Is Cinema the Poor Man's Art?

Until recently, I hadn't been to the National Gallery of Victoria for about 15 years, and it wasn't planned. With the missus, I'd intended to take my 8-year old son to the theatre at the Arts Centre during the school holidays, but we just turned up and found it booked out. I didn't bother booking ($7 online booking fee seemed a bit outrageous); hey, how the hell are they gonna fill 400 seats at $30/head? Big mistake. They did.

So, quick change of plans and we walked up St. Kilda Rd. to the nearby NGV. The couple of hundred metres or so was quite a challenge. It was wall-to-wall people. We get to the NGV and there's a queue something like 3 kilometres long snaking all around the inside foyer to see the Art Deco exhibition. I swear I'm not exaggerating. So, one of the gorgeous volunteers suggests we become members and jump the queue. Now, I'm not a materialistic person, but I do value my time. So we paid the annual fee (we can go back again, we figure) and went in the members' entrance without delay. How good is that?

Hah, what a joke! The exhibition was in its final weeks, the weather was gorgeous and every man and his dog (well not his dog, but you get the idea?) was there. Some 4,000 - 5,000 people must have attended that single day. I started to get some perspective why this precinct was so congested.

I've been thinking about this for the last few days. Now, I'm no expert on attendances at the arts that I'm not particularly acquainted with, but I have been watching 100 or more films a year for a long time now (for 2007 and 2008, it's approaching 300 per annum). With the exception of MIFF and the French Film Festival, it's almost alien for me to see such huge numbers of people attending any screening I go to. In two and a half years of being a member of Melbourne Cinémathèque, I think we've filled up all seating at ACMI maybe twice, and on both occasions, it was because we used the smaller Cinema 1 (from memory, it holds 200 or so, compared to 380 in Cinema 2, the regular venue). A typical night at Cinémathèque, there's say 100-200 people and 300 is busy.

I've been to a session at the Kino and been the only person there. I've often been to various arthouse cinemas and been one of a very small handful. Then I'll take the kid to the latest blockbuster at Hoyts Melbourne Central, and I find it staggering to see hundreds and hundreds of seats filled in one of these huge cinemas (and there's about a dozen of 'em). Something like Wall-E will show on two or more screens in the opening weeks.

Now, I don't want to get too much into the "art house is dying" argument. Not only is Lynden Barber doing a much better job of it than I ever could, it's not really my point. I'm wondering why a family would spend $100-$300 for a day or night at the theatre. Not just a family, but many, many families. And other than Saturday nights, the arthouse cinemas are struggling. Lynden seems to think they're dying a slow death.

It was certainly dispiriting to see the Lumiere close down a couple of years ago. With Kino's association with Dendy and Nova's association with Village, the Lumiere was the only true art house cinema left in Melbourne (not counting ACMI, which is a different kettle of fish). Of course, the Lumiere had issues with service and facility. Who wants to go to a shitty looking cinema when they're all dressed up with their partner on a night on the town? Well I would, because for me it's all about what's on the screen, but I acknowledge that others place more emphasis on other criteria. And the service attitude was terrible. But the story of the Lumiere is for another post.

When I look at the strangers I find myself talking to at MIFF, it seems a whole different class of film-goer than I see during the year at say the Kino, Nova or Como cinemas, and certainly different to the ACMI clientele. I've spoken to people who attend 80 or more films over two weeks, but then don't see another film for the next 50 weeks. For the rest of the year it's the other arts. This seems to be the same upper middle-class demographic that also flocks to the French Film Festival.

What is it about these two events? I think it's at least partially about social stature. MIFF and FFF appeal to the status of some people. Sometimes it seems that this type of audience are less interested in the films themselves, but rather the social event. I've never seen (or rather, heard) so many people chatting during a film as I do at the FFF. And of course, the Como with its relatively recent pseudo-bourgeois decor perfectly caters to this market. Don't read this as a criticism of Palace Cinemas at all. I like the Como, as kitsch as it might appear to some. I was there last night and happy to find myself in new seats in Cinema 3 (though take note that Cinema 1 still has the old-style seats). By the way, the film was Towelhead, and I enjoyed it. More in another post.

