Yesterday I got into a bit of a screaming match over the
growth of the art of film as it has progressed since the inception of
Hollywood. The debate spawned over a classroom viewing of Breakfast at Tiffany’s, a beloved classic that is oft revered as
one of the greatest films of all time. To preface, I love Breakfast at Tiffany’s; it’s quite funny, Audrey Hepburn is divine
and loveable as Holly Golightly, and it’s an ably constructed film for its
genre. Still, there isn’t an abundance of substance in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, which became particularly evident after I
read Truman Capote’s progressive novella of the same time. He considered the
film an adulteration to the source material of the most offensive degree,
something that I slightly agree with.
For those of you that haven’t read the novella or are
unfamiliar of its basis, it was a semi-autobiographical novel about Capote’s
own experiences meeting an eccentric young woman in the 1950’s. Holly is the
embodiment of post-World War II lavish lifestyle and poise, meticulously
maintained in social situations. Holly is, arguably, what Capote wants to be
like as he struggles with his sexual identity. The book was a study of
character and the enveloped disturbances Holly possesses, the poisonous nature
of her psychological instability. It’s a critique on American ideals, society,
social culture, and shifting values- in short, it’s a modern independent film
penned in a period where such criticisms were rarely verbalized. The film
strips the psychological study in place and skims over the vapid romance
between Holly and our now-named protagonist Paul, favoring crowd-pleasing
sentimentality over the challenge to the norm that Capote sought.
I verbalized my fascination with the maturation of film
communities and the sophistication that tastes have assumed over the decades.
This isn’t an umbrella statement about the layman- after all, The Hangover: Part II was one of the
highest grossing films of 2011. But between festivals and award ceremonies,
recognition has shifted away from satiating public demand and acknowledging the
beauty of the complex and challenging films of the year. I referenced a few
films; There Will Be Blood, No Country
for Old Men, American Beauty, and WALL-E-
as being fairly acknowledged as this generations “classics”. Even popularized
films have shifted towards an engaging art form, with big-budget contemporary
classics like The Lord of the Rings,
Inception, and Seven injecting
thought-provoking ideologies within the accessible storylines, allowing the
viewer to get out of it as much as they choose to engage with the material.
Obviously there are countless exceptions to the rule. The Graduate was far ahead of its time,
both in its quirky stylistic approach to comedy and providing ethical conflict
throughout the film, a masterful coming of age feature. The Graduate wasn’t far from Breakfast
at Tiffany’s, and the latter didn’t even receive a best picture nomination;
still, today would Alfie, Sunset
Boulevard, or Mary Poppins even
be considered viable nominees for Best Picture? Best Picture may not be a
measure of what is actually the most revered film within a film community, but
it’s the easiest identifier to work with. And yes, I’m not forgetting about the
Stanley Kubricks and Woody Allens of the 70s, but based on my experiences there
was public AND informed opinion that preferred crowd-pleasing alternatives.
So what happened? Did the glamour of Hollywood distort the
art form in its early years, or have tastes developed to view film as a
legitimate art form throughout the decades? Have we actually reached an age
where film enthusiasts demonstrate a strong desire to be challenged? Or,
perhaps, am I totally misinformed and nothing has changed about what we
understand to be brilliant filmmaking? For pop culture, the most memorable
films of the decade won’t be the slated films nominated for an Academy Award or
what took home the Audience Award at Sundance. 2012 won’t be remembered in 2042
for Beasts of the Southern Wild or Silver Linings Playbook (I’m going out
on a limb to assume this will be a gem) but for The Avengers, The Hunger Games, or maybe even The Perks of Being a Wallflower by the general public. Within film communities, however, we
will revere our favorite small-scale feats throughout time as film communities
have clung dearly to Some Like it Hot
as a relic from a time once known.
Even within popular culture, I feel as if there’s been a
greater appreciation for depth and individualism to complement the easily
digestible. Both Mean Girls and Bridesmaids for example, are brilliant-
witty, culturally prominent, well-crafted genre features. Are they a higher
caliber entertainment than the 60’s films I criticize or a John Hughes movie?
Perhaps being a member of the culture represented skews me, but I would argue
yes. There’s been a furthered appreciation for the unprecedented, and the need
to create something multi-dimensional. Harry
Potter would not be a contemporary classic had the magical world not been
fully realized and the characters have multiple dimensions; it would fall by
the wayside with the plethora of other forgettable popcorn action movies. While
there may be an overabundance of shit, a large amount of what gains true
popular status (NOT necessarily financial success) stands a bit taller as art
than its contemporaries. Many classics of old bare more semblances to cookie
cutter genre films than most would be willing to admit.
They do get the benefit of being pioneers. The cookie cutter
films I reference archetype themselves after something that has continually
worked and has been established by the filmmakers of old. Even Mean Girls wouldn’t exist without John
Hughes; they just mixed things up, tried a new comedic formula. Said films are
also cultural relics, transcripts of culture that has since past, making them
historically significant. Many also made due without technological innovations
that we benefit from today. Still, I digress; the point is relative mostly to
film communities and a marginal growth within the public eye. The value of the
classics is not non-existent, they aren’t poorly crafted films, but in my
opinion, we’ve grown as a community to seek challenges and attentive filmmaking
over fluff, viewing film as we view classical literature.
