When Walter Benjamin published his “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” he wrote that he worried that political message would soon control works of art and force them to conform to various standards, rather than allowing for the creativity. As we have been studying films, it has struck me how what are considered the “great films” of the interwar period came from the polar extremes of ideologies: the communist Soviet Union with Sergei Eisenstein and “Man with a Movie Camera” and Nazi Germany with Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will”. In this entry, I will be exploring first why these ideologies produced these so called great films, and conversely, why capitalist democratic societies did not. I will then address how fascist, communist, and capitalist ideologies played a role on the creative process of making film.
On the first question: why did Communists and Nazis make the best films. The answer was that they lived in an all or nothing era of filmmaking. If you were lucky enough to have your movie idea approved by the state, you could then expect state support to allow you to complete your vision. Especially if your film was a propaganda film designed to make the leaders of the countries seem all powerful, like in “Will”. Ironically, in capitalist countries, there was, and still are, many restrictions on the vision of films. That is because in capitalist countries film is not a tool of the government, it is an industry, designed to generate money. Film makers don’t want a beautiful film about everyday life, they want a film that will excite and awe the audiences. Even the great films from the U.S. were big money makers like “Gone with the Wind.” In this sense, Benjamin may have been mistaken. It seems that it was the greed of businessmen, more than the hunger of dictators that led to stricter control over the art of film.
Nevertheless, the prevailing ideologies of a particular country have a deep influence on the product of various film makers. “Triumph of the Will” has a feel of military order. The camera stays in line with the marching Nazi and consistently pays homage to Hitler’s power. The movements of the camera reflect, unintentionally, the amount of control Hitler has over the German people. The camera has very little freedom, despite a great amount of resources. “Man with a Movie Camera” is just the opposite. It seemingly has no direction, trying instead to capture various aspects of life. It focuses on the regular citizens, with very little cues for the audience to follow. This reflects, the free, and somewhat chaotic nature of the Soviet state. The camera moves freely, but with very few resources and very little guidance. While freedom was getting more limited under Stalin, there was no shortage of chaos. This is how all ideologies, be it Nazi, Communist, or Capitalist, impose their view on works of art in the age of mechanical reproduction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I like your point on saying that films made in our country are only made for lucrative purposes. This is what makes me not enjoy many of the films that come out in theaters because films that are like this are very formulaic. You know the basic plot, the basic characters, the basic everything. This makes the film watching experience very boring.
However, when the few films that are made that actually challenge the viewer in many different ways, I actually enjoy watching them, completely forgetting the point that the main reason why the movie was made was to get the money in my wallet.
I have some trouble when thinking about the idea of "great films." I thought that "Man with a Movie Camera" was an interesting experiment, but I don't plan on watching it again. Is it a great film? You're right when you say that "Man with a Movie Camera" and "Triumph of the Will" perpetuate their ideologies. But I think great American films were great because they embraced the capitalist ideology of profit. Pursuit of this goal produced films like Gone with the Wind, which you mentioned. I guess I do think that a film that convinces millions to shell out money during the interwar years is a "great" film.
Since you mentioned the interwar period, maybe there was some disillusionment with Western capitalism that prevented such movies in the U.S. Perhaps Fascism and Communism were still cutting edge, while 1930s liberal democracies were not inspiring subjects for film.
You bring up an interesting point, Steven. However, I'd have to disagree with you regarding the definition of "great." What does it mean to be great? The cinematography? The narrative? The fact that we are still viewing the film? I think your point could have been strengthened by providing that insight. In my opinion, I wouldn't say Triumph or Man were "great" films in the sense that Citizen Kane is a great film (then again, I'm only a novice in this film criticism field). But rather those 2 films helped to usher in a new at looking at film.
I do agree with you, however, that filmmakers do want to generate profits and that somewhat restricts movies from being made. However, would you say there was stricter control in the US than in Germany in regards to making film? I cannot accurately say, but I would think the Nazis would've restricted any films not showing the Germans favorably.
Your point is fascinating, but I wish you would have expanded more!