I think my line of thinking should be reasonably apparent at this stage. I'm thinking that some arts are flourishing and some are floundering. I received my NGV magazine in the mail the other day. It's called Gallery and it's very flash. It costs serious money to put a magazine like this together. This is all funded, either by government, business and/or philanthropists. It seems that some people will support some arts because there's a prestige attached to it. They'll attend an event that costs $30, $50 or $120 per head, but not a $12 event. Maybe it's beneath them. Maybe cinema is just the poor man's art, the entertainment for the masses. Maybe cinema is not even seen as art, but rather just the way the less civilised entertain their families.

I recently learnt that ACMI received about $6M of funding for the remodelling that's currently taking place. In the same round of government hand-outs, the Art Centre received something like $140M to extend. That's one year of funding, with additional funding over subsequent years. Man, what ACMI could do with that kind of money. That's serious moolah!

Now, this is not a journalistic treatise but rather, just an expression of lingering thoughts that won't go away. A lot of money is spent on the arts, and as far as I'm aware, they don't really make money. They prosper because of the support of others, from the support of sponsors, and that support results in audience support.

While we can't expect sponsorship of commercial cinemas, we could see greater support for ACMI, the Australian Centre for the Moving Image. As far as commercial cinemas, Palace has cottoned onto this idea by catering upmarket. And as far as I can tell, they seem to be succeeding where others have failed. I'm very interested in others thoughts on the matter. So, any ideas? Thoughts? Suggestions?

The Week in Review - 5/10/08

Just a quick byte tonight. This is all time permits.

FILMS

• Le fils de l'épicier (The Grocer's Son, Eric Guirado, France, 2007)
• Medium Cool (Haskell Wexler, USA, 1969)
• Petulia (Richard Lester, UK, 1968)
• Davandeh (The Runner, Amir Naderi, Iran, 1985)
• Khaneh-ye doost kojast? (Where is My Friend's House?, Abbas Kiarostami, Iran, 1987)

THEATRE

• Just Macbeth (written by Andy Griffiths, directed by Wayne Harrison, Playhouse Theatre)

The Grocer's Son
This is a French crowd-pleaser that should... dare I say... please crowds. My family liked it but for me it was just "meh". It's a meandering story, city boy goes back to his hometown in the provinces to help out with the family grocery business when the father falls ill. There's an attractive female who looks uncannily like Delta Goodrem and an array of idiosyncratic locals. Nice for a social night out, but nothing special. My main complaints are that it's too predictable and, like The Visitor, it lacks any genuine dramatic tension.

Medium Cool
An impressive film, edgy for it's time (or any time really) and the manner in which it captures a defining event is extraordinary. Wexler has crafted a fitting homage to the profession of cinematography (his normal line of work). Not without its faults, but compelling nonetheless. It screened as part of Melbourne Cinémathèque's season of Cinema '68: The Whole World is Watching, and indeed "the whole world is watching" is a line from the film. Medium Cool was an excellent selection for this season, a quintessential piece that encapsulates the political turmoil of the time. The film was complemented by the screening of Chiefs, a short documentary about crowd control devices in the wake of the Chicago convention featured in Medium Cool.

Petulia
A fairly whimsical film that lacks the bite of Medium Cool (they screened together at Cinémathèque) but is enjoyable enough.

The Runner
An impressive film with some intriguing elements. The final visuals are quite extraordinary.

Where is My Friend's House?
I have a lot of affection for Iranian cinema. I also love the frequent telling of stories from a child's perspective. Maybe I've seen too many that have used the same theme as this one, as I found it a little repetitive (even though it was made before most of those I have seen). It's a worthy film, in fact, more than a worthy film. But I felt like I'd seen much of it before. I brought my son to this (at 7, a similar age to the protagonists) and he enjoyed it. This is an aspect I like about Iranian films.

Just Macbeth
The third row (at the Playhouse) might ordinarily not be the best position for a live performance, but for this children's theatre, it was where the action was. The kid (7 years old) loves the writing of Andy Griffiths, so the common style evident in this performance was right up his alley. He laughed and laughed, learning a little about Macbeth (the play) and Shakespeare in general. Heck, even I learnt what a soliloquy is. Great fun!

