Vulgar author's cinema

For the first time this concept was used by Andrew Tracy in 2009 in his article “Vulgar author's cinema: the case of Michael Mann ” ^[4] . However, a wide discussion in the ranks of film critics regarding this phenomenon unfolded only in 2013. Moreover, the discussion was initiated not by respected eminent critics, but mainly by young film fans and novice film critics. The main discussion platform was the blogging site MUBI , which Tumblr later joined. After some time, the discussion moved to a new plane, namely, to the leading American periodicals (The New Yorker ^[6] , The Village Voice ^[7] ), in which professional critics published their articles on this topic.

The concept itself has its roots in another theory - the theory of “auteur cinema” ^[6] , the central tenets of which are that the director is a key figure in the film process and that the masters of their craft have a special cinema language that makes it impossible to confuse their films with strangers. This theory originated in France in the 1950s, where young French critics - Francois Truffaut , Jean-Luc Godard and others (many of whom later became famous directors themselves) invented the term "de la politique des auteurs". Inspired by the work of Alfred Hitchcock , Nicholas Ray, Otto Preminger and Howard Hawks, the French announced these "American studio directors who worked in the field of entertainment cinema, real" authors "with their own individual handwriting and aesthetic value system" ^[2] . In the 1960s, this term reached the shores of America, where Andrew Sarris became its main adapter and champion. It was in his works that the direct term “author theory” (auteur theory) appeared ^[8] . Adherents of this theory developed their own Pantheon of filmmakers-authors, which, however, was very difficult to get into and not all filmmakers who today have the status of "cult" were then considered "authors."

A number of critics, including Richard Brodie ^[6] of The New Yorker and Scott Foundas ^[1] of Variety, drew parallels between early French and American proponents of "author cinema" theory and the concept of "vulgar author cinema." At the same time, many experts note that the main difference between “vulgar author's” cinema and classical “author's” cinema is that the adherents of the first are too keen on the visual side of the cinema and do not pay enough attention to the subject of the works themselves. The question of whether the concept of “vulgar auteur cinema” is a separate movement or just an offshoot of the theory of “auteur cinema” still causes controversy among critics.

The main goal set by young critics promoting the concept is to search for high art where it is not customary to search for it among ordinary film critics. They believe that, despite the fact that the “authors” of “vulgar” films rely on commercial success and are not very worried about the presence of deep meaning in their films, they also have the right and should even be considered by critics as “authors” who produce works with distinctive handwriting ^[7] . According to the concept, representatives of “vulgar author’s cinema” must meet several criteria:

• in their films a bright individual handwriting should be guessed;
• they should work mainly in the action genre (although other genres are also acceptable, but rather as an exception; a striking example is the comedies of the Farrelli brothers ^[3] );
• “Vulgar author” should be relatively young, he can and should work with large budgets, with stars, have high box office;
• finally, the director should not have the recognition of critics or sophisticated audiences ^[2] .

Separately, it should be noted that this concept applies primarily to American cinema and only to those foreign directors who, after successes at home, began to work in the USA ^[2] .

Ignatius Vishnevetsky , a well-known film critic and supporter of the concept under consideration, in one of his articles ^[9] writes that “vulgar author’s cinema” has two goals: first, to pay special attention to famous, but underrated directors (such as John McTiernan , Abel Ferrara , Walter Hill , etc.); and, secondly, to study and analyze the work of directors, whose films are usually not accepted as serious works ( Tony Scott , Joe Carnahan , John M. Chu, John Hyams and others).

Adherents of the concept believe that the last of the above directors are usually ignored by critics because of the "supposedly frankly low intellectual level of their paintings" ^[2] . Some of them are also convinced that such antipathy also lies in the critics' personal dislike of violence, which “vulgar directors” often advocate.

