Your observation reminds me of Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism. Cinema’s self-reflexive nature seems to be yet another product of late-stage capitalism.
I get where you’re coming from. It reminds me of season 2 of White Lotus when they made all those Lavventura references. It was cool to see but felt shallow because it wasn’t attempting to say something fresh, based on its own layers.
I think there should be encouragement around the study of film theory and philosophy in filmmaking instead of just watching movies. Sure, there’s a lot to watch that is “relevant,” “necessary,” “influential” or whatever you might call it. However, such a curriculum biases a group of film students toward the mimicry and esotericism you’ve described.
I agree 100%. Watching loads of movies is obvious important, but insufficient on its own if you want to develop as a (lower c) critic IMV. Thanks Liam!
All of the great directors of the post war era were deeply steeped in literature, philosophy, music (especially classical) and history. Alexander Sokurov teaches all of his students that if you want to become a great filmmaker you must READ BOOKS.
You write so well about the ontology of closed-loop cinema, and I definitely recognise it in your description. At the other end, film history's "ongoing conversation" is also well understood. Where I'm less clear is the precise line where one becomes the other.
You cite approvingly seeing David Lynch in The Beast as an example of constructive cinematic conversation; I'm not entirely clear how this is qualitatively different from examples you offer later of closed-loop cinema, such as recognising Cronenberg in The Substance. It's not that I disagree with you; I'm just after a little clarity on how we separate "conversation" from "closed-loop".
Thanks Matthew! The line between the two is definitely blurry. The way I see it, in broad terms, is that closed-loop cinema is dwarfed by its inspiration, while open-loop cinema builds on it. I wrote a little more about it today, here: https://www.roughcuts.blog/p/were-free-escaping-closed-loop-cinema
Thanks for the response, Ed. That's a really useful beginning in separating the two out, and helps me think more clearly about the issue. I'm saving part two for my coffee break, very keen to read it!
Very relevant piece. Let's not forget how popular culture seems to have plateaued since the mid 70´s. A lot of dance music today sounds like disco, and radios still play Saturday Night Fever or Upside Down, which are almost 50 years old. But in the 70's mainstream radios didn't play dance bands from the 20's and 30's. As you say the problem lies in what is the so called "pop culture". Since classical culture has been decried as retrograde and conservative, it is no longer part of the creative discussion. But it should be as it can help elevate it and even create new icons. As a teenager, I was in admiration of musicians such as Clara Haskil and Nadia Boulanger, and got part of'my film taste by reading woman film scholar Lotte Eisner, who is still an inspiration when I direct films. But who on earth know about these women in our age of reboots and post modernism ?
I agree overall, but what strikes me, somewhat ironically, is that the closed loop you identify can only be identified as such by the film geeks/obsessives themselves, i.e. most people who watch The Substance won't feel that it's part of a closed loop because they likely haven't seen any Cronenberg and so won't feel the new films limitations in relation to that source material.
Yeah this is an excellent point. I’m gonna think about this some more but my from-the-hip answer is that, whether you can identify the loop or not, it still has a bearing on the quality (not quite the right word but can’t think of a better one right now) of the work…
I see your point. What always amazes me is when artists draw on an intentionally shallow pool of work to repurpose when there are so many amazing books, films, and other source materials that have been mostly lost to time that could be revived and presented to wholly new audiences.
I really love that I can clearly identify the string of film history in film because of its short lifetime... but I agree at some nebulous point it becomes cannibalistic. Pre-1950 film can also be very self-referential or heavily influenced (i.e. even pre-auteurism, you can tell when a 1930s film was inspired by Lubitsch and critics of the time noted it). But the purpose at the time was to literally reiterate and sell, develop genre. I believe the development of film form, mostly, was incidental. Now it's so self-conscious, every film supposedly a great work of art. If it isn't a sequel (which is the new "reiterate and sell"), it's "original". So references, influences are homages, because otherwise it doesn't fit the industrial model. That's one part of it, at least for me.
Interesting! And yeah, I agree completely re the short lifespan of film - it’s one of the reasons it’s so rewarding to study - you can (relatively)! quickly develop a pretty broad understanding of it compared to other art forms.
Lots to think about here. I suppose my question is, what's the goal of breaking the loop? There's tremendous merit in originality, of course, but given the thematic and technical scope of all that's come before, is it even creatively economical to try? I'd say knowingly borrowing from other films would be preferable to making something entirely unbeholden to past cinema, since the latter still runs the risk of unintentionally borrowing from past films. Without that codex of cinematic notes in mind, how can we know that our modulations of them will be additive to the artform?