The Week in Review - 28/9/08

With a 7-year old readaholic in the house, who loves Andy Griffiths books (The Day My Bum Went Psycho, Pencil of Doom, etc), when I heard good reviews of his theatre for kids, Just Macbeth, I knew I just had to take the family to see it. Shunning the $7.15 online booking fee, and seeing that the Playhouse Theatre accomodates up to 800 or so people, I naively thought I could turn up prior to the performance to purchase tickets. Big mistake - it was sold out. I bought tickets for a performance next Friday evening (it runs until 5 October) and went to the art gallery instead. We took out a family membership and checked out the Art Deco exhibition.

FILMS

• High School (Frederick Wiseman, USA, 1968)
• Targets (Peter Bogdanovich, USA, 1968)
• The Visitor (Thomas McCarthy, USA, 2007)
• The Square (Nash Edgerton, Australia, 2008)
• Lynch (blackANDwhite, USA/Denmark, 2007)

THEATRE

• Half and Half (written by Daniel Keene, directed by Matt Scholten)
  

EXHIBITION

• Art Deco 1910-1930, National Gallery of Victoria

High School
A great snapshot of an American high school, depicting teachers, students and parents interacting in various routine ways. With its verité style, we get a fly-on-the-wall look at the attitudes and fashions of the day.

Targets
This is a very impressive directorial debut by Bogdanovich, very impressive indeed. The film includes two parallel stories, an aging horror actor Byron Orlok (a thinly-disguised pseudonym of Boris Karloff, and played by the great screen legendhimself) who retires from acting, and a young seemingly all-American man who goes on a shooting spree.

The film's structure is highly staged, something that works for it very strongly (most of the time). A scene with Karloff merges with a scene with the psychopath and vice versa. Bogdanovich is clearly connecting dots here, but leaves it to the audience's imagination. There is scant use of music, other than within the film's plot, and the most suspenseful parts are devoid of any music at all, counter to common expectations. I found this very powerful.

It appears that Bogdanovich wanted to make an homage to both Karloff and Howard Hawks' The Criminal Code (in which Karloff stars, and which is Melbourne Cinémathèque's last screening of the year). In Targets, Karloff seems to play himself, bemoaning how he was typecast throughout his career and rarely got to play the serious roles he wanted. In casting Karloff, Bogdanovich gave the aging actor the opportunity to play just the type of serious role he wanted.

The film's main weakness is the climax when the two worlds collide - it's a little clumsy. Yet, the momentum and suspense has by this time been so overwhelmingly brought to a crescendo that it doesn't really matter. This is a seriously good film that captivates largely due to its working on multiple levels simultaneously, without spoon-feeding the audience.

The Visitor
Drab, uninspiring, disappointing. A message film, and I'm tired of message films, even though I agree with the message. Jenkins has little screen presence, though he's convincing as a boring academic.

The Square
Who says Australian cinema is dead? This is one kick-arse thriller, an impressive collaboration between the brothers Edgerton. Between them, they have co-written, directed, co-edited, co-produced, co-starred (as convincing nasties) and assembled a fine cast. The result? An edge-of-your-seat film that puts 99% of big budget Hollywood thrillers to shame.

Three Blind Mice gets my AFI vote for best Australian film of the year, but The Square is not far behind.

Lynch
Who is this blackANDwhite? Rumour is it's Lynch himself, and I'm inclined to agree. I liked this so-called doco, which is more "a number of days in the life of..." than a documentary. It's not particularly insightful, but gives an idea of what they guy is like, as the camera follows him at work. The one pearl of wisdom that I gleaned was when Lynch vehemently disagreed that an artist should suffer for his art. Lynch's retort is that there is an ocean of creativity that one should hook into. Happiness is the secret, not misery. I loved that.

Half and Half
I felt quite inadequate watching this Keene performance, as it uses a language quite different to what I'm accustomed to. It's very theatrical but, hey, it's live performance. It's highly metaphorical, but metaphors of what? I'm perplexed.

Keene is a theatre person, famous in France where all his works have been translated and performed. My acquaintance with him stems from his involvement in the writing (in different capacities) of three of Alkinos Tsilimidos' four feature films. I've made no secret that Tsilimidos is my favourite Australian director, and his collaborations with Keene's writing on the dark side have produced great results.

Back to Half and Half, I just don't know what to say. It was experiential, and I'm sure I gleaned something intuitively. Something about brotherly bonds, bonds of love and hate. Metaphors about gardens and weeds, but it's all too obscure. Do I need more exposure to theatre? Am I too illiterate (theatre people tend to be better read than us poor cousin cinema types)? I dunno. I enjoyed the experience, but don't think I got as much from it as I could have.

