Critical Article: On Susan Sontag's "The Decay of Cinema"

In 1996, exactly nine years and two days ago, Susan Sontag wrote a compelling article in New York Times called “The Decay of Cinema”. In the article, she not only discusses the disappointing consequences of film becoming more of an industry and less as an art form (briefly discussing how the two used to be inseparable in the beginning), but also laments the death of cinephilia – the special, distinct love once had for movies.

The practice of cinema-going continues to become less and less relevant as technological convergence grants people the convenience of being able to watch films wherever they want whenever they want in today’s fast-paced and preoccupied society. But does this really diminish the love for film? Despite the lack of an all-consuming environment as in a movie theater, “secondgeneration cinephiliacs” have busier lifestyles and yet still set aside time to watch films, whether it be after a long day of work or in between destinations. If anything, this exhibits a stronger dedication to cinema than the cinephiliacs in the past who didn’t do much else except watch films all day. Needless to say, it is impossible in contemporary times to practice cinephilia the way it used to be. Sontag is nostalgic for an era that will never be applicable to the present or the future. The way in which people appreciate films today will never be the same as how people used to in the 1950s, similarly people in the 1950s did not value cinema the way people did in the 1900s, when cinema was only a developing concept.

Moreover, Sontag seems to neglect the idea of technological advancements and social climate change, and the possibility of cinephilia persisting despite (or even because) of these. Thomas Elsaesser, a German film historian, coined the term “second generation cinephilia” which he defines as “post-auteur, post-theory cinema that finds is jouissance in an often undisguised and unapologetic fetishism of the technical prowess of the digital” (Cinephilia: Movies, Love, and Memory). In simpler terms, advancing technology allows the new cinephiliacs to be more open to experimental and unorthodox manifestation of film, which consequently allows for an appreciation of a broader scope of visual arts.

However, Sontag argues that although there might still be a rare breed of film-watchers who have sophisticated taste (quite pretentious, if you ask me) and hold certain expectations when it comes to movies, the kinds of films that are prevalent nowadays are those that only aspire for commercial success. Yet later on she acknowledges that wonderful films are still being made. Is she implying that the efforts of these people are in vain? It is quite unfair for her to write such a pessimistic article when she herself is aware that there are still those who try, both as creators and as viewers. Sontag seems to limit her understanding on mainstream cinema. If there are people who believe that short films are making a comeback, what makes her innovative features won’t, especially considering the advantage of the technology we have today?

If her intention was to inspire “a new kind of cine-love” as she calls it, all she does is discourage filmmakers and film viewers alike. The worst part is that the postulation she makes in this seminal piece has brought about many works communicating the same sentiments. Instead of looking forward to the future of film with unwavering hope, all she does is pine for a lost time, and encourages everyone else to do the same. Ironically, the article undermines both film and cinephilia.

Easy A (2010) Pays Homage to Ferris Bueller and Other '80s Films

“Pardon my French, but Cameron is so tight that if you stuck a lump of coal up his ass, in two weeks you’d have a diamond.”

If there’s one sure-fire way to sell a film to me, it’s the presence of a witty dialogue. It is for this reason that I consider John Hughes’ Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986) one of my all-time favorite movies. Well - that and the fact that I also was (still is) a truant myself.

The thing about Ferris Bueller is that it is more than it appears to be. One on hand, Ferris, both the film and the person, can be seen as frivolous, shallow, and egocentric (to the degree that it might even be sociopathic), something that only middle-to-upper middle class white Americans can truly identify with: He skips school and drives to the city with his friends in a convertible. He watches a baseball game and eats lunch at a fancy restaurant. He doesn’t seem to have any troubles at all, financially or otherwise. But I remember thinking if I wanted to be friends with him or be him, and I realized that Ferris Bueller also represented a way of living that I wanted to adapt.

Unfortunately, growing up from a developing Asian country with strict Roman Catholic background definitely made me more like a Cameron. Some people want to be Luke Skywalker or Cher in Clueless. I wanted to be Ferris Bueller. I had never been so engrossed in a fictional character since Olive Penderghast in Easy A (2010).

