Women in Cinema: An Academic Research Essay

The subject surrounding the research conducted is to determine ‘to what extent the representation of women in Cinema meets the demands of a patriarchal Society’. Given the time frame, and breadth of this subject matter, it wasn’t possible to conduct research via other methods such as interviews, or field studies; primary research was not as available as secondary research. The research was conducted by analysing various secondary sources of Feminist film theory. It was important to find existing, published work that already had substantiated this very contentious issue. The secondary research that has been appraised is varied in its format, ranging from books, websites, published academic papers and journals, substantiating the arguments being addressed and establishing the attitude that opposes mainstream cinema and it’s representation of women.

The literature that has been collated is all published, academic studies concerning Feminist film theory, focusing on Laura Mulvey’s seminal work: ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema (1975). Other works considered by Gillian Swanson (1991), Ankeke Smelik (1999), Pam Cook and Claire Johnston (1975) only build on Mulvey’s research. These works were important during the research stage, adding depth to the understanding of this subject matter, but ultimately it was Laura Mulvey’s work that would act as the centrepiece for this research and its counter arguments.

Mulvey’s 1975 work revolutionised Feminist film theory, and made famous it’s ideas and claims regarding ‘Visual Pleasure’, the ‘Female Spectator’ and the ‘Male Gaze’. These terms have become a standard part of the cinematic vernacular, yet it was Mulvey’s seminal work that begat them. Mulvey’s work is vital to this research and any counter arguments made, as it established the feminist view on modern cinema plainly. It establishes it’s ideas anchored in the psychological studies of Freud, and makes claims on both female and male spectators of cinema, and to what extent their role influences the action on screen. Modern cinema is hugely misogynistic, it has its foundations built on a patriarchal vision, of white, middle class, American ideology. Over the years the role of women has changed significantly both on screen and off, but is it possible for women to play anything other than the submissive role in cinema? Can ‘She’ only be a catalyst in narrative, to the male protagonists story? Is ‘She’ ever the centrepiece of her own story or is her sole purpose to serve the narrative trajectory of the male, remaining benevolent and giving, in a purely matriarchal role? 

Laura Mulvey’s seminal work on ‘Visual Pleasure’ argues that the female spectator, she who is watching the film, is so at odds with the content on screen, that only male fantasy is being portrayed and that only ‘He’ can be fulfilled by its content. However she also argues that this may not always be the case, that the female spectator may find herself subconsciously enjoying the freedom of archetypes she cannot play out in reality, therefore find pleasure in the aggressive, male roles portrayed in action films and male led cinema. She argues that this is rooted in sexual identity and the quest for it, by opposing the feminine heroine, and identifying more with the masculine, the female spectator finds pleasure from the male protagonist, identifying with his quest, and therefore willing him to succeed, by accepting the submissive role of the heroine as acceptable, as she too must ensure the male protagonists success. 

Mulvey’s work links this to Freud and his work on ‘Phallocentrism’ and ‘Castration Theory’. The woman is born without a penis, the man with, she is eternally at odds with the man for this sole reason. Freud argues this is a vital stage of child development, the ‘phallic stage’ and if not met, then this dichotomy will permeate throughout adult life, hence why the aggressive, dominant, male protagonist is so appealing to the female spectator, as he has what she cannot; a penis. This simple dichotomy is what ensures this fantasy is maintained, and the female spectator will forever be drawn to this dynamic, and forever accepting of the injustice and social position of the woman as inferior to the man, as biologically ‘he’ is ‘to have’ and ‘she’ is to ‘have not’. This is an instinctively accepted truth which permeated through all media and art forms, affected cinema since its inception, but to what extent is this very simplistic dynamic the case in all modern cinema?

