MichaelB wrote:Felix wrote:True, though I don't recall any serious suggestions otherwise.
Tom Dewe Mathews' book
Censored, published a year or so after the Scala closed, explicitly makes that claim, with no context-setting. In fact, I suspect he's primarily responsible for the story gaining such legendary status. Somehow, repetition in a book makes a story seem that much more trustworthy, even when it's still bollocks.
I only flicked through Censored once in my university library when I was there, but I do remember going very cool on Tom Dewe Matthews after seeing him in the 1999 Channel 4 debate show, also called 'Censored' which was a debate with two people 'for' censorship and two 'against' (plus a television regulator, since it was part of the weekend about censorship and what should be allowed on television).
Tom Dewe Matthews and Adrian Gill (who was described as a TV critic and writer) were given the task of defending the usual suspects of shocking films: some which had just been shown on television, some which had not but were on video, and some that hadn't been released at all (at that time). One of the films they talked about in the 'sexual violence' section of the programme was the, at that time still banned, Straw Dogs. The usual out of context clips from the rape scene were shown (without mentioning that they had shown all the most 'explicit' moments in their clip).
Of course the film was deplored by the Mediawatch representative, the regulator and the female psychologist. I was interested in how the anti-censorship representatives would defend the film (as I had not seen it myself at that point), and was really ashamed when Adrian Gill said in response to a debate on the ambiguity of the first rape that it "was unpleasant, but only because Susan George is a really bad actress". I was shocked even then, and having seen the film for myself now I am even more annoyed by that comment, although it is probably representative of the attitudes that never gave George's fantastic performance the recognition it deserved. An attitude that people could get away with much more easily during the period that the film was not widely available, which probably said more about censorship being about power and controlling attitudes through (lack of) access than anything else in the programme. Sadly Tom Dewe Matthews' only attempt to defend Susan George's 'badness' was to say the film was a "product of its time". I think that is when I lost any interest in reading a copy of his book!
Sorry for going off topic of the thread for a moment. To get back on topic I think I might agree with the reaction to the article peerpee first posted - that it might be a bit blown out of proportion. After all the article does compare mainstream fare with a Bruno Dumont film - someone that even cinema fans have a problem with (I like the two films I have managed to see by him so far, but I would never recommend them to anyone without making lots of disclaimers beforehand!) and who in interviews has expressed his lack of interest in the medium.
So it is from one extreme to the other while, as the article briefly mentions, a film like Hidden has been a success. Perhaps the main question the article should have asked, which it touched on briefly when it mentioned Hidden, is where the next wave of French filmmakers are - not where the audiences have gone. Dumont is a kind of aberration in that he came to cinema by a very roundabout route of philosophy and industrial films, and seems to have no interest in tailoring his films for a potential audience at all.
As someone posted above, albeit dismissively, I would be interested to see how the Dardenne brothers' films were received (or films by Agnes Jaoui, Patrice Chereau, Laurent Cantet, Claude Miller or Patrice Leconte - even Gaspar Noe). That might give a broader picture of the state of 'art' cinema in France. Then compare that with the latest Alain Resnais film, or Godard's last and see if they are as strong as ever, or if their attendances have also dropped off.
Then see if there is a big market for foreign (non-Hollywood) films, i.e. whether a lot of people go to see the latest Almodovar, or went to see House of Flying Daggers. Then go on to see if there is any difference between these attendances and attendances for less well known and marketed art films in the actual arthouse theatres.
Perhaps the results will be the same as the article is suggesting, but it needs to be researched in more detail. Knowing nothing about how the French feel about their cinema myself, I think it would be fascinating to find out more about how cinema is approached by its audience in different countries: whether the films we get to see in our country is representative of their success in their native land, or whether it is much more in the hands of distributors choosing films that might best
represent the idea of France to the rest of the world. (For example I still remember the British Board of Film Classification saying in one of their documents around the time they passed Catherine Breillat's Romance uncut that it was partly passed because it was 'very French'! I guess because it had a lot of soul searching intellectual conversations combined with nudity! Also, nobody in that film is really having much fun while they are having sex, which might have allowed more explicitness than if the couples were enjoying it?!)
