21st Century v 20th Century Films

[St. Gloede]

Well, with you ignoring my list and claiming I didn’t understand yours when I went to the effort of explaining and caveating mine it read like dismissiveness - plus it’s the internet, so, you know. Apparently it was an innocent oversight and I totally overreacted - life imitating Fassbinder imitating Sirkian melodrama? Also, you seem to be the only one giving the 2000s any credit at all, and I guess I missed that. Another poster can only name three filmmakers worth mentioning in 20 years! It seemed like I was way out to sea. But that’s because I too can’t read. C’est la vie!

Haha, no worries, and just to be clear I think our both the 2000s and our current decade have great offerings. I currently prefer the 00s (and also thought it was a strong period at the time), but the 10s may pop back up again once the dust is settled and I discover work I missed. If anything the 20s will likely swing back up again. There are always highs and lows.

I might love the 80s more than the 60s, myself. What a wild, wildly uneven but somehow still great decade!

Let’s avoid that discussion, though, nobody will take me seriously at all.

Haha, I can see how/why. The arthouse directors become more and more niche and went further and further into their own extreme style. Having a particular preference for the New Wavers following them into the 80s (and through the 70s) is really interesting. The 80s renaissance as a decade of fantastic creativity is well deserved - and more and more will be rediscovered I'm sure.

Intriguingly, in writing about the Berlin School Hohhausler wrote (you can find the piece online as a preview of a book dedicated to the Berlin School) that he thought that it made more sense to group filmmakers from around the world more influenced by filmmakers from other countries than those from their own (especially Joe, Hou, Yang, Thai, et al) into one group, since all of the Berlin School filmmakers shared those influences far more than any German influences. He also said two other interesting things: a.) He thinks the “Berlin School” has some utility for ease of reference, and he has used it himself with some reservations, but he thinks that it should have an expiration date since the filmmakers have grown so different with age and no longer exhibit the same shared influences. This would certainly make sense with the immense divergence in styles of the French New Wave, as well. b.) He says film is not very well respected in Germany, and so nobody cares how well a film does unless it does well on tv. Conversely, it seems that one of if not the most respected arthouse-style director in Germany is Graf, but his films are almost impossible to find because international markets rarely release foreign tv shows. He has made a few features, but it makes a lot of sense why he’s so well regarded and yet so hard to explore.

Interesting, thank you!

I also love the topic of defining waves, and connecting filmmakers, defining when the start date and end date is, etc. I have often looked at how the French New Wave would be seen if we, say in the 80s, still used the label, lumped the same filmmakers together and discussed their work in this new context (essentially like The Beatle's Black Album).It actually makes a strange kind of sense you are not used to seeing.

[wba]

All of this might be because film was much more relevant for society and people in general during the 20th century, while it is pretty irrelevant nowadays (cause there are different audiovisual media and artforms which weren't available to people back then, like video games and stuff). Maybe filmmakers back then were also more interested to express themselves through film as a medium, cause there wasn't that much to choose from or it had much lower prestige. I don't know exactly which is the case.

This is true, but I don't think you're following through with the implications of this fully. One of the things that's changed is that more filmmakers are able to make movies that aren't devoted to finding the largest commercial audience, which itself points to why many movies today are different and why filmmakers aren't able to build the same kind of body of work that they might have had in a different era.

I never complained about difference. Actually I love and appreciate difference. Surely, there's a huge difference between a commercial US studio film from 1920 and a commercial US studio film from 1980, and between an Iranian social portrait from the 1970s and a bollywood musical from the 1970s and a film from Syberberg, etc. etc. etc. I love diversity and I lvoe different perspectives, but that's not stufff I'm criticizing.

And I'm not complaining that filmmakers have to build the same kind of body of work, cause time's change. Still, on the one hand it's easier and cheaper nowadays to make a lot of films. but I have no problem with filmmakers making one film every 5 years, either.

If filmmakers are able to make films that don't have to necessarily work commercially (like in a state-funded apparatus like in Germany for the past 40 to 50 years), shouldn't they be able to work regularly and in fact make more films? Like Fassbinder did in the late 60s and 70s, cause almost all of his work was funded and he wasn't dependent on commercial success.

There are commercial filmmakers, who tend to get denigrated for making commercial films even though that aspect of filmmaking hasn't changed overmuch, more that living through the moment tends to make commercial films of the time feel less meaningful for dealing with watered down versions of things we live through or exaggerated metaphoric handling of the same. The distance of time can give older commercial films a greater feeling of vitality for the tension that comes from that moment having past and the manner of expression no longer feeling "current", which provides interest for how they gain attention in a style that isn't "in the air" of the moment. Commercial filmmaking always adds an element of impersonal construction to the work and broadens the main themes so they can appeal to a wider audience. Removing that necessity means filmmakers can focus their craft on narrower areas of interest, which more often require effort on the part of the audience to "get" in the same way as a more commercial film. The audience, in other words, has to go part of the way to meet the filmmaker rather than having everything delivered to them from the start.

