WHY DO WE CARE SO MUCH ABOUT INFLUENCE?

It seems to me that we often take into consideration when evaluating a film the extent of its influence on other films and filmmakers. I wonder why. Although this can be important, it tends to skew our thinking to an “already” mentality, a view that falls in line with history without even questioning it. I believe one of the greatest acts a film historian, critic or lover can perform is to discover films that remain obscure — not for the sake of obscurity itself but because some of the greatest pleasures come from art that had no discernible influence, either because it was too difficult to assimilate, or because it represented unpopular points of view. In place of history, a kind of virtual history, or the history behind the history.

In literature, there are campaigns all the time to revive and champion books that went nowhere, that became cul-de-sacs rather than Champs-d’Elysees of cultural reference. Books like The Good Soldier Schweik or Maldoror or Maiden Voyage. Books that are unique and could never be written again.

Finally, I think it’s wrong to apply a dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest mentality to art and culture, which is really about an infinite array of possibilities and having the time to explore them.

These are among the reasons why I’ve always preferred Mr. Arkadin to Citizen Kane, or Gertrud to The Passion of Joan of Arc. By being less superficially “likeable,” and also harder to imitate, these films reveal more about their directors, and also reveal a vision of the world that is refreshingly odd and fascinating. It leads me to believe that films would be better off being influenced by the films that lack influence rather than the ones that have achieved influence by appealing to a greater number of people.

I agree completely, on this issue, it’s one of my major bugbears, and i think we’ve said something along these lines elsewhere; influence is exaggerated in assessing greatness. Fools influence fools, the blind leading the blind etc. It’s the hidden treasures and neglected greats instead of received wisdoms i like to see promoted.

Kenji: Be careful what you wish for. Throughout my life I have experienced hidden treasures that became mine and apparently only influenced me and few others. However, years later, when they were “discovered,” the fraudulent yet media heavy film bluffs turned what was refreshingly odd and fascinating for me into something tiresome and bullied. I suggest. during your lifetime, that you promote your hidden treasures only with people who have the capacity to understand their emotional resonance.

ah, herein may lie deep wisdom, for once i chose an eagle and did avoid a puttock. But i have spent so many hard and fruitless hours, nay not hours, but months and years, burdened with the urge to share the wonders, and it would be woe indeed were such treasures to be smirched by vile hands. i am reminded of R S Thomas….

“Those who crowd

A small window dirty it

With their breathing, though sublime

And inexhaustible the view."

but is it not also sinful to preserve pure treasures for the “few and chosen”. Or must the grail remain forever guarded with dragons as its sentinel in the vale of Llan….- in the words of the immortal bard “how Wales was made so happy to inherit such a haven”-… i divulge too much

and then again, i did worry over the fate of a more famous Maborosi in my little review, and oh, i have seen the rare green ray itself.

Small treasures … hmmm, let’s try the films of Morris Engel. They reached a sufficient critical mass to be put out in a box set. Some say “Little Fugitive” had as much influence on the New Wave as any film out there (Truffaut among them, I believe) but it’s relatively unknown.

Treasures are meant to be found and I believe the tragedy occurs when the treasures are forgotten and inferior “homage” becomes the currency. The question of influences is a question of standards. Without a sense of the continuous history of film we allow the charlatans command of the market place.

Yes, that second paragraph is very well put

This is a really interesting point, JV, and I’m going to have to think about it. TS Eliot wrote Tradition and the Individual Talent about why influence is important. I remember reading it years ago and agreeing with what he had to say, but I think I need to reread it before I can comment because, like you, I also seem especially drawn to the forgotten and obscure (and I hope it’s not just because I want to impress people — I think the internet is making obsolete the idea that the “obscure” equals “the cool” anyway, but that’s a discussion for another day).

Anyway, thanks for posting this. I’ll be back.

I would have to disagree only slightly with your statement, “these films reveal more about their directors”. I think every film a director makes equally reveals (and doesn’t reveal) something about that director. Mr. Arkadin reveals something about Welles but I don’t see the logic that it reveals more than Citizen Kane simply because it’s less hailed by the public. After Hours is just as much a Scorsese film as Goodfellas by the simple fact that they’re both Scorsese films. And in regards to the art of cinema specifically, it’s based in part on the influences from past films. Every film director will say they steal, they copy, they mimic and encourage young filmmakers to not be afraid of being influences because at the end of the day, it becomes your own work, no matter how much your influenced, no matter how much you try to even blatently plaigerize.