Still, being aware of this loop would do wonders for the creative process for that exact reason. If we're more incisive, intentional, and informed about the decisions we make, we'll be better artists, and that aforementioned mental codex would provide a sturdier base for us to branch out and iterate on the artform. This, in nevertheless-necessary tandem with wanting to do something more original than an homage or love letter; it all needs to start with a visionary instinct, certainly.
These are such good points! I agree that originality for originality's sake shouldn't be the goal -- everything is a remix, etc. And I also agree that knowingly borrowing from other films is inevitable, and is basically how the medium works. My point is more that the way in which recent films are using these influences feels different. E.g., Apocalypse Now doesn't feel beholden to Aguirre in the same way that Ad Astra feels beholden to Apocalypse Now. Or, to use another example - there is a difference between Mean Streets, which takes the language of Cassavetes and Godard etc, but doesn't feel trapped by them, and the various examples I gave in my essay, which feel like strict subsets of their inspirations.
So I'm not arguing for filmmakers not to remix cinematic history, but instead I'm suggesting that in 2024 (and maybe before - but I just wanted to focus on last year for now) - the way that movies are referring to that history feels more deferential - it feels introspective rather than outward looking. In my next piece (which originally was part of this one before I cut it in half), I'm gonna look at how important it is to also take inspiration from OUTSIDE of cinema (which ties into your point about being aware of the loop).
Ah yeah, I see what you're saying. I ought to do a compare and contrast of my own with Apocalypse Now, Aguirre, and Ad Astra; I'm fascinated by these notions.
Also, big agree on the importance of taking inspiration from outside of cinema. I'm working on a screenplay right now that, so far, is exclusively inspired by a hip-hop album, and the process compared my past writing efforts is like night and day - I've never encountered enrichment quite like this before.
Your observation reminds me of Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism. Cinema’s self-reflexive nature seems to be yet another product of late-stage capitalism.
Looking forward to your potential solutions! 🌟
Interesting - I hadn’t thought about it in those terms - thanks Rebecca!
Could you please explain exactly what “late capitalism” is? Just how “late” is it exactly? Seems like it has been “late” for quite some time now!
I get where you’re coming from. It reminds me of season 2 of White Lotus when they made all those Lavventura references. It was cool to see but felt shallow because it wasn’t attempting to say something fresh, based on its own layers.
I think there should be encouragement around the study of film theory and philosophy in filmmaking instead of just watching movies. Sure, there’s a lot to watch that is “relevant,” “necessary,” “influential” or whatever you might call it. However, such a curriculum biases a group of film students toward the mimicry and esotericism you’ve described.
I agree 100%. Watching loads of movies is obvious important, but insufficient on its own if you want to develop as a (lower c) critic IMV. Thanks Liam!
All of the great directors of the post war era were deeply steeped in literature, philosophy, music (especially classical) and history. Alexander Sokurov teaches all of his students that if you want to become a great filmmaker you must READ BOOKS.
You write so well about the ontology of closed-loop cinema, and I definitely recognise it in your description. At the other end, film history's "ongoing conversation" is also well understood. Where I'm less clear is the precise line where one becomes the other.
You cite approvingly seeing David Lynch in The Beast as an example of constructive cinematic conversation; I'm not entirely clear how this is qualitatively different from examples you offer later of closed-loop cinema, such as recognising Cronenberg in The Substance. It's not that I disagree with you; I'm just after a little clarity on how we separate "conversation" from "closed-loop".
Thanks Matthew! The line between the two is definitely blurry. The way I see it, in broad terms, is that closed-loop cinema is dwarfed by its inspiration, while open-loop cinema builds on it. I wrote a little more about it today, here: https://www.roughcuts.blog/p/were-free-escaping-closed-loop-cinema
Thanks for the response, Ed. That's a really useful beginning in separating the two out, and helps me think more clearly about the issue. I'm saving part two for my coffee break, very keen to read it!
