Cinema Culture: The Times They Are A Changin'

Being in France has its benefits and its pitfalls. The main reason that I began to study French was because of my love for the cinema, not just French films, but the experience of the cinema. There is no more comforting of a feeling than the aura you get when you walk into a theater, big or small—the dimly lit lobbies with red, plush walls and movie posters of coming attractions accented with small lights that let off that old nostalgic glow of decades past, the smell of popcorn that lingers so delicately in the air daring you to buy the next size bigger, and seeing some thrilling or beautiful picture that on the big screen is in perfect, grainy detail.

This experience is the shadow from my long, gone childhood that lures me back into the theater to recapture that excitement and thrill of what it was like to just be overtaken by a film, let it just trickle over me like a warm summer rain. Unfortunately in my college years, where coincidentally, I fully realized my love for the cinema, I suffered from the poverty epidemic like so many of my fellow scholastics and was not able to go experience the cinema as much as I wanted. One of the main causes (other than the outrageous tuition costs, even for the small university that I attended) was the quickly rising ticket prices.

I remember the time when I could hitch a ride with one of my buddies, we’d all go to the movie theater, buy a ticket, get a pop and popcorn, all for about 7 or 8 bucks. Yeah that’s quite high regardless, especially if you think about the costs for a viewing historically. Remember the nickelodeons? Probably not since most of our grandparents probably don’t even remember them. Not to be confused with the cable television station that featured some classics in television history, the nickelodeon only costed a nickel! Ah, those were the days.

Anyways, back to my original point. The “movie culture” (i.e. the process of watching films, whether in the theater or on video) in France, not just the “cinema culture” (i.e. the process of going to the movies), is totally different than that of the United States, and one that I admire. Maybe because the cinema culture aligns so well with the rest of French culture, that slow-placed lifestyle that demands that you appreciate the finer things in life, whether it’s your baguette that you munch on during your two-hour lunch break, or the thimble-sized espresso that you sip on after you’ve finished said baguette.

This same mentality, I’ve found, is engrained into their movie culture as well. For example, in the United States, there is an emphasis on instantaneous satisfaction when it comes to entertainment. We have to have it now! The first reason is the internet, most definitely, and it’s ease of access, and because of that, we have Netflix. Not only has it helped create this mentality in the U.S., but it’s helped maintain it and even increase it. Now there are many other internet based movie viewing sites, like Hulu, etc. France does have internet (for those of you who think that France is a third-world country… they’re not,) but France has access to neither Netflix nor Hulu. (Granted, there are the other illegal downloading websites used quite often, but not exceedingly in France, for example Megaupload, etc.) These two companies helped make it possible to watch virtually anything at the drop of a hat.

Another interesting and older aspect of movie culture is the rental store. I’ve found very, very few here in France. They are dwindling in numbers in the U.S. because of massive companies like Netflix and Redbox, who have just taken over the movie rental business (or at least what is left of it.) But since these two entities (and Hulu) don’t exist in France, wouldn’t you think there would be more movie rental stores? I would, but they are few and far between. There is a movie rental kiosk right around the corner from my apartment, but with very limited selection. I’ve yet to look at the price.

The next closest source of movie rental that I’ve found is on the other side of town. One day I was on a walk and finally stumbled upon the store. So, I went in—out of curiosity, and I discovered what seemed to be another reason why the movie rental business isn’t booming in France, which is because a rental for one night was 4 euros! Let’s translate that—5 dollars per night!

So why would I consider France to have a much better movie culture? The reason is simple, because they have a better cinema culture. I’ll reiterate. When I say movie culture, I mean the way in which movies are watched in general, while when I say cinema culture, I mean the process of watching movies in theaters. I’m a bit of a purest when it comes to films. I feel that they have been intended to be viewed on the biggest screen possible and with the best sound possible, which would probably be at the theater. However, there is one more element that I think is essential. Films are meant to be a social experience. They are intended to be viewed in a crowded cinema where everyone can feel the energy of the film pulsating through the hundred other people viewing the same film.