I do agree that it’s good to promote and discover lesser known works and in some instances, these forgotten films can be masterpieces. But is that a reason to denigrate a popular film? I recognize it’s cool to dismise someone like Spielberg because of his widespread commerical and critical acclaim but does that mean Jaws isn’t a great film? And should we try to ignore (or dismise) it’s influence in cinema?

@Harry – I totally understand what your saying and think if “Let the Right One In” hadn’t been so popular, they wouldn’t be remaking it.

If influence was such a good thing, why do we have 9/11, all these wars, the credit crunch, environmental destruction, so many channels of shit on the TV to choose from etc. Some papers throw up lists every so often of “the 50 most influential” so and sos and most of em (it seems to me) do more harm than good. Rupert Murdoch, Simon Cowell, Dick Cheney…History is written by winners and the powerful and most of it is false. More directors, cultures and countries deserve their chance to be properly appreciated.

As for guarding treasures from their ruination by phillistines, well i see there may be a danger, heaven knows the phillistines and money-grabbers have taken over enough of the media. But i’ve just come back from a walk with my dogs and we came to a spot in the woods by a brook, and now the farmer has put a big gate there and made it very awkward to get past though it’s a public footpath. We had to turn back. The world belongs to us all. Shouldn’t Buckingham Palace be owned by and open to the public? So i still have to think, possessiveness and hoarding out, immigrants in.

We are in accordance, Justin. It may be important to know the influence a film has just for the sake of context but it shouldn’t be considered such a key attribute in determining how good it is.

Context is given too much weight these days, influence included. So many people argue with me about certain films by citing their canonical status or the influence they’ve had, or the lengths which the filmmakers had to go to make the film, and while I wouldn’t go so far as to prefer Mr. Arkadin (Maybe if Bob Arden wasn’t involved) over Kane, I do prefer Chimes At Midnight so we’re in the same boat, so to speak. I appreciate context, I take interest in it, but it doesn’t sway my opinion of the actual film. No matter what has happened before and what will happen in the future, first you have to make a good film.

I do, however, enjoy when little known films I love get noticed. Because then they get nice transfers and big old DVD releases on Region 1, and this makes me happy. The new Boetticher box set, tell me that would have happened regardless of Boetticher’s recent revival in popularity in the critical world?

“I appreciate context, I take interest in it, but it doesn’t sway my opinion of the actual film.”

Exactly.

I dunno, without context, what good is anything? Films existing in a vacuum aren’t much use to anyone. Can a movie even be considered “beautiful” or “entertaining” without a context?

nothing exists in a vacuum. context is omnipresent. it cant be escaped. so its a moot point to argue of what use it is.

When I watch something (or listen to something) I am aware that someone has impacted the person doing the creating. You can feel it. It isn’t intellectual. It is all-encompassing. Also, I know that I am bringing something to the party. What gets me going has to do with what I am given. AND, it is better if I don’t know ahead of time.

I really think context (technically different from influence but since you brought it up…) is an overrated game we play with works of art. And I say that as a film critic whose job it is to ferret out every nuance of context. It’s more liberating and less, oh, anal I guess, to come to a work of art independently of that stuff, which is often coincidental, as we’ve surmised on this forum before — i.e., happening unbeknownst to the artist himself or herself.

It is fun.

Everyone appreciates a particular film for their own reasons. For some context and influence is important, they like to know the why, the where, and the how of something, and that’s not wrong. Although, I do agree that sometimes that seems to take precedence in deciding what films belong in the so called “canon,” and the question then becomes, what factors should be the most important in deciding a film’s value in relation to film/art history, and then… who are we really to judge another person’s art as having or not having value for any particular reason? Art does not exist in a vacuum it’s true, but sometimes the best art is the art that is made without an explicit purpose, without an express goal of some sort. For myself I appreciate the beauty of things… the aesthetic nature of the artwork, and I can appreciate that in and of itself. I don’t care whether the film was influential, because a film’s influence doesn’t move me … it’s emotional impact, on me, is what draws me to it. I would love to see more appreciation for Chantal Akerman’s Toute une Nuit, but Jeanne Dielman will forever obscure it because it has more “context,” has had more influence, can be more explicitly analyzed in a specific area of film studies. In turn, I think that influence is a tricky thing to talk about. People can speak of being influenced by one or more great films, but I think influence is something much more complex than that… and, speaking plainly, I don’t think the influence a film has had makes it any better, or more important in any way than a film that no one has seen but its creator. I’ve always believed in the phrase “art, for the sake of art” … meaning to me that just the act of making art is important, whatever it is, and I have a problem with the idea of judging another person’s personal contribution to artmaking. I guess, in essence, I find it best, for myself, to ignore the film historians and critics when I don’t agree with them, and just spend my time searching out the art that I find influential, irregardless of what anyone else may think, and finding a way to incpororate the aspects of those which I am emotionally triggered by into my own style, diregarding completely anyone else’s views on what is important and what is not… because, ultimately, I believe, importance is qualified by individual connection, not group connection.