Finally, among the proponents of the concept of “vulgarism” there are both moderate elements and radical ones. The former are distinguished by harsh statements in relation to the "old authors", and offer their assessments of the authors of the "new". However, as Richard Brody ^[6] , an opponent of “author’s theories,” writes in his article, moderate “vulgarists” tend to “not cross out the canon, but expand it.” The radicals urge critics to completely abandon the study of the works of long recognized authors and devote themselves completely to the development of “new horizons”, that is, “vulgar author’s cinema” ^[2] .

Some adherents of the concept are engaged not only in the search and description of the author’s handwriting in “vulgar films”, but also offer socio-political and philosophical interpretations of these paintings. The tendency to deeply and thoroughly examine the products of mass culture began only at the end of the 20th century, since for a long time intellectuals and philosophers shied away from mass culture and preferred to interpret only products of high art.

The first to turn their attention to popular culture were the left, although there were skeptics among them, for example, representatives of the Frankfurt School - Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno - who did not accept popular culture, and not only because they considered it to be “vulgar” ”And“ vulgar ”, but also due to its ideological harmfulness ^[10] . However, it was the left-wingers at the suggestion of Susan Sontag , in the end, who began to perceive the vulgar, vulgar and popular as part of a culture that intellectuals might like.

With the advent of the concept of “vulgar author’s cinema”, most of the critics supporting it began to pay attention to the outside of the films — the aesthetics of the picture, the editing, the construction of scenes, but only a few note the semantic message of “vulgar” films. So, Peter Labusa in his article “Expressive esotericism in the 21st century or What is vulgar cinema?” ^[5] writes that “vulgar” films are by no means always remarkable for their form, since “form is directly related to content” and very often The semantic message of the picture is expressed precisely through the picture.

Philosophers and critics who are engaged in the interpretation of mass culture products most often note two factors that determine the need to pay attention to films of the "vulgar" genre. First, mass culture for the most part speaks of the world around it (this is, in particular, mentioned in its works by the famous cultural scientist and film interpreter Slava Zizek ). And if it attracts a large audience, then the issues raised in it are of interest to society, which, in turn, can tell us a lot about the audience itself and about modern culture as a whole.

Secondly, films of mass culture often become the sphere of political expression, both conscious and unconscious. One of the first to notice this trend was the philosopher Fredrik Jamison , who began "to investigate popular culture in order to identify political trends in it that are not detectable at first sight" ^[10] . He called it "political unconscious." Such interpretations show how ideology finds itself in popular culture, and what views the author of the picture adheres to.

In general, the interpretation of “vulgar paintings” and the search for hidden meaning in them is still an unpopular trend. Many critics prefer to carefully consider only arthouse paintings, bypassing mass cinema, although many argue that the latter sometimes fits much more into the socio-political context of a certain period of time.

As mentioned above, the concept has sparked heated debate among film critics. Opponents of this theory as its main drawback point to the fact that "the very concept of" author "is very vague and requires clarification. Moreover, those “authors” that proponents of the “vulgar approach” are trying to talk about have an unequal reputation and, therefore, a different status in the cultural space ” ^[2] . In addition to this, it still remains unclear how to determine the quality of a picture that meets the criteria of “vulgarism” and who should do it (critics, viewers, moviegoers).

Alexander Pavlov in his article “Vulgar author's cinema” ^[2] points to several problems of the concept. One of them is that the majority of directors considered to be “vulgar” are relatively young, but some started their career by shooting cheap militants in the 1990s, while others immediately started working with large budgets at the beginning of the new century, that is, it turns out that the "vulgarity" of the authors is not equivalent. As another problem, Pavlov notes that some of the "vulgar directors" have long been recognized as iconic, for example, John Carpenter , Michael Bay , Paul Verhoeven . And therefore, “the biggest problem with the concept and in general film critics is that for the audience, many of the directors mentioned have long been respected” ^[2] , which essentially contradicts the criteria for identifying “vulgar authors”.

Another respected critic, Nick Pinkerton, one of the most ardent opponents of “vulgar author’s cinema”, in one of his articles ^[11] called the concept “an unscrupulous attempt to attract attention”, and also noted that the idea of ​​the concept is “very vague” ^{[ 11]} .