In the United States, Hollywood has become a bloated entity, where the cost of the average film has increased dramatically, which has led to the average cost per ticket to go to the cinema has increased as a result, in Ohio in a major cinema it costs about $9-11, just for a ticket. There is also the Ratings system, and what is socially appropriate (in France, nudity is more acceptable, whereas in the U.S. violence is), which has a firmer grasp on the industry in the U.S. as opposed to France, and limits what kind of film you can see in the theater. (I’ll try not to go into too much depth at the moment about my theories about how the Ratings system is a form of censorship.)

But, in France, movie ticket prices are simply much more affordable. They are around 4-6 euros (about $5-8.) It seems that France is trying to promote this cinema culture by making ticket prices much more affordable. If you go to the cinema—at least in Toulouse—on a given Friday night, you’d better show up at least 20 minutes early or you won’t get your ticket before the movie starts.

The turnover of a film (the time from a film’s release in the cinema to its release on DVD) has become so quick, and the ease of access to films on DVD has become so great (in the U.S.) that it is sinking the cinema culture. People are more likely to wait three months to rent a film for the family for 3 bucks, maybe get a pizza, make their own popcorn and watch it on their flat screen, rather than spend the 50 bucks it takes just to get into the theater. The large swing of people not going to the theater is causing Hollywood to come out with these huge-budgeted films that appeal to the least common denominator to try and get more people to see them to make up for costs, in turn decreasing the quality of films released in the theater.

My proposition is a return to the “cinema culture.” If movie theaters begin to charge less for ticket prices, more people will go, which means that if more people go, the theater is more likely to sell more popcorn, candy, etc. If Americans made this transition back, there would be less dependency on fewer major corporations like Netflix, and the distribution of wealth would be, well, dispersed more. America is in a recession (even if they don’t call it that anymore), and everyone wants to be out of it now. I understand. I do too. But it won’t happen by continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. So, maybe we need to change our culture, and I think a transformed entertainment industry is a good way to start. The times, they are a changing, and we Americans need to think outside the mail box again.

Back *from* the Future: Realized Predictions from "Back to the Future: Part II"

Context: A few weeks ago, I was discussing Science Fiction in my English conversation class. I asked my students what they knew about it, etc. A few of them talked about the stereotypes, clichés, and what not. One person even mentioned George Méliès, and to say the least, I was elated that they had played right into my hand. I showed them one of Méliès’ most famous works, Le voyage dans la Lune, which, at that time (1902), made many predictions about the future, specifically space travel and lunar landings. Being the cinéaste that I am, my next reaction was to show a clip of Back to the Future: Part II, to see how accurate, if at all, this film’s predictions were about the future. Unfortunately due to time restrictions, the discussion didn't last very long. However, it did inspire me to take a closer look myself at the it’s predictions, especially since it’s pretty close (2012) to the film’s future (2015) and to see how accurate, if at all, these predictions are. So this is what I came up with:

In the 1982 documentary Room 666, director Wim Wenders canvassed the Cannes Film Festival in search of some of the contemporarily great filmmakers with the intention of asking them what they thought the future held for cinema. Amongst the interviewed filmmakers, a young director named Steven Spielberg (ever heard of him?) proclaims, “I’m one of the last of the optimists of the history and the future of the motion picture industry in Hollywood.” Spielberg understood—and understands—so well the contemporary state of the movie industry and its future. He continues to make some very insightful and very accurate predictions, including the ideology and economics of the future of cinema, which translate into his approach to filmmaking. (Spielberg interview begins at 0:23.)

Being from the “Spielberg school of filmmaking,” director Robert Zemeckis takes Spielberg’s ideology and puts it into practice in Back to the Future: Part II. After all, Spielberg produced the film, and although not directly stated as the influence, many of his ideological themes are evident in the film, most notably the concern for the middle-class, suburban, American family. But Back to the Future: Part II was filmed nearly 23 years ago, so what relevance could it have for today’s America? Well, the film is about the future, (obviously suggested by the film’s title,) but more specifically—as Doc puts it—gaining “a clearer perception of humanity—where we’ve been, where we’re going, the pitfalls, and the possibilities, the perils and the promise.” A grocery list of obvious product placements and cultural references can me made; however, it is important to focus on the subdued socio-economical aspects of the film, which undermine the flashy effects, and paint the most accurate predictions.

