Part 1
The first half of the Canon Fodder studio has challenged me to explore various questions about art and film. It has helped me to recognise the issues within the film industry and the biases that exist. In this blog post, I will attempt to condense what I have learnt across the past weeks- analysing the concepts of art and film, exploring the idea of canons and a canon of film, and finally challenging the film canon.
History of the Canon
The concept of a canon was originally related to religion and used to refer to the practices or standards of the Christian Church- transitioning into realms of art in the late 18th century. The intersection and similarities between religion and art have occurred throughout history, for instance, works of art and artists are often described using religious terminology (Langfeld 2018). Although, the process of canonization in the artistic realm has mostly become a secular concept and has separated itself from religion. In their paper “Canon Fodder” (2006), Paul Schrader establishes a definition for the contemporary view of a canon as relating to a ranking “based on criteria that transcend taste, personal and popular” (p.34). However, canonizing art throughout history and in contemporary spheres has come with a great deal of discourse and many challenges.
Film as Art?
Immanuel Kant established the three main classifications of fine art– plastic images, words, and tones (as cited in Schrader 2006). However, as technology developed, new forms of art; like photography and film, have challenged this conception. Forcing the expansion of a narrow, and as Schrader (2006) describes it “closed system” (p.38). Which various people opposed; resulting in a debate about what art is and whether newer artforms- like films and photography are even considered art. In her paper ‘Trash, Art and the Movies’ (1969), Pauline Kael contended that cinema “took their impetus not from the desiccated European high culture, but from … what was coarse and common.” (section v), adopting “’artistic techniques’ to give trash the look of art”. Since the publication of this essay and as cinema has developed it has become clear that films are in fact a form of art. Although there are many different definitions of what constitutes as art; as Schrader (2006) says going simply by the dictionary definition of art as the “products of human creativity” (p.37) film is art. But even as a whole; a film is an artform because it is medium designed to reflect something, convey meaning and make the audience feel something. Additionally, the accumulation of efforts between writing, directing, filming, editing and everything else involved to create a film classifies it as art.
Despite this, there is still division in the film industry, with certain types of films labelled as ‘trash’ (reflecting Kael’s sentiment) or lesser films- for instance big budget studio films or animated films. Although, this elitist view only maintains the rigid standards that prevented films from initially being considered art. Now as society develops and establishes new forms of art; it is necessary to break free of these confines of what art can be and look to the future. For instance, the film we viewed in week five Manifesto (dir. Julian Rosefeldt, 2015) was a work showcased across museums around the work and converted into film for the Sundance Film Festival. In the film, Cate Blanchette plays 13 different characters in various settings reading out artist manifestos, the film essentially a form of meta-art.
The Film Canon and Criticisms of the Canon
In a similar fashion to literature and paintings and other forms of art; many film canons have been developed over the years ranking the “greatest films of all time”. As mentioned earlier in the blog post, Schrader (2006) defines a canon as to a ranking “based on criteria that transcend taste, personal and popular”. However, one of the greatest issues of developing a film canon or any art canon is that this isn’t the standard. Oftentimes (much like the film industry as a whole) these canons are biased and subject to various prejudices. As such, these polls are usually static, made by critics with similar opinions and regurgitating the same films in each new iteration with little variation.
Short Films
When analysing film cannons, it becomes apparent that certain types of film or certain genres are not included. In particular, there is an apparent absence of short films that are canonized in these rankings and recognised by critics. In week three of the studio, we explored several great short films that have not been canonized. For instance
- The Street (dir. Caroline Leaf, 1976) runs for approximately 10 minutes and is based on a book of the same name. The film is reminiscent of a book in its smooth flow, transitioning from one scene to another, as it explores the complex emotions related to childhood grief. The film also had a unique animated style, resembling whiteboard marker, developed by Leaf through paint on glass.
- Night on Bald Mountain (dirs Alexander Alexeieff & Claire Parker, 1933) is a surreal experimental animation depicting a shadowy and nightmarish world. Although the quality of this short film is not the best, the viewer only able to vaguely make out shapes of figures among the clouds and landscape, what is particularly significant about this short film is the method which it was made. Alexeieff and Parker using a technique called pin-screen animation- which used pins to manipulate light and shadow to create the film. A long and painfully difficult process.
After viewing the short films, it was unclear why despite producing groundbreaking techniques and incredible stories they haven’t been canonized. In fact, I found that these short films resonated with me then many of the canonized films that we had viewed. Perhaps it’s due to an elitist view that short films are not real films and as a result, they should not be ranked against full-length films? That because a short film runs for less time, it took less effort (this is not necessarily true, see Night on Bald Mountain)? The quality of a film should not be determined or measured based on its length, and yet it seems like that is what has occurred; with short films often overlooked by the canon.
Another important thing to note is that many of the short films that we viewed in week three were directed by women. So, the exclusion of short films from the canon may in fact, be an extension of the sexism that pushes women out of the film industry entirely. Reminiscent of film pioneer Alice Guy-Blaché, one of the first filmmakers and a woman who was erased from history and excluded from the canon; the erasure of women’s achievements and their significance within the film industry is continued.
The Future of Art, Film and the Canon
I’m not going to say that a canon for film, or any canon is not necessary. A film like Citizen Kane (dir. Orson Wells, 1941) with incredible storytelling and which introduced various ground-breaking camera techniques in Hollywood for the time- the iconic crane shots and deep-focus techniques, inspiring future films, and filmmakers, should be recognised. It was a ground-breaking film that should be canonized and studied. But the canon needs an overhaul. There needs to be a shift in the elitist views and unchanging opinions. There needs to be more inclusivity static. As our understanding of film changes and the industry develops, the canon should do the same.
And as art and film develops, we are seeing a rise in newer perspectives that are looking towards the future. Through manifesto’s that speak of a changing industry and a shift in values. Girish Shambu’s, For a New Cinephilia (2019); compares old cinema (cinephilia) to newer form of cinema (cinephilia). Describing an expansion of cinema beyond a single narrative to “multiply a diversity of voices and subjectivities, and a plethora of narratives about cinephilic life and experience” (p.32). This diversity, promoting the voices of the underrepresented and erased in cinema. Shambu’s image of new cinema, reflecting the “revolution of the screen” (Wente 2019, p.42) that Jesse Wente describes in her manifesto about increased representation of the Indigenous people in Canada in the film industry. These contemporary manifesto’s reflecting a recent shift in the film industry away from the elitist values and standards that privilege certain groups of people.
Part 2: My Challenges to the Canon
- Film canons maintain the prejudices and biases of a sexist film industry, and are designed to silence women.
- The frameworks and standards of film canons are elitist and rigid, unwilling to diversify and consider different types of film.
- Therefore, these standards that we use to canonise films need to be overthrown and redeveloped to incorporate a more inclusive perspective of cinema and film.
Reference List
Kael, P., 1969. Trash, art, and the movies. Going steady, pp.85-129.
Langfeld, G. 2018, “The canon in art history: concepts and approaches”, Journal of Art Historiography, no. 19, pp. 1-18.
Schrader, P. 2006, “Canon Fodder” in Film Comment, vol. 42, no. 5, September-October 2006, pp. 33-49
Shambu, G. 2019, “For a New Cinephilia” in Film Quarterly vol. 72 no. 3, University of California Press, Berkeley, 2019, pp. 32-34.
Wente, J. 2019, “Doing All Things Differently” in Film Quarterly vol. 72 no. 3, University of California Press, Berkeley, 2019, pp. 42-43