[After comforting myself watching Ugly Betty and Grey's Anatomy, I'm NOW comforting myself with Barbara Walters' 30 Interview Mistakes in 30 Years - made by Barbara and her guests. Somewhat reassuring to know that no one is infallible and we all screw up royally or at least be reminded of that. I'm also glad that I'm not famous and don't have my faux pas on tape saved for all time. Warning mucho typos, I'm certain. No real time to edit.]
Just finished a fantastic article by Paul Schrader in
Film Comment entitled
Canon Fodder: As the sun finally sets on the century of cinema, by what criteria do we determine its masterworks In the article Schrader defines what a canon is, the history of canon, devises criteria to set up a film canon, and lists 60 films that he'd put in the canon. I'll list the 60 at the end of this as a sort of film meme, putting in bold the ones I've seen. I'm not going to reproduce the article here, since that would be a huge violation of copyright. If you want to read the reader's responses to the canon and Schrader's responses, go
here. For the article? You can probably still find it in a copy of the Sept/Oct 2006 issue of Film Comment.
( What is meant by Canon? )Schrader states and I agree with this statement: "It is much easier to make lists than to explain why. When you logically resolve
Kant's contradiction - if there are judgements of taste, some judgements must be true and some false, resulting in criteria - you descend into a purgatory of shifting sentiments. This, scholars tell us, was the fallacy of
David Hume. I'm not so sure. Standards of taste, as Hume understood, do not restrict art;
the work of art will always find a way around the rules. They do, however, establish a necessary framork for judgement."
This is true. You can't put human creativity or even nature in a box. It cannot be contained. It will evolve. It will change. It will find its way out of the box, outgrow the box, possibly even redesign the box. People like it or not do not stay put, stagnate. We are ever changing life-forms. That however does not mean rules should not be created nor for that matter criteria made to assess art, to better understand what moves us, and what does not, what lasts and what hasn't. To understand in a matter of speaking our own personal taste - or rather the "why" of liking something as opposed to the merely liking. And more to the point - to what extent can we come to agreement on those works of art that are "brilliant" amongst the multitude produced, an agreement based on something other than popular opinion or emotion, ie. gut response? Hence the criteria.
Here it is - and I like it so much, I've decided to attempt a second post, possibly tomorrow depending on how bored I am - applying said criteria to the Television medium.
1.
( Beauty )2.
( Strangeness )3.
( Unity of form and subject matter )4.
( Tradition )5.
( Repeatability )6.
( Viewer engagement )7.
( Morality )Paul Schrader's Canon - which he limits to narrative/fictional films, excluding short films, documentaries and experimental films. He does not delineate based on director, money, cultural environment, time period, gender, race, etc - since he feels such criteria is irrelevant stating - while such factors enrich discussion they don't define it. "There is no equal-opportunity canon". And that "motion pictures are the most collaborative of the arts...." "A film may be the creation of one strong individual, it may be the product of several; in either case only the film can be judged." "The merit of the film is the film itself."
Of all the films he ranks, the one he starts with, the one he considers the one work in which a canon of film cannot properly exist without, is one I have not seen, entitled "The Rules of the Game" by Jean Renoir. For the literary Canon, Harold Bloom listed William Shakespeare and Hamlet. Beginning the discussion with that work. I don't know, never been a huge fan of Hamlet, but then again it has been the most produced of any work, and referenced. Which may be why I'm not a fan, I got burnt out after the tenth viewing of it. I think I've seen every film of it made at least once. My favorite version may well be either Kenneth Branagh's or Derek Jacobi's. Although have an odd fondness for the modernized Ethan Hawk. But I digress.
I've updated this to include a brief analysis of my thoughts regarding the selections I've seen. Can't comment on the ones I haven't.
( Paul Schrader's Cannon )![[profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mariakalberto
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