What should be noted in respects to the humorously obvious parts of the film are some of the major product placements and cultural references. One of the most glaring and most humorous of such references, seen very early in the film, which underscores Spielberg and Zemeckis’s understanding of the movie industry, is the scene when Marty first arrives in the future. From the back alleys containing the bales of laser-discs, compact discs, and DVD’s (most likely,) Marty power-laces up his Nike sneakers and steps into “the future,” where the film’s first major comment on the future of Hollywood can be seen.

Zemeckis (channeling Spielberg) essentially—and accurately—describes the current state of moviemaking. Firstly, the CD’s and DVD’s are in the trash, this is clearly evident in today’s world, where the internet has provided the even most casual users the ease and opportunity to ditch the discs and electronically download videos, music, what have you from the internet. The DVD-boom is on its decent, and digital media is on the rise, an out with the old and in with the new scenario à la The Graduate.

So what does the film predict next? Because music and—more relevantly to Spielberg—movies have become so much more readily available thanks the internet, coupled with the economic state of the country, the theatrical world of movie releases has changed. When first hearing that Doc has put him on a mission to salvage his and his children’s future, Marty’s paramount concern is whether or not he will be rich, which is reiterated by Marty’s interest in the sports almanac. This is an example of the social mindset of America in 1989 when the film was made but this mindset—this concern for money—can still be seen in America today in 2012, which is a hauntingly accurate coincidence since the film predicts the 2015 future.

The Cubs win the World Series, over Miami!?

This mindset is transferable to movie audiences, who are less concerned with seeing films in their “natural” state (i.e. in the theaters,) and are more concerned with saving a few bucks and downloading films. So what does the film say about that? It says that Hollywood must maximize its profits by sequels, 3D, and films “based on” other work. Zemeckis (still channeling Spielberg) shows the re-advent of 3D films (that’s right this isn’t the first time Hollywood’s tried this trick. Note Hollywood during the advent of Television. Ironically, proof of this can be seen by the character “3D” who appears in this film and the original Back to the Future set in 1955.) There will also be sequels: Jaws 19 (yes, the shark still looks fake, even in 3D—and in the sequel.) And these film’s will be directed, not necessarily by Spielberg, but by his puppets (Zemeckis?), who do not come up with their own idea but just “reuse” the same story we’ve seen 19 times.

Must have oil.

Amongst the plethora of humorously—and hideously—placed products like the Nike power laces, there stands a few more subtle ones. For example, the Texaco gas station (although not too subtle) shows the inability for America to shake off its reliance on oil for more ecologically friendly modes of transportation. They also plug Ford and Pontiac cars. It’s 2012, and it does not seem like too many of us are getting rid of our Made-in-America gas-guzzlers too quickly (note GM’s “rise” to the top of the auto industry again.) Fortunately, America is taking eco-friendly steps, and hopefully there is still time to falsify this one. Time will tell.

There is also an avalanche of subtle product placements that can be seen in the future McFly home, including—probably most subtly—but definitely most importantly the recurring AT&T products. The logo can be seen in advertisements in downtown Hill Valley as well as on the home security thumb pad of the McFly home. The AT&T of Spielberg’s future is one that is a huge corporation and that is evident in the most everyday tasks. Most shockingly and overlooked is probably the scale to which it is present in communication (gasp?).

Spielberg essentially predicts the rise of the social media network, and he goes further than that and shows its impact on the average American family. (Getting creeped out yet?) For example, not only is the house just littered with electronics, stereos, big-screen projection TV’s and cable (provided by none other than AT&T), but the phone company is AT&T also. When old Needles calls old Marty, AT&T graciously supplies the caller ID, i.e. name (of course), wife’s name, children’s name (wait for it), hobbies, his favorite drinks, his favorite sports, his political affiliation, and even his address. Is this reminiscent of the information that any current social network might provide? The entire household is wired together by a social network; in the case of Back to the Future: Part II, this network is provided by AT&T but it’s eerily similar to the social network who shall not be named (for fear of promoting it, or being monitored by it.)

