Wednesday, 16 September 2009
Andi Engel is particularly scathing about the effects of what he sees as a critical bias towards Hollywood, perhaps encouraged by the way film studies have developed over the last twenty years. This is obviously most apparent in the popular press, though it also finds its critical and academic echo in other quarters. 'The term"art cinema" has become a dirty word to some people, something to be dismissed as bourgeois rubbish. Anything which is not genre cinema must be automatically bad-either it's entertaining or it's boring, there's nothing in between. It is not so much that people aren't interested in cinema, or prepared to take it seriously; it's that they are only interested in certain kinds of cinema and lack any cinematic curiosity. It's like going into a library and deciding you will only ever look at one part of it. It doesn't mean that you can't read; it means that you are not prepared to consider everything there is on offer, even out of curiosity. I find that attitude frightening.'"
What it is interesting in these quotations, apart from its content, is that they were written in 1989 (Sight & Sound - Autumn 1989).
Thursday, 10 September 2009
Thursday, 3 September 2009
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
After the recent transfer of Hull Screen to Reel Cinemas, it looks like that purely commercial considerations will be the defining criteria for the programming of the cinema. Therefore all the gems that we used to enjoy are going to disappear from our city to be replaced basically by "arthouse blockbusters", if that definition were not an oxymoron. In other words, sub-titled blockbusters. yes, they may be very well made, excellent acting and cinematography. However, still blockbusters made to entertain. It is clear to me that the new Hull Screen fails the Tarkovsky test.
This also raises the question of what an arthouse film is?