Lists
are the fad these days. List-making in social media has caught up, whether
about favourite films, books, songs, or pretty much anything else. Then there
are lists compiled by authorities, by organisations best fitted to judge those
listed according to an appropriate criterion. There are lists on cricketers,
lists on actors, lists even on countries, ranked with due regard to
commonalities and differences between those being ranked.
Then
there are film lists. People have their preferences. They tend to project these
preferences into what they list. Films are no exception. There are lists which
prefer one kind over all others, lists which exclude, and lists which include
the unnecessary. I have come to view them with suspicion sometimes, because
even when a critic is at the forefront assessing that being ranked, it doesn't
take much to figure out where that same critic's sympathies lie.
There
is a reason, after all, why Doctor
Zhivago (the book) has
received a kind of salutation many consider to be unworthy of its merits.
Having read it myself several times, I can understand the usual championing of
the novel as a symbol of individualism, as a sympathetic depiction of one man
against a collective, i.e. Soviet Russia. I can also understand how the author
Boris Pasternak's political sympathies and personal life were reflected in
several plot-lines in the story, especially in Yuri Zhivago's affair with Lara.
Let's
get back to films. Yes, films. There is politics involved in selection,
frilling, and sidelining. There was a time when it was fashionable to salute
the saluted for the same reason why Paris Hilton became famous, i.e. for being famous. People aren't stupid. Many of
them, however, got suckered in, aligning themselves with the critic's
(mis)judgment and considering it final authority. I myself was part of this
suckered-in band. Sadly. It took some time to realise this. A long time.
I
didn't watch many films as a kid. I tended to prefer cartoons for reasons of
childishness, but that's another story. I was about 12 or 13 when interests
changed, and I started watching films. Even then, I preferred the
"children" or "family" genre, not realising that for all
the category-driven classifications, every film amounted to the same thing in
the end. Following these, of course, were the less child-friendly stories. No,
not forbidden films, but the less-than-advisable-for-children films. Want an
example? The Devil's Advocate.
Want another? American Psycho.
All this is
beside the point, however.
My
first real brush with "serious" cinema was Lawrence of Arabia. I have
mentioned this to pretty much everyone who's had occasion to talk shop about
films with me. Lawrence of
Arabia was a no-go as far as
"children" went, but - and I'm being quite honest here - I was taken
in. Almost literally. The whirling sands of the Nefud, the climaxes and
anti-climaxes that characters in the story faced, the Shakespearean dialogues,
and the sober ending all caught me.
That
was when my list-mania began. For me, and this was despite everyone else
telling me off, Lawrence of
Arabia was the greatest of
them all. I mean it. I hadn't watched other films of that nature, and I didn't
care to do so anyway. David Lean, whose only other film I had seen was The Bridge on the River Kwai (which I wouldn't have seen if not for
the Sri Lankan side to that film), became next to God in my mind. Sure, there
were other crew members in Lawrence too, but to me, David Lean became
the "best".
It took
some time to realise the error I was committing.
I will
always consider Lean and Lawrence to have been one and the same.
There are some people who claim that there is a gap between artist and
creation, especially when it comes to films. This isn't true, at least not to
an extent. I think it was Barthes who repudiated the Bazinian concept of
"auteurism" by claiming a "Death of the Author". He got it
wrong there, however. David Lean just couldn't be separated from Lawrence of Arabia. Barthe's claim
that a reading of a "text" (postmodern jargon for a work of art) would get limited by incorporating its author into it was spot on (more on that in another essay). But that this should
mean a complete divorce between author and "text" was a little
misplaced. To me at least.
So Lawrence was "first" to me. Then came
the other films. Then came To
Kill a Mockingbird, Chariots
of Fire, One Flew Over the
Cuckoo's Nest, and From
Here to Eternity (I believe I watched them in that order). A whole spate of Hollywood both old and new,
both prewar and postwar. I adulated the American cinema to the point of
excluding every other film industry, including my country's.
Something
happened here. I began to notice that Hollywood tended to emphasise its
"stars", often to the point where director and scripwriter were
marginalised (this wasn't true, I later learnt). That's when I started doting
on the actor, and soon I began looking for the star in the story. It's only
natural to say that when my interest in Hollywood wavered, and when I "went"
into other film industries and other film cultures, I began to realise that the
film was neither its actor nor its director, but rather a collaborationist pact
between everyone involved in it.
My
"fascination" with lists also wavered at this point. For me, it began
to look ridiculous to compare, say, The
Gold Rush with Seven Samurai. No matter how
foolproof the criterion was, ranking like with unlike never worked. I had
resided in a world where lists, whether adulterated with personal and political
inclinations or not, were or had to be made supreme.
That
was why I found it odious, for instance, to see Lawrence of Arabia over Schindler's
List or 2001: A Space Odyssey below Singin' in the Rain (in the American Film Institute list).