The work initiated by Laura Mulvey and continued by the likes of Swanson, Smelik, Cook and Johnston acknowledges this dichotomy and this accepted truth. The argument that ‘Visual Pleasure’ maintains this dichotomy and that Freud’s ‘Castration Theory’ is what permeates this idea. The woman literally ‘without’, ‘bearer of the open wound’ accepts this role of submission as there is an inherent level of guilt already attached to being ‘without’. This shame is what influences this acceptance and when exposed to cinema and narratives, the female spectator is accepting of the collateral characterisation, superfluous to her own narrative but vital to the males. This misogyny is entrenched in ‘W.A.S.P’ values; the very values that built Hollywood, however, over the last fifty years, women’s roles, both on and off screen have deviated significantly, though ultimately still bound by patriarchy. Are there women that now establish a new identity for the female spectator, and are their characters and actresses that embody more traditionally male roles? There has never been freedom of choice for women regarding characters in cinema, Mulvey would argue their still isn’t, yet the public image of ‘the actress’ is changing, and there may just be exceptions to the rule. 

Counter arguments to be made against Mulvey is that her work generalises far too heavily and focuses too much on the psychological findings of Freud. Mulvey doesn’t acknowledge the variation in women and femininity, irrespective of social standing, class or characteristics she claims women all to be the same. Admittedly her seminal work was published in 1975 and the world has changed significantly since; she published another paper in 1981 ‘Afterthoughts on Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, but it would be beneficial for her to of once again reflected on her work in the 21^st century, as the world has changed, and you cannot ignore the seismic shift in women’s role both on and off screen. 

Mulvey’s work addresses the patriarchal dynamic of cinema between the 1940’s and the 1960’s; the roots of Hollywood were as sexist and misogynistic as society at the time. The characterisation of women was such, as there was no other socially accepted role women could play other than mother, damsel, femme fatale or counterpart to the male heroes’ narrative. These roles were always desexualised as women, in a patriarchal society are not allowed to own their sexuality, it must be neutered or vilified, it cannot thrive and be empowered, independent and liberated, it must only serve the male protagonist, wholesomely, according to Christian values of the time. Women’s sexuality and freedom to express and own it has changed staggeringly since the 1960’s therefore Mulvey’s work is a little out of touch. Though it is still applicable, patriarchy is still at the heart of modern cinema, arguably more than ever, yet progress has been made significantly. Women have much more freedom of choice in cinema and characterisation is not always as limiting as it once was. 

Just after Mulvey’s work was published, ‘Alien’ (1979) revolutionised the female symbol in cinema and blurred the lines between matriarchy and patriarchy forever. Sigourney Weaver defined a generation as androgynous women were fully accepted as formerly male led protagonists. This masculinisation of women continued throughout the 1980’s as female heroes became more popular. However, as empowering as this was it was still desexualising for women as they still were either represented as sexless or traditionally ‘sexy’.

In contrast to Mulvey’s claims and significant to the progress of women’s sexuality both on and off screen are actresses Julianne Moore and Scarlett Johansson. Both women are traditionally very attractive according to archetypical male fantasy; however they have sought to carve careers for themselves as hugely successful Hollywood actresses both playing incredibly powerful, independent, sexually liberated women. Scarlett Johansson embodies the faux feminist argument that to be a sexually dominant female in a patriarchal world, is ot be liberated of misogyny’s shackles. This may not be the case, no matter how dominating Johansson’s sexuality is on screen, emasculating both the male protagonist and the voyeur, it still plays into the moulded idea of feminine sexuality, crafted by the male. Scarlett Johansson has led her career and personal life fully in control and goes against many traditional ideas of female sexuality. Promiscuity and affairs have not tainted her ability to be cast in both wholesome and non-wholesome roles, she is the quintessential male fantasy, and plays it with empowered self assurance. But is she victim to patriarchy? Or is she in control?

Julianne Moore is an actress that since she first grew to prominence in the public eye in ‘Boogie Nights’ (1997) has always chosen to play role of dubious sexual moral fibre. Her roles have shifted perceptions of what women can and can’t do in cinema. Her roles in films such as ‘The Kids are Alright’ (2011), ‘A Single Man’ (2009), ‘Magnolia’ (2000), ‘Crazy, Stupid, Love’ (2011) and ‘Don Jon’ (2013) have set her apart from other actresses of her generation, as all of these roles portrayed are incredibly varied, sexually independent female characters. It is not the content of these films that is significant, nor is it the sexual nature of the roles, it is the choice that Moore has been able to attain, given a career in Hollywood. These are choices driven by nothing else other than what the ‘actor’ wishes to explore, choices previously only available to male actors. Prior to the 1980’s women did not have this kind of choice in cinema and their roles were reductive, as Mulvey states, however Julianne Moore is testament to the significant change that has occurred in cinema and though it is not perfect, and patriarchy is still rife and at the heart of the studio system, progress has been made significantly since Mulvey first published her ‘Visual Pleasure’ theory.