Very relevant piece. Let's not forget how popular culture seems to have plateaued since the mid 70´s. A lot of dance music today sounds like disco, and radios still play Saturday Night Fever or Upside Down, which are almost 50 years old. But in the 70's mainstream radios didn't play dance bands from the 20's and 30's. As you say the problem lies in what is the so called "pop culture". Since classical culture has been decried as retrograde and conservative, it is no longer part of the creative discussion. But it should be as it can help elevate it and even create new icons. As a teenager, I was in admiration of musicians such as Clara Haskil and Nadia Boulanger, and got part of'my film taste by reading woman film scholar Lotte Eisner, who is still an inspiration when I direct films. But who on earth know about these women in our age of reboots and post modernism ?
I agree overall, but what strikes me, somewhat ironically, is that the closed loop you identify can only be identified as such by the film geeks/obsessives themselves, i.e. most people who watch The Substance won't feel that it's part of a closed loop because they likely haven't seen any Cronenberg and so won't feel the new films limitations in relation to that source material.
Yeah this is an excellent point. I’m gonna think about this some more but my from-the-hip answer is that, whether you can identify the loop or not, it still has a bearing on the quality (not quite the right word but can’t think of a better one right now) of the work…
I see your point. What always amazes me is when artists draw on an intentionally shallow pool of work to repurpose when there are so many amazing books, films, and other source materials that have been mostly lost to time that could be revived and presented to wholly new audiences.
Great piece.
Thanks Megan!
Banger
🫡
I really love that I can clearly identify the string of film history in film because of its short lifetime... but I agree at some nebulous point it becomes cannibalistic. Pre-1950 film can also be very self-referential or heavily influenced (i.e. even pre-auteurism, you can tell when a 1930s film was inspired by Lubitsch and critics of the time noted it). But the purpose at the time was to literally reiterate and sell, develop genre. I believe the development of film form, mostly, was incidental. Now it's so self-conscious, every film supposedly a great work of art. If it isn't a sequel (which is the new "reiterate and sell"), it's "original". So references, influences are homages, because otherwise it doesn't fit the industrial model. That's one part of it, at least for me.
Interesting! And yeah, I agree completely re the short lifespan of film - it’s one of the reasons it’s so rewarding to study - you can (relatively)! quickly develop a pretty broad understanding of it compared to other art forms.
Lots to think about here. I suppose my question is, what's the goal of breaking the loop? There's tremendous merit in originality, of course, but given the thematic and technical scope of all that's come before, is it even creatively economical to try? I'd say knowingly borrowing from other films would be preferable to making something entirely unbeholden to past cinema, since the latter still runs the risk of unintentionally borrowing from past films. Without that codex of cinematic notes in mind, how can we know that our modulations of them will be additive to the artform?
Still, being aware of this loop would do wonders for the creative process for that exact reason. If we're more incisive, intentional, and informed about the decisions we make, we'll be better artists, and that aforementioned mental codex would provide a sturdier base for us to branch out and iterate on the artform. This, in nevertheless-necessary tandem with wanting to do something more original than an homage or love letter; it all needs to start with a visionary instinct, certainly.
These are such good points! I agree that originality for originality's sake shouldn't be the goal -- everything is a remix, etc. And I also agree that knowingly borrowing from other films is inevitable, and is basically how the medium works. My point is more that the way in which recent films are using these influences feels different. E.g., Apocalypse Now doesn't feel beholden to Aguirre in the same way that Ad Astra feels beholden to Apocalypse Now. Or, to use another example - there is a difference between Mean Streets, which takes the language of Cassavetes and Godard etc, but doesn't feel trapped by them, and the various examples I gave in my essay, which feel like strict subsets of their inspirations.
So I'm not arguing for filmmakers not to remix cinematic history, but instead I'm suggesting that in 2024 (and maybe before - but I just wanted to focus on last year for now) - the way that movies are referring to that history feels more deferential - it feels introspective rather than outward looking. In my next piece (which originally was part of this one before I cut it in half), I'm gonna look at how important it is to also take inspiration from OUTSIDE of cinema (which ties into your point about being aware of the loop).
Thanks for such a thoughtful comment!
Ah yeah, I see what you're saying. I ought to do a compare and contrast of my own with Apocalypse Now, Aguirre, and Ad Astra; I'm fascinated by these notions.
Also, big agree on the importance of taking inspiration from outside of cinema. I'm working on a screenplay right now that, so far, is exclusively inspired by a hip-hop album, and the process compared my past writing efforts is like night and day - I've never encountered enrichment quite like this before.
Always a pleasure, Ed!
If you do- one other do
That would be a pretty cool triple bill!
That screenplay sounds sick - would love to read it when it’s ready.