I think a great series of articles, or tv programmes could be made on this subject. For example the idea that most of the Chinese films the West saw for a while were those banned by the Chinese authorities! So we got the inverse of what usually happens with films, or that we see at the Oscars, the film being selected to represent its country, and instead get a kind of 'anti' (or at least not fawningly complementary) Chinese state point of view with films like The Blue Kite (The same could also apply to the banned films under Communist countries like The Ear or Interrogation that Second Run has released). Also, perhaps being banned in China gave a film such as this greater cache amongst distributors in the rest of the world? We could ask this about Britain - Ken Loach is awarded for his latest film, and Mike Leigh had big success in America with Secrets and Lies, but are they admired as much in Britain itself, outside of being appreciated by film fans? How much of their being able to make films is dependent on co-productions with other countries, as well as whatever funding they can find in Britain. How much loyalty then do they feel obligated to have to show to the country the film is being made in and made about - or to put it another way, how does funding from multiple countries, as can also be seen in films by Michael Haneke or Lars Von Trier, affect the content of the films that are produced?
The films that seem to be more dominant in France, from what the article is suggesting, are the middle of the road romantic comedies, and comedies in general. These types of films seem much more culture specific (even in the same language - I just heard Dreamworks has stopped its relationship with Aardman over what they consider to be the lacklustre performance of the Wallace and Gromit and Flushed Away films in America, which might have had something to do with being too culturally British to be a big success there), so I could understand that there would be a big French audience for the latest homegrown version over watching a Hollywood romantic comedy. Just thinking about my own tastes - I don't usually watch a Hollywood film to see the latest Sandra Bullock rom-com but for the latest Speed, or Matrix, or Star Wars film - huge action films are what I feel Hollywood does best (partly because it is probably the only cinema that can afford to produce such spectacles!).
Comedies too are very specific - I have been reading Stephen Thrower's book on Lucio Fulci's films recently, and there isn't a chance that I will ever see any of the popular lowbrow comedies he made (and I'm not sure I'd be that interested anyway!) while nearly all of his horror films, that would be much more accessible to audiences outside Italy, have been brought out on DVD.
Sorry - I tried to get back on topic and went wildly off on another tangent! However perhaps the most important problem I have with the article is that it seems to have come to the subject with a romanticised view that all French people are having meaningful intellectual conversations about life, the universe and everything over a cigarette and a coffee in a local cafe, before going to see the latest art film. Sadly it seems that the French are just people like the rest of us, and some shockingly may not even like cinema, or if they do might even have really bad taste in their favourite films! Who knows some may even like Michael Bay's films
(of course being French the films they like are going to have much more nudity in! And involve more plotlines about affairs and mistresses!)
So I think the article confused the mass of the French general public with a French art film audience. I think one of the previous posters was right in saying that one of the benefits of these online communities is that it brings people together from across many countries whose common interest is in more artistic and questioning cinema than escapist films - films that can give new perspective on our own lives; or show us completely different situations in which people are living; or different perspectives and attitudes people can have; along with discussing the nature of film itself and pushing at the boundaries - what constitutes a 'film'? does a film have to be a certain length? can it be only a soundtrack against a blue screen? do we need sets, or can we draw in chalkmarks on a floor? are there certain things we cannot show, or is it just the way they are shown that makes them unacceptable, or unsuccessful, and vice versa?
It takes an audience prepared to consider these types of questions, beyond just being entertained (although the best, and the breakthrough to mainstream success art films, succeed at entertaining as well!). I don't think this audience is based on national boundaries, but is selected based on interest and willingness to explore the world of film more deeply, beyond the present mega-hit films, just to see what is going on in different parts of the world, what stories are told or preoccupy different cultures; or where the latest Hollywood blockbuster evolved from by looking at the 'back catalogue' of films that came before.
I think the 'mass market' for films is in the here and now, and most of the public seem happy with that form of consumption, not caring if the film they are watching is a remake of a 40s film or a 70s film or a foreign film - and maybe not even knowing. Much of the process of remaking, or 'reinventing' just seems a way of feeding that consumption (at best it might also give a filmmaker a chance to try out some new tricks, or they can use it to pursue their own agenda while providing certain things that their audience expects from a remake or sequel). It could be seen as 'junk food', and although a number of big, hugely popular films can fulfil both that purpose and make people think at the same time, an 'art' film usually cannot compete at that 'junk food' level. It requires even a minimal level of participation from the audience, and that immediately sets those types of films apart from pure entertainments, and in a way handicaps them from achieving massive mainstream success.
