Modernism is dead says VS Naipaul. But Modernism is borne by death.
Like many of my countrymen, I’ve been watching the US TV drama series Lost. I too want to find out what happens next. I know people who have downloaded the series and seen every episode. Yet I am only half-envious. I rather enjoy the suspense waiting for the next episode. The ironic thing is, the next episode is invariably a disappointment. The idea is much more compelling, and I like to think about how the series might have been. Perhaps that is why I continue to watch: to drain my imagination, which is all too unrequited.
Recently, the ‘maverick’ director Terry Gilliam said: “When I watch films now they bother me, the technique of films bothers me, because it's so obvious how you do things, sell things. I don't like that any more. It's becoming a cliché the way things are done.”
I feel the same way. Example: there’s a scene in episode four of Lost in which the square-jawed, designer-stubbled All Amercian good guy ‘Jack’ tries to engage with a middle-aged woman who has been sitting silently apart from the group. It seems she has been traumatised by the death of her husband in the plane crash. Jack goes out of his way to speak to her. He asks her to accept what’s happened, to move on and join the rest of the survivors. All the while she remains silent, staring out to sea. We are made to wait for her reaction, even though we all knew what it will be. We know she will address not one thing Jack has said but instead speak wistfully about her husband; some trivial item to contrast with the gravity of Jack’s approach. And guess what happens next?
We are meant to be moved. We react by understanding that we are meant to feel moved. But we feel nothing. Sometimes it's good to feel nothing. We know where to go when we need to feel nothing. It's called Popular Culture.
Barring only recent Godard, I see such procedure in every movie and every TV series. Formula within formula, cliché within cliché, lie within lie. Yet nobody talks about 'the death of screenwriting'. Perhaps it has yet to be born.
Britain's first book blogger (November 2000)
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blogroll, etc.
Blogroll continued
- Flowerville
- Cannon Magazine
- Wittgenstein Jr
- Danny Byrne
- Marooned Off Vesta
- In lieu of a field guide
- Just William's Luck
- Vertigo (WG Sebald blog)
- Tales from the Reading Room
- The Goalie's Anxiety
- Infinite Patience
- Pechorin's Journal
- Time's Flow Stemmed
- 50 Watts
- The Philosophical Worldview Artist
- Known Unknowns
- The Age of Uncertainty
- Being in Lieu
- ads without products
- Rejectamentalist Manifesto
- TLS editors' blog
- Braingrass
- Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
- The Bibliophilic Blogger
- Nomadics
- Life Unfurnished
Favoured author sites
Political
Blog Archive
- April 2013 (1)
- March 2013 (2)
- February 2013 (1)
- January 2013 (1)
- November 2012 (2)
- August 2012 (1)
- July 2012 (1)
- June 2012 (1)
- May 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (3)
- February 2012 (1)
- January 2012 (1)
- November 2011 (1)
- October 2011 (2)
- September 2011 (2)
- July 2011 (3)
- June 2011 (1)
- May 2011 (3)
- April 2011 (5)
- March 2011 (3)
- February 2011 (1)
- January 2011 (2)
- December 2010 (7)
- November 2010 (1)
- October 2010 (5)
- September 2010 (2)
- August 2010 (3)
- July 2010 (4)
- June 2010 (2)
- May 2010 (3)
- April 2010 (4)
- March 2010 (11)
- February 2010 (3)
- December 2009 (3)
- November 2009 (5)
- October 2009 (5)
- September 2009 (3)
- August 2009 (6)
- July 2009 (6)
- June 2009 (4)
- May 2009 (8)
- April 2009 (8)
- March 2009 (12)
- February 2009 (11)
- January 2009 (7)
- December 2008 (7)
- November 2008 (7)
- October 2008 (17)
- September 2008 (7)
- August 2008 (8)
- July 2008 (7)
- June 2008 (7)
- May 2008 (7)
- April 2008 (5)
- March 2008 (8)
- February 2008 (2)
- January 2008 (10)
- December 2007 (26)
- November 2007 (28)
- October 2007 (16)
- September 2007 (24)
- August 2007 (15)
- July 2007 (17)
- June 2007 (11)
- May 2007 (23)
- April 2007 (11)
- March 2007 (24)
- February 2007 (27)
- January 2007 (21)
- December 2006 (9)
- November 2006 (23)
- October 2006 (21)
- September 2006 (19)
- August 2006 (15)
- July 2006 (33)
- June 2006 (17)
- May 2006 (24)
- April 2006 (17)
- March 2006 (18)
- February 2006 (15)
- January 2006 (8)
- December 2005 (8)
- November 2005 (10)
- October 2005 (7)
- September 2005 (14)
- August 2005 (14)
- July 2005 (8)
- June 2005 (15)
- May 2005 (11)
- April 2005 (12)
- March 2005 (9)
- February 2005 (7)
- January 2005 (15)
- December 2004 (2)
- November 2004 (4)
- October 2004 (6)
- September 2004 (2)
Contact steve dot mitchelmore at gmail.com. Powered by Blogger.
Funny, last night I was having a conversation with S. about the same thing... the 'nothing' mistaken for 'feeling' that emotional movies today give you, and the frequent confusion among being just a great director technically, and having the courage to create something more, more hazily and ambiguous and profound.
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion we arrived (in the conversation) was that all is left in movies are stories (sad, dramatic, entertaining, humoristic... but just stories) and techincal solutions (exciting, illusory, deceptive, powerful... but just technical solutions).
But the greatness of cinema (as the greatness of novels) was to speak about something else by using stories and techincs.
That something is so hard do define these days, and seems to be hardly of interest to people. But all we can do is try to define it, to make it appealing...
btw: It's the first time I read your Blog... I thing you just gained a reader with me. Even if it sounds stupid (and I haven't read anything it the blog yet), it's mainly because of that "Peter Handke" link you have-
...We're not so many-
Thanks Corpodibacco. What's your favourite Handke book?
ReplyDeleteWhat about Kiarostami (1990 onwards)?
ReplyDelete