I think that aspect has changed a lot as well. I personally have no problem whatsoever with commercial cinema, but while in the past we had commercial directors with a vision and an incredible knowledge of cinema (Ford, Curtiz, Coppola, Corman, etc. etc. etc.), nowadays we have a lot of clueless hacks. I also don't believe at all in what you say about the present making it difficult to appreciate current commercial art, etc. Film is film, aesthetics are aesthetics. I can appreciate them for what they are, no matter how much "distance" from an era I have or not. I'm not looking at the past as a sociologist or an anthropologist, and if I am, I am looking at current films the same way.
The audience, obviously has no problem with current filmmaking (as they never had any problems with any commercial filmmaking of the past) and always prefer new stuff to older stuff. I'm generally just talking about me and my perspective, which is very different.
I guess you and me look at films very differently, if what you describe influence your film viewing (cause it doesn't influence mine).

At the same time, the whole point of many current films is in addressing the imbalance created by the impersonal distance of the history of commercial filmmaking because that distance was structured around certain dominant viewpoints that created the illusion of accepted belief even as that accepted belief was limited to a certain range of cultural biases that reigned for most of the history of filmmaking. The basic view points of many "great works" are inherently flawed for coming from this history of bias that ignored or downplayed other perspectives. Even at best it usually meant someone from outside the effected perspective spoke for those affected by translating their lives into the social dominant mode of expression, which is unavoidably weakened for that.

I don't judge great works of art by their "viewpoint". I don't go criticizing a great renaissance painter because he painted portraits of kings instead of peasants. So I simply take what's there, what the film does, and try to appreciate it on its own terms. I have no problem with "view points" of today, as I don't have any with "view points" of the past. I don't care what somebody expresses or wants to express. I mostly care about how they do that - aesthetics, not ethics.

Maybe we look for completely different things in art, cause I couldn't care less about what an artist wanted to express, I'm mostly interested in how he went about it, how he expressed something through his craft.

Many filmmakers today are speaking "more personally" and intentionally addressing the neglect of history towards non-dominant or minority perspectives, which both helps explain why those films don't find wide audience acceptance, as people want what they already know or are comfortable in seeing, and why they don't fit the same patterns of craft or meaning as films from earlier eras. Many filmmakers today are saying the old ways were flawed and are right for doing so even if those old films were entertaining or well made in some broad sense. That kills something of the "mythic" quality to many movies and does so by necessity as mythic is so often predicated on archetypes that carry bias and flaws of conception.

I have no problem with filmmakers speaking personally or impersonally. I guess I'm simply not interested in politics, or nowhere as interested as you are. What you write here seems to me totally unimportant when it comes to art and artists. I'd love it if "progressive" view points would lead to "better" art. But they don't. A racist, people-hating asshole fascist can still make better films than a humanity-loving just all-around great and tolerant and open person, if he's a better artist, if he's more devoted to art (or maybe simply more talented). Art is art and has its won "rules". There's no morality in art. A guy I loath and hate and would like to see dead might be a better painter/musician/filmmaker, than my best friend whom I love and whom I wish all the best.

All in all what you write sounds very belittling, as if people in the past were somehow unable to see the flaws of the past. I don't think that is the case. Same as people nowadays are not able to not see the flaws of the present. They might choose to ignore them or live with them, but I don't think all are idiots.

In terms of craft, of course there have been great filmmakers from all eras, but the craft of filmmaking is developed over time and can be best seen in hindsight once the developments have taken root and grown into new forms, leaving the contrasts of "then" and "now" easier to see and appreciate. There is no less craft in a Justin Lin Fast and Furious movie than any commercial filmmaking that came before in roughly similar use, the amount of "Innovation" may not be as clearly visible or obvious, depending on what era and films one would use as a counter, since filmmaking like all arts builds on the past, it doesn't erase it, making innovation seem less vital the longer the artform exists, save for moments of radical technical growth and rare moments of major change in "language" that don't happen often or often stick when tried for not having wide application.

Nope again, sorry, can't see why you have that affectation with the past and seeing something in hindsight, and seeing the contrasts and such only later. And yes, what I am saying is exactly that there is way less craft in Justin Lin's Fast and Furious movie than in William Wyler's Ben-Hur. Cause Justin Lin just hasn't got the vision and the talent of past commercial filmmakers.

