I've been watching your vids this morning, and first off, Imma say I commend you for drawing attention to the Kuleshov effect, and to filmmakers like Eisenstein and Vertov. When it comes to this type of cinematic expression, I think we should also draw attention to films like 21-87 and Koyaanisqatsi which emphasize the intersections of images and the meanings crafted from their combination, juxtaposition, rhythm of cutting, and all the things you've been talking about. And I'm also down with the communism thing, not much issue there. ❤ However, I do wonder how revolutionary your proposition is. Surely a capitalism apologist could assemble an abstract collage of moving images speaking of the supposed virtues of picking yourself up by your bootstraps? Again, I think an increased focus on montage and a rejection of the things cinema borrows from theater, especially narrative, is cool, and I would definitely love to see more mainstream films that employ such "pure cinema" techniques. But saying that your proposed style is revolutionary simply by virtue of its form reminds me of when naïve leftists say that if everyone took psychedelics, everyone would thereby see that communism is correct. Things aren't that simple, and it's all too easy for a person with regressive views (like the RUclipsr Rick Worley) to also be a fan of Man with a Movie Camera, just as it is possible for a fascist to take psychedelics and develop no further empathy. And I hope you'll permit me this, but I also sense way too much confidence and self-assurance in your presentations. Yes, it is important for people to research topics lest they ignorantly mouth off about a given subject, and it's fair to criticize artists for not really thinking through and developing the ideas they wish to express. But there is a value to adventuring into something even though you don't know the answers for sure. Even if you're going by specifically Marxist doctrine, it necessarily consists (at least largely) of a certain humility insofar as dialectical materialists must always, always be at the ready to take new information into account, and change themselves and their actions accordingly. It frankly rubs me the wrong way when someone looks at a giant-ass question like God's existence, and then casually brushes it off as something easily dismissed once someone adopts a scientific viewpoint. The notion that something without evidence is necessarily non-existent is very questionable and should not be presented as a given. It's a very strong metaphysical claim. Also, the claim, "Since we only live once, it is our duty to make the most out of our life now and improve what we can about the world and society while we are still alive," fails as a syllogism. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. If you want to critique people for their lack of philosophical rigor, you gotta walk the walk. One of the main things I'm getting at here is that you want to reach people, right? You want to get it across to people that this is a fucked up world, and that we ourselves must fight to make it more just. Good. But sometimes, when one is too caught up in their own framework, they can fail to really see other people and see where they are coming from. When I was a conservative Christian growing up, I was like, why are people scared about death? Just accept Jesus (whatever that means) and you'll go to heaven. Duh. How hard is that to understand?! Likewise, you speak of your frustration with people who ask "silly" questions to which they have no answers. The purpose of life is to be efficient, easy to understand, right? The point of a question is to answer it. The problem is that there are many people who can't sleep at night because of such existential questions. They can feel unable to even get up out of bed. Yes, there are economic factors leading to depression and such, but much despair (as well as much wonder and awe) can come from contemplating the "big" questions that do not have easy answers. If you yourself don't find much psychological difficulty ignoring the is-ought gap (for instance), good for you. After all, it would admittedly be nice if we all just cut the crap, got up, and started healing the world and each other, regardless of whether some firm meta-ethical basis exists to justify our actions or not. But it is very, very important to be deeply respectful of the people who cannot easily just move on or brush aside the big questions. And Imma be frank again: if you're just glibly brushing those questions aside, it doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look like you never really considered the questions to begin with. When a young philosophy student is all, "oh, pfft, the mind-body problem? That's easy," all they've succeeded in doing is broadcasting their ignorance about an enormous field of discussion. No, the mind-body problem is not easy. No, the purpose-in-life question is not easy. No, the God question is not easy. And trust me, I ain't pushing religion on ya. That is NOT my goal here, tho, while we're on the subject, it is also deeply, deeply misguided to make broad statements about religion causing harm all over the world. Yes, you and I are aligned in our loathing of theocracy. But the huge problem with your overgeneralized critique is that the Abrahamic religions are not the only organized religions. They are enormous and significant organized religions, yes, but that is just it. Organized religion encompasses the practices and beliefs of many minoritized groups of people. So if one makes broad statements about how organized religion is bad, and then those statements get traction, it is not the giant institution of Christianity that will be harmed. What will happen instead is that people of minoritized groups will have their rights violated. I don't think you meant anything negative towards people of minoritized groups, but the implications