Words On Film: Core Beliefs

I love film. I used to watch five or six films per week, including one or two new films, perhaps a film in a class I was teaching or taking, and three or four films on cable, dvd, or videocassette. Although I no longer teach film and no longer have the luxury of seeing so many films (because I'm busy being a medical student), I still watch one or two films per week, and thinking about films consumes much of my "free time." Do medical students have free time? [If a medical student falls (asleep) in lecture, does she or he make a sound (decision)?]

Film comes in two styles: "the movies" and "the cinema," and thank goodness there is room for both in the world because I love them both.

Some people pretend that there is room only for "the cinema" Such people are not only wrong in putting limits on film, but they also usually don't know what they're talking about when they spontificate about "the cinema." Don't get me wrong. I think that it's great that some films are art and that some films are literature, and I also think it's absolutely wonderful that some films are both art and literature. I love Citizen Kane, The Passion of Joan of Arc, and 2001: A Space Odyssey and other such cinematic art.

But not every film has to be Citizen Kane, The Passion of Joan of Arc, or 2001: A Space Odyssey.

In contrast to that first unfortunate group of granfalloons, there are people who are more interested in watching and more comfortable watching films such as The Terminator, Summer of '42, or Animal House. Such people have little patience for films that aren't slick, solid, commercial films with strong linear narratives, for films that aren't "entertaining." They are put off by films that are even only slightly challenging, slightly different from what they are used to seeing.

But that's okay. Such people usually just haven't had the opportunity to learn to appreciate other kinds of films, so they are easily forgiven because they can usually be awakened to the enjoyment that other kinds of films can offer them. And they aren't nearly as annoying as people who have confused snootiness with knowledge, condescension with sophistication, and derision with superiority, have confused dogmatic classroom chatter spiked with silly buzz-words on the one hand with true understanding and scholarship, true appreciation and teaching on the other.

Films such as Citizen Kane, The Passion of Joan of Arc, and 2001 represent film at its most creative, its most ambitious, its most artistic, its most literary. They are great films. I am thankful that they were made, lucky to have seen them, fascinated to have studied them, delighted to have taught them, honored to have thought about them and written about them. But they represent only one kind of film.

Films such as The Terminator, Summer of '42, and Animal House are pure escapist entertainment, and there's nothing wrong with that. I happen to enjoy these films very much, and there are hundreds more pure escapist entertainment films that I like as well. (I estimate that I have seen between 6000 and 8000 films.) Any film reviewer, film critic, film theorist, film teacher, film enthusiast, film buff, film fan, film writer, or film maker who dismisses either end of the curve does not understand that it takes both "movies" and "the cinema" and everything in between to make film film.

I approach films comfortably acknowleding that there is room not only for all kinds of films but also room for appreciating all kinds of films. I approach thinking about films, writing about films, and teaching films with this same open acceptance. If you feel as I do, perhaps you will enjoy some of what I share here.