Julianne Moore’s choices on screen and sexual freedom explored in character are rare as her choices do not in any way deter her public image as a wholesome family orientated mother and wife. Often, what actresses portray on screen is echoed in their public persona or vice versa. Many young actresses have not had Moore’s success and longevity due to personal reasons, their careers have declined due to their personal lives. Kristen Stewart’s affair tainted her public persona and her popularity has therefore decreased among her young audience. Similarly Anne Hathaway’s transition from ‘Disney’ teen princess to adult, sexually driven roles, were met with apprehension and criticism. Julianne Moore is very rare, her career is completely her own, her choices are entirely her own and her personal life remains private and wholesome, despite her foray into sexually dubious female characters.

Mulvey’s work is significant, her work is the key text on feminist film theory, and her work on ‘Visual Pleasure’ and the ‘Female Spectator’ still resonate today. There is enormous validity to her arguments that address the limitations and reasons for such popular female characterisation, and attempts to explain the root of the inherent misogyny that is rife in Hollywood. However their is also significant progress that continues to be made since her work was published and the role of women has changed staggeringly. Hollywood remains an incredibly patriarchal business, the studio system still resonates the same ideology that was established almost one hundred years ago, yet to what extent female characterisation is determined by patriarchy is still a contentious issue. Pessimistically, you could argue it has not changed all that much, women are still held by the same shackles they have always been, but there is undisputedly more room for choice, and for exploration of sexuality and character in modern cinema, female driven narratives are increasingly more popular post ‘Twilight’ and the stance Mulvey has on cinema is beginning to look a little outdated.  

The Death of Hollywood

There is a pertinent lack of respect for the cultural significance of cinema, deep at the heart of Hollywood itself. Modern day mainstream Hollywood is in disrepair. Never has an age of such hollow filmmaking and artlessness been so prevalent in American film. I’m not talking about high art cinema, Martin Scorsese, The Coen Brothers, David Fincher, Paul Thomas Anderson et al. I’m talking about mainstream, big budget, blockbuster Hollywood. The movie business has always been that: business. But never has the veil been so transparent, there is no longer any remote attempt to disguise such fat cat greed. We now live in the age of the corporation. Big business is now even uglier than it was before, as there is now billions of dollars to be made rather than millions.

The corporate age of cinema is upon us and with it comes a drought of imagination, art, care, and respect for cinema. Hollywood has always been responsible for such greatness, so many beloved and iconic films and franchises belong to those sacred hills, yet in 2014 Hollywood itself seems determined to destroy all that is magnificent and sacred about its own legacy by rebooting, remaking, reimagining every film they have ever released. Talent is not mandatory in Hollywood anymore, nor is passion, creativity or imagination; only the imagination to come up with a way to make a cheap buck. Originality no longer exists in modern Hollywood. Why make a new original film when you can make a sequel or a threequel or a prequel to an already existing classic. And if the sequel falls through why not just reboot it? There is a tacit disrespect for the cultural and aesthetic significance of cinema, deep in the heart of Hollywood.

The reason for this seismic shift is people’s lack of appreciation for the significance of cinema. Films are now so disposable; they come and go without any cultural impact. We live in such an immediate age when all content can be consumed in nanoseconds and there is no respect for the meaning of cinema, culturally. This attitude has extended to Hollywood itself, and the vulgarity of instant gratification and instant profit determines the quality of the product that is turned out year after year. The history of cinema is not merely a collection of movies that people watch for entertainment. It is our cultural modern history. These images of classic movie moments are American iconography. They define an entire age of art in the western world.

