I’m self-conscious. I hope you are too. Self-consciously drawing attention to the artificiality of a work, or creating a story that features itself as a physical object, is referred to as Metafiction. This is a manifesto focusing on movements in cinema history where filmmakers tried something new; reflecting and breaking free from the formal structures and limitations developed in early cinema, acknowledging (as it’s important) where it all started along the way too. Occasionally you might get distracted. Why am I writing this? Because I want us to consider what the next Film Movement can be, clarify where I think we should collectively be headed, why, and explaining how to do it.
First of all, what are the key film movements of the past 130 years or so? If you consider yourself cinema-literate please skip the bullet points to save yourself some time.
– Cinema of Attractions (late 1890s / early 1900s) – Cinema was born, and the first films screened through the nickelodeon boom of the 1900s, it was all about spectacle, reflection, imagination. Film was a sensational fairground attraction out to surprise and fascinate its audience (No movements here as such, just experimentation with what could be done with this new-found magic).
– Soviet montage (late teens / 20s) – Russian filmmakers (Eisenstein and Vertov most notably) experimented with radical ways to put films together, instigating avant-garde and documentaries.
– German Expressionism (20s / early 30s) – new-found funding and artistic freedom allowed filmmakers to visually represent extreme psychological states through heavily stylised sets, costumes and lighting.
– Italian Neo-Realism (late 40s / early 50s) – After World War II, Italian filmmakers produced a string of influential films characterised by gritty settings, non-professional actors and real locations.
– French New Wave (late 50s / early 60s) – young French cinephiles and critics began making films that reworked and deconstructed the conventions of Hollywood, such as continuity editing.
– British Social Realism (1960s) – ‘Kitchen Sink’ realism of the British theatre, art, novels and television of the time influenced a few filmmakers to shoot in a documentary style similar to the ‘free-cinema’ documentary movement.
– New American Cinema (late 60s / early 70s) – young American filmmakers began to make edgy, adult films about taboo subjects, and for a brief time enjoyed commercial success too.
– New German Cinema (late 70s / early 80s) – formally experimental and dealt with the difficulties of post-war German national identity.
– No Wave Cinema (early-mid 80s) – made on either Super8 or 16mm, in a guerrilla filmmaking style inspired by French new wave and Punk DIY ideals. Stories were transgressive.
– Dogme 95 (mid-late 1990s) – A self-conscious movement beginning in Danish cinema; this approach set up rules about how to make low-budget realist films, e.g using only natural light and no music.
Global sporadic bursts since the new millennium:
– Mexican New Wave (Early 00s) – flare for Mex-Culture, realism and romanticism
– South Korean Wave (Mid-late 00s) – violent, shocking, political, wild tonal shifts
– Iranian New Wave (90s/00s) – no clear timescale, but all focused on censorship
– Romanian, Greek Weird Wave, New French Extremity, Mumblecore…
As soon as new movements start now, they stop – is this simply a financial issue? Very little seems to clearly unite these films also. Filmmakers within their (geographically-connected) movements have acknowledged that themes overlapping is pure coincidence (in Greece, for example), and that didn’t constitute an actual movement – united by a manifesto or collective ideals.
So, what now? What next?
What I propose is uniting the idea of a Meta-construct, in which it is readily apparent that you are not watching something that is real (coded dialogue, settings, structures and ideas suggesting so), with hyperreality at the centre (behaviours and actions being so believable, in reflection of true-life images and behaviours). Thus reflecting the time we live in. It’s largely acknowledged that we live in a time known as Post-Truth (see: Donald Trump), in which we find it hard to know what is real or not anymore, and our work should reflect that. Realism has its place, directly reflecting the world, but I feel the style limits artists and offers less when compared to the greatest works of art of all time – which come from unique, expressive, personal perspectives, creating empathy through clear communication with an audience.