So big whoop, they managed to make a pretty generalized prediction, but in Spielberg’s opinion, the problem—or maybe the fear—lies with the affect that this connection to this artificial network has on the typical American family, the McFlys. Not only are Marty Jr. and Marlene completely consumed with and distracted by the telephones, televisions, and technology, (in fact their eyes are literally covered up by their phones,) but Marty is too concerned with work, rather than his family. His marriage is suffering because of it too; note when speaking to his mother, he says “Oh, yeah, great mom. We’re like a couple of teenagers, you know.”—eye-roll. This is Spielberg’s top concern: the dissolution of the American family by the overwhelming affects of technology. If it were not for some crazy, wild-eyed scientist’s perception, he would be breading basically a bunch of criminals.

"The justice system works swiftly in the future now that they've abolished all lawyers."

Furthermore, Marty is too concerned with making illegal business deals with Needles, taking the short-cut in life, to provide for his family. This leads to an even financially graver situation, where he gets fired for it because he is being monitored. That’s right, his boss Fujitsu Iko was “monitoring that call [he] just interfaced,” and terminated Marty. The suggestion here is that it is quite possible for not only employers, but possibly even the government (wuh? No!) could easily do the same. Just think, if one company had access to hundreds of millions of people’s personal information, and could monitor any call without prior notification (Patriot Act?), what would happen if that company, say, would go public and start selling stock? And what if that publicly traded company sold stock to the government, and the government gained control of all that private information? Spielberg probably does not intend to take the film to that degree, (but I am…just offering you something to think about.)

Past events have an impact on our present and present events have an impact on our future, so it is important that we consider the affect before we delve into the commercialized world with major corporations. There are advertisements and influences all around us, whether subconscious or the blatantly obvious, and these help form our state of mind. Coming off a year (2011) which has shown us protests, revolutions, and even wars, it is important to note how these have come about. Social networks, video streaming sites, the internet, and the freedom of information in general have played an important role. However, it's important to know who has control of and access to the information about ourselves that we make available. Information is power. So in the words of Griff’s gang, “Hey McFly, you bojo, those boards don’t work on water… unless you’ve got POWER!”

The "Shame"-less Oscars

Context: So, I've seen many of the Oscar Nominated films this year, and the two that stuck out to me the most didn't even get nominated. I'm speaking of course of Drive and Shame. I saw the former in the fall, and the latter last week; both in the local "art" cinema here in Toulouse, called "Utopia," and for a cinéaste like myself, that is exactly what this theater is like. If you didn't know where it was, you would miss it. It is on a narrow down-town street, typical to many French cities. There is no big neon sign, just a small, green chalk-board posted on the glass doors that displays the day's show-times. There is not a large crowd of teens laughing and running around, just a few older hipster-types sprinkled calmly outside the door smoking. Inside, it is a grand foyer, or at least grand for a cinema of its small stature. The ticket booth is perched at the top of a small set of stairs, and each of the three screens are located in rooms covered to the walls with plush, red-velvet cloth. Each screening was with a packed house, only appropriate for the two excellent films that I saw.

As it seems to manage each year, the Academy Awards does not fail to disappoint with its nominations, and this year they take no Shame in it either. That’s right; I’m referring to the sophomore effort by English director, Steve McQueen who failed to garner any attention with his film about sex-addiction, aside from its NC-17 rating. Unfortunately, he is in good company this year with the likes of Nicolas Winding Refn and the rest of the cast of Drive, who were all snubbed for contention for that bald, gold guy. Both directors and films make a great case for why they should have been nominated and why they should be very upset that they got snubbed.