"Innovation" is not important in making great art.

Filmmaking, like all arts,doesn't build on the past. There is no "progress" or progression in arts. Every artist has to find their own voice. It won't work if you simply try to learn from the past and rely on past achievements.
I'd agree that artiszts are prone to be victims or at least heavily dependent on the (current) technology and techniques available, (which are still never inherently better or worse than those from the past)

Asking for lists of filmmakers who started in the 2000s who compare to those of previous eras is also a mistake based on these same issues. Filmmakers can't easily build the same kinds of bodies of work that filmmakers did in earlier eras because the business model has changed, the way the movies find audiences has shifted and the filmmakers themselves are doing different things. It also doesn't account for the way people found those "great directors" of older eras as they were presorted by time and other movie goers for appreciation in ways that current filmmakers can't be. Pointing to eras like the sixties and asking for the current moment to duplicate that time period misses out on why the sixties played out as they did, requiring a world war and baby boom to happen to get that result, while comparing that winnowed group of known careers to an entire cohort of people still developing their histories. It doesn't make sense as a comparison in anything other than random preference of individual viewing selections.

No, I don't think that's a mistake at all. I mostly agree with everything else you write in this paragraph, though I'm not asking for anybody to duplicate anything.

But I might be asking "where are the great filmmakers of the past 20 years who made exceptional films in the last 20 years, and who didn't started making films in the 20th century?"

That's one of my questions and a pretty easy one.

List me 30 or 40 great filmmakers who have merely made films from 2000 onwards, no matter if they have merely made one film or two or three. Quality is what counts, not quantity. (Not to be included are of course filmmakers by whom you've seen 5 films and while you loved one, four sucked).

[wba]

It's a measure of how things get made, but not much of a measure of how good. More filmmakers with smaller bodies of work is not inherently lesser than fewer filmmakers with larger bodies of work. When one looks at the commonalities in the eras and between filmmakers within them, the 21st century stands out as more the exceptional case of sheer abundance of options. If your hook is one of established "auteurism", well that too is setting a goal line that predetermines who can cross it.

I know you're not replying to me, but I wanted to say that I completely agree that "the 21st century stands out as more the exceptional case of sheer abundance of options". And my personal hook couldn't be further removed from established "auteurism" (as you probably know my rather "eclectic" tastes from the past SCFZ years) and STILL I don't see any huge amount of interesting and fascinating new/young filmmakers working nowadays, when by your definition we should have an abundance of them (even if those of the past made more films, as I said I'm all for quality over quantity).

[wba]

[quote=flip post_id=11269 time=1568931160 user_id=84]
i'm not completely following the conversation, but...

I have taken some inspiration from your list, flip and will try an exercise. In a new thread.

[St. Gloede]

Micro-note: I cannot believe we all forgot about the South Korean New Wave ...

[St. Gloede]

Phenomenal + Notable directors who started directing in the 21st century (shorts, tv, etc. excluded):

Yorgos Lanthimos
Ruben Östlund
Xavier Dolan
Radu Jude
Gan Bi
Masaaki Yuasa
Asghar Farhadi
Andrew Dominik
Céline Sciamma
Makoto Shinkai
Lisandro Alonso
-
Joon-ho Bong
Valeska Grisebach
Bing Wang
Alain Guiraudie
Ciro Guerra
Cristian Mungiu
David Lowery
Mamoru Hosoda
Abdellatif Kechiche
Andrey Zvyagintsev
Paolo Sorrentino
Michel Gondry
Joachim Trier
Damien Chazelle

Depending on how their careers pan out I can definitely imagine several of these ending up in the all-time great category.

[wba]

Even Ed Wood had a better understanding of that than many film makers today, and he was considered a joke in his time.

I think Jade overlooks the fact that craft can be lost over time. History repeats, but the details matter. Forms and styles can also become exhausted. Look at rock music. When was the last time anyone did anything seriously inventive there?

If Lanthimos counts as a great film maker, god help us! He is stuck in the 60's and 70's. A common problem with so many contemporary film makers. Recycling old ideas (intellectual and aesthetic) ad infinitum/ad nauseum.

I've also come to the conclusion that most CCC is vacuous bullshit made by complete philistines. Lazy cinema by people who are afraid of doing real work, with few exceptions. e.g Costa, Sokurov etc. These film makers need to stop being nerdy cinephiles and start reading books, visiting galleries etc. Expand their horizons. Start using their imagination.