Art Deco
I was person no. 3,003 to exit the exhibition and according to the security person who was tracking numbers on a counter, there was an estimated 1,000 people in the exhibition, and a large queue still waiting to get in there. What with the NGV, the Art Centre and the craft market crowds on the Yarra, no wonder St. Kilda road was a wall of people. As a regular attendee at places like ACMI and the Kino, these crowds are a bit of a novelty for me - not something I'm accustomed to.

Rabbit Hole

Writ: David Lindsay Abaire, Dir: Naomi Edwards, Red Stitch Theatre

Rabbit Hole was my second experience of live theatre after seeing Don's Party at The Arts Centre earlier in the year. By chance, Naomi Edwards was assistant director of that production. The Red Stitch Theatre is a smaller and intimate venue. I don't feel particularly qualified to comment in detail on Rabbit Hole as I am not acquainted with the various devices of the medium and have few frames of reference. I offer my perception as a newbie.

My interest in theatre was first roused after reading Alison Croggon’s review of Alkinos Tsilimidos' Em 4 Jay (my favourite film of 2006) on Theatre Notes, and the subsequent contact I had with her. This blog came about as a result of Alison’s suggestion (I’d been contributing to IMDB and At The Movies message boards prior to that).

By chance, late last year I picked up a Red Stitch Theatre brochure at the Westgarth cinema during the Italian Film Festival. I noticed pictures of Laura Gordon and Kat Stewart, who played Em and her sister Jane in Em 4 Jay. I decided then that I’d like to see a performance with these fabulous actors. While Gordon and Nick Barkla (as Jay) excelled, for me Stewart’s small nuanced role at the Kew Boathouse was the heart and soul of this remarkable film.

I understand that Gordon has a US agent and is pursuing her career there. Rabbit Hole has Stewart playing the pivotal role of Becca, a grieving mother who lost her four year old son Danny when he chased the family dog into the path of a passing car. Howie (David Whitely) is the grieving father and much of the play concerns itself with the roller coaster of emotions as the couple argue over their conflicting grief. Becca is tormented by memories of Danny; Howie is aghast that Becca appears to be erasing signs of his existence.

Jason (Martin Sharpe) is the young driver who may or may not have been speeding, is consumed by guilt and has a need for resolution with the grieving family. The title of the play is a reference to a story he wrote at school dedicated to Danny, but also refers to the way the plot unravels at the start. Becca has discussions first with her sister Izzy (Erin Dewar) and then Howie. The audience has to make sense of their realities, which gradually unravels as the dialogue progresses. The title then seems to be an indirect reference to Alice in Wonderland.

The play’s theme is grief – how people deal with it differently and how this results in friction and conflict. Prior to the performance, I had no idea of its subject. Straight away my points of reference are cinematic, and it strongly recalls Sean Penn's excellent The Crossing Guard (1995), a small independent film in which a drunk driver (David Morse) is being released from jail after serving time for the death of a young boy. His parents (Jack Nicholson and Anjelica Huston) are still grieving. Rabbit Hole has a different way of telling a similar story.

Having lost my own teenage son less than four months ago, my emotions are still quite raw. The ways in which each protagonist expresses grief, and the nature of their conflict was very real. The dialogue was nuanced, natural, idiosyncratic and felt very authentic.

Stewart’s role was pivotal - the play depicted her character interacting with her husband, sister, mother (played by Collette Mann) and the devastated young driver torn with guilt. Having appreciated Stewart's performance in Em 4 Jay, it was a delight to see her with significant stage presence in Rabbit Hole. Sharpe’s performance as the young driver was especially stunning and convincing.

Overall, I found the play well-written and convincingly performed. It was quietly insightful with subdued naturalistic humour, and interesting without being overly profound. It perhaps didn’t have the emotional impact it could but that’s possibly because the writing skilfully avoids the melodrama or sentimentality that the subject could easily have produced. I found it a modest but serious production.

In contrast to my other theatre experience, Don's Party was more mainstream and played to a larger audience in a major venue. I preferred the more casual environment of Red Stitch. Don's Party was more observational than insightful and entertaining rather than challenging. I saw Rabbit Hole on its closing night to a full house.

Photos: David Whitely and Kat Stewart, Martin Short and Kat Stewart