The first reason the Oscars got the nods wrong again this year: Michael Fassbender and Ryan Gosling. Both in roles as the strong silent type, they acted with near perfection and each with their own style. Gosling in this case probably getting snubbed because he is too good looking; he is this generation’s Brad Pitt. He will be nominated a lot in the future, but his acting ability will be highly overlooked (like that of Pitt) because he has been associated with that “teen heartthrob” crowd. Fassbender suffers from, well, being foreign. He is a quickly rising star but largely unknown to many Americans, which works to his disadvantage this year after starring in a highly censored film (censored in the sense that it suffered under the weight of the NC-17 rating, which essentially limits who can see the film.)

Michael Fassbender in Shame

What puts the salt in the wound of these snubs is the list of Best-Actor nominations. There are Hollywood mainstays but also some underdogs too. George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and (more recently a mainstay) Gary Oldman, all of which are great actors in their own right, are most likely nominated because of their Hollywood clout. Clooney is the most deserving of the nod, and maybe even the Oscar, with his incredibly poignant performance in The Descendants. Pitt is more a mainstay snub, snub for a win that is, but his portrayal as Billy Beane, although wonderful, is far from his best performance, let alone his best this year (see his performance in The Tree of Life.) Then there is Oldman, who like Pitt, continually takes on challenging and different roles, and rather, he deserves the statuette more for his body of work. The problem here however is that these three represent the typical choices of the Academy; they have the “big name” advantage going for them. Gosling and Fassbender would be more fitting in the spots occupied by Pitt and Oldman. It is good however, to see the little-known (to American audiences) Damián Bichir and Jean Dujardin nominated. Although I think Dujardin is mostly riding off the popularity of The Artist.

Ryan Gosling in Drive

Another reason that the Oscars got it wrong: Carey Mulligan. This is an unfortunate one because she co-starred in both Drive and Shame, which probably hurt in splitting the nominations for her. Both performances were of equally high quality, and each character she portrayed was very different. If anything, this contrast in character types, or even the fact that she simply picks interesting, complex roles, should have gotten her a nomination. Her contemporary, Jessica Chastain, managed to get the nod after starring, less notably in my opinion, in The Tree of Life and The Help, the later being the performance of lesser quality but of more popularity to audiences. This is a defect that the Academy suffers from each year. They attempt to compensate for popular films (or in Meryl Streep’s case, popular actresses) and overlook truly great performances, like both by Carey Mulligan.

Carey Mulligan in Shame

Carey Mulligan in Drive

Probably the toughest, but most justified argument to be made for both Drive and Shame is in respects to the directors and the films in general, (these being the first films that I personally have seen from either director.) Making nominations judged heavily on past work should not be practiced in the spirit of finding the current year’s best films, performances, etc. However, Winding Refn and McQueen are two of the most original and daring filmmakers currently working. In Winding Refn’s case, (having only heard about his affinity for violence in his films,) it seems that he treats the subject appropriately. Drive works as a sort of modern western with Gosling as the man of mystery à la Brad Pitt/John Wayne. He is known only in the credits as the Driver. This film is a story about how he falls in love with and sacrifices everything for Irene (played by Mulligan) and her son. This is part of the film is accompanied by the one part of the film that didn’t get a snub, the sound editing, and the entrancing soundtrack. The violence in this film is not seen until around halfway through and is really shocking, as it should be. Violence should be treated as something that is gruesome, it should make you twinge, and it shouldn’t be treated as “cool.” The contrast between the love story and the violence is the power of this film.

Ryan Gosling (Left) and Nicolas Winding Refn (Right)

In the case of McQueen, he suffers from this being his sophomore effort and his exposure (or ironically lack thereof) to the public. How could a film be more daring in Hollywood than with an NC-17 rating? However, this rating does not do Shame justice. Although a very sexually explicit film that dives deep into the psyche of a sex addict with possibly deeper incestual issues, Shame is a perfectly written and constructed film. It borders on Hitchcockian structure, where every part of the film, not just the writing or the acting (for example,) but also the editing and art-design are essential to what the film is trying to portray. It is probably the most perfect, all-round, film of the year, where every aspect is essential and should not be overlooked. McQueen is very conscious of every part of his film.