Not everyone appreciates cinema on this level and thus lays the problem, but the opening credits of ‘Star Wars’ is not just that, you cannot have the 20^th century without it. You can’t have the 20^th century without ‘The Godfather’ or ‘Taxi Driver’, ‘Indiana Jones’ or ‘Jaws’, ‘Pulp Fiction’, ‘Back to the Future’, ‘Apocalypse Now’, ‘2001’ or ‘The Graduate’. These aren’t just movies, they are iconography, with such cultural significance it defines us more than people realise. It informs the way we act and speak, our sense of humour, the way we dress, the way we view sex, relationships, family; everything. Art has always informed culture. Now culture unfortunately informs the quality of art.

In 2014, none of that is respected. The one hundred year history of celluloid means nothing in the face of profit. Hollywood would happily decimate its own golden history to make money. Now we live in the age of the reboot. The reboot culture emerged in 2006 after the success of the Bond films. Admittedly the new Bond films are a revelation and some could argue the finest of the franchise. It worked because Bond has always redefined itself generation after generation. Audiences are used to seeing a new Bond every ten years and neither the character or the films are compromised with this transition. Other films have been successful too, Chris Nolan’s ‘Batman’ trilogy are monumental achievements and JJ Abrams ‘Star Trek’ films were incredible. Reboots aren’t always bad. With those examples, they still maintain enormous cultural significance. However, now - given the success of the already mentioned - Hollywood seems intent on rebooting, remaking, reimagining every film it has in its cannon in hope of repeating the same success, yet they never do. It’s because there is magic in the original. Films like 'Back to the Future' were not produced so calculatedly and with such crass expectations of success. They were written and produced with passion and care, and love of the project. There was no other expectation beyond filmmaking.

Most films we acknowledge to be part of a greater franchise, worth billions of dollars, started out with such humble beginnings. The original ‘Terminator’ movie, was a low budget B-Movie, that James Cameron never expected to make money, yet it begat one of the most profitable franchises ever. So of course now, in 2014, they are determined to reboot it. They always say it is so that a new generation can embrace it. Yet if something is timeless, a new generation will embrace it without it being remade. ‘Star Wars’ is timeless, yet ‘Episode VII’ is already lined up for release. “Indiana Jones’ is timeless, yet they are already lining up Bradley Cooper to don the brown fedora. Everything is so corporate. Hollywood is dominated by big corporate business events, where ‘Disney’ and ‘Marvel’ and ‘Sony’ all get together and present their next ten year plan, consisting of yet another string of soulless, artless, hollow, empty blockbusters that come and go, and get forgotten. The marketing campaigns are always more compelling than the movies themselves and everyone talks until the day of release, then one week later the film is forgotten entirely. There is no cultural significance.

Movies can no longer be seen as art. Cinema has always been a marriage between art and commerce, and where that compromise is met determines how it is remembered. That relationship is now far too one sided. The art is all but gone, now there is only commerce. Modern blockbusters will not define our times the way they did in the 70's and 80's. I’m sure there is a correlation between that and digital over film, but that’s another story altogether. Simply there is no care, no love or passion, no respect for the Iconography that defines our age.

You cannot recast Sarah Connor; Linda Hamilton is Sarah Connor. Like it or not, good actress or bad actress, she embodies that role. The image of her holding the shotgun in the steel mill at the end of ‘T2’ is immortal. Its aesthetic image will outlive all modern films. Yet Hollywood, in all their infinite wisdom have recast her, she will now be played by some two-bit nonstar from ‘Game of Thrones’. There is just no point, no possible way any reboot, remake or reimaging can compete or compare to the original of such iconic films. With Horror movies we don’t mind, we are used to it. Remaking classic Horror films has always remained popular, they are always terrible, we know they are terrible, we always prefer the original, yet we go see them anyway for a laugh. But when it comes to the films that define us there has to be more respect. Why not just remake ‘The Beatles’. You can’t. They are immortal. So much a part of the 20^th century, to remove them would unravel our entire history. 

Yet the cogs keep turning and this age of Hollywood filmmaking, so insulting, thrives and continues to make billions and billions of dollars. I wonder how the 21^st century will be defined? It is always the art that defines us: film, music, literature etc. Yet how can that be when there is no art left in the world?

