By Miguel Machalski

When I write about something, I like to think of a keyword that sums up the gist of what I want to say. For this first Cinemags article, ‘manipulation’ or ‘conditioning’ crossed my mind.  But on second thoughts, I decided ‘confusion’ is the term that best embraces the theme I wish to discuss. I believe we live in very confusing times. Celebrity is confused with talent, profitability with value, entertainment with quality, Hollywood with the rest of the filmmaking world…

Some participants in TV reality shows have subsequently become celebrities with little to boast about in the way of talent; their claim to fame is based on a rudimentary numerical factor: they have been seen by several million viewers performing some dubious antics on prime time TV and hence have become celebrities. Some highly lucrative moneymaking ventures possess no substantial value whatsoever, there are arguably entertaining films with a very low level of excellence, and I can think of many ways of making good movies and telling compelling stories other than those advocated by Hollywood, the only place on the planet where a certain type of film can – and indeed should – be made.

(Can you imagine anything more appalling than having the whole world produce Hollywood-style films?! Many people love sushi, but I don’t believe most would wish it to be the sole dish to be found everywhere you go. Globalisation is not about everyone watching the same film at the same time all over the world, but about everyone everywhere having access to films from all corners of the Earth).

Last November I was in Kuala Lumpur tutoring a screenwriting workshop. Running simultaneously was a filmmaking forum called Asia Film Week, to which nine international experts were invited to lecture: eight of them were North American and one was British. I wondered of what specific use these speakers – though undoubtedly eminencies in their own countries – would be to Asian filmmakers. The production and storytelling models used elsewhere, and particularly in Hollywood, are totally different and correspond not only to entirely different economies and resources but also to very distinct worldviews, mindsets and even basic values. Why was there no one from Korea, Japan or even closer to home, like India or Indonesia?
 

Isn’t there deep-rooted confusion in the idea that Hollywood gurus, as they are often referred to, will necessarily teach everyone how to make good films? And does ‘good’ mean commercially successful? If that’s so, it might be worth remembering that Hollywood makes money with some frankly dismal films, riding more on huge marketing campaigns than on quality filmmaking (you could comfortably make several dozen films in Indonesia on the marketing budget of a single Hollywood blockbuster…).

Let’s concede that James Cameron’s blockbusting, money-spinning Avatar offers its money’s worth in terms of entertainment (I personally got a bit bored after the initial – and undeniable – 3D visual impact wore off, but I’m willing to put that down to my own overly demanding standards), but I beg to differ with anyone who claims it’s a good film in terms of either real cinematography (not just visual pyrotechnics) or of outstanding storytelling. In fact, I might, at this point in time, hesitate to call it a ‘real’ film, and probably refer to it as a very powerfully marketing-driven Hollywood product or, if you want, a phenomenal SFX display. You see, confusion is making us unable to tell quality from box-office, and a film from a merchandise or a spectacle. It also renders us incapable of discerning between technical prowess and authentic creativity.

I recently treated myself to the 84-year-old Andrej Wajda’s latest oeuvre to date, Tatarak, and was reminded once again of what a ‘real’ film is, of the stark difference between genuine cinematography and storytelling and, to put it bluntly, technicians’ gimmicks. My intention is not to seek consensus on the quality of Wajda’s film, which may not be to everyone’s taste, but to emphasize the ever-deepening gap between ‘real’ films and marketable products.

Please don’t get me wrong. I don’t mean to dismiss those who derived heartfelt enjoyment from James Cameron’s stunning technological and technical performance – one he already pulled off with Titanic, equally remarkable in logistical terms but just as paltry and predictable as far as storytelling goes – and sincerely believe there is no harm in such enjoyment. (This harmlessness is not always obvious in what we call ‘entertainment’: both in Taken and From Paris With Love, Pierre Morel upholds blatant racism and America’s world-saving delirium with gusto. I am not questioning the worthiness of Cameron’s bottom-line message in Avatar).

It makes no sense to speculate even for a split second on the artistic scope of these fabrications, or indeed to expect them to have any, but…are they even films in the sense of a creative medium designed to tell thought-provoking stories and/or generate lasting emotions? I suppose ‘creative’ is a key word here: is there a single attempt at creativity – which implies a minimum of originality and subversion – in most of these entertainment vehicles? Beyond their short-lived entertainment value, are they anything but empty shells? If a book is an object with two covers and a few hundred printed pages in between (which is what it is in essence even if read on a computer screen), is The Da Vinci Code the same as Dante’s Divine Comedy?  Perhaps we should designate Dan Brown’s writing efforts with a different name. Or at least establish a difference between literature and reading material.

Perhaps most mainstream film production geared to the entertainment market is not strictly cinema, but audiovisual material. And I repeat: I have nothing against it and willingly accept it has its place in the world. My concern has to do with confusion, as well as with monopolisation: could it be that films as a creative medium are being rapidly and sometimes brutally driven off traditional cinema screens and distribution channels?

To avoid confusion, let’s begin by calling a spade a spade.  A film is one thing, an audiovisual product is another. Commercially successful films are by no means necessarily good, and Hollywood is most assuredly not the acme of filmmaking.
 

(Artikel ini muncul di Cinemags#131. Lahir di  Buenos Aires, Miguel Machalski adalah script consultant,  story editor, workshop tutor dan screenwriter. Ia telah membantu menulis 16 naskah film (comedy, drama, biopic, thriller) dalam tiga bahasa, Inggris, Spanyol dan Perancis. Ia menjadi analis naskah untuk Billy Elliott (Stephen Daldry), Intimacy (Patrice Chéreau), Femme Fatale  (Brian de Palma), Spider (David Cronenberg), Saraband (Ingmar Bergman), Mar Adentro (Alejandro Amenábar), Million Dollar Baby (Clint Eastwood) dan banyak lagi.)

[Takdir]

"Beauty is essentially omega a form of energy, something that radiates from a fine example of absolutely anything,
whether a delightful taste or smell, or a gorgeous gucci 2010 sight. This energy is in effect a form of information,
nature\'s bar code telling lv bags us how healthy that attitude is,
because health-bringing things increase gucci outlet the likelihood that we and our genes
will gucci handbags survive.zf"

"His wild thought poured amazing vigor into the louis vuitton. The louis vuitton speedy has no exception.Fancy a few days following in the footsteps of the chanel Cruise Collection crew? Here's all you need to know for a fabulous we"