I agree with Bobby here in the sense that context is inescapable. Unless time and history themselves can be done away with, context will always be a factor (not the sole factor however). A painting like Guernica by Picasso is that much more powerful because of the history that had just preceded it. The works/concepts of Eisenstein, Kuleshov, and Pudovkin gain depth because their beliefs reflected their ideals, place, and time. To ignore this is to do away with some of the artist’s intent in creating that piece to begin with.

But yes, context and influence are two different things.

first of all, you cant come at a work of art independent of context. as i said before, its everywhere. come at it that way, and you’re coming at it with blinders on.

second of all, trying to ignore context is an injustice. a fog of aesthetics isnt needed in criticism. work that digs deep is.

“No discussion of beauty can confine itself to the formal relations of the isolated work of art; it must consider, too, the participation of the work of art in the vision of the goal of social effort, the idea of complete and classless civilization.” – Northrop Frye

oh, and on the subject of coincidences (and quotes)…

“I don’t believe in coincidences. Especially when they happen more than once.” – Cap. Munsey in ‘Brute Force’

and as to the question “Why do ‘we’ care so much about influence?” … well, I suppose the answer would be that most everyone is looking for something to follow and more importantly, looking to make a dollar (or a million). And yes, history is written by those who win, and those who have the most power. Those people that don’t care about those things, in effect, those people that don’t give a hoot about influence, aren’t the people doing the writing/promoting and thus, aren’t being heard.

Influence is THE most important thing to consider while watching a film. It opens up all kinds of underlying layers and motivations of the director/writer/whoever that would otherwise be missed if you ignored their influences.

Nothing (literally) is original. I firmly believe that and knowing this (or I guess since it is unproven: suspecting this), determining an artist’s influences is paramount. To truly understand a film (or film in general) you have to be aware of who did what “first” (read: in a recorded sense at least) and why. Then, following that you have to look at artists that were influenced by whoever and then determine if it was done well or simply trying to copy him/her.

I think influence is an extremely important step in looking beyond the glossy technical aspects or hype of a film and deconstructing it to understand the origin of things. However, saying that, it’s not the only aspect to look at, but without it you can’t really determine a film’s worth in a knowledgeable way.

thats chasing ghosts.

all the methods you mentioned move you away from the text. the key is to stay as close to it as possible.

knowing who did something first doesnt tell you anything about a film, and it doesnt determine worth.

Ok, take for instance, Tarantino. If taken solely by himself, he would be probably one of the greatest directors alive today. However, it’s the fact that he’s ripping (whether intentionally or not it doesn’t matter) on French New Wave, Jack Hill, Hitchcock, and Ozawa (to name a very few) that undermines the quality of his work. If he had sat down and worked a script that didn’t try to recapture all this retrospection then he’d be a director that worked with his influences instead of being led by them. As with Jackie Brown, which I regard as his best film, you could see his many influences, but he worked with them instead of forcing them into the foreground as the central idea.

If I’m watching a film such as the U.S. version of Funny Games am I supposed to disregard the original? Do I really have a worthwhile opinion if I’ve seen a film such as Disturbia and never seen Rear Window? Not to say originals are automatically better than their remakes (certainly not true), but then again, I think mentioning remakes is getting a little off topic.

I think it’s also important to stay close to the material, but like any medium (music, art, writing, etc.) you have to be aware of an artist’s influences to know where he/she’s coming from in terms of the context they put themselves in by having such motivations. You understand the meaning behind the medium when you understand the artist’s origins.

When I watch For a Few Dollars More, I am automatically thinking of scenes from Yojimbo because Leone, in that film, was obviously influenced by Kurosawa’s film (which itself was influenced by American Westerns). That doesn’t mean that I’m constantly comparing the two or critiquing the differences, but I am aware of the differences and what Leone borrows (more like tribute) from Kurosawa. Without that link, I think there’s an important aspect of viewing film that is lost.

Nothing human is without context. Everything is referencing something because that is human nature. No one, unless they literally live in cave, is without some outside influence.