of your critique needed to be addressed. I'll shut up in a sec, lol. I just want to say that, in the spirit of leftism, it might be beneficial to be a little less dismissive of other forms of cinematic expression. You think film is all about the edit? That's awesome (no, I'm not being sarcastic)! But someone over here is saying that film is about sculpting in time. In your fist vid, I think, you critique some filmmakers for holding shots very long. Supposedly, not much is actually being communicated to the audience, but I don't know about that. Paul Schrader has some interesting things to say about transcendental cinema and the power of stillness. What I'm saying is that you might benefit from applying a little more of a yes-and approach. Pluralism, diversity, these are important principles for any leftist to take into account. I admire and share your concern about filmgoers and filmmakers missing out on a huge part of the film artform when they lean so heavily and constantly into theater trappings, but there are other things we also miss when we are too locked into our chosen perspective. Maybe there's a place for theatricality, a place for "pure cinema," as well as a place for the combination of the two (which we already have, of course). You talk of theatrical narratives trapping filmmakers, but maybe there's something to be said for telling a theatrical narrative and meanwhile breaking it, stepping outside of it, poking it full of holes. Is Kubrick trapped by theatrical narrative with 2001? One perspective is that you can see the stargate sequence as a rejection of and a voyage beyond traditional narrative moviemaking, and that very rejection is all the more potent BECAUSE of the inclusion of theatrical trappings throughout the movie. The jump beyond wouldn't be so pronounced if there was nothing to jump beyond. What happens when theater is brought face to face with stark "pure cinema"? You get a new meaning from the combination, from the juxtaposition. And isn't creating meanings from combinations and juxtapositions what Kuleshov was all about?
Life is partly about managing our lives in the face of unavoidable mysteries, unanswerable questions aplenty. The scientific perspective doesn’t give us answers to these mysteries. Art, including film, allows us explore these mysteries. Philosophy does too, to an extent; but philosophy more or less just identifies the mysteries, the limits of human understanding proper (or „scientific understanding“).
Interesting video but I have some critiques: 1) Your definition of Existentialism is pretty questionable. It started during the Enlightenment? My philosophy knowledge is lacking but wasn't this the era where people thought rationality could solve all of the world's problems and that humanity (or lets be honest and say Europeans) would progressively answer all of the questions there were through science and logic? I can hardly see a movement that poses abstract questions without answers as being part of Enlightenment philosophy. You use Existentialism way too anachronistically. The term itself was coined in 1940, and didn't really pop off until the writings of Sarte and Camus and others gained traction. While the name could certainly be applied to some things that came before, some of the specific example you cite definitely are not it. I can't think of any person who would consider Nosferatu or Dr. Caligari existentialist. Nosferatu ends with the titular villain being defeated by the coming of dawn. The "question"/problem of Nosferatu is answered with his ultimate defeat. Simply being depressing or dreadful does not equal existential film. This is nothing like the post-war Noir films that don't answer these question and steep in moral ambiguity. 2) This is 100% a difference in personality but some people enjoy asking questions that can't be answered. This is the appeal of works such as the Dark Souls franchise and such. The theory crafting and exploration of different possibilities without a definitive conclusion is a major source of joy for many. 3) Some questions can only really be answered on an individual level. Questions such as "What's the meaning of my life?" cannot be scientifically answered but they are still important to people, and film can help people answer that, even if they don't directly spell it out. There's a quote from Michael Haneke (not an existentialist imo but the idea still stands) that is find particularly insightful; To paraphrase ,"Cinema cannot answer questions, but it can force you to engage with questions in a more aware manner, and allow you to come to your own conclusion". Even if the film does not directly give an answer, it can make you think more critically about them, which leads you to your own conclusion. Tbh I do feel a overarching flaw of your presentation is that you rarely give concrete examples. I'd like to know what specific films you consider existential and how they avoid asking pursuing those questions. It will give me a better idea of what I'm arguing against or if we even disagree in the first place or if we're just debating semantics. Side note: I think its a little funny that your idea of a film that answers "Does God exist?" uses the example of Christian victims of war questioning their faith due to the death and suffering around them. Its just somewhat ironic considering the most horrific place to be in rn would probably be the Gaza strip, but they haven't (generally speaking) lost their faith. Let's just say that a culture that considers those slain by Israel to be "martyrs" throws a wrench into the idea of suffering = crisis of faith. This is coming from an Atheist btw. The idea should be questioned, but as you would guess based this comment, you'll have to find the answer yourself. Overall, I think this video does bring up some important questions as to what the purpose of cinema is. Looking forward to the next video.