I guess in some aspects we think very much alike. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I totally agree that Ed Wood had better mise en scene than many directors working nowadays. And as you said, he was considered a joke, an incompetent hack!! Who would have believed filmmaking standards could ever sink so low, when back then almost everybody thought cinema and filmmaking would continue to progress and evolve and evolve...

And yes, craft definitely gets lost over time. That's the single most important thing many people seem to forget when talking about art and the evolution of art. New generations of people who are born and start being creative don't just simply magically "absorb" everything that came before them and won't automatically learn (or even appreciate) what they are taught. This whole "endless" advancment ideology is just part of capitalism and its ideology in which we've been living for the past few hundred years. There is no automatic growth and progress and change and such. That's all merely propaganda (like the idiotic propaganda that we're living "in the best of times" compared to the past, etc.)

I also dislike Lanthimos. He has some talent, but he hasn't made anything that could be in any way considered exceptional or noteworthy nas far as I know. I've seen three of his films, and in my opinion Kinetta was a very strained debut with some promise but overal nothingto write home about, Dogtooth was moderately watchable (but still nothing to get excited about) and The Killing of a Sacred Deer was a tired and uninspired rehash of tropes and stuff we've seen a hundred times before. To me it looks likeYorgos Lanthimos is the typical 21st century "post-postmodern" filmmaker (not as bad as Damien Chazelle, but also not better than the middlebrow Quentin Tarantino) in that he seems to borrow all his ideas about mise en scene and directing from other films and filmmakers and than proceeds to assemble all the little pieces to cook up a semi-boring collage of "cinema". It's copy and paste ad nauseam. I believe he has some talent, cause there are very interesting bits and pieces and glimpses of originality in his films, but he does absolutely nothing with any of them.

And YES!! Most of CCC is absolutely vacuous bullshit made by filmmakers who do not know how to stage anything (else) and are afraid of creativity, actual work, etc. etc. etc. I belive they desperately need to start living and having experiences outside of watching films. The difference between someone like Lav Diaz, Sokurov, Tarkovsky, Angelopoulos, Benning, Hou, Bartas, etc. and all the hundreds of epigones is mind-boggling. This must have become THE lazy go-to template for incompetent filmmakers at some point in the early 2000s, and it boggles my mind how this could have ever happened!?

[wba]

It's just common sense regarding human behavior, though, that they will be undervalued in the present period due to various factors like people hesitating to value new films against older "established films" (which is a pure nonsense concept) and due to nostalgia both enhancing older films that don't deserve it and making newer films seem less valuable because they lack that "greatness" that older films are supposed to have even though that sensation is purely nostalgic fantas

Maybe we could all stick to two assumptions and agree on a third in this thread while discussing this whole thing:

1. not everyone will automatically undervalue the present period and hesitate to compare it to any period of the past, as this is not somehow "common sense regarding human behaviour". Films made and watched in the "Now" are not somewhat magically unclassifiable and uncomparable to "the past" and "established films" (which is after all, as you said, a pure nonsense concept - the same nonsense concept that people tell when they say they have to rewatch a new film or wait ten years before they can pass judgment on it).

2. let's just assume that no one participating and discussing films here in this thread (and probably in this forum) has a view tinged with nostalgia regarding older films or some fantasmatic obsession with a perceived "greatness" of the past. We are all adult people here, who are merely watching films, and seeing them and judging them for what they are (or how we perceive them) on their own terms. Art is art is art (no matter from what period and under what disguise).

3. every film, when seen for the first time is a new film for the person who watches it. Old films are usually merely those we have already see . Maybe we should assume in all fairness, that everybody here watches films they are interested in with the same amount of eagerness, curiosity and focus, no matter if the film is from 2019 or 1919.

[wba]

Maybe we are talking about different stuff? Or you are misunderstanding me and I am misunderstanding you? I don't know exactly which is the case, cause I don't understand what you are trying to tell me with that mountain analogy and how any of my points is hard to understand...

I'll try again, and keep it simple and concise:

01. [/b]In my opinion[/b] filmmaking standards "in general/on average/looking at stuff from all around the world" have deteriorated considerably during the 21st century. If you take most decades from the 20th century, filmmaking standards were in my opinion much higher from roughly 1920 till roughly 1990 than they have been for the past 20 years. Directors, screenwriters, cameramen, editors, the artists who made films during the 20th century (and some of which continued to make films in the 21st century) had a greater interest in the process and the craft of filmmaking, than the younger generation of filmmakers who came of age during the 80s and 90s and who started making films in the 21st century. The past generations of filmmakers also watched more films, watched them more concentrated (at the cinema, not at home on the TV or on a mobile phone), were generally more knowledgable about all aspects of filmmaking and more curious to make better films.

