Art for art’s sake?
Film, like all other arts, is afflicted with the uncertainty of being torn between pursuing aesthetic or more humanistic ideals. Representing the school of thought that believes in “art for art’s sake” is Isabelle Huppert, the president of the jury for this year’s Cannes Film Festival. Having been asked to compare herself to her predecessor, Sean Penn, said:
“Last year, Sean Penn did in fact define a line. That’s not my intention; at the same time, I understand why he did it, as an American coming from where he comes from, where, perhaps, some voices have more trouble being heard than in the European cinema, or in the French cinema in particular; I understand why he made that declaration. At the same time, I’d like to say that this is the definition of the cinema in general: let’s say, a humanistic ambition, a look at the world, as well as an aesthetic project; this is nothing other than the cinema.”
The two create an interesting contrast. Sean Penn represents all that is political about Hollywood. He is an advocate for humanitarian assistance for the alleged genocide in aDarfur and was a particularly outspoken critic of the Bush administration. Meanwhile, Huppert decidedly chose to stay away from that, with reason. “This is nothing other than the cinema”, she declared. Who’s right?
In his essay, “Why I Write”, George Orwell wrote that “looking back through my work, I see that it is invariably where I lacked a political purpose that I wrote lifeless books and was betrayed into purple passages, sentences without meaning, decorative adjectives and humbug generally.” Whether a piece of writing is such, or whether a film is such, is up to you. But all these considerations aside, I much prefer films motivated by something that matters more for the simple reason that only they can hold my attention. I usually find the rest too boring.