I've been watching your vids this morning, and first off, Imma say I commend you for drawing attention to the Kuleshov effect, and to filmmakers like Eisenstein and Vertov. When it comes to this type of cinematic expression, I think we should also draw attention to films like 21-87 and Koyaanisqatsi which emphasize the intersections of images and the meanings crafted from their combination, juxtaposition, rhythm of cutting, and all the things you've been talking about.
And I'm also down with the communism thing, not much issue there. ❤
However, I do wonder how revolutionary your proposition is. Surely a capitalism apologist could assemble an abstract collage of moving images speaking of the supposed virtues of picking yourself up by your bootstraps? Again, I think an increased focus on montage and a rejection of the things cinema borrows from theater, especially narrative, is cool, and I would definitely love to see more mainstream films that employ such "pure cinema" techniques. But saying that your proposed style is revolutionary simply by virtue of its form reminds me of when naïve leftists say that if everyone took psychedelics, everyone would thereby see that communism is correct. Things aren't that simple, and it's all too easy for a person with regressive views (like the RUclipsr Rick Worley) to also be a fan of Man with a Movie Camera, just as it is possible for a fascist to take psychedelics and develop no further empathy.
And I hope you'll permit me this, but I also sense way too much confidence and self-assurance in your presentations. Yes, it is important for people to research topics lest they ignorantly mouth off about a given subject, and it's fair to criticize artists for not really thinking through and developing the ideas they wish to express. But there is a value to adventuring into something even though you don't know the answers for sure. Even if you're going by specifically Marxist doctrine, it necessarily consists (at least largely) of a certain humility insofar as dialectical materialists must always, always be at the ready to take new information into account, and change themselves and their actions accordingly. It frankly rubs me the wrong way when someone looks at a giant-ass question like God's existence, and then casually brushes it off as something easily dismissed once someone adopts a scientific viewpoint. The notion that something without evidence is necessarily non-existent is very questionable and should not be presented as a given. It's a very strong metaphysical claim. Also, the claim, "Since we only live once, it is our duty to make the most out of our life now and improve what we can about the world and society while we are still alive," fails as a syllogism. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. If you want to critique people for their lack of philosophical rigor, you gotta walk the walk.
One of the main things I'm getting at here is that you want to reach people, right? You want to get it across to people that this is a fucked up world, and that we ourselves must fight to make it more just. Good. But sometimes, when one is too caught up in their own framework, they can fail to really see other people and see where they are coming from.
When I was a conservative Christian growing up, I was like, why are people scared about death? Just accept Jesus (whatever that means) and you'll go to heaven. Duh. How hard is that to understand?! Likewise, you speak of your frustration with people who ask "silly" questions to which they have no answers. The purpose of life is to be efficient, easy to understand, right? The point of a question is to answer it.
The problem is that there are many people who can't sleep at night because of such existential questions. They can feel unable to even get up out of bed. Yes, there are economic factors leading to depression and such, but much despair (as well as much wonder and awe) can come from contemplating the "big" questions that do not have easy answers. If you yourself don't find much psychological difficulty ignoring the is-ought gap (for instance), good for you. After all, it would admittedly be nice if we all just cut the crap, got up, and started healing the world and each other, regardless of whether some firm meta-ethical basis exists to justify our actions or not. But it is very, very important to be deeply respectful of the people who cannot easily just move on or brush aside the big questions. And Imma be frank again: if you're just glibly brushing those questions aside, it doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look like you never really considered the questions to begin with. When a young philosophy student is all, "oh, pfft, the mind-body problem? That's easy," all they've succeeded in doing is broadcasting their ignorance about an enormous field of discussion. No, the mind-body problem is not easy. No, the purpose-in-life question is not easy. No, the God question is not easy.
And trust me, I ain't pushing religion on ya. That is NOT my goal here, tho, while we're on the subject, it is also deeply, deeply misguided to make broad statements about religion causing harm all over the world. Yes, you and I are aligned in our loathing of theocracy. But the huge problem with your overgeneralized critique is that the Abrahamic religions are not the only organized religions. They are enormous and significant organized religions, yes, but that is just it. Organized religion encompasses the practices and beliefs of many minoritized groups of people. So if one makes broad statements about how organized religion is bad, and then those statements get traction, it is not the giant institution of Christianity that will be harmed. What will happen instead is that people of minoritized groups will have their rights violated. I don't think you meant anything negative towards people of minoritized groups, but the implications of your critique needed to be addressed.
