Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Third Cinema and Accessibility

"In our times it is hard to find a film within the field of commercial cinema, including what is known as 'author's cinema'-- in both the capitalist and socialist countries-- that manages to avoid the models of Hollywood pictures. The latter have such a fast hold that monumental works such as the U.S.S.R.'s Bondarchuk's War and Peace are also monumental examples of the submission to all the propositions imposed by the U.S. movie industry (structure, language, etc.) and, consequently, to its concepts."

This statement, and most of the other material we read about Third Cinema, suggests that cinema can only be truly revolutionary if it completely breaks away from the standard conventions of film-making. But whatever the content of the Third Cinema piece, this seems to me to be a dubious strategy for igniting the masses with revolutionary fervor. The sad truth is that the common person is so accustomed to the "Hollywood" film's method of communication, that a film composed in a completely unfamiliar way becomes quite inaccessible. I actually found Ceddo to be an extremely difficult film to watch. After it was over, I was able to think about the issues it raised and feel I took something away from the story that was told, but while I was watching it, every half minute felt like five. I seriously doubt I would have sat through it if I weren't studying it for a class. So, how do you get the everyman to watch a movie like that?

I guess my question is this: What would you lose if you allowed your political film to conform to the Hollywood model, as opposed to using an alternative, Third Cinema style of narration? Why is it important for some stories to be told specifically in this way (the Rosen article talked about how Ceddo's long takes and minimal editing mimicked African oral storytelling)? What is more important to a film seeking to effect actual change-- this Third Cinema integrity or accessibility to a wider range of people, who have probably already been conditioned by Hollywood to expect certain film conventions?

No comments: