As summer descends upon us, it brings an extra dose of excitement called the summer movie season. With Thunderbolts*, Lilo and Stitch, and Mission: Impossible- The Final Reckoning all playing in theaters right now, that season has officially arrived.
But while summer movie season means excitement for most, it also brings a layer of contempt. The excess of blockbusters, sequels, and remakes always leads to an outrage from cinephiles over the mindless nature of these popcorn flicks. In other words, these are films of a lower class and don't deserve serious attention.
Of course, this is part of the larger debate over what qualifies as true cinema. As the gap between popular and revered cinema widens, everyone seems to have their own opinion about what film is at it's core.
At this point, I would usually give my own personal opinion about what cinema is. However, I won't, (for now at least).
See, film is entirely subjective. It's an artform, and despite having objective elements we can judge, a film's value will always hinge on subjective taste.
As such, there is no definitive answer to cinema like there is to a math problem. My interpretation of cinema is likely different from yours, which is likely different from Martin Scorsese's and so on. Although we might all differ on opinion, none of us are inherently right. Cinema simply means something different to each of us, and as long as we've given it serious thought, that's perfectly fine.
Yet, while there's no right answer to what cinema is, there are definitely wrong ones. Much like there are incorrect interpretations of a piece of art, there are misguided approaches that both filmmakers and audiences bring to the cinema.
Specifically, I've found that there are three popular approaches to cinema that entirely miss it's point. I see these three often, usually in bad films or by people who misunderstand great films. While I don't claim to have cinema figured out, I can say with certainty that movies are not these three things.
Movies are not Morality Plays
In Medieval times, one of the most popular forms of entertainment was the morality play. Most often performed by Church groups, these plays would demonstrate how people were supposed to live their lives. They'd often feature angels and demons fighting over the soul of a protagonist, who always did the right thing in the end. They were formulaic in their plot and obvious with their moral messaging.
As fun as these plays sound, movies should not be morality plays. Sure, a moral lesson can be helpful in a children's film like it would in a fable or fairy tale. However, movies should not be entirely hinged on a moral principle.
Recently, I've found that some audiences struggle to accept morally grey characters. I recollect watching the TV version of Death of a Salesman (1985) back in my high school drama class. When we reached the part where Willy Loman (Dustin Hoffman) cheated on his wife, the entire class revolted, instantly losing interest in such an unlikable character.
While I do agree that Willy is unlikable, it's no reason to dismiss the project as a whole. Real cinema involves human characters and these characters can't be human without their flaws. These flawed, struggling characters make movies interesting and memorable.
Now, I don't mean to suggest that every character must be problematic or deeply flawed. There's room in cinema for heroic figures like Superman and Captain America, given that the writing is substantial.
However, a film shouldn't have to always abide by moral rules for it to be a worthwhile experience, nor should every character have to be likable. The fight of good vs evil is a classic tale, but it can become stale easily. Similarly, relatable characters are enjoyable to watch, but complex characters are more memorable.
Furthermore, a film doesn't need an inherit message. Messages are not necessarily bad, but not every film needs one. Some films are just great slices of storytelling that prompt you to think without any clear moral inclination.
I know a lot of people enjoy movies that mean something, but it's not cinema's place to guide you morally. While movies can succeed with a moral center and heroic characters, they don't require either to be fantastic cinema.
Movies are not sermons or lectures
This point might seem a bit confusing given that I just talked about morality, but it's different, I promise.
While morality plays tell you what's right and wrong, sermons or lectures purposefully enlighten you about a specific topic. A morality play would show that killing is wrong, while a lecture would tell you that we need to excise murder from our society. They can be either religious or academic in nature, but the point remains the same: you are being told what to believe.
Movies shouldn't do this either. Although a moral message can enhance a story, a great film never tells you what to think or feel.
Movie lectures often happen when someone decides to make a movie about something instead of telling a great story. Filmmakers take a message to heart, such as environmentalism, social discrimination, or religion and try to make a movie about them. None of these issues are inherently bad, but by hyper fixating on them, the story becomes a secondary element to a glaringly unsubtle message.
For instance, think about the most recent overtly preachy film you've seen. Chances are, that movie probably sucked. Even if you agree with the message, a film that focuses on it rarely succeeds at anything else.
