Contemporary Revolutionary Art
Born in Berlin in the 19th century, Walter Benjamin is the author of the famous essay, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” which names filmmaking as the only truly revolutionary art form (“Walter Benjamin”). Besides, Benjamin believes that photography can be similarly used by political parties and politicians to win votes for the next elections. Seeing that revolutionary art must always be concerned with politics, and Benjamin’s essay is internationally acclaimed, the presence of revolutionary spirit in international modern art must be explored with a special reference to film (Devine).
Benjamin’s essay had a focus on technology, in fact. In an “age of mechanical reproduction,” revolutionary art forms allow for copies, reproductions, including piracies in modern times. With newspapers being published by the minute around the globe, and television channels capturing political figures at the top of each hour; it is now very simple for the mass media to influence the “mass public” on behalf of their favorite political movements (Benjamin). What is more, although revolutionaries have been around since the beginning of time perhaps, the use of television channels, film, Internet and good old newspapers by the political world is on the increase. Propaganda is the name given to the revolutionary spirit of film, television, or the Internet, whenever politicians have tried to win support for themselves at the expense of competing politicians and/or policies.
The revolutionary needs of a place in time differ from the needs of another culture. While China might have been asking for a revision of Maoist practices at a particular point in time, England might have been using the media to gain more information about royalty, making a closer connection between rulers and subjects, at the time of Princess Diana’s demise. The kind of revolution might differ. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the medium of film has been used extensively to further the goals of political movements at different times and in some places more than the others.
Films, or motion pictures, have the power to brainwash a huge number of people at the same time. Yet, such films lose their aesthetic appeal through introspection most of the time. Admiring a painting in the privacy of an art gallery is different from sharing the opinions of millions who watch the same film. Influence upon influence – it seems as though there is no end to brainwashing in the business of mechanized art! Upon realizing this truth, perhaps through the important message of Benjamin’s essay – that technology has made art into a political (and, nowadays a business) activity – the lovers of art have departmentalized the art forms they prefer. The revolutionary spirit of art continues to exist, and can be seen through modern, internationally acclaimed films such as Fahrenheit 911, Paradise Now and Al Gore’s documentary on global warming. What is the revolution in each of these films? – It differs from case to case, even though all films with a political base tend to sing a revolutionary song in mechanized form, reaching the largest possible number of people at the same time.
The Internet and television channels are revolutionary mediums to boot. As a matter of fact, these mediums reach even greater numbers of people than films usually do. At the same time, as suggested previously, art lovers have separated the revolutionary spirit in art form from the introspective spirit. There are television dramas and films that continue to be ‘art forms’ in the true sense of the phrase. Art films and commercial films (for business revenues) are necessary media in our world. So is film as a revolutionary art form, most commonly manifested in times of political unrest, change, or both.
While Benjamin’s slant is essentially European, Canadian McGill University’s Shannon Devine points out that the Chinese film art always comes to mind when the ‘revolutionary uses’ of film are in question. Noting the emphasis on ‘revolutionary uses’ of film, we come to realize that film as an art form does not have to be revolutionary. It is entirely up to the time and place where the revolutionary art form of film is employed. In other words, politicians and political movements do not have to use film to represent themselves. If they do, their films are put into a department of revolutionary films nowadays, at the same time as other art forms in film continue to be produced. Art film and commercial film also serve the “mass public,” even so these art forms in film do not serve to necessarily propagate the political views of an entity that would like to gather people around its own opinions.
