresay I laughed when Vincent accidentally blew Marvin's head off in Pulp Fiction, even though somebody had just died. Well, it wasn't really the violence I was laughing about, it was the sheer absurdity of it. Much the same can be said of the violence in David Lynch films, although it's much less cartoonish...mostly...

But the best films in my opinion are those which change us; change the way we look at things; at people. Those are the films that help us through life, that give us the best filmic experiences. But now to the question of how to control the addiction. Simple. Keep yourself busy. I watch films less and less now due to schoolwork and my own film I hope to make soon. And remember, not all films are great experiences; some are a bad batch and some are like talcum powder to a coke-addict...

Sunday 9 November 2008

Citizen Kane and "greatest films" lists...

...
Citizen Kane is not my favourite film. In fact, it's my 5th favourite film. I love it. Anyone with a yearning for the simplicity of childhood should watch this film. After all, everyone has a rosebud; a symbol of innocence. For Charles Foster Kane it is his beloved sled. Was he ever happier in life than when playing with his sled in the snow as a child? Anyway, the film has a universal meaning, one we should all be able to relate to in some way or other. I can understand why many don't like it. The style won't be to everyone's tastes. But even though it's not my favourite film, I love it so, and I'm still perfectly happy for it to be considered "greatest film of all time," after all, it is perhaps the closest the movies have come to perfection...

Which brings me to question the effect of these "greatest films lists" on the average movie-lover. I am sure that the the pedestal this film has been placed upon has stopped people from actually seeing the film. For a while, it stopped me. I saw it countless times on the shelf, but always the thought ran through my head -
"It'll never live up to the hype. And besides, that film will always be around for me to buy any time, I'm sure there are other, more obscure films that are truly worth hunting for."
But, sooner or later I decided -
"Oh what the hell! It's only £3 now, might as well get it."
And I'm glad I did. It's truly a powerful film, and it touched me deeply. The destruction of the sled at the end is truly heartbreaking. I don't care about spoilers here, because it's the experience that counts. It's a film to be seen more than anything. But the "greatest films lists" have caused people who haven't actually seen the film to denounce it as "overrated," and the like. Which is, quite frankly, ridiculous. One of my classmates actually openly declared that he hadn't seen the film, before going on to say that it was overrated and didn't belong at the no. 1 spot, and that The Godfather should have that place. The Godfather? I mean, really? The Godfather is great and all, but it's not flawless cinema! Yes, it's also technically great, acting, directing, cinematography all top-notch, but it doesn't have the expressive force or the humour, sense of fun, or youthful energy of Citizen Kane. In fact I think The Godfather Part II greatly exceeds the original in terms of depth and expressive power. Even then, as much as I absolutely love the film, it would still barely make it into my top 30. Of course, my favourite film, David Lynch's Mulholland Dr., while considered great by many, I doubt would make it into one of these lists. It would be considered too experimental and unconventional. These lists are usually comprised of popular films that don't divide critics...

Critics. They are responsible for these lists, no doubt about it. And there is something almost ritualistic about the way they dance around their favourite films and those which they consider the greatest; uttering praise unto them, not allowing anyone else to join the circle. Quite simply, it is elitism; they want to keep these "great films" and "masterpieces" for themselves. It's just a game designed to keep the average movie-goer watching average movies and the film snobs and intellectuals watching the great ones. Of course, that's just a generalization, it's not always the case. Plenty of casual movie-goers have no doubt had the pleasure of experiencing Citizen Kane, and some critics have even acknowledged the fraudulence of the "greatest films lists," like Pauline Kael and David Thomson...

So what it comes down to is this - don't take heed of these lists. They're really meaningless. Decide for yourself what to watch when you scan the shelves at Borders or HMV. And give Kane a try...