I'll shut up in a sec, lol. I just want to say that, in the spirit of leftism, it might be beneficial to be a little less dismissive of other forms of cinematic expression. You think film is all about the edit? That's awesome (no, I'm not being sarcastic)! But someone over here is saying that film is about sculpting in time. In your fist vid, I think, you critique some filmmakers for holding shots very long. Supposedly, not much is actually being communicated to the audience, but I don't know about that. Paul Schrader has some interesting things to say about transcendental cinema and the power of stillness. What I'm saying is that you might benefit from applying a little more of a yes-and approach. Pluralism, diversity, these are important principles for any leftist to take into account. I admire and share your concern about filmgoers and filmmakers missing out on a huge part of the film artform when they lean so heavily and constantly into theater trappings, but there are other things we also miss when we are too locked into our chosen perspective. Maybe there's a place for theatricality, a place for "pure cinema," as well as a place for the combination of the two (which we already have, of course). You talk of theatrical narratives trapping filmmakers, but maybe there's something to be said for telling a theatrical narrative and meanwhile breaking it, stepping outside of it, poking it full of holes. Is Kubrick trapped by theatrical narrative with 2001? One perspective is that you can see the stargate sequence as a rejection of and a voyage beyond traditional narrative moviemaking, and that very rejection is all the more potent BECAUSE of the inclusion of theatrical trappings throughout the movie. The jump beyond wouldn't be so pronounced if there was nothing to jump beyond.
What happens when theater is brought face to face with stark "pure cinema"? You get a new meaning from the combination, from the juxtaposition. And isn't creating meanings from combinations and juxtapositions what Kuleshov was all about?
great vid man
Life is partly about managing our lives in the face of unavoidable mysteries, unanswerable questions aplenty. The scientific perspective doesn’t give us answers to these mysteries. Art, including film, allows us explore these mysteries. Philosophy does too, to an extent; but philosophy more or less just identifies the mysteries, the limits of human understanding proper (or „scientific understanding“).
what are your thoughts on james benning?
Interesting video but I have some critiques:
1) Your definition of Existentialism is pretty questionable. It started during the Enlightenment? My philosophy knowledge is lacking but wasn't this the era where people thought rationality could solve all of the world's problems and that humanity (or lets be honest and say Europeans) would progressively answer all of the questions there were through science and logic? I can hardly see a movement that poses abstract questions without answers as being part of Enlightenment philosophy. You use Existentialism way too anachronistically. The term itself was coined in 1940, and didn't really pop off until the writings of Sarte and Camus and others gained traction. While the name could certainly be applied to some things that came before, some of the specific example you cite definitely are not it. I can't think of any person who would consider Nosferatu or Dr. Caligari existentialist. Nosferatu ends with the titular villain being defeated by the coming of dawn. The "question"/problem of Nosferatu is answered with his ultimate defeat. Simply being depressing or dreadful does not equal existential film. This is nothing like the post-war Noir films that don't answer these question and steep in moral ambiguity.
2) This is 100% a difference in personality but some people enjoy asking questions that can't be answered. This is the appeal of works such as the Dark Souls franchise and such. The theory crafting and exploration of different possibilities without a definitive conclusion is a major source of joy for many.
3) Some questions can only really be answered on an individual level. Questions such as "What's the meaning of my life?" cannot be scientifically answered but they are still important to people, and film can help people answer that, even if they don't directly spell it out. There's a quote from Michael Haneke (not an existentialist imo but the idea still stands) that is find particularly insightful; To paraphrase ,"Cinema cannot answer questions, but it can force you to engage with questions in a more aware manner, and allow you to come to your own conclusion". Even if the film does not directly give an answer, it can make you think more critically about them, which leads you to your own conclusion.
Tbh I do feel a overarching flaw of your presentation is that you rarely give concrete examples. I'd like to know what specific films you consider existential and how they avoid asking pursuing those questions. It will give me a better idea of what I'm arguing against or if we even disagree in the first place or if we're just debating semantics.
Side note: I think its a little funny that your idea of a film that answers "Does God exist?" uses the example of Christian victims of war questioning their faith due to the death and suffering around them. Its just somewhat ironic considering the most horrific place to be in rn would probably be the Gaza strip, but they haven't (generally speaking) lost their faith. Let's just say that a culture that considers those slain by Israel to be "martyrs" throws a wrench into the idea of suffering = crisis of faith. This is coming from an Atheist btw. The idea should be questioned, but as you would guess based this comment, you'll have to find the answer yourself.
Overall, I think this video does bring up some important questions as to what the purpose of cinema is. Looking forward to the next video.
Well said, and thank you for sharing that Haneke quote, I love that :)