Contrary to what people might sometimes suppose “ought” to be the case at a blog like this, I have never felt that I have been under some sort of pressure, imposed either by myself or the editors, to write solely about politics or Big World Affairs. Yes, of course, we bash the various statist intrusions, the general crapness of David Cameron, Green reactionaries, islamofascists, privacy-trashing New Labour politicians, etc, etc, but of course we also write regularly about science, spacefaring and so on. And as regulars will know, I often mention fillms or films that have become part of the public conversation. My last comment about so-called “art house” films drew from one, perfectly polite commenter the remark that “why cannot I write about something important?”.
I think films are important, because they are part of culture, and, whether we like or not, the contents of a film, just like a painting, piece of sculpture, novel, ballad or poetry can sometimes – not always – say something interesting about the sort of values that permeate a society. To borrow from Ayn Rand for a moment, art can reveal the philosophy, world view, or “sense of life”, of the person who made that book, film or picture. (A person who prefers to listen to atonal music may have a different psychology or outlook to someone who likes rock n’ roll, for example). The artist may not himself be aware of that philosophy or be able to articulate it clearly, but it exists. In the case of arthouse films, for example, particularly of the sort that were produced by the Europeans like Bergman, Traffaut and Godard, they they certainly did tell us something about the state of the culture at the time: anti-bourgoios, anti-heroic, not very interested sometimes in actual drama, sharply defined characters or plots; the tone was often ironic (sometimes very funny), amused, but also very dark at times. The films fitted into the intellectual world of the time, to a world still recovering from the long-dominant strains of socialism and collectivism in vogue for much of the 20th Century. There are exceptions and oddities to this sweeping statement of mine, of course, but as a generalisation, I think it holds a fair amount of water.
On one level, arthouse films can and are enjoyed for being quite entertaining, even brilliant (I might rent out Bergman’s the Seventh Seal to see if it as good as the commenters say) but the reason why I chose to write what I did was because I agree with the likes of Toby Young and even Jeremy “The Rottweiler” Paxman that a lot of what passes for great art from such film directors is pretty thin gruel indeed. Art is important, because it says something about the civilisation in which we happen to live, often far more so than any number of books in a library.
There’s more to life than beating oneself over the head with the now depressingly frequent reports of creeping statism and authoritarianism. More variation and distration please Mr Pearce.
And of course, if Dale Amon gets to write solely about space all the time, why is it not permissible for you to occasionally write about films and other indirect subjects?
I recommend Peter Biskind’s Easy Riders Raging Bulls as a read.
One of the things it covers is how the era of counter culture cinema that spans those two films were also a reflection of the post-Vietnam society in America.
I don’t like the term “arthouse”. There’s some great films that get lumped in with “arthouse” like Nikita and Jean de Florette which are nothing at all like the pretentious, meandering tosh of Code Unknown
Keep the cultural stuff coming Johnathan.
I keep saying that man doth not live by bread alone.
About the only thing I managed to watch last night, amongst the dessert that is saturday Night Telly, was a documentary called British film Forever. A not exactly good examination on British film’s take on Love and Romance from Brief Encounter through to Love Always.
All the usual suspects were rounded up for the talking head bits. It was good to have “Dick” Curtis admit that he’s just been making 4 Weddings over and over again though. Still supplication is easy with that much cash made from repeating yourself.
Me I will always love Brief Encounter over anything of the Curtis ouvre.
So yes keep it coming friend!
I seldom write about overtly political stuff on this blog because I don’t greatly feel like it. I write about travel, and culture, and technology and sometimes business. (I think I am more overtly political in the comments than in my posts). However, if you think I am not expressing an ideological point of view, you aren’t reading very carefully. The same goes for Jonathan.
I’m sorry I’m so boring.
Gordon Bennett!
We just thought we got Mycroft Marks back on an even keel
Now Guy Herbert goes all Marvin Manic Depressive on us!!!
It is one of the nicest sunny days this year, out there.
Go watch the sunset with one hand full of wine and the other the smoke of your choice, or an armful of woman. Or all at the same time.
I will admit to being a bit greedy in the pleasure stakes!
One of the elements of our common culture that has been the most debased by post-modernist deconstruction is any semblence of standards in the arts.
For well or ill, movies are one of the major art forms of the 20th century, and continue to be a powerful form of expression in the 21st.
It is never a waste of time when attention is directed towards separating the wheat from the chaff, and, all too often, movie reviews in the popular media are more an expression of the reviewers’ modern liberal politics than any true examination of the plusses and minuses of the film itself.
The variety of subjects explored at Samizdata is one of the major reasons I check this site several times a day.
Please continue.
Films are one of the ways we tell ourselves stories: stories about hope and fear and repression and yes, even freedom.
Man has always listened to stories as a way of sharing a world view, a way of passing on information and ideas. So it isn’t trivial at all. In fact, it may well be very important to the mental health of society to recount stories in a number of ways. Certainly it’s one of the things that always troubles dictators and despots, because art can only be controlled superficially.
“To borrow from Ayn Rand for a moment, art can reveal the philosophy, world view, or “sense of life”, of the person who made that book, film or picture.”
This reminds me, I get made fun of sometimes for liking Jerry Bruckheimer movies, yet they never explain why this is a bad thing.
Curiously, I’ve recently found myself defending the opposite thing – compulsive news-reading and the desire to comment on Big World Affairs – against the argument that there’s no point in us forming opinions about distant goings-on, which are unstoppable and have no direct consequences for the ordinary person.
My counter-argument is that news stories are valuable because they are stories, and they give you insight into morality and philosophy (which is immediately useful to your own life). And now here you are trying to defend fictional stories against the claim that they are not important. Well, morality and philosophy are the important stuff – not any particular specific events, distantly important or personal, or types of story, fictional or news.
If you can get into movies with a heavily existentialist flavor then you’ll probably find “Seventh Seal” to be very good.
And hear hear to what others have said: keep the variety in topics coming.