Michael Fassbender (Left) and Steve McQueen (Right)

Although a complete analysis can be made of Shame, uncovering all of its intricacies, (and in fact, I have written one,) it is important to note what the Academy has actually nominated instead of Shame, and also Drive. In the Best-Directing category, the Academy got it mostly right, although Scorsese I think got a free pass this year, and a McQueen nomination would have been more justified. And Best Picture, well, one would think with all the possible nominations (ten , but they only nominated 9?!) that the Academy could include a film like Drive or Shame, but apparently they were very undeserving. It was a stronger year than most people think; it is just a shame that people have overlooked the truly great films of the year. (But, what’s new.)

Things Can Only Get Better

It's a new year, and unfortunately, I too enter a new phase of my life, brought on partly because, well it is in fact the new year. Now, I'm not much for New Year's resolutions, but this holiday season provided the perfect storm for me to integrate into my life some change. I'm a pretty relaxed person and am not usual one of those go-go-go people with my foot on the gas when it comes to goals. Granted, I do have goals, just I'm more relaxed about them. I also realize that it is the 24th of January and I'm just starting to talk about my resolutions, but I have actually been pretty successful in keeping to them. 

There are three main resolutions that I have made for myself. In the most sweeping generalization I can make, there is a lot going on in the world today. There are protests, famines, wars, and just general political unrest taking place all over the world. A lot of this is unknown to many of the average Americans, (including myself.) There is a lot of information out there to be consumed and to keep track of; however, it is important to at least be aware of this, and that is one of my resolutions for this new year. I plan to get into a routine where I follow the world news more closely. I have studied and work in a foreign country, and it is important to note what is happening somewhere else. So, although I'm just now writing about it, I've decided to maximize the mass amount of free-time that my job allows, and I have been listening and reading to NPR online just about everyday. It is one of the most unbiased and interesting news sources that I've found. I'm not particularly privy to all the left or right leaning news sources. They are ridiculously biased, so much so that I can't take what they saying seriously. I would also consider CNN a reliable source, although there is a large difference between CNN and CNN International. So, that is something to be aware of.

Another resolution I've made is reading. I'm just trying to read more in general. I really love to read, and books are a wonderful and enriching experience. They help improve your memory, creativity, and intelligence, like giving your mind a workout so that you don't become a mindless pawn. Recently, I have looked forward to reading more and more. I never used to be a big reader. In grade school, I remember we had this computerized testing system that had quizzes over certain books, and we students were supposed to read a certain amount of the books per year and take the quizzes. I always tried to find a way around doing them, or I would just plain do poorly on them. However, since beginning college, I have personally discovered how much I truly enjoy reading. So now that I have an excess of free time, I plan on reading as many books as I possibly can, hopefully actual books, not online. You can't beat the feel of the pages on your fingers and that musty, old-book smell. 

Another minor goal is to listen to more music. I love music, and I love discovering new music. It is a little difficult in France because Pandora does not work over hear, copy-right restrictions and all. So I've been relying heavily on Youtube, but that really hasn't helped expand selection. I also use NPR (naturally) to give me some good selections. One of the groups NPR has exposed me two, just recently actually, is called First Aid Kit. It consists of two Swedish sisters, Klara and Johanna Soderberg, who began recording there own folk-style music on their cellphones. I'm listening to them as I write this, and I highly recommend them. My favorite track is called "Emmylou," from their new album The Lion's Roar. So please have a listen.

Probably my biggest resolution is writing, writing, writing. Because I do consider myself a writer, I have been trying to be more disciplined about writing. I heard a story about a writer on NPR, she had landed a big contract because she had published her own content online. She said she had spoken to this musician who told her that "It's not enough to have a passion, you have to have a work ethic." This is probably the best advice I've heard about writing--about any passion that one may have. So that is what I am trying to do, to get into a routine with everything in my life, to develop my work ethic, to write everyday, whether in my newly created blog here, or writing fiction. Time drags on when I'm bored, I start thinking unpleasant thoughts; I start thinking about how much I miss my family and how much I miss my friends. That is what this year is going to be all about. Intellectual and emotional self-improvement. And, I've got a long road ahead. So here goes, bring it 2012.

"It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known."