I don't agree with your sentiment. I also almost never agree with sentiments regarding how people have changed so dramatically from one era to the next because - people don't change. There is absolutely no chance that people nerded out harder on filmmaking int he 1920s or 1960s than people nerd out on filmmaking today. Have you met actual filmmakers, including the people that work in the industry? It's literally impossible that anyone could nerd out on filmmaking more than many of these people. The only sure thing between previous generations and the current generations is that kids could have watched far, far, far more films these days than in previous generation through home video rentals, through libraries, and through streaming services. As for distracted viewings - this is unlikely for people if films are their passion. It just doesn't hold up to real world experience, to me.

Without any specific examples it's hard to discuss this point further, however. The grass is never greener, though.[/though]

Well, that's how I see and perceive it. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. I think people change and very much so over two or three generations. Even a person changes much in the course of their lifetime. Knowledge gets lost, tastes change, etc. A baby is not the sdame as an adult and not the same as an old person. I have met dozens of actual filmmakers, interviewed and talked to a few dozen famous ones (and am friends or on friendly terms with some famous and completely unknown ones), and of course I've also met people who work in "the industry" in other capacities than directing (camerawomen, editors, set-designers, composers, etc. etc.), I've been in film schools, talked a lot with film students, practical and theoretical. And in my opinion it's easily possible to out-nerd most of the people working on films. Most people who work on a film set are NOT cineastes and neither are they cinephiles, and most directors I know of have only a rudimentary knowledge of films and film history. The people on a film set (and some directors, but unfortunately not all) have a huge technical knowledgew regarding the machines and equipment they are working with though. I would never deny that. But knowing everything about colors and brushes doesn't make you a great painter, and knowing everything about pens and pencils and the syntax and grammar of your language of choice will not make you a great writer.
I personally believe that the directors and film artists, say of the 1920s, were far more passionate and actively curious about the art of filmmaking than any generation of the past 40 years. Film nowadays, being a filmmaker is simply one of many options available to today's generations. Back then it was something very very special (in comparison, that is).

[wba]

03. Maybe, I'm simply more moved/stimulated/interested in and by film aesthetics from the past century than I am by the aesthetics of movies nowadays. Whatever it is, I find the aesthetics nowadays (everything most important to me : from mise en scene to camera movement and lighting to editing) much worsethan those of almost any country and any era from before. Heck, I even prefer films from 1885 to 1910 aesthetically to films from 2005 to 2020! So maybe it is just me cause most people seem happy about films and cinema and aesthetic standards and stuff nowadays. I'll admit that sound design in general, sound editing, sound mixing has gotten much better, that set and costume designers seem to have generally more possibilities to be creative, that much of the technology has evolved and the possibilities of how and what one can shoot nowadays are seemingly much higher, better vaster than ever before. But the people using them are either not interested in those possibilities, overwhelmed by them, stupid or just not as talented as previous generations of artists. Especially directors nowadays seem almost incompetent, when compared to creative filmmakers from the past.

Without any specific examples this is impossible to respond to, I think. I see little difference, myself - artists in both eras seem equally interested in their art and equally competent at it.

04. If I watch 20 random (!!!) films from say 1919 or 1928 or 1933 or 1950 or 1965 or 1988 and compare them to some random 20 films from 2005 or 2012 in my opinion the new millenium sucks. And I do not mean canonical films or aknowledged films or blockbusters.

05. my tastes might be totally different from yours, and we might watch 100 films and come to different opinions on 90 of them regarding their aesthetic merits and the craft behind them and such.

06. I understand that many many many more films get made nowadays when compared to 50 years ago, and I understand that many many many more people direct films nowadays than did 50 years ago, and I understand that it is therefore statistically much more difficult to find and stumble upon films and filmmakers one might enjoy nowadays than those from the past. But still... considering all of this, my evaluation and opinion remains the same (so far).

Again, without any specific examples this is impossible to respond to, except to say that you don't watch random films (you said as much), so it's hard to trust you when you say things about random films. I certainly don't watch random films, and so I'm judging "actual films based on similar methods of finding unknown-to-me-films." The processes are the same, the people making the films are essentially the same (as people never change) and, unsurprisingly, the films tend to be roughly the same quality. Fascinatingly predictable, that!

I couldn't disagree more. We obviously have vastly different opinions on artists and life on this planet and all that.

I also mostly don't watch random films, and so I'm also judging "actual films based on similar methods of finding unknown-to-me-films." And my results are: films of the past 20 years mostly suck. Films before that are mostly great.