VIVA MOZ

Come summer, Morrissey will have a new album out. ‘World Peace is None of Your Buisness’ will be the singer’s 10^th studio album and his first in five years. The reasons for the long delay in releasing new material are many; health problems, cancelled tours and the lack of label interest to name a few. For the last five years Morrissey has found himself subject to the whims of the modern music industry, whereby true artists are never given a pedestal or a voice and certainly not money. When Morrissey’s new album drops this summer, off the back of a monumentally successful Autobiography, the press will hail it a comeback of magnificent proportions, define it the singers greatest work and Morrissey will instantly become ‘the legend’ in print, no longer ‘the jester’. Morrissey has been in the music business for thirty years now and has endured every possible scrutiny the media can place on an artist, he has been hailed, celebrated, ridiculed and dismissed, yet all that came before means nothing when an artist reaches the big 'three zero'. Now that there is five years between his last record, the robust and utterly fantastic ‘Years of Refusal’ the media will create new context of their own design, which of course has nothing to do with Morrissey himself or his music, but he will be hailed a legend, simply for ‘hanging on’, irrespective of the fact that he has consistently released music of the highest quality and has never come close to retiring/ The tenth Morrissey album will be lauded with acclaim and the singer will be redeemed in the eyes of the media, for redemption he had never sought after nor warranted.

Morrissey is, has and always will be one of the greats, one of the most significant artists in music’s history. The most unique, original, authentic, talented, intelligent, articulate, and real artists to ever fall under the umbrella ‘pop artist’. When all is said and done, and he lays peacefully in the grave, Morrissey’s name will be spoken along side a very select caliber of artist: Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Bob Dylan etc. a true legend. 

Unfortunately, if you so much as dare create meaningful music with a genuine servitude to creating real art, you will be dissected, cross examined and ripped apart by mainstream culture, ridiculed for being too pretentious, too precious, and your intelligence and sincerity will be seen as callousness and unkindness in the face of a dimwit culture, and halfwit pop stars. Morrissey - a pop artist - has had to, for thirty years, share an apparent similarity and kinship, by technicality, with shallow, vapid, moronic, talentless, non-stars. Within that circle, within that charade, Morrissey will always be the odd one out as he is none of those things, yet his love of classic pop music and desire to do nothing but sing has unfortunately, circumstantially fated him with such poor company and therefore such horrific representation in the media. To quote the man himself ‘we do not live in terribly sophisticated times’ and that is being very polite. In the thirty years that Morrissey has been making music, culture has been reduced to the point of liquefaction and intelligence resides only in museums and on gravestones. To speak freely and intelligently in the world of the celebrity lacquered media frenzy we all sift through day in day out, here in the west, is to open yourself for ridicule by those who cannot even partially understand the words you speak.

The media has always been cruel to Morrissey, branded a racist, a liar, truculent, deceiving, and a self-perpetuating miserabalist. He has been branded a threat to national security and pro terrorist. His political views and frank honesty have always ben met with hostility and dismissal. The press has never been his friend, especially in the UK. He was hailed and lauded a genius in the ‘Smiths’ days and his ‘quirks’ and ‘charisma’ were tolerated; yet by the mid-nineties, the British press declared war on Morrissey and decided overnight that he was as vicious as an atom bomb and did everything to silence him through ridicule. For once you have been ridiculed, your opinion holds no merit, and this of course is the procedure the media takes when ones opinion is only that of the truth. Morrissey has never been a controversial artist, he has merely told the truth, unfortunately the truth is very ugly and people don’t like it, so we make this out to be a cute eccentricity, undermined and ridiculed until the opinions (truth) one is discussing becomes indoctrinated to the public as the wrong opinion. Morrissey has only ever yearned for the best in humanity and only ever maintained hope that we are capable of such behaviour. His vegetarianism has been endlessly mocked by the media, a lifestyle exemplified as ‘alternative’ to ‘the norm’ whereby we only shop in ‘Holland and Barratts’ and enjoy only celery and papaya for dinner.  The fact that you must claim an identity as ‘a vegetarian’ to acknowledge you do not have a normal diet, is mocking of its integrity in itself.