Examples of who and what does and doesn’t do what is mentioned above:
– Charlie Kaufman (see: ‘Synecdoche, New York’, ‘Anomalisa’, ‘Adaptation’, ‘Eternal Sunshine’) is the best example – in his meta-works (often a version of himself, and structured like the ideas within the films), the characters and worlds feel very real – full of overlapping conversations, awkward moments, natural sounds and honest emotions but all clearly constructed in an unreal, almost dreamlike way.
– Big-budget player Christopher Nolan comes close with his best work (see: ‘Memento’, ‘The Prestige’, ‘Inception’), but just falls short of being considered part of this collection of filmmakers, as his meta-worlds aren’t portrayed as naturalistically. He scratches an intellectual itch and makes you aware that what you are watching isn’t real, but doesn’t offer much more (suggesting being smart for the sake of it).
– Wes Anderson does, with regards to his meta-constructs (a book opens and we are in the film, etc.), but he doesn’t always goes in for the hyperreal centre within his meta-constructs, creating a little too much self-aware distancing during character interactions to hit you on a really deep level, I think (though dialogue, when it overlaps, and pauses, does sometimes do this).
*At this point it’s important to note that these filmmakers and films are all great, I’m just illustrating that they don’t all fit a possible current trend, or cohesive movement.
– Paul Thomas Anderson has done it several times (see: ‘Magnolia’, ‘Punch Drunk Love’ and ‘Inherent Vice’ most notably). ‘The Master’ and ‘There Will Be Blood’, while acknowledging their time / mythologies, and presenting those fully-formed worlds in hyperreal ways, don’t draw attention to the artifice as much as his other works.
– Melodramas don’t do it (see: the work of Pedro Almodovar and Todd Haynes) They show the falseness of the world, comment on it, but they are all artifice. *Again, great filmmakers and I recommend their work (see: ‘The Skin I Live In’, ‘All About My Mother’, ‘Carol’)
– David Lynch is at the forefront of the type of filmmaking I’m discussing. ‘Mulholland Drive’ makes you aware that what you are watching is not real, but sucks you in with infinite details and incredible performances, when you get to the “real” stages of the film (of course none of it is real, hence why he succeeds in his goal). At its core it’s about sincere emotion, empathy, connection, in spite of the values of the modern world.
– Andrew Dominik is another great contemporary filmmaker doing all of this. It’s impossible to watch the prologue of ‘The Assassination of Jesse James…‘ and not be aware of the artifice, and yet at the centre of the film, as we go deeper and deeper into examining who Jesse James and Robert Ford really were, we get sucked in by the countless details, of the world, and the people.
– The most recent, clear extension of this type of filmmaking would have to be the work of Louis C.K (though technically not working in film). Starting with ‘Louie’ – his experimental “sitcom” (it’s more than that); his style became finessed in this year’s ‘Horace and Pete’ – a “show” in which you are aware you are watching something staged at all times (a stage show, shot like live TV, only released online), but the acting, the script, the direction, and the raw emotion on show throughout, is unlike anything we’ve seen before. This is the purest example of what I’m talking about.
It’s easy to feel overloaded with information, thoughts, and conversation these days, forgetting to consciously acknowledge what you are doing (still reading?). Hyperreality is the inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from a simulation of reality, especially in technologically advanced societies – which sounds a lot like the way that pretty much all of us record the world nowadays – digital.
Getting people to question their reality isn’t enough though – that simply means you are creating something to appear smart and nudge an audience. Postmodernism (self-referencing and ironic, usually cynical (see: Quentin Tarantino)) drew our attention to what we saw but left us with emptiness more than anything. Communication, connection and empathy are the key things that cinema can do most effectively. Through the combination of a Meta-Construct, Hyperreality as a form of engagement and communication, and then at the core of your film, within that world, having something Sincere to say about the human condition, and how to connect – that’s how we can have a new film movement.
For me, the purpose of this new movement is to highlight the absurdity of the construct of our lives (not just now, in this time, but always). That when we’re faced with the reality of certain scenarios in life we have to learn to accept them, and be conscious of the decisions we make whilst a part of this world, real or otherwise. Why? Because the truth behind the fiction is, and always will be, that we are trying to communicate. As I am to you now.