Now I'm not going out of my way to watch films that I will dislike, so there has to be something that has changed. I am still watching new films and older ones, same as 20 years ago, but somehow the new ones suck and the old ones (and with old ones I'm talking almostz about a 100 year period!) don't.

----

Let's explain it this way:

I watch 100 films from each decade over the past 10 years.
My individual response to their aesthetics and the overall experience

films from the 1900's: fascinating
films from the 1910's: great
films from the 1920's: great
films from the 1930's: great
films from the 1940's: great
films from the 1950's: great
films from the 1960's: great
films from the 1970's: great
films from the 1980's: great
films from the 1990's: something feels a bit off
films from the 2000s: often not my cup of tea
films from the 1910's: often suck

And I'm sure we can all agree that a film from 1919 doesn't aesthetically resemble a film from 1969, neither does that one resemble a film from 2019.

[wba]

Consider a festival like Venice: In the past it awarded a film like Kluge's experimental circus collage which was a meditation on the way an artist could both create interesting work and convey the work and ideas to a receptive audience. This year, there was no experimental circus collage film, but the winner was a clown of sorts. When was the last time a film like Kluge's, excepting Godard's essay films, played in Venice? Or in any major festival? Those films are filled to the brim with many hundreds of submissions every year, but they seem to be selecting fewer and fewer works that could even potentially be interesting. Genre fare and homogeneity are becoming the norm, along with the same kind of social-realist work that has always been at the table. While film festivals are becoming less and less conducive to allowing interesting filmmakers to be discovered, what has taken their place? Nothing. And why, exactly, do we expect the "collective consciousness" to be made aware of these films? It's just not credible that the same breadth of films are known as well.

Yeah, I totally agree. That's (festival) politics. I'd say Venice and Cannes and Berlin (and Toronto, etc. etc.) are struggling in an attempt to "stay relevant" which they will definitely loose. When Kluge got the award Venice was relevant.The few film festivals which existed were almost all relevant. Nowadays 90% of film festivals are completely irrelevant.

In my opinion this is becoming the norm because the festival curators and critics and people attending them are either a) not interested in new and exciting films by young filmmakers, b) not able to recognize an exciting film when they see one, and c) stuck in the past

But I don't think anyone expects the "collective consciousness" to be made aware of the great films existing, here or anywhere else. What we do expect though is for cinephile friends and other cinephiles to spread the word on them and make them aware to us. That's what's happening on this forum, and I guess that's also what you are trying to tell some of us her ein this thread.

[wba]

Intriguingly, in writing about the Berlin School Hohhausler wrote (you can find the piece online as a preview of a book dedicated to the Berlin School) that he thought that it made more sense to group filmmakers from around the world more influenced by filmmakers from other countries than those from their own (especially Joe, Hou, Yang, Thai, et al) into one group, since all of the Berlin School filmmakers shared those influences far more than any German influences. He also said two other interesting things: a.) He thinks the “Berlin School” has some utility for ease of reference, and he has used it himself with some reservations, but he thinks that it should have an expiration date since the filmmakers have grown so different with age and no longer exhibit the same shared influences. This would certainly make sense with the immense divergence in styles of the French New Wave, as well. b.) He says film is not very well respected in Germany, and so nobody cares how well a film does unless it does well on tv. Conversely, it seems that one of if not the most respected arthouse-style director in Germany is Graf, but his films are almost impossible to find because international markets rarely release foreign tv shows. He has made a few features, but it makes a lot of sense why he’s so well regarded and yet so hard to explore.

Yeah, Hochhäusler also started grouping filmmakers as "Berlin School filmmakers" after some critics made the term popular roughly around 2004 or such. Initially the "(new) Berlin school" was just Schanelec, Arslan and Petzold, and that was that. I guess Hochhäusler liked their filmmaking and wanted to inscribe himself into it (his feature film debut was released in 2003), and he also had (and still has) a film magazine (called REVOLVER) with other "younger" filmmakers, where the discussion took place. Thus the Berlin School (as defined in the course of the 2000s and including various other younger directors like Griesebach, Winkler, Köhler, Heisenberg, Ade, Wackerbarth, etc.) actually had a film magazine like the french new wave had the cahiers du cinema (just not nearly anywhere as influential or as widely read).
I'd personally say the Berlin School movement definitely ended somewhere around 2010. Similar to the fact that you still had almost all the French New Wave directors working in the 70s (and arguably some new ones like Eustache), while almost nobody would argue that the french New Wave "continued" during the 1970s.