The media has vilified Morrissey for most of his career, the genius of his art and the kindness of his soul have always been overlooked. It is not Morrissey that is bitter, but the world around him. The truth is that Morrissey is too intelligent for mainstream culture, for pop music and celebrity, for television and journalists, he would probably find much kinder company in writing poetry and literature and share only the company he chooses, than brush the shoulders of teen non-stars with no light in their eyes. Yet one does not pick his own destiny and from the age of five Morrissey has only ever had one love and that is popular song. So these are the great sacrifices that must be in the quest for true art and in creating music that matters, means something and will live forever.

The black and white filter in which all information is presented in the media is mirrored only by the black and grey print from which it reads. The reductive narratives that the media presents in its quest to reduce all our minds to marmalade remains popular for there is no alternative, Morrissey will be subject to yet more media objectification come summer, and his new album - which undoubtedly and deservedly I’m sure - will be hailed as a masterpiece, and as the singer hits fifty-five we are expected to see some grand significance to it all, that only once you have survived the brutality that is a career in showbiz, can you really create something of value. No, Morrissey has always been fantastic, he has always been light-years ahead of his peers both in talent and brains, and has never, for a single second succumb to the demands of what is deemed acceptable and ordinary, for he is extraordinary, an artist rivaled only by the likes of Elvis Presley, and still to this day, remains peerless and untouchable. In modern times, amidst the opaque broth of banality and triviality that is modern culture, it is important to cling to intelligent art. You should never apologize for being intelligent, thinking with your own mind and striving for something more than what is spoon-fed to you. Morrissey never has, and never will.

Only Lovers Left Alive

Jim Jarmusch is one of the greatest American artists of our time. Since he first came on to the scene he has delivered films of meticulous beauty time and time again. Away from the constraints of narrative and plot, Jarmusch allows the paint brush to roam free as he depicts isolated characters in a baron and derelict America. His style has now become defining of an entire subculture of independent cinema, his mad brilliant quirks and his penchant for the oddballs that are everywhere in life yet never given a voice, has always allowed his films a purity that cannot be replicated. From ‘Permanent Vacation’ through the flawless ‘Dead Man’ and ‘Broken Flowers’ Jarmusch has developed a language in silence and pace, his films are always empty and slow, yet the beauty lies in the considered use of detail, the meticulously chosen word and the appropriate knowing of when to use music or the right camera angle. His wit is sharp and always on point and his words, though seldom spoke, always perfectly placed with grand purpose. Jarmusch is an American maestro, a real artist, a very rare thing in the modern age, only a few remain.

‘Only Lovers Left Alive’, Jim’s latest film, is utterly mesmerising. Every frame sings and the entire films plays out like a romantic poem of years gone by. The beauty lies in the characters, Adam and Eve, intentionally named as to magnify the extent of their time on Earth, and to symbolise the purity of their love. Two vampire lovers who have been together for over a thousand years, who have witnessed the world change staggeringly in their time, and now as we meet them, they are fatigued and forlorn with an ever changing world, governed by technology and human madness. The lovers, played by Tom Hiddleston and Tilda Swinton so brilliantly are presented as two mad, incestuous, pretentious, upper-middle-class, aristocratic, hipster, artsy snobs, who have grown reclusive and distant from the world and now only understand and take solace in their love for one another. Anything outside their relationship is tainted and to be met with condemnation and disdain.

Surprisingly for a Jarmusch picture, ‘Lovers’ is very funny, utterly deadpan lines always brilliantly delivered by both Hiddleston and Swinton. They are couple who are incredibly fun to hang out with, it is what makes the film so enjoyable to watch, because the characters are so great you don’t want to leave them. The absurdity of their lives in the modern world is so enjoyable to witness the film goes by so quickly. From picking up blood bags in the hospital, to the nonchalant disposal of the body of Adam’s only human friend, there is great humour throughout, despite being a film about real melancholy and disconnection from the world. Adam, desperate to die rather than carry on living in the madness of the 21^st Century, is a tragic figure, who no matter how amusing he may be to us, is suffering and has grown tired of life.

