There is a cinephilia whose combative character stems from a fierce anti-Hollywood (and, to some extent, anti-Western) attitude. For some, this expresses hostility towards the endless spatter of American films currently smothering the country’s cinemas; for others, this becomes a supreme criterion used to judge whatever cultural expression. I sympathize with the polemics of the former, but, even though I shared this sensibility back in the day, the latter position seems to be precarious, not to mention deeply constricting.
Supposedly, when the anti-Hollywood attitude becomes a criterion, then any expression must effect autonomy from Hollywood, its films and forms, stars and spectators, in order to be deemed as worthy. If not, then the expression is already “tainted” by Hollywood. But being based on a negation (“Not Hollywood”), the critical regimen for such a criterion ultimately requires, so to speak, a process of purging.
Consequently, any formal entity thought to be “Hollywood-esque” (for instance, three-act storylines, shot/reverse shot, frenetic cutting, etc) is surmised as consorting to Hollywood standards. However, “Hollywood-esque” formal entities change over time, thus the classical decoupage cutting of 30’s Hollywood will not likely find a place in the chaos cinema of ‘00s Hollywood. And we must remember that Hollywood can easily appropriate avant-garde, anti-Hollywood forms into its system, so one can catch snatches of underground filmmaking in music videos and discover that Terrence Malick’s films are, in fact, Hollywood products. More importantly, when any film employs Hollywood forms, we should never rush our judgment by assuming that the film is now “tainted”, as if these forms were inherently imperialistic (this is the obstacle that the fascinating and explosive, if problematic, films of Mani Ratnam come across). We have to give account of how these forms are used, how they are incorporated into the context of a particular film.
If the anti-Hollywood attitude means purging Hollywood aesthetics from cinema, then it is only logical why it would find a home in the atrophy of the slow cinema movement. It seems that the long takes, long shots, and static framing of slow cinema would be impossible for Hollywood to incorporate into its system, but who knows what’s going to happen in the distant future? This isn’t to say that I don’t enjoy slow cinema films; on the contrary, I love the stuff of James Benning and Apichatpong Weerasethakul but for reasons different from the values upheld by the slow cinema movement. But if the process of purging results in filmmaking and film discussion centered solely on a negation or a marked separation from Hollywood or Western norms, then it is less about creating new forms than putting ourselves in a corner (since, as said before, Hollywood can incorporate almost any form into its system, leaving few “un-Hollywood” forms left). Besides, how are we going to touch on those instances when slow cinema films use Hollywood devices, such as the musical montage?
It won’t help to situate any cultural expression in a place similar to that of the virgin princess in the tower. From there, one can only isolate that cultural expression from the rest of the world. But to get from there to the rest of the world, we need to realize that purging Hollywood or Western aesthetic devices from cinema is fatally reductionist, because no aesthetic device is inherently Hollywood or Western. Aesthetic forms, once discovered or created, can be appropriated to whatever purpose, whether for Hollywood or Third-world ideology (but the former uses more forms, which doesn’t mean that they are inherently Hollywood). Rather than enrich the cinema experience, the anti-Hollywood attitude, centered on its crucial negation, closes it down and it ironically brings Hollywood back into the conversation when it didn’t need to be there in the first place. It would be better if we did not focus so much on a work’s difference from Hollywood, but on the sublime ways in which a work creates its own singular space and vision, for the reason that focusing discussion solely on a work’s “un-Hollywood-ness” is not discussing the work at all.
Recent Posts