As for Dominik Graf: he is not an arthouse-style director, but more of a genre filmmaker (and a pretty unique one at that), and one that has made and continues to make feature films and documentaries almost exclusively for television. He has so far made a film for the cinema in 1982, 1985, 1988, 1990, 1994, 2002, 2006 and 2014 (if I'm correctly counting) but has made roughly 40 films for TV in the past 40 years, as directing some 20+ epsodes for TV, acting in a few films, and wrting scripts.
Anyway, he's almost 70 and from a different generation than anybody discussed as Berlin School, and has had no influence whatsoever on any of the stylistics of the Berlin school.

[wba]

Micro-note: I cannot believe we all forgot about the South Korean New Wave ...

Yeah, I love that one (though I've seen waaay too few of it). But there also you have filmmakers struggling to do regular work (some previously successful ones barely get a film made), which seems surprising to me, since so many features are produced and distributed every year. But then I don't know how the South Korean film industry works, as this wave is a purely commercial one, a commercial success story (what probably the Japanese studios of the late 50s/early 60s would have wished had happened to their marketing effort ).

[St. Gloede]

I have to disagree here.

If you are watching random films from almost any previous decade a filtering mechanism is already in place. What films were preserved, what films were even released, what films are actually available on Netflix, the video store, etc. A lot of the utterly rubbish work of the past simply gets pushed into a dust bin and it can be quite hard to find it - unless you actively search for b-movies and bad movie lists and that still ignores the large hordes of adequate films, which just aren't of interest to anyone. In other words, I am pretty sure there is selection bias at play here. If not from you, from the availability itself. Hell, the majority of 20s films are literally lost forever.

Saying that a cinematic decade like the 40s, which was essentially devoid of any cinematic ambition or quality is "great" showcases this. Are you sitting back watching another run of the mill crappy crime movie or drama thrown together by people who couldn't give a heck about the craft thinking "my god, they are so passionate"? This was a period when European cinema was bombed to a stand still, the era of lazy propaganda and the era of assembly line mockery. I don't for a second believe most studio directors were passionate film geeks. It was just a job. You can tell from the dead, soulless work they pushed out. Cinema as an artform was first and foremost a feeling that was developed in the 50s/60s. Before that the director was not even properly seen as the author of their films. Of course, you have standout examples and artists from all decades, but the sense of exploration was not really there.

Now, the 40s, like any decade, had large amounts of great films, but it is hard to not see it as the worst decade in cinematic history.

[St. Gloede]

Micro-note: I cannot believe we all forgot about the South Korean New Wave ...

Yeah, I love that one (though I've seen waaay too few of it). But there also you have filmmakers struggling to do regular work (some previously successful ones barely get a film made), which seems surprising to me, since so many features are produced and distributed every year. But then I don't know how the South Korean film industry works, as this wave is a purely commercial one, a commercial success story (what probably the Japanese studios of the late 50s/early 60s would have wished had happened to their marketing effort ).

It was such a highlight. Honestly coming into the 00s I was hoping for a New Wave renaissance. We had Iran (still), Korea, Romania, kinda Denmark (though Dogme was fading and I was not a big Dogme fan). The future looked very bright.

[wba]

I have to disagree here.

If you are watching random films from almost any previous decade a filtering mechanism is already in place. What films were preserved, what films were even released, what films are actually available on Netflix, the video store, etc. A lot of the utterly rubbish work of the past simply gets pushed into a dust bin and it can be quite hard to find it - unless you actively search for b-movies and bad movie lists and that still ignores the large hordes of adequate films, which just aren't of interest to anyone. In other words, I am pretty sure there is selection bias at play here. If not from you, from the availability itself. Hell, the majority of 20s films are literally lost forever.

Saying that a cinematic decade like the 40s, which was essentially devoid of any cinematic ambition or quality is "great" showcases this. Are you sitting back watching another run of the mill crappy crime movie or drama thrown together by people who couldn't give a heck about the craft thinking "my god, they are so passionate"? This was a period when European cinema was bombed to a stand still, the era of lazy propaganda and the era of assembly line mockery. I don't for a second believe most studio directors were passionate film geeks. It was just a job. You can tell from the dead, soulless work they pushed out. Cinema as an artform was first and foremost a feeling that was developed in the 50s/60s. Before that the director was not even properly seen as the author of their films. Of course, you have standout examples and artists from all decades, but the sense of exploration was not really there.

Now, the 40s, like any decade, had large amounts of great films, but it is hard to not see it as the worst decade in cinematic history.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you as well. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'll agree that the 60s were probably the most ambitious/experimental/curious decade ever (maybe apart from the 1910s, that is), and I think cinema and films generally peaked around 1967/68/69.
Currently (for the past few years) my personal favorite decade for films is actually the 1980s.
I also enjoyed the 2000s cinematically when I was living through them, but in retrospect they don't seem that great anymore (maybe my tastes have changed).