The film at its heart is a metaphorical love affair with antiquity. A love letter to the simplicity of life as it was once led, a cautionary tale as to how mad the world has become, if only we could see it through the eyes of vampires. Everything in the film illustrates this point, Adams love of music and old guitars and recording equipment. His preciousness about his work reflects the attitude of the sanctity of the artist and his work, unwilling to share it with the world as we do now, his work means the world to him and it isn't somehow devalued if he doesn't desire to share it with everybody. Adam’s love of science and logic in its purest form before it became over complicated and misconstrued, his admiration for his heroes, all framed in his study include: William S Burroughs, Edgar Allen Poe, Iggy Pop and Billie Holiday, all artists who hark back to a time gone by, of great artistic achievements in a tangible analogue world. This is reinforced by the humorous reference to Jack White, as White himself is a connoisseur of all things antique and pre-technology, a preserver of the inane but beautiful, an admirer of all that has been created through human endeavour and not of technological means.  

There is true beauty to be found in ‘Lovers’ and is confidently one of Jarmusch’s greatest films, standing tall against ‘Dead Man’ and ‘Down by Law’. Never has a film of such poetic fragility been so humorously executed, Jarmusch himself has never produced a film funnier and more enjoyable to watch. There is real sorrow and drama to be found in the characters. For all their humour and wit, Adam and Eve are seriously unhappy in the world they live in, though their love for each other remains pure. Having lived over a thousand years these two lovers have descended into a mad love that can only be nurtured if they are apart. In order to let their love thrive Eve chooses to live in Tangiers, far away, so that they're love can grow fonder, like a drug, boiling away within them, calling for them to reach out and reunite. And when they do they are ferocious, savouring the touch by staying in bed for an eternity.

‘Lovers’ is also a very successful vampire film. In an age where the vampire genre and the greater horror genre in general have been devalued and diluted by teen-pop interpretations, Jarmusch has created a film of delicate beauty that encapsulates the eroticism and salacious qualities of the vampire, as well as the animal side of the creature; the gothic nature of a nocturnal creature destined to survive on human blood in the dark shadows of our world. Jarmusch captures the inherent swagger and coolness that vampires ought have, not since ‘The Lost Boys’ have vampires looked so cool, playing guitar, with long dark hair, brooding and sulking but as a tortured artist not as a sissy. The vampires depicted in ‘Lovers’ are real, believable and frightening. The whole film rests on the performances of Hiddleston and Swinton, which thankfully are flawless, delicate yet visceral.

Jarmusch, who in recent years is not as prominent a filmmaker as he was in the 90's, has with this film re-emerged with new life, more vital now than ever. He has always been a true American voice, with his own warped depiction of a post industrialised America, soulless and derelict, vast and spacious, beautiful yet aching. His America is distinct and entirely his own, his films throughout the 90's made him the king of independent cinema and it is still good to see that that crown remains his, without a doubt. True American cinema is under threat from the marginalised ever growing blight of the corporate, studio, Hollywood juggernaut, and it is worrying that such great filmmakers like Jarmusch are struggling so much to get their projects made. This is echoed throughout Adam's character in the film, his disdain for LA and the internet, or anything of the modern age, reflect perhaps Jarmusch has grown cynical of making art in the 21st century. However despite this, real cinema has never been in a better place, though it may be harder to create real cinematic art in the 21^st Century, films of this quality and filmmakers this brilliant will always find a way to be seen by those who truly understand. 

The Illusion of Connection

It is fatiguing to live in a culture dominated by art forms yet bereft of artistic merit. In the age of the Internet the ‘tweet’ is god, where every little thought must be documented and shared. We have emerged into a culture obsessed with sharing and connecting; yet we have never been more disconnected as human beings, interacting together on this magnificent floating rock. The obsession to share content has now clogged up the airwaves and the brainwaves entirely. It is now so easy to share an image or a tweet, a musing or a thought and instantly have it seen by millions. This culture, obsessed with presenting idealism yet enabling the complacency that maintains we will never reach these ideals. A culture that deifies anybody that has an iPhone, is good looking, and is living a life of vulgar emptiness, shallow and baron of contemplative mindfulness.