The producers of the revolutionary art form in film must be individuals who have a direct experience with the spirit of revolution in their particular space and time. While Benjamin uses the severe example of Fascism to explain revolutionary film, it is quite possible that revolutionary film makers are individuals who have experienced the wrath of Fascism, and thus chosen to deny it after all. One of the reasons why Devine emphasized Chinese cinema as an example of international revolutionary film art is the Chinese generation of film directors known simply as the 5th. The Chinese 5th generation film directors are said to be responsible for the “renaissance of Chinese cinema.” As the fifth graduating class of the Beijing Film Academy entering the cinematic scene in the early 1980s, around half a decade following the conclusion of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, these young directors had been thoroughly influenced by the actions of the Chinese government, having lived the longest parts of their lives through the Revolution. The Revolution had been destructive to the Chinese peoples as a whole. Thus, Ni Zhen, the author of Memoirs from the Beijing Film Academy: The Genesis of China’s Fifth Generation, writes about “the stark look, powerful emotions, national anxiety, and deep reflection that characterize early Fifth-Generation cinema.” After all, the Cultural Revolution had been spearheaded by the Chinese dictator, Mao. The actions of the government during Mao’s era were appalling enough for the 5th generation film directors of China to respond to the Revolution after its conclusion. The Revolution had “turned a nation of one billion people into fanatical lemmings,” writes Zhen (Zeisung). Thus, the 5th generation film directors found themselves responsible for stopping another Revolution by exposing the ills and shames of the Cultural Revolution experienced by the Chinese people through bad politics. This kind of film making is revolutionary at best. Having gone through a dangerous, dictatorship scenario; these film makers had created their own counter-revolution through film, implicating countless advantages of revolutionary film making.
A common subject of the 5th generation films is the Cultural Revolution, of course, and the way it shaped Chinese life. A number of the 5th generation film directors had to quit school during the Revolution. They were forced by the political situation to either join the army or go to the countryside where they were required to serve communist ideals. Fabien Zeising explains the significance of the time in the lives of the 5th generation film directors: “In this period of their life they found out about the contradictions between ideology and reality. In this period they lost their enthusiasm and ideals.” Zeising further explains the youth of Zhang Yimou, one of the most acclaimed film directors of his generation:
Zhang was raised in a provincial town up in Shaanxi, in the North of China. He grew up
“in the shadow of political stigma that surrounded his father” who was largely unemployed
because of having been an major in the KMT Nationalist army with whom the Communists
waged a protracted war. In a Guardian interview with Lynn Pan Zhang Yimou remembers
that no matter how well-behaved he was at school, how excellent his grades (he came top in
class every year), he could never join the Youth League, the stepping stone to the Communist
Party. “I grew up introverted, withdrawn, reluctant to reveal my innermost thoughts.”
Films have the power to capture each moment in a given space, as opposed to the Internet and news channels that show only clips to understand political events. Photography is a moment that is captured for eternity, so to say, and therefore has the additional advantage of being an introspective medium. All the same, the power of film appears supreme, seeing that the film expresses a great amount of depth in the details it captures on camera.
Revolutionary film may be used by good political movements as well as those that are perceived as negative by the “mass public.” Trying to stopping political movements through films such as Fahrenheit 911, and those of the 5th generation film directors of China; is propaganda to boot. Hence, such films must also be defined as revolutionary films. As a matter of fact, all films that speak of politics and/or political change must be revolutionary. Moreover, with our technical expertise, plus the Internet and easy access to television sets around the world; revolutionary films may now be replicated by the billions, thereby attaining the power to shape history in a potent manner.
The more powerful a revolutionary film, the more intense is the revolutionary experience of society. The film makers of revolutionary films must also have the passion to create history with the use of this medium; the more powerful a revolutionary film, the more likely it is that the director of the film must be closely tied to the revolution. The most famous 5th generation graduate of the Beijing Film Academy was Chen Kaige, the director of Yellow Earth as well as Farewell, My Concubine. The man recalled often that he had attacked his own father at the age of fourteen during a mass rally of denunciation. Zhen explores Kaige’s action thus: “Was it because he was afraid of death? Yes, but there was something more terrifying. Having been driven out from but wanting to rejoin the masses who had collectively taken leave of their senses, he hurt his own gentle and dutiful father in order to be acknowledged as one of the group.” The political situation was undoubtedly chaotic, and Kaige had to choose between the political party that his friends belonged to, and the opposition that his father had shown to the party. Kaige’s friends belonged to the Red Guard of Mao. In fact, the same friends of the director were responsible for plundering young Kaige’s house as well as burning his family books. The director stated in an interview later on: “My best friends in the class, we played together, and then, the next day, they were totally different, they just ignored me. That’s why I decided to denounce my father when my classmates asked me to. It was the turning point of my life. I wanted to show my loyalty… That’s why I