In promotion of Dancing in the Dark Brooke Gladstone and Morris Dickstein discuss the importance of cinema as a cultural reference to the Depression era ("Hard Times," On the Media). To the causal viewer, films of the era may be dismissed as "cultural artifacts," but are really speaking to the reasons why there may have been a demand for escapist films. One does not have to read very hard into Bugsby Berley's Golddiggers of 1933 to see the allure of Hollywood that New York showgirls might have felt or to see political parallels between FDR and the Wizard of Oz (Okay, i never saw that one before but now it seems so obvious!) Their discussion also mentions the juxtaposition of highly budgeted show-stoppers by grittier films, especially those that fall in the gangster genre. While these connection are far from revolutionary, it is an important to know that example cinema is a reflection modern societies and cultures of the times in which a film is made.
As I was walking home today, I was listening to the Filmspotting podcast from April 3, 2009 (you can play the podcast from their blog. Adam and Matty's discussion of neo-neorealism is the first 20min of the podcast). The hosts were discussing Ramin Bahrani's movie called Goodbye Solo. The hosts were commenting on the movie because it was mentioned in an article in The New York Times magazine about "Neo-Neorealism." The Filmspotting podcast and the articles that sparked their discussion all mentioned the "escapist" films of the 1930's.
I'm not an expert on Italian neorealist filmmakers so I will default to wikipedia:
Italian neorealism is a style of film characterized by stories set amongst the poor and working class, filmed on location, frequently using nonprofessional actors. Italian neorealist films mostly contend with the difficult economical and moral conditions of post-World War II Italy, reflecting the changes in the Italian psyche and the conditions of everyday life: poverty and desperation.
Scott says neo-neo realism is a school of American filmmakers that are using similar aesthetics and are continuing the trend of a gritty story that often does not end on the brightside. Often, the characters in the neo-neorealism films are down on their luck and are scrapping together their pennies to be able to seek out better life. Scott's article generated a retort from the movies editor at the New Yorker "About 'Neo-Neorealism.'" Richard Brody said that Scott was a little too ga-ga over these "abstemious" film that are purposely gritty but in doing so are often cutting "off a wide range of aesthetic possibilities and experiences on ostensible grounds of virtue."
Scott mentions that it is obvious that cinema reflects cultural attitudes but sometimes the more "socialminded" films get undermined by escapist films. He mentions huge blockbusters of early 2009 and says that people are diverted but essentially misled from their troubles by happy endings and the glamour of Hollywood just as they were in the Depression Era. His solution is to "counter the tyranny of fantasy" by taking more stock in the social commentary embedded in neo-neorealism films. Brody counters this point by saying Scott is remiss not to mention the gangster films in comparison to the highly budgeted "escapist" films of the '30s. Even though films like Golddiggers were more likely to appeal to the population looking for escape, it is no less a cultural reference of the gritty realism portrayed in gangster films like The Public Enemy.
Dickstien and Gladston finish their discussion by talking about media artifacts that extend beyond the cinema. They mention T.V. shows and novels (I think it is safe to say that new media artifacts as well) are always going to be cultural artifacts - and probably more so in retrospect - no matter how epic or populist they may appear to be in the moment.
No comments:
Post a Comment