The illusion of connection is profound, we all feel because we can communicate on mass that somehow we are all together, yet we have forgotten how to speak to one another, how to write and read real English, what real emotion is, what real love is and significantly what true art is. The Internet is solely responsible for the cataclysmic shift in culture; it is its own culture now, a hyper reality that we are all plugged into, with no means of disconnecting. The detriment that this exposure has had on an entire generation is staggering and will continue to devalue the human experience and ultimately render us all vegetative vacant vessels of data. The rapid instantaneous fleeting of news, gossip, information and trends fly by every hour, where we have access to every single bit of information going on in the world twenty-four seven, the information itself is devalued as we are all desensitized to these perpetual occurrences, where by a natural crisis or a murder or the death of a significant figure, be it actor or politician, pop star or sport star, is merely seen as a hash tag trend, with a lifespan of nanoseconds. We have forgotten how to feel emotions appropriate to particular events as we are living our lives through the lens of constant media, misshapen and malformed.

This culture has had such a critical impact on art in every capacity. From the inception and creation of art from the ‘artist’ regarding the purity of intent and artistic merit, to the distribution and consumption of the product. Whereby all art forms, be it film, music, visual art, literature, photography, poetry etc. have all been devalued as they are now symbiotic to the internet culture as is everything else. You could argue there are benefits to this symbiosis as there are many upsides to the internet that allow an artist the ability to maximize all aspects of their work and ultimately reach a wider audience. However the problem is ultimately more grave than that, it is not a question of logistics, it is the fact that we collectively have forgotten what real art is and what it is to experience a true, tangible, reflective moment, wherein lies the capacity to be affected and physically moved by a work of art.

Now that all art is instant and fleeting, music is instantaneous, the entire back catalogue of ‘The Beatles’ can be downloaded in seconds, and no effort or physical engagement is required of the consumer. Films are as fleeting as are the careers of the actors themselves, whereby all Hollywood films now follow the same conveyor belt proceedings of production, marketing, junket press, viral press, award season, and then forgotten the minute it has finally been seen by the masses. A corporate affair bereft of passion or soul. Cinemas now like old abandoned church ruins, former places of worship, now dark and empty. Now you can download and stream movies instantaneously, why go to the cinema? What is the point? 

There are many positives to the Internet and Social media, it is fascinating that we are all responsible for shaping our world and its media, that the media is not dogmatically augmented by the shadowy, faceless moguls, but the language of our culture is contributed to by all of us. Now that we have ‘Twitter’, ‘Facebook’ and ‘Instagram’, yes it has created a culture unmotivated and disengaged with anything other than the glitz and the glamour of a life just slightly out of reach, but it has also given a voice back to the people who were otherwise subject to be misrepresented, misquoted and more often than not, simply victim of tabloid lies. Sure there is a lot of good to come from modern culture, yet it is the disengagement and the passivity of consumption, the lack of required usage of ones brain that startles me most. There was once a distinct separation between the general public and art, which allowed a tangible experience to occur when seeing a film, or hearing a band for the first time, or seeing a painting. There was an inherent degree of mindfulness, such which cannot be measured if we are all glued to our phones and gadgets even when we are out in the world, or at a show, desperate to take pictures to post on ‘Instagram’ rather than be present and witness the unique moment before you.

I worry for culture and for art. As we progress further into the murky waters of tomorrow, expression is under extreme threat from PC Censorship and common sense has been permanently replaced by red tape mania which ensures progression is impossible and only conservative tradition can prevail, obstinate and defiant. Intelligent thought has been liquefied by celebrity culture, Reality TV, Facebook, Twitter and the media, as we continue to cater to the thick instead of presenting information higher. We choose to exist on the lowest frequency, diluting the integrity of all sensible thought, promoting only the logical succession of the Orwellian future prophesied all too precisely.

What the future holds for Humanity I have no idea, but I do know that in order for us to thrive as a species and to lead fulfilling lives individually, human connection is paramount, we must experience real emotion, physical contact and true love. The synthetic simulation of these emotions will only further a culture of apathy and despondency, misdirected without a spiritual anchor to all our lives.