Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 22:50:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Brett Allan Enemark <enemark-AT-sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: ft-l: Godard's "Alleged" Significance



>Gee, the government funding programs to encourage appreciation of the 
>arts?  Not in the good old U.S. of A.  The NEA funding is under attack 
>from the GOP.  Americans have to go abroad if they want to see government 
>support for cultural institutions.
>
>hy
>
>
>     --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>

I don't want to give the impression that cultural funding isn't threatened
here as well. Moreover, the fact that the Canadian government has a long
history of involvement with film financing, production, distribution and
exhibition has a lot to do with the fact that film has long been recognized
by governments as a means of creating national unity and cultural
soveriegnty.   Canada, like France, has attempted to argue that films are
works of art, not just commodities, as claimed by the U.S. and the M.P.A.
In other words, in countries which have been dominated by the American
product (which, since WWI includes just about everybody), the existence of a
national film industry of some kind or another is viewed as a condition of
survival.   

But to get back to the issues Bill raises in bringing forward the question
of canonization, and concurrently, mise-en-scene theory.  While he may be
right that different elements of film intersect at the level of
mise-en-scene, historically, this form of criticism has been closely linked
to auteurism, a view which looks at film in terms of the "great man" or
"expressive" theory of art, which dates back to romanticism. The problem
with this, for me, is that it ignores culture, context, nation, ideology,
history, genre, class, race, political economy etc.  In short, all the stuff
that makes a Godard or, dare I say, a Cronenberg, possible.  Film text,
style, and mise-en-scene etc. are marvellous objects of study but what gives
them meaning is their relation to external factors.  To understand what film
truly is requires an appreciation of its function in the larger scheme of
things.  The tendency of auteurism is towards discussions about who is the
better auteur, and to rank artists like sports heros. It's a waste of time. 
 
merry DeXmas all,

Brett 



     --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---