Well, I too have decried the fact that we are all subjected to the influence of canons, critical lists, highly regarded and highly hyped films. I think it is unavoidable. We are brought up with the influence of certain key names and works. We cannot escape the influence of Hamlet and Shakespeare or Citizen Kane and Welles. When we say we prefer, for example, Winter’s Tale to Hamlet, or in Justin’s case Mr. Arkadin to Citizen Kane, we are responding from our personal preference. This is fine, but we come by our own tastes because we are familiar with the weight of critical judgment – just because of what has been written and said about a particular film or book. What I am saying is that we can’t deny influence, but we can work around it. We have to make sure that our own individual tastes can be defended if they go totally against the established critical conventions. Otherwise, it may appear that we are just doing it to be contrary or perverse – which I personally have no problem with endorsing if it is genuine.

It is especially interesting to look at the first serious work of an artist and see how it relates to their later work. I have always appreciated Lynch’s Eraserhead (not that it isn’t well-known), just because it is original and unique – not without other influences, of course. We can see the influence of this work on Lynch’s later films. I am not going to place it superior to his other works, just indicating that it exists by itself as a rather strange and unusal work.

None of us is under any obligation to like something just because it has been ‘canonized’ or put into some unreachable critical pantheon – removed from criticism because its influence is all pervasive. A great many strawmen exist in every field, but maybe it is best to try not to make the comparisons with established works with our own personal favourite works. I agree completely with Julia: " I find it best, for myself, to ignore the film historians and critics when I don’t agree with them, and just spend my time searching out the art that I find influential, irregardless of what anyone else may think, and finding a way to incpororate the aspects of those which I am emotionally triggered by into my own style, diregarding completely anyone else’s views on what is important and what is not… because, ultimately, I believe, importance is qualified by individual connection, not group connection."

We always have to make a work of art our own, irregardless of what the critics or anyone else thinks about it. Just because we are aware of influences, doesn’t make us a slave to them! I also believe that are alot of films

I really believe we should all work harder to bring attention to smaller, more obscure films (same applies to the other arts). Then we can share our own enthusiasms with others. Sometimes these lesser known works resonate with their own uniqueness.
Maybe it is time to revive the thread Obscure Recommendations
http://www.theauteurs.com/topics/640/comments

To Daniel: just consider, Tarkovsky films aren’t very well known or much cited among most directors, but yes, they are beautiful. They do not aim to be entertainments however.

Exactly, I totally agree with your last paragraph. Nevertheless, the influences are there whether we are aware of it or not. This doesn’t mean that we don’t create a work that defines us an individual and one’s influences doesn’t necessarily undermine the work, but it’s an ever-present factor regardless.

Again though I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of disregarding film historians and critics. That is a huge step in individual criticism. That’s not the kind of influence I’m talking about – that’s someone’s reasoning being influenced which is definitely something we all should avoid. Group connection is not the point at all.

For example, I don’t regard Citizen Kane as the greatest film of all time because Time tells me to, but if I were to draw my own conclusion that Citizen Kane is unparalleled for various reasons then there’s no reason to disagree with Time simply because they are an “established” publication (I, by the way think Welles’ The Trial is his greatest film, not Citizen Kane, but that’s for another topic).

But that’s all totally different from what my original argument was, which was art influencing art (not peer pressure or established opinions). I personally don’t think this kind of influence a negative aspect necessarily, however it can get out of hand when an artist is more concerned with glorifying his influences than with the film itself (or whatever the medium is).

So, essentially I agree with you even though it may not seem like it, heh. I’m an existentialist at heart, but even though I believe that everyone determines their own meaning in all aspects of life (including art, which is a very essential part of human existence) I’m still aware of the social and psychological human instinct to connect with others and the effect that this influence can have.

I think midway through this thread got taken over by people who wanted to talk about tracing the influence of films from the past. I had in mind more about forward-influence. It seems like we often value films and filmmakers because they have a discernible influence — and I’m questioning whether that’s even a quality you can attribute to an artist, since it seems accidental and really “in the eye of the beholder.” A film that seemed to influence very little can still be a great film, in some ways an even more perfect film perhaps.

A film that seemed to influence very little can still be a great film, in some ways an even more perfect film perhaps.

I think good films and innovative technique will be influential. They may not make it to a wide audience but they will have influence.

Tsai Ming-liang, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Bela Tarr, Nuri Bilge Ceylan … all practitioners of the long, static take along with many Iranian directors and possibly all, to some extent, the children of Ozu?

And Ozu has never really been widely screened, yet his influence is profound. He certainly had an innovative style but he had his influences also (Shimizu?).

Is it necessary to be aware of the influences? Maybe not, but I enjoy the conversation these directors have with themselves, us and history.

Well, to some extent, it’s easy to confuse influence with mere commonality. It’s certainly possible for there to be some degree of sylistic convergence without influence per se. You have directors experimenting with long takes, for example, throughout most of the history of filmmaking, for example.