There is no single cinematic authority
Who
knew that Rosemary's Baby could spark such a heated
feud? As I watched this film with my friend, Lee, it was apparent
that our taste in film was radically different. Whereas I
found the movie suspenseful and intriguing, he couldn't appreciate
the ending which he described as contradictory to the theme
of the film. Ultimately he considered the viewing experience
a waste of his time. From that moment on, he and I have engaged
in a debate over who has better taste in movies, as our cinematic
appetites are almost polar opposites. How he can consider
Dude, Where's My Car brilliant and Joe Dirt
a poor man's Forrest Gump is far beyond me.
Since
my taste in film is more cultured, and because I'm a cinema
major, I've always assumed my film taste is objectively better
than his. But, recently I've questioned my presumption that
there is an actual claim to criteria that constitute a good
movie. The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences and
the American Film Institute certainly claim there can be by
presenting awards and lists of quality cinema. Yet, even though
our society presents the idea that outstanding film is objectively
identifiable, determining quality cinema is a solely subjective
pursuit.
An
institution such as the Academy has a revered reputation that
presents the illusion that it is a trustworthy authority on
defining superb cinema. This organization has a prestige that
lends it credibility when it declares what films of the year
are in a tier above the rest. Armed with knowledge about cinema
history, technique, and artists, this trusted group uses film
terminology to convince the public that its expertise gives
it the right to judge movies in an unbiased manner. But, in
actuality, the Academy Awards are not objective. Every year
there are discrepancies among the supposed experts as to what
films are the best. The Oscars and Golden Globes commonly
acknowledge different films, and, more frequently than the
disagreement between those two groups, award shows and film
critics display incongruous judgment of quality cinema. Many
times the most lauded films by critics are not recognized
for major awards. Yet, the Oscars are not always autonomous
in their decision making. It is not unheard of for the Academy
to mold their opinions to appease the public's taste. Box
office hits such as Titanic and Lord of the Rings:
The Return of the King have swept the Oscars in years
heralding a plethora of well-made films, valuing the opinions
of the populace. Deciding award-winning cinema is an arbitrary
practice that objectively cannot be any one faction's sole
responsibility. Overlooking accomplished but nontraditional
films suggests that even the Oscars cannot make the claim
that their taste in cinema is always the undisputed best.
Cultural constraints impede objectivity
For decades, the Academy has been known to favor the dramatic genres such as comedy and horror over others, delivering the impression that these particular genres are better than the rest. Simply taking a look at the list
of films that have been awarded the Oscar for Best Picture throughout
the years confirms this claim. But, every category of film genre
is just as legitimate as the next. True, out of all of the various
genres of film, it is usually the drama that directly confronts
real life issues. Yet, cinema's inherent duty is not necessarily
to address human struggles. This art form has a tremendous ability
to connect with audiences through films purely created to entertain.
As long as these films continue to retain their popularity, there must exist a need for escapist "popcorn flicks" just as much as for heart-wrenching drama. Nowhere could anyone objectively
assert that a dramatic film is inherently better than a comedy
simply due to its categorization.
The
fundamental dilemma in establishing guidelines for outstanding
cinema is that these guidelines themselves are subjective.
Every culture across the world has a different conception
of what comprises extraordinary film. In America we crave a
fluidity through logical, linear story progression and chronological
editing of shots. But, this style of filmmaking does not necessarily
comply with the other time-honored methodologies of other countries.
For example, the Italian neo-realist influence on European cinema
dictates that the most important aspect of filmmaking is capturing
the world as realistically as possible. This oftentimes entails
filming poorly-lit subjects due to lack of natural lighting,
or recording extended, long takes that may give breadth to a
setting rather than propel a plot forward. Of course, this is
merely a single example in a plentitude of others of how film
is viewed differently depending upon one's national culture.
Even within a country, different individuals may see contrary
strengths in cinematic presentations. While some viewers may
go to the movies for spectacular special effects, others may
love film for its unveiling of human characters and struggle.
Every culture and each individual within that culture decodes
a movie uniquely, which makes the notion of objectively defined
good taste an impossibility.
Objectivity brings comfort
Despite the complete
subjectivity of the cinematic art form, there remains a need
for the illusion of objectivity. American culture electrifies
with Oscar buzz and vigorously reads the AFI's top 100 lists
because it is comforting to believe in objectivity. In a culture
that thrives on affirmation of personal belief, people want
to discover where their opinions fall in the realm of good taste.
It is difficult to entertain the notion that one is alone in
personal belief. By creating a cannon of "legitimate cinema" groups such as the AFI, people are given a means to connect idealistically.
After this organization released their initial list of the best
films ever made, the rate of rental of these classics soared
across America. Due to this list, people can share an idea of
what qualities make outstanding cinema. Even if personal taste
clashed with the titles on the list, there was still a common
ground for people to share respect for the same art, thus suggesting,
however falsely, that the art of cinema is potentially perfectible.
The list's hierarchy of films implies that there is a correct
way to assemble a movie.
It is human nature
to desire perfection, yet the lack of a concrete definition
of perfection forces people to confront the notion that everything
in life is imperfect and arbitrary. By taking AFI's example of Citizen Kane as being a near-perfect film,
filmmakers have a craft towards which to aspire. Even though
a director may not be able to evoke the same creativity and
innovation as Orson Welles, he knows that he can strive for
that same quality in his work, making his struggles meaningful.
This mentality springs from American ethic. After all, what
is American life if not striving for perfection? The American
dream embodies the desire for a perfect family, job, image,
etc. As there is no definition of what a perfect life entails,
it seems unlikely that anyone will ultimately achieve this utopia.
But attempting to reach that elusive point proves people have
hope that there is a powerful force behind existence that gives
each individual a reason to strive for greatness.
Maybe imperfection is perfection
Anyway, back to
my feud with Lee over Rosemary's Baby. Maybe there
is no way for us to settle this dispute, but that doesn't
really matter. Ultimately, a debate such as this allows the
disputants to evaluate what they deem valuable either aesthetically
or conceptually in the cinematic art form. As a cinema major
I am fortunate to have film history and terminology at my
disposal to vocalize my opinions. This education helps me
to explore my own preferences in cinema, but it does not give
me any authority to place objective value on cinematic works.
It may seem slightly disconcerting that everything is open-ended
with no worldly means of determining the quality of human
creation. But, if art were like a math problem with only one
correct way to be expressed, life would be exceedingly dull.
Everyone would hold the same ideals and see the world in an
identical fashion. There would be no more intricacy and extremes
in life. Self expression would be superfluous, and, to me,
that seems far from perfect.
