The previous century of cinema has ended roughly a decade ago, and yet here we are, still biding our time on the same methods of construction and form that have come before us; rarely is there something new and inspired, something that takes the form and pushes it onto the audience in a new way, or a way that, at least, has been little explored by his predecessors. It is this which needs to change, as the audience seems to be stuck in its own, simplified version of what cinema is - it is not good enough, because it does not express itself as the art that it really is. It does not show its power often enough.
If one makes a film of a relationship, one that says something deep and meaningful about the interactions and interconnectedness between two individuals, but he says nothing concerning film, how the camera changes perception, how it perceives time, and changes the audience's viewing of such elements, etc., then why would one film it at all? Literature is perfectly accessible for material of this sort; it also involves undercurents, subtext, as film might, and yet the written word of a novel cannot express, based wholly on its form, anything about film. Since film is its own complete medium (of course, with different canvases - 35mm, 16mm, video, HD, etc.), it should not be treated primarily as something that says only things about life through its subtext - doing so creates no difference between film and literature. Through form, one must comment on the format of which he is using.
Godard once said that, as soon as something is filmed, it becomes inherently different than it is in written form (a big justification for the auteur theory). Yes and no. It does, yes, give the viewer an immediately different prspective from the novel, or the work as it was as written, and it lessens the need of the audience to interperet the visual aspects of the work themselves, putting everything into images, since all of the work has been done for them already. The reason it is not actually the case, though, is that it is all on the basis of intent from which the difference will show its face; if the intent is the same as that of the written word, then, while psychology of the individuals present on screen might be examined through the shifting of the actor's eyes in close-up, there really is no inherent difference. That is the filming of a story which pushes only the agenda of the story, the morality or the amorality of its characters, and the tension beneath the surface. It does, then, not enough to distinguish itself from words - it is too lazy, as the film is not thinking about what it, as a film, truly means. The examination of the entirely filmic is something rarely seen; there could be an exploration of images, of sound, of specific camera movements, of the camera's interconnectedness with the space around it, and how this space connects with the audience, of the different formats of film and video, and how each of these formats imparts a wholly different set of ideas based entirely on the fact that it is in that specific format. This is not simply the job of film theorists, but of filmmakers - it is their job to explain, however implicitly, the methods of filmmaking, the "why" of it all, how these methods connect with people all over the world, and how they can also connect two individuals through the impressions onto the mindset. Audiences need this spark, this understanding, and it is the place in which filmmakers should always leave their inherent focus.
Thus, I propose for the future of narrative cinema, or, for at least my own narrative cinema, that these four things should always be addressed:
1. What is the story of the film?
2. What is the meaning behind the story of the film?
3. What is the overarching meaning behind the entirety of the film? AKA - What does the film say about film?
4. How can all of this be conveyed through the use of structure and form?
If, on every film, I fail on one or more of these levels (i.e., I cannot get these through to the audience), then the film is, from my perspective, a failure, although hopefully not from a lack of trying. Documents and documentaries, too, can follow this format, which might simply lead to much more time editing, as pushing all of these ideas almost in-camera with such a level of spontaneity seems as though it is, perhaps, too much to ask.
Essentially, the whole idea comes down to the deconstruction of form; there is nothing saying that a film has to be about filmmakers making a movie about filmmaking. Every film can and should get across all of this, these notions of what film is, while still imparting other, more general ideas onto the audience. If we forget what it is that we are using to tell stories, and if audiences never come to the realization that the reason they watch movies and read books is vastly different (other than that of time), then there is something very wrong, something that cannot be undone, unless by people willing to make a difference. Most certainly, there are directors who focus on politics, or on the plight of the poor, or on the places one can find love; all of these ideas expressed are good in that they are attempting to fulfill the duty the director placed on himself as a storyteller. But in the 21st century, as should have been more, too, in the previous one, these individuals did not sign contracts as only those to fulfill the written word, but as filmmakers, and so their ideas on mankind, while being incredibly worthy of telling, really might not have any justification for being filmed - that is, unless they can underline those ideas with ideas on cinema as a form of art and achievement. It is film that is important here, and it must be expressed - the love of the form, and the reasons for one's usage of it, rather than the use of the written word, or of sculpture, or of painting, should shine through constantly. Many things can be done with other art forms, but what is it that cinema does entirely on its own? It is that notion which needs to be constantly expressed.
Maybe what I am saying means nothing at all, or maybe more people partake in this than I am aware, and so my words end up as a repitition of thought that is inherently pointless to repeat. Cinema is not boken, and nor is it dead, but there is more that can be done, I feel, and there are steps to take to push forward art constantly. The form of drawing has not remained the same as it was since the dark ages or before - there was an artistic rennaisance that took place and shook the world with its nature. Something needs to happen to the film world; movies are a medium that is still not fully understood by some who use it, and by most who watch it. It is all of the ideas it represents that must be put on display, in however an implicit or explicit manner as possible.
Savvy