I think your basic point is very interesting, but not necessarily fully developed. For example, it is very clear that the desire for profit drives the production of a number of the films that are considered "great" in American culture, but I think that there are certainly examples of films that have been made with different intentions that have nonetheless found their way into greatness. I almost think that Americans have a some desire to be "trendy" and "alternative" and that this enable smaller independent films to achieve the profits necessary for greatness without having intended to do so. Additionally, what would you say enables a film to be classified as "great"? Was the greatness of Gone With the Wind intrinsically linked to its box office success? Is profit, then, one of the defining characteristics of greatness? Or is it watchability -- you seem to imply that Man with a Movie Camera somehow fit into this ambiguous category of great cinema, but would it actually be something that viewers would want to return to in order to find new layers of meaning? I definitely think that the premise of your argument could lead to an intense, in-depth discussion of these films, and I would love to hear more about your thoughts.
http://lkeeley.blogspot.com/2009/04/talk-to-me.html
I'm a little confused by your second paragraph. Do you mean to say that capitalist countries have more restrictions on film than fascist/socialist/totalitarian countries? Isn't the very fact at that American film is not government subsidized proof that capitalist countries technically have more freedom? I agree that there are restrictions, but I believe them all to be viewer/society imposed. That is, filmmakers, actors, producers, etc who make films for to sake of either 1) money, 2) fame, or 3) both are limited in what they make because they must allow the audience to take comfort in the familiar and please them by introducing something new and exciting while simultaneously garnering the respect, if not approval, of their film-industry peers. Sounds like a headache? I imagine it is--likely more than Leni Riefenstahl ever encountered. But this is only a headache for two reasons, the former being optional: 1) Aforementioned film industry persons actually care about the widespread success and revenue of their film. That is, opposed to, say, Trinh-Minh Ha, who quite clearly didn't want her film to be known in the same way that, oh, James Bond is known. She has no restrictions because she expects nothing from her audience and peers.
2) The bad news about democracy: Ms. Reifenstahl benefitted from the pre-production knowledge that since the government approved and sanctioned her film, audiences had no choice but to like it (or pretend that they did.)
Interesting approach Steven. The discussion your classmates have generated in response brings up an interesting question about film circulation. Which films are "loved" and which films are "influential?"
I think your point about the economic restrictions of film-making under capitalism are important. I wonder if the circulations of films in academic circles subverts or reinforces the money driven popular film market. A film-maker recently told me that most films don't make money form box office sales, it is the afterlife of the film in the form of DVDs and merchandise that make the project profitable. If that is the case, it makes sense that in a capitalist market one would need to make a film that people want to re-watch. But "greatness" is it's own thing. I think your post contributes to an important debate about what constitutes value in different contexts.
best,
lex
I couldn't agree more with your post, Steven! It's the primary reason why I tend not to enjoy most Hollywood movies these days, because they are so trite and formulaic that I rarely have to see more than the trailer to know precisely what's going on. Indeed, even when a startlingly new or blindingly visionary work does happen to sneak by the Hollywood filters, the establishment then latches onto it like a cane toad male in Spring, and will milk that idea so heavily and so completely that it becomes a new trope or formula for future films.
I refer, of course, to the Matrix Trilogy, which should have been (and in my heart, still remains), the Matrix Singularity.
Still, way, way back in the day there were still Hollywood films that were allowed to promote vision over profits. The problem was, however, that such films tended to garner much acclaim and prestige among critics and cinematographers, but very little "revenue" generated by the Joes Plumber and Six-Pack of the world.
One of my favorite films of all time, in fact (The Great Dictator, 1939), came very close to being shut down in pre-production because of studio and censorship pressures which felt the film was "unnecessarily inflammatory and defamatory" to Hitler and his Nazi Regime. Ironically enough, it was the fact that Chaplin's film was anti-Fascist that caused Chaplin's artistic vision to nearly go unrealized.
Indeed, the only reason the film ended up being produced at all was because Chaplin (who both starred, produced, directed, and helped write the film) was financially and artistically independent of Hollywood at the time, and could essentially tell the studios to go [Hayes Code edit] themselves in their own darkrooms.
It also helped that by the time the film hit theaters in 1939, no one particularly minded being defamatory or slanderous of Hitler or the Nazis.
"Art is life, and life is politics. And politics, by very nature, is hypocrisy."
Post a Comment