AMERICAN FILM PERSISTANCE OF THE CHC… & SOME ALTERNATIVES.

AMERICAN FILM

PERSISTANCE OF THE CHC…

& SOME ALTERNATIVES

American film seems to be a monolithic entity

Seems to follow a fairly rigid pattern However, room for diversity, both

within & without the Hollywood industry

DIVERSITY WITHIN THE INDUSTRY Studio Era: musical shorts, cartoons,

newsreels & short documentary pieces Different genres, each with its own

conventions (but always within CHC style) There are influences from other film styles

German Expressionism Italian Neorealism European Art Cinema

The Cabinet of Dr Caligari(Robert Wiene, 1920)

Frankenstein (James Whale, 1930)

Double Indemnity (Billy Wilder, 1944)

Rome, Open City (Roberto Rossellini, 1946)

On the Waterfront (Elia Kazan, 1954)

Last Year at Marienbad(Alain Resnais, 1961)

Eraserhead (David Lynch, 1978)

DIVERSITY WITHIN THE INDUSTRY

Combinations of animation & live action, etc.

Occasionally a documentary Some personalities powerful enough to

“go their own way”

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (Roger Zemeckis, 1988)

Cool World (Ralph Bakshi, 1992)

Roger & Me(Michael Moore,

1989)

Bowling for Columbine(Michael Moore, 2002)

D W Griffith

King Vidor

Woody Allen

Francis Ford Coppola

Oliver Stone

Spike Lee

David Lynch

Eraserhead (David Lynch, 1978)

OUTSIDE OF THE INDUSTRY

Since silent era, individuals have made more personal films

Most short, avant-garde films Some documentaries, ethnographic

films A few feature films, but usually too

expensive for an individual

Meshes of the Afternoon

(Maya Deren, 1943)

PERSISTENCE OF THE MODE

CHC persists, largely unchanged by alternatives

The fact that we refer to “alternative films” indicates that they are not dominant

Most films, made anywhere, follow the basic conventions of the CHC

Narrative structure (individual protagonist, cause & effect construction, goals, etc.)

Stylistic conventions (continuity editing, esp.)

PERSISTENCE OF THE MODE

Even alternatives limit their “deviations” to specific features

They use CHC as a base, then deviate from it in specific, & limited, ways

Ensures that audience can follow the narrative

We all speak the language of Hollywood

WHAT DO WE CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES TODAY? The term “independents”, in the

business sense, applies to all films made today

But we think of independent films based on stylistic features, not mode of production

Some are playful with temporal & spatial relations

Others are more like European Art Cinema, with a sense of ambiguity

WHAT DO WE CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES TODAY?

Some explore the limits of technology & aesthetics

A look has been accepted as “good” for Hollywood films

Fairly soft, warm lighting A clear image Fine-grained film stock “Professional” acting, good-looking stars in

sympathetic roles

WHAT DO WE CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES TODAY?

Some films challenge accepted aesthetic qualities

May use natural lighting, regardless of resulting clarity of image

May use non-professional actors, or not especially good looking

May use cheaper alternatives to expensive film stock & cameras (digital video)

Natural Born Killers (Oliver Stone, 1994)

The Blair Witch Project (Daniel Myrick & Eduardo Sánchez, 1999)

Traffic (Steven Soderbergh, 1999)

HOW DO ALTERNATIVES FIT IN THE HOLLYWOOD SYSTEM?

MARKETING “Independent” or alternative films share a

number of conventions that signal “art” to some viewers, who then seek out movies with these conventions

Tend to receive awards at film festivals & approval of critics, both used in marketing

Add diversity of product to a studio’s offerings


Have taken over some of the role of B movies

Many actors, directors & technicians begin on these low-budget movies before moving into mainstream

Some never do, as a matter of choice Some prefer the relative freedom offered by

smaller budgets Some simply prefer these kinds of films


Some well-known actors (& sometimes directors) make these movies later in their careers

May be trying to prove that they are real “actors”

May be trying to “jump start” their careers during a slump

Sylvester Stallone in Cop Land (James Mangold, 1997)

John Travolta in Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1994)

Bruce Willis in Pulp Fiction(Quentin Tarantino, 1994)

John Cusack & Cameron Diaz in Being John Malkovich (Spike Jonze, 1999)

John Malkovich in Being John Malkovich (Spike Jonze, 1999)


New technologies, especially video & digital technology, can be explored

Doesn’t jeopardize success of expensive movies

Technologies then used in more expensive movies

Technologies are often used as aesthetic features, usually with narrative implications


Because they are almost always distributed by majors, will almost never deviate too much from CHC style

The most obviously different films tend to be made without studio financing

Studios would demand changes before investing &/or agreeing to distribution

May agree after film is made & has had some exposure; a “negative pick-up”


Most films don’t offer extreme alternatives

They are just kind of “quirky” Allow viewers to think of themselves as

artsy & clever, without having to think too much or get too confused

AMERICAN FILM PERSISTANCE OF THE CHC… & SOME ALTERNATIVES.

Documents

Transcript of AMERICAN FILM PERSISTANCE OF THE CHC… & SOME ALTERNATIVES.