|
ESSAYS, ARTICLES, AND THEORIES ABOUT CINEMA
|
|
| |
|
|
| Thursday, July 8, 2010
|
|
End of the New Wave, Beginning of the Newer Wave |
Richard Neupert’s conclusion is perfect for the end of the semester not only because it affirms his purpose for writing the book, but it also helps bring together every filmmaker covered this semester. Throughout the semester, transitioning from filmmaker to filmmaker, the differences were so obviously shown, but Neupert reminds the reader of the importance in similarities, bringing all of them together in one wave for one purpose – to drastically alter cinema.
Neupert first establishes that the critic-turned filmmakers of Cahiers Du Cinema were not the only individuals in the New Wave. Their successes were easily marketed due to the accessibility of having their own film journal. That being said, François Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard and Claude Chabrol are more widely known than Jacques Demy and Chris Marker, just as in another revolutionary wave of artists, the Beat Generation, Jack Kerouac, William S. Burroughs, and Allen Ginsberg are more popular than others like Gregory Corso and Anne Waldman. Every group needs a posterchild.
Even going further, Neupert claims that he “searched for a purer understanding of the French New Wave.” This is very important, because in the process of studying something, the original main goal is sometimes lost. One major issue when it comes to critical arguments is that certain individuals tend to digress further away from their premise. Or for another example, when writing an essay, certain individuals tend to move away from their thesis. These issues occur frequently because the person involved is so eager to get to another point that the original idea is lost. By declaring this, Neupert truly shows his passion for not just learning what the New Wave IS, but also WAS. This suggests Neupert is studying the group, not only how society views them today, but how society viewed them at the time of its conception. That context alone alludes to a better understanding of the group’s message altogether. One does not really grasp a firm understanding in say for instance Bout De Souffle (1959), Les Quatre Cents Coups (1959) or evenHiroshima Mon Amour (1959), without first knowing their historical significance.
While on the subject of cinema history, Neupert shows the importance of the French New Wave by placing it amongst the other great international cinema movements like the “Soviet montage, Italian Neorealism, New German Cinema and the Chinese Fifth Generation” labeling the French New Wave as “more than a staple segment of film history classes.” These movements changed the way people saw cinema, just as the cinema saw people. These groups can easily be compared to various introspective technologies, like say for instance, the classicism of Soviet montage saw the world by viewing the stars, well the Italian Neorealists went even further by seeing the world through a telescope. Surpassing that, the New German Cinema saw the world through a microscope, but it wasn’t until the French New Wave, who saw the world by literally dissecting the body and really seeing what was inside. The idea is the same for each movement, but the difference is, like Neupert mentions, the technology; the how to go about showing and telling a story or giving a message.
Neupert also discusses WHY the French New Wave is so popular. He says it is because, “many cinema students can easily identify with an impassioned group of young film buffs, impatient to leap into the act of making movies.” This is very important, because at a University like Georgia State, there are a countless number of film students aspiring to be the next Spielberg or Michael Bay, but lack the appreciation for cinema. That is where the French New Wave comes in, because they first acquired the appreciation before having the desire to make films. Being in America at 2009 also hardens the cultural barrier, since studying art and cinema in Paris during the 50’s and 60’s meant actually being a part of a cultural revolution. Today it just gives an internship and a possible job opportunity. Appreciation for cinema is taught by passionate professors, who have just as much love for the cinema as the ones making films today, but so many students fail to accept that appreciation, and are fueled to make films primarily for a prophet. Then on the other hand, in the profit-driven world today, it is hard to make cinema for its own sake. This is why the French New Wave is popular, because they defied the laws of working your way up until the moment of recognition allowed a chance to make a film. These individuals avoided the studios and with new technology of mobile camera and specific tactics of their own, made the films they wanted to make, and were accepted first on a smaller level amongst film buffs who appreciated cinema, then onward to a larger scale of people.
Auterism is also discussed in the conclusion, however the other filmic components are also acknowledged as major components to help the process of cinematically bringing the author’s vision to life. In a sense, the idea of an “auteur” can even be dissected further to suggest that Raoul Coutard is an auteur amongst other cinematographers. The same goes for Georges Delerue amongst composers and Jean-Pierre Leaud amongst actors.
Neupert also discusses the impact the French New Wave had on others, mentioning they, “can be thought of as generating carrier waves; young people in France and internationally were motivated to participate in the fervor over a new generation coming to the foreground.” If the FNW left such an impact on others, imagine what kind of movements can come about with said impact used as inspiration. Certainly, Dogme95 has many similarities in that it is a new group consisting of aspiring filmmakers, who changed the way cinema was seen: through breaking conventions by establishing a “Vow of Chastity.” This chastity can be compared to Truffaut’s own personal manifestation of the French New Wave. Also, the new movement known as Mumblecore has recently been getting a lot of praise as a possible enhancement of the New Wave’s techniques, such as non-linear storytelling, emphasis on dialogue, and heavy reliance on improvisation. In a society dominated by the understanding of independent filmmaking being a film made for hundreds of thousands of dollars (which is only understandable compared to a 200 million dollar Hollywood picture), perhaps a new movement has emerged to push the envelope even further and alter the way people see cinema and how cinema sees people. |
|
posted by Will Lewis 11:07 PM
 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
