Bill wrote:
"when a movie becomes a
blockbuster, all questions of artistic merit cease to be relevant and it
deserves to be studied as cultural anthropology. Because I believe this
to be
true, I would like to propose that instead of 'boycotting' *The
Waterboy*, all
true film-philosophers should be moving it to near the top of their
'must-see'
list."
If artistic merit goes out the door with _The Waterboy_ and it becomes
"cultural anthropology" then what use is it to "film-philosophers?"
Shouldn't a "cultural anthropologist" be the one to put it on his/her
"must-see" list instead?
Of course if you really want to you can break down any film and impose
some sort of validity to it. But do you really believe that _The
Waterboy_ (or even the new _Psycho_ for that matter) was crafted with
the intention to rouse critical recognition from "film-philosophers?"
We interpret these films, like Truffaut did, as purely cultural
phenomenon. And that is the argument I am proposing, that popular film
has become purely cultural phenomenon. Contemporary film is about the
events surrounding the film, not the actual film itself. The actual film
is a spectacle to marvel at and the viewer is left only with the
question of whether or not it lived up to his/her pre-viewing
expectations ("Did it or didn't it live up to the hype?" "Is it better
or worse than the original?")
Therefore it is to no surprise that film theorists and philosophers are
stuck writing about and discussing films from Cinema past. Someone who
discusses a contemporary film can't be a film philosopher, only a
"cultural anthropologist." We have to assume that Bill is considering
"true film philosophers" to be contemporary film philosophers (thus
"cultural anthropologists"). So in that respect Bill is correct in
saying that all "true film philosophers" should put _The Waterboy_ on
their must-see list.
But it still isn't anywhere near my list. So I guess I am not a "true
film philosopher." I can live with that.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|