Out-of-Print: Random Thoughts on How the Availability of Films Is a Detriment to Film Criticism

 

The following is an old piece I did in 21st September 2010 for an older blog, and in hindsight upon finding it again, it is worthy to actually dig this out and readapt it to the modern times, ten years later, with new notes. Interesting, despite my tastes in cinema arguably becoming more open minded, I was on the ball. Also with the existence of streaming ten years later, these words develop an unexpected and chilling poignancy even if the physical media era has grown into a golden era.

Nothing has been changed baring tidying it up for presentation, but thankfully there were not many.

*****

 

[Note - These are only half-baked ideas of mine which may be inaccurate and lacking details, but I have been musing over for some time]

Films viewers, with only myself and others I've encountered through podcasts and the internet to use as examples, have a tendency to return to certain films months or years later, including ones they first hated to re-evaluate them

Film criticism, even raking films on IMDB, for me is not in stasis, but continually changing.

Films improve or become more flawed on multiple viewings

That is not to say you cannot have an opinion on them on only one viewing, that is what makes up many of the reviews on my blog, but that does not mean we cannot re-evaluate films at a later time¹.

Age and experience may alter our opinions, while theories and articles on films may offer new perspective (the fascinating ideas about Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds (2009) from the likes of the Film Quarterly magazine has caused the film to become better and better for me²)

One should even evaluate the films they had despised; I have considered re-watching films I have hated such as Tarantino's Death Proof (2007), Paul Haggis' Crash (2005) and Baise-Moi (2001) - the third holding the title of the worst film I've seen despite seeing some of the most poorly produced schlock in my few years of film fandom - with the possibility that my views may alter³.

However, the availability of films completely undermines this. Unavailability or out-of-print is a foul word for a film fan, but I argue it completely undermines the ability to give an opinion on film. It is one of many, such as poorly produced DVDs (poor subtitles or dub only) and censorship (i.e. how am I, as a British national, able to properly review the notorious A Serbian Film (2010)⁴ when not only has it had around 4 minutes cut out, but those few minutes could alter my opinion on the film instantly?)

As films – as TV shows, short films and other visual media – disappear into obscurity and become out-of-print on DVD, it causes many problems. Not only in that each one of them could have become a gem or a masterpiece to individuals if they could find them, but the difficulty of finding them makes it difficult to be able to re-evaluate and critique them⁵.

For me, the obscurer films and the reviews and thoughts on them are far more fascinating than any other. With a few exceptions – such as the work of David Lynch – I have little interest in the countless books and articles on (for example) Citizen Kane (1941) even if I hold it as a near masterpiece. It is also detrimental to analysis of films that have the potential of being an underappreciated masterpiece, unless its obscurity leads to a mystique that drives people to search for it.

It even affects films that exist in cannons. Orson Welles himself is highly regarded, but many would have had to wait for a cinema screening or the release of his films on DVD (F For Fake (1973) was only released in the UK on DVD in 2007), and that does not take into account the ones that are completely unavailable such as Chimes At Midnight (1965). In the USA, as I write, you cannot even get The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) unless you import it from out the country. Another example is Jacques Rivette epic length Out 1 (1971). It has been show in cinema screenings at its full length, and through the internet one can find it through bit torrent, but there is still the fact that it is difficult to see it, despite being one of Rivette’s most acclaimed works, let alone watch it multiple times to see if one has any new thoughts about it. This also does not take into account films of lesser known directors, periods, and of countries and continents such as Africa⁶.

 

While we live in age where the internet gives us access (sometimes illegally) to these films and there are many ways to see lesser known works, they also can be a hindrance to being able to judge films with consideration especially in an environment of rapid consumption⁷.

 

*******

Notes from 2020:

1) Famously, Pauline Kael did not rewatch films as a critic. The issue I have found, however, is that even a film or work you are familiar with can suddenly develop new layers or even metamorphose as memory fades or you change as a person.

2) Unfortunately have no knowledge of what these articles were, but inevitably, I will look into them one day if I decided to cover that film.

3) As of December 2020, I have yet to return to Death Proof, but Grindhouse (2007), the project that film was originally part of, was finally made available as intended in the United Kingdom and was a fascinating piece. I have yet to return to Crash, somewhat dreading it truthfully. Baise-Moi is no longer the worst film I have ever seen, but a complicated yet admirable work which is very difficult to digest with understandable reasons. Baise-Moi is, as a result of this piece, a film to definitely return to with interest for me.

4) By 2020, I have yet to watch A Serbian Film in any form, partially because of this but also, honestly, my complete disinterest in the film in its reputation and notoriety.

5) This is becoming more poignant as I used my blog writing to do the equivalent of crate diving for music connosiors, skimming for obscure DVDs on the only existing rental companies or, with a lot, online as much is still unavailable to see. As with the VHS era, a lot will be lost in the standard DVD years only to be recovered a decade later at this rate, and a lot will possibly be lost to time unless you have people preserving it on future YouTubes. Streaming titles, not released on physical media, are in an even more precarious place ironically due to their lack of tangibility, despite it being meant to help democratise their availability, because the rights to titles are limited time and streaming sites like Quibi crumble to dust within even less than a year.  

6) Those Orson Welles titles are more freely available by 2020, mostly through Criterion, but that is not to say there are ultra-obscurities left in his career (including some due to legal reasons that are unavailable). Rivette's Out 1 has been made available to see, but there are many titles of his still in obscurities. The lack of African cinema, the continent let alone individual countries, is still an embarrassment sadly

7) The final note, the conclusion to this act of effectively re-reading my old work, revisiting an old title to see what has changed like a film rather than disposing of it, is beating a dead horse about that we need to treat films especially in physical media with more respect in its necessity. Truthfully though the bigger worth to revisiting this is that, like here, to revisit even the worst in culture again may reveal new angles to gain meaning from. My younger self, who likely had an inferior taste in cinema back than as I changed so much over these ten years, was at least with opinions I would agree with ten years later.