I can still remember my first encounter with a lecture movie, which came all the way back in 2006. As a kid, I rushed to the theater to see the newest animated film, Happy Feet. Despite my young age, I can remember being absolutely bored out of my mind. While the animation was impressive for the time, the overt message about environmentalism made this short film feel like three hours. Revisiting now isn't much better, as the preachy story slaps you in the face constantly, pushing Mumble's character arch into forgettable territory.
Happy Feet isn't the only offender though, as there seem to be numerous preachy films released every year. They're often unwatchable, pushing both conservative and liberal ideas with little filmmaking prowess.
Perhaps the worst aspect of these sermon films is that they don't really change anyone's mind. A film that tells you what to think will never succeed because you already have your own thoughts. As such, films that preach are not films at all, but propagandic lectures masquerading as a higher form of art.
Films are not just entertainment
My last point might be the most contentious, but I firmly abide by it nonetheless. Cinema started out as a form of entertainment with theaters being a place where communities could gather and enjoy a story together. However, films should be more than just entertainment.
Now, I do believe that movies should be entertaining and the greatest ones usually are. Still, no film should ever settle on being just a pleasant way to kill a few hours. Even the most ridiculous blockbusters can be more than entertainment in the right hands.
Let's take Indiana Jones for instance. On paper, these are pure blockbuster stories, simple tales of good vs evil told with escapist flare and exciting action. But in Spielberg's hands, they become so much more.
The Indiana Jones trilogy aren't just fun adventure stories, they are immersive experiences that remind us of heroism and the spiritual world beyond ourselves. Because Spielberg never settles for just fun action, the story feels timelessly endearing complete with emotional stakes and palpable excitement.
Sadly, not every film achieves this balance, as many settle on being stupid entertainment with else to offer. However, the onus of treating films as more than entertainment falls on the audience.
These days, many people simply accept that movies are nothing more than entertainment. They put them on as background noise or scroll on their phones paying little attention to what's actually transpiring in front of them.
In actuality, movies are pieces of art, combining sound and sight to tell an engaging story. The precise images, camera movement, and actors' expressions all matter and must me paid attention to. All of these elements create one unique experience that'll be missed if you're not paying attention.
Ultimately, I understand that not everyone can spend their time fully committing to cinema. However, you will miss out on the full experience of film, which is a shame.
As such, if you have the time, commit to a film as much as it should commit to you. Give in to the experience and allow the combination of sights and sounds to mean something to you.
In Conclusion
To recap, cinema shouldn't do certain things. Movies shouldn't be morality plays with one dimensional characters that barely challenge our worldview. They also shouldn't tell us how to feel or think, as they have no responsibility to do so. Finally, movies should be more than mindless entertainment, but we must commit to them equally.
At this point, I will briefly give my definition of cinema. It's only my point of view, so don't take it as anything more, but this is the only definition that makes sense to me.
Like any artform, cinema is an experience. It's unique in its composition, as it requires both sound and sight to unite, but film is an immersive experience. It usually features storytelling of some sort, but that's not the main goal. Cinema transports us to places we've never seen, it puts us in other people's shoes, and encapsulates the wide spectrum of human emotion. While a great story goes a long way, it's secondary to the experience a film provides, whether it be a joyous thrill ride, an intense romance, or a simmering, introspective drama.
Alas though, the experience isn't complete until we reflect on it ourselves. Cinema is intaking what we watched, including the story, characters, and themes, and then reflecting on it from our perspective. We can ask questions about the film, even if we know they have no distinct answers. What's important though is that we gestate this cinematic experience and think about what this film means to us.
Of course, not every movie challenges us enough and some spawn little thought. That's okay though. The great movies with the best experiences will prompt us to ask questions, many of which will linger long after the credits have rolled. But the process of watching a movie and reflecting on it's meaning, for however long that may be, is cinema.
On a final note, I hope that these points will make you think twice about the films you're intaking and how you're intaking them. I have a few more words to give about what cinema truly is, but that's an essay for another day.
I must admit too that my rules are not absolute, nor do they have any real bearing on the cinematic landscape. Instead, my theories are here to prompt you to think about the wide artform of film and ask, "What is cinema to me?"