I give Will Gluck’s Easy A, which I had seen before Ferris Bueller, the same high regard when it comes to dialogue. If you haven’t seen the film, it’s about a high school girl named Olive (Emma Stone) who becomes “the new school slut” after the lie she told her best friend about losing her virginity spreads to the entire school. 

While Olive isn’t as carefree as Ferris, what I really admire about her is the indestructible humor she possesses which is manifested in the way she approaches her life. Even when dealing with the worst circumstances, she could always see things from a comical perspective. She is a homebody who constantly found ways to amuse herself. This attitude became very relevant to my life when my family first moved to America. When I started high school in a small town in Connecticut, I must have watched the film at least five times a week because I wanted to emulate Olive’s outlook. I was really (x1000) sad those first couple of years, and the only friends I had were people who lived in pages or behind screens. They, of course, include Ferris and Olive.

Interestingly enough, Gluck’s favorite movie is Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. In fact, he admits to being a huge fan of ‘80s movies and putting in about 20 references to John Hughes films in his second feature Easy A. One subtle way Gluck does this is using contemporary covers of songs such as Simple Minds' "Don’t You Forget About Me" (The Breakfast Club). Most of the obvious ones come from Ferris Bueller.

The entire film is an unmistakable allusion to the decade of sappy teenage comedies that are usually about high school or romance or both. Olive herself expresses a nostalgia for the chivalry that are often found in ‘80s movies.

Although I am positive that I have seen better and far more substantial films, my personal attachment to the protagonists in Ferris Bueller and Easy A makes them top my list of my go-to movies. In recent times my life has gotten insignificantly better, and I don't skip school as much, but watching these two films every few months or so always reminds me of what I went through those tough couple of years. The mere existence of these films allows me to never lose sight of how far I've come and how much I am able to overcome.

This is why I study film.

Sources:

http://collider.com/director-will-gluck-interview-easy-a/

http://www.interviewmagazine.com/film/easy-a-will-gluck-emma-stone#_

http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/interview-will-gluck-talks-emma-stones-scandalous-reputation-in-easy-a.php

http://news.moviefone.com/2010/09/18/easy-a-will-gluck-interview/

http://screencrave.com/2010-09-14/interview-director-will-gluck-for-easy-a/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/movies/17easy.html?pagewanted=all

https://scenealotoffilms.wordpress.com/tag/ferris-buellers-day-off/

Director Spotlight: Jason Reitman

The first time I watched Reitman’s Up In the Air (2009), I was really impressed. It was less because of its distinct style and narrative than because it was a suggestion by a friend. Yes I admit, studying film has made me extremely choosy when it comes to the films I watch. I had never heard of it before, but within the first few minutes I knew that it must have been popular when it first came out. (Clues: George Clooney and the fact that it won a Golden Globe for Best Screenplay in 2010.) Yet there I was, about five years late, wondering if George Clooney (The Descendants) is an intrinsically talented actor or if he was molded by God himself specifically to play the role of Ryan Bingham.

Obviously, I really enjoyed the film. I went to Italy for spring break last year and it was the only film I watched on the flight to and from. And then I watched it a couple more times after that. I was one less viewing from memorizing the entire script when I decided to look more into director Jason Reitman to try to find out if he had made similar films. Fate smiled down on me when I found Thank You For Smoking (2005).

Both films, adapted from novels of the same titles, have strikingly identical concepts. Up In the Air’s Ryan Bingham is a corporate downsizing expert whose job is to travel around the country to fire people. In Thank You For Smoking, Aaron Eckhart plays Nick Naylor (The Dark Knight), an extremely charismatic lobbyist for Big Tobacco. In both films we find the protagonists struggling with the moral implications of their lifestyles as conflicts arise in the form of secondary characters. The satirical nature of the character-driven narratives allows Reitman to create light-hearted social commentaries on isolation and moral flexibility.

Other notable Reitman films are Juno and Young Adult, also following the same snappy pace + witty character formula. However, in 2013, Reitman tried his hand at drama for the first time with Labor Day in 2013. I have not seen the film, so I'm not even going to pretend that I know anything about it, but I heard it was a flop. Same goes for Men, Women & Children, which came out last year. Is Jason Reitman slowly losing his luster? At the young age of 37, hopefully not.

Keith Phipps, Nathan Rabin, and Scott Tobias over at The Dissolve discuss Jason Reitman.

Christine, "The Interview"

I honestly don’t know what to make of The Interview. To make an informed review is to know the true intentions of actors Seth Rogen and James Franco, director Evan Goldberg, and especially of writer Dan Sterling. Is it merely a commercial tactic that also happens to exploit the political situation of North Korea? Or does it serve a higher purpose — as a manifestation of just how influential shallow and profit-oriented media meddle in the way of delivering factual/more valuable information, for example? Perhaps a commentary on how the media regards its audience as nothing but a composition of bored, impressionable, unthinking fools that can be easily manipulated? Why are the Americans, particularly the characters of Rogen and Franco, portrayed as just as idiotic as the North Korean dictator they despise so much? Is the film a channel for the collaborators’ own anti-America sentiments?

Yes, I have so many questions. But I don’t need to understand the film in order to say that it is distasteful. My primary reason being the conflicting ideologies in the film, which could be extremely damaging to its wide-reaching audience. Allow me to explain:

First and foremost, the questionable portrayal of women. While the film did try to poke fun at the tropes in women’s roles in films (ie. Agent Lacey “honey potting” Franco to get him aboard on the mission), misogynistic undertones prevail from the very beginning with the little girl singing a song that touched on the sensitive issue that is rape.

In my personal opinion, whatever or howsoever it may be expressed (meaning jokingly or not), rape should never be a subject of light-hearted jest. Less than a month later, comediennes Amy Poehler and Tina Fey created the same mistake at the Golden Globe, much to the dismay of feminists worldwide. Time Magazine published a revolting article about how they were able to “do it the right way.” There is never a right way. Rape is not funny.

In contrast, the film also had a very empowered female in the character of Sook-yin Park. This is a woman whose sexual pursuits did not undermine her strength and intelligence. She is the savior of Skylark (Franco) and Rappoport (Rogen), and later of North Korea. Unfortunately, however awesome she may be, the existence and embodiment of her character do not negate all the jabs made on women. Overall, the film is still highly misogynistic. 

Take note the fact that Sook is Asian because it brings me to my next point.

The only positive thing that came out of The Interview is a hopeful dream.

All throughout the film, both Skylark and Rappoport repeatedly make fun of Asian accents. This is the most prevalent and obvious form of racism that is usually targeted at the Asian race. Being Asian myself, I found this severely annoying as it was done repeatedly and unnecessarily. Other than that, there were also punch lines about the Chinese diet and anti-Semitism. On the topic of racism, The Interview was unapologetic.

While some people might argue that the film attempted to humanize Kim Jong-Un, I would argue that the means used to achieve this was not done responsibly. Instead of using this expected blockbuster - a powerful platform - to actually present North Korea and Kim Jong-Un realistically, what this film does was distort their already disgraced image even more. What’s worse is knowing that only ill-informed, insensitive people would truly enjoy such a vapid film aka the population that needs enlightenment the most. (I mean, who else would eat up this sh*t?)

Granted, the whole film is a farce. But this only brings us back to my first question: what were the motives behind it? Ultimately, the only thing The Interview succeeds at is encouraging American ignorance of the real conditions of North Korea and the blind hate of its leader. I’m not saying that Kim Jong-Un is not a despicable man, nor am I encouraging compassion towards him. All I’m saying is that the reasons people might have for hating him are probably either exaggerated, incorrect, or even non-existent - and The Interview makes all of that seem okay.