onetwothreefour
Bluelight Crew
this has been brewing in my mind for a while now, and i guess it was piqued by the issues brought up in the kill bill thread. jean-luc godard (if you haven't heard of him, go look him up on imdb) said that it is impossible not to make a political film. presumably, his idea was not that every single hollywood piece of shit is as politically relevant as, say, the latest errol morris documentary, but that every film puts forward its political agenda through a variety of ways.
just as godard's films examine maoism, marxism and other revolution-based political thought processes, the latest spielberg film is just as active in advocating capitalism and the entire hollywood film-making process.
but that's not just the issue. i wonder if nowadays film-makers actually have a responsibility to play an active political role in the making of their films? obviously tarantino is a massive godard fan, but his films lack any sense of politicism (save for pulp fiction, which wholeheartedly embraces globalisation and its inherent americanisation of the world, but still goes no way towards actually pursuing the agenda aside from some comedic remarks).
documentary makers are well-known for making politically active films. they might have been around before michael moore, but a spate of politically-relevent docos have actually garnered some credibility in his wake. morris's the fog of war, super size me, and the corporation (i think that's the title, but i may have to edit this
) all come to mind.
but still, most political film-makers within hollywood are strangled. perhaps they don't actually exist. which way do you think films should be made? people like michael bay, spielberg (who often makes apolitical films in the guise of politics) and so on are all spending millions and millions of dollars on what is essentially mindless entertainment. hell, for all my love of tarantino, even he's not doing much else. i just wonder if with the spending of such money there shouldn't be more of a push towards films with an agenda.
it's idealistic, because it's never going to happen. political films rarely make money on the scale of mindless dross, but i just think that it's worth, at least, hypothesising.
for what it's worth, i actually don't particularly agree with my own, stunted, contention (i just enjoy playing the devil's advocate). i think there will always be a place for *just* entertainment. what saddens me though, is that this stuff will always (i think) take precedence over films which are actually intellectually stimulating, or attempt to show the viewer something new about the world.
btw, existing somewhere in-between these two poles, i guess, is the typical art film. stuff like mulholland drive, or lantana, or lost in translation is always important, because whilst they might not make any sort of political statement, they do examine the age-old (and world-wide) concern of human relationships. in fact, my favourite films are of this kind, i think.
just as godard's films examine maoism, marxism and other revolution-based political thought processes, the latest spielberg film is just as active in advocating capitalism and the entire hollywood film-making process.
but that's not just the issue. i wonder if nowadays film-makers actually have a responsibility to play an active political role in the making of their films? obviously tarantino is a massive godard fan, but his films lack any sense of politicism (save for pulp fiction, which wholeheartedly embraces globalisation and its inherent americanisation of the world, but still goes no way towards actually pursuing the agenda aside from some comedic remarks).
documentary makers are well-known for making politically active films. they might have been around before michael moore, but a spate of politically-relevent docos have actually garnered some credibility in his wake. morris's the fog of war, super size me, and the corporation (i think that's the title, but i may have to edit this
) all come to mind.but still, most political film-makers within hollywood are strangled. perhaps they don't actually exist. which way do you think films should be made? people like michael bay, spielberg (who often makes apolitical films in the guise of politics) and so on are all spending millions and millions of dollars on what is essentially mindless entertainment. hell, for all my love of tarantino, even he's not doing much else. i just wonder if with the spending of such money there shouldn't be more of a push towards films with an agenda.
it's idealistic, because it's never going to happen. political films rarely make money on the scale of mindless dross, but i just think that it's worth, at least, hypothesising.
for what it's worth, i actually don't particularly agree with my own, stunted, contention (i just enjoy playing the devil's advocate
). i think there will always be a place for *just* entertainment. what saddens me though, is that this stuff will always (i think) take precedence over films which are actually intellectually stimulating, or attempt to show the viewer something new about the world.btw, existing somewhere in-between these two poles, i guess, is the typical art film. stuff like mulholland drive, or lantana, or lost in translation is always important, because whilst they might not make any sort of political statement, they do examine the age-old (and world-wide) concern of human relationships. in fact, my favourite films are of this kind, i think.
