Although some would agree that Baumann should not have left out the aesthetic side of film history, I believe he has every reason to, especially considering that the success of a film and the acclaim of the director at times does not have anything to do with aesthetic quality. I definitely agree with Baumann that if one wants to study the history of film, it is best to study it from a sociological perspective, examining how economic, political, cultural, and social events shaped films. To claim that every film that has been included in the film canon is there because of its aesthetic and artistic quality is simply untrue. At times, success has nothing to do with quality, and this is hard to admit.
For my case-in-point, I would like to use the brilliant African-American director, Melvin Van Peebles as an example of how Hollywood in the 1960s still undermined directors of color, despite the fact that their films were of aesthetic quality. Upon directing several short films, notably Pickup Men for Herrick, Peebles attempted to get Hollywood to screen his work. However, Peebles was unable to find anyone there who was willing to hire him as a director. Fortunately, Henry Langlois, founder of the Cinémathèque Française, after viewing Peebles work, decided to screen his films, which led to Peebles moving to Paris to continue his work.
What I find very disturbing, however, is the fact that Peebles was only approached by Hollywood ,after making his first feature length film, The Story of the Three-Day Pass, because they mistook him for a French director. Stories likes these prove unequivocally, that the study of film history cannot be placed solely on aesthetics. Baumann's endeavor to re-position film history, definitely has motivated me to examine works in and outside of the American film canon not only from an aesthetic perspective, but to try to study the historical times out of which they were produced, where I am positive that I would find that certain films were not higher in aesthetic quality, but simply had more of an opportunity to succeed than others.
This is such a great account and example of film canonization and rejection of certain players based on race and gender.
ReplyDeleteTo think also that so many films made for african american theaters in the early US film market are now lost because there was no "economic" incentive in preserving them says something towards this dilemma.
This also brings up the question of who must you be legitimized by as a filmmaker to be relevant to a market? In this case, Peebles, despite his talent needed be 'recognized' in the french intellectual circuit, and because the french intellectual circuit so happened to be producing money making films in America, he could then find an outlet.
It's certainly rare to be recognized by both the industry and the intellectual mechanisms of film especially when it comes to being a woman or a person of color. Usually this the dividing line (Nancy Meyers recognized in the industry, but not in criticism, and Jane Campion the opposite and Tyler Perry V. Spike Lee; though it seems like Lee can go back and forth given his mode or genre) I was reminded of this at the Academy Awards when Tyler Perry made the joke of being a presenter at the awards as someone who might never win an award, and by Barbara Streisand's announcement that the best director was going for the first time ever to.... (the options of course being a woman, Kathryn Bigelow or an african american, Lee Daniels). By Streisand's very presentation of the award (she made many stabs in the 80s and 90s as a female director) we knew who would win. A surprised that surprised no one when Bigelow won the grand political award as the ex-wife of a hated academy white male, and as "a woman."
So, it's politics as usual, but I agree that it's nice to have an account that looks more than just at the great films as the best aesthetic masters, but also at who determines, awards, and quantifies this 'greatness'.