That is also why, when I later came to understand the futility of list making,
I tended to view them with suspicion. This isn't the time to delve into
individual lists or films, but the point is this: whether influenced by
political preferences or otherwise, film-appraisal became too self-defeating
for me.
It took
some time to come to terms with the fact that my reading of films was being
rubbished and adulterated with any preconceived notion I had of it. These
preconceived notions, moreover, had been carefully built and scripted into my
mind courtesy of those lists. Citizen
Kane, after all, was always number one. Always. Some claim that this was
owing to the "best because it's the best" tautology endemic to such
lists, but I refused to believe it. I still do, by the way.
At the
same time, however, I don't see why this should impede on my liking for a film.
I "like" Citizen
Kane, for its many layers of meaning and for the fact of its being among
the most atonal and unlikely films I've seen in my life. Citizen Kane was decades ahead of its time, as
Orson Welles realised to his detriment later on. Probably he underestimated. I
don't know. Maybe that's why the film has attained the "best of them
all" status I think it rightly deserves. Seldom in history, after all, do
you find a film make so many political waves as that one did.
This is
just part of the story, though.
Two
years ago, Citizen Kane was "bested". For the first
time in its history, Sight and
Sound's decennial list of the 10 greatest all time films was topped by another
film. For the first time in its history, Citizen
Kane was "lanced".
Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo,
as far removed from Citizen
Kane as Siripala saha Ranmenika is from Nidhanaya, became first. Vertigo, derided at its time
and underrated for decades, finally received its standing ovation.
Critics
were quite to note it, not surprising considering it's their job and passion.
Some of them considered it an inevitability, a sign of the passing of time.
Some others, extrapolating this perhaps a little enthusiastically, claimed that
this proved that in film, like in pretty much every other art-form, lists
reflected general consensus, and hence "best of the best" is subject
to scrutiny not just by critics (despite the list having been compiled by them)
but by audiences as well.
And
then there were the few who stated that Vertigo's
victory, if you could call it that, was a sign that people had guaranteed Citizen Kane first place all these years and
decades because of its being the first in everybody's mind. Their way of
explaining this phenomenon would be that films, like other art-forms, have
their prejudices in the mindsets of those who watch them. Citizen Kane, accordingly, had
been granted first place courtesy of a (collective) mindset that automatically
thought it to be first, or at least a "first among equals".
I don't
have trouble with the first two sets of critics. They are right. The third set,
the way I saw it however, seemed a little misconceived. Citizen Kane lost, true. That this was due to a
collective mentality that had grown tired of seeing it at first place, however,
is a bankrupt reading of the list. It's after all a conceded point that there
had been an increasingly narrowing "gap" between these two films as
per the votes they received from those ranking them over the years. Other
factors moved in too, particularly the fact of Vertigo's underrated status
going away.
Does
this make Citizen Kane a lesser film? To me, the real
question would be whether Citizen
Kane can be compared with a
film like Vertigo in the first place, but let's move
along this presumption. Even then, the reasoning of this argument seems flawed.
I know a person, a very old man and a wise man at that, who loves films. He has
"read" them in ways no other person I've met has been able to. He
made a very succinct point one day when I told him about this line of argument.
He was pro-Kane alright,
but the fact of his being a fan of that film did not impede on his thinking.
Here's what he said, and I quote in full:
"Most people don't understand
the timelessness of certain films. Eisenstein's films are timeless, the
neorealists are timeless, most of prewar Hollywood is timeless. But then there
are other films. They are seasonal. They come and go and are subject to the
changing of the times. These films can only be located in one particular
spatial/temporal context. Citizen
Kane is not a film like that.
Those techniques it innovated have stayed with our filmmakers even today. I
admire Hitchcock, probably more than any other director in his genre (barring
Clouzot perhaps), but Vertigo is a seasonal film, much like the
films of the Nouvelle Vague directors who adulated Hitchcock and
considered Vertigo a king."
This
was quite obviously a point of view, and being so, it can be subjected to one's
own assessment of these films. The point was clear to me that day, however:
people have their trends to follow. Vertigo's
victory was a victory, but only for those who
had wanted it at the top. It wasn't a timelessness factor that got it to that
position. It had nothing to do with the fact of its being immune to the
"changing of the times". There are films that will continue to be
influential no matter what the time or place. I'm not saying Vertigo isn't such a film. Far from it.
But (and I'm still assuming that we can compare the two) measuring it against Citizen Kane would prove to anyone which
"influential" film survived longer.
I don't
have a grudge against list changes. I look forward to them as much as I look
forward to seeing a new film, a new experience, and comparing it with all what
I've seen before. That's the art-lover's job, after all, as is the
connoisseur's. But to claim a timelessness for one film and deny it to another
purely on the whims of a critics' preference is, I think, as bankrupt as
claiming that Vertigo is a greater film than Citizen Kane, or to be closer
to home. that Siripala saha
Ranmenika is a greater film
than Nidhanaya.
It's
not that film-lists are self-defeating, thus. It's just that they aren't final authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment