The Context  

CINÉMA HUMAIN
A PRACTICAL AND CRITICAL REVOLUTION

Throughout their careers French New Wave directors such as François Truffaut and Jean-Luc Godard vigorously attacked the so-called tradition of quality, that is, films that flourish in extravagance while abiding to a specific cinematic format. Their thinking about what film stands for brought about a new approach to the art of the medium - and therefore a freer, more honest and personal interpretation of life.

Considering what the efforts of these filmmakers meant for mainstream cinema of the 1950s, one now has to ask oneself upon looking at many contemporary films: what has happened to the revolutionary insights they offered to the world of cinema? Unquestionably their words were often harsh - too harsh some might say. But it is also uncontestable that these were statements in essence concerned with truth. The flight into or by means of film from truth, or reality as people experience it every day - that is what they could not accept. We have to film "girls as we love them, boys as we see them every day, parents as we despise or admire them, children as they astonish us or leave as indifferent; in other words, things as they are¹ ".

This may perhaps be taken as a rather simplistic formulation. It is not possible for "things as they are" to be simply depicted objectively without any influence of the perspective from which the filmmaker portrays them. The New Wave directors themselves brought a new perspective from which to look at the "things". In my opinion, however, they have nevertheless noticed an important aspect in mainstream filmmaking, notably turning away from what they call "the things as they are", the bare realities of existence in favour of a tendency to over-indulge in entertainment.

It is this observation that I would like to take up and expand critically. Without claiming to have the only valid or "right" perspective on "things as they are", I do think that the dimension of the social responsibility of film needs to be taken up and developed. Such an economically powerful industry as the film business cannot but have a huge obligation towards the social realities of the world in which it thrives. The socio-economic, political and cultural realities with which people are confronted every day and with which they are required to cope, these are also the business of filmmaking. What I propose, is filmmaking with a heart for the world that is what it is, or, to use the New Wave phrase, for the "things as they are". I do not plead for a naïve representation of objective reality "as it is" as opposed to "as I see it", but I do plead that the film world should recognise the constructive aspect of New Wave criticism, namely that "looking the other way" is not an ethically tolerable option. Instead of looking away from the harsh or beautiful, the boring or demanding, the engaging or indifferent phenomena in the reality that confronts us in our day to day lives - I would maintain - we need an alternative: turning towards burning issues.

"Things as they are" … things we do not get the opportunity to see, to know or to understand. This is what lacks in today's cinema. The amazing technological advances that have been made in the last fifty years brought astounding films to our screens. We are offered worlds better than our own. Worlds where we can enjoy falling in love without consequences, where we can solve crises and save the day and travel to far and distant places - by sitting back. This is the cinema of today - a wonderful escape into an arena of dreams and altered realities. We can recreate events from the past; fill the world with monsters, dinosaurs and aliens. We create different lives altogether. This in itself is not a bad thing, on the contrary, it is quite extraordinary in that the imagination is allowed to become alive. But when blind entertainment becomes the sole focus, then cinema holds negative aspects as well.

What we experience in the cinema can therefore become clouded by production value and computer generated effects that make a spectacle rather than a point. The film's subject, the visual meaning and the people who are portrayed get lost in the process. We disappear, for a brief period of time, into an illusion of special effects and comic book fantasies. On the surface this amuses and provides a welcome relief to every day life, but this is not all film should provide. It can and should go beyond that, while still retaining the "entertainment" qualities everybody desires. This is what is important. By creating images and stories, we find emotion and what makes us human. We obtain a better understanding of the world. However, the depth and impact of this truth are generally very difficult to attain or convey if one's aim is only to entertain. That is why, according to Godard, cinema should be regarded not as a craft but as an art. Only then can cinema be more than entertainment and much more than perfection - it can be meaningful.

Economics, ideology and aesthetics have always fuelled the film industry - also that of the New Wave filmmakers. It is however important that mainstream audiences are challenged so that the focus can be moved from the technical and financial elements of filmmaking (that can cloud truth and therefore authentic artistic expression), to the personal and intellectual reception of the medium. Moreover, given the situation of the film industry at present, a lesson is perhaps to be learned from filmmakers such as Agnes Varda and Godard who proved from an economic point of view that young directors with little experience in film and limited funds available, can make critically significant films of a sensitive and innovative nature that affect people deeply.

Here Bertholt Brecht's view about theatre (and the cinema) becomes significant. He believed that the theatre is an arena for the intellect where the audience should be constantly challenged. It is a place where people become involved in the watching experience because their expectations are tested and their emotions stirred by the portrayal of issues that affect them personally. Additionally, the audience also becomes involved through the portrayal of stories and histories outside their frame of reference. In this regard, cinema functions as a form of "edutainment" where the intellect is stirred in that it becomes aware of issues it was previously not conscious of. It is when one offers an audience this level of respect that film can reach its full potential. In appealing to the mind², one also appeals to an audience's need for enjoyment.

The fact is that in today's cinema the intellect is mostly not challenged. Deep existential emotions are not stirred. What we see ultimately does not challenge our way of thinking or persuade us to action. By allowing this, we allow ourselves to become numb to the point that we do not think of the realities of a woman abused, a man annihilated or a child hungry. We remain untroubled and unmoved. In apathy we feel safe. In make-believe we feel better. We continue to shoot films with enormous budgets in countries where people die of hunger and exposure.

As filmmakers and as audience members, can we truly claim that this is the real purpose of film - an economic tool and a welcome anesthetic? Can film perhaps be something more than that? Can it be the search for what makes us human in order to improve life? Do we only want to see the typical family man, an action hero, a father protecting his children from evil in front of a green screen … a one-dimensional silver knight in a fake world?

What is called for is a re-evaluation of the public function of the cinema. We have to insist on a cinematic revolution that puts the matter before anything else … the art before the craft … the big idea before economy.

What we need, is a cinéma du force combined with a cinéma humain.