[wba]

Micro-note: I cannot believe we all forgot about the South Korean New Wave ...

Yeah, I love that one (though I've seen waaay too few of it). But there also you have filmmakers struggling to do regular work (some previously successful ones barely get a film made), which seems surprising to me, since so many features are produced and distributed every year. But then I don't know how the South Korean film industry works, as this wave is a purely commercial one, a commercial success story (what probably the Japanese studios of the late 50s/early 60s would have wished had happened to their marketing effort ).

It was such a highlight. Honestly coming into the 00s I was hoping for a New Wave renaissance. We had Iran (still), Korea, Romania, kinda Denmark (though Dogme was fading and I was not a big Dogme fan). The future looked very bright.

Yes, indeed! The future looked fantastic back in 2000/2001!! I don't know what happened after that (probably the internet, the switch to digital, the proliferation of (bad) film festivals, the ever bigger corporization of US studio filmmaking, etc. etc.)

I was also so excited about Iranian cinema, South Korea, Romania, and Dogme back then (although i hadn't seen much).

[Joks Trois]

Alps is probably his most original film, but it is still wedded to the old ideas that came out of structuralism. Same with Dogtooth and even The Lobster.

That kind of film making should have ended with Greenaway.

Why?

If you never enjoyed it I perfectly understand, but if you actually like a specific set of cinematic touches, experiences, etc. why would you not want more of them.

Looking at Lanthimos specifically I can certainly agree that the comparison to the artists of the 70s in terms of focus/area exploration is apt. But why is that a negative (especially as the focus of structure and form that evolved from or became more widespread in the 60s and 70s has so much to offer, and in many ways can be described as genres upon themselves).

And that stated, I don't at all feel like he is living in the past. Films like Dogtooth, The Lobster, Killing of a Sacred Deer are simply darkly comedic, somewhat minimalistic, somewhat surrealistic and quite clinical films (that to me are a joy to watch).

Fair enough. I don't think he is terrible. My opinion is closer to WBA's in that I think he has some talent, but he really lacks imagination. I get the sense he comes up with semi-interesting concepts, but he doesn't really exploit their full potential. Having said that, I actually preferred Sacred Deer to The Lobster, which I thought was extremely overrated.

To me he just seems too wedded to that typical anti-bourgeois crap that is very common among European film makers. It was relevant in Bunuel and Pasolini's time, but I just don't think it has the same currency now.

[Joks Trois]

Maybe we could all stick to two assumptions and agree on a third in this thread while discussing this whole thing:

1. not everyone will automatically undervalue the present period and hesitate to compare it to any period of the past, as this is not somehow "common sense regarding human behaviour". Films made and watched in the "Now" are not somewhat magically unclassifiable and uncomparable to "the past" and "established films" (which is after all, as you said, a pure nonsense concept - the same nonsense concept that people tell when they say they have to rewatch a new film or wait ten years before they can pass judgment on it).

2. let's just assume that no one participating and discussing films here in this thread (and probably in this forum) has a view tinged with nostalgia regarding older films or some fantasmatic obsession with a perceived "greatness" of the past. We are all adult people here, who are merely watching films, and seeing them and judging them for what they are (or how we perceive them) on their own terms. Art is art is art (no matter from what period and under what disguise).

3. every film, when seen for the first time is a new film for the person who watches it. Old films are usually merely those we have already see . Maybe we should assume in all fairness, that everybody here watches films they are interested in with the same amount of eagerness, curiosity and focus, no matter if the film is from 2019 or 1919.

I think we have agreed before that people are far more likely to value things of the present than the past. Humans are present and future oriented, unless they are really old, then it becomes a bit harder to be future oriented for obvious reasons.

I really dislike the idea that if you prefer something older then you have some 'nonsense' nostalgia for the past. You are just a sentimentalist. A really young cinephile tried to explain to me recently that my preference for Bresson over the likes of Dardennes etc was rooted in exactly this 'problem'. Yet I didn't grow up watching Bresson, and I actually prefer his films to the films I actually have real nostalgia for. i.e the films of my youth.

Cinephiles, unlike literature buffs, seem highly reluctant to admit that their medium of choice is in any kind of trouble. It's probably because cinema is more dependent on advancements in technology, so people often assume that as cameras and lenses and editing software improves etc, it means that films improve too. Sure 'editing' is 'smoother' nowadays, but what about the choices being made? To me film editing now seems less sophisticated, less associational, less rhythmic etc. Narrative films are cut to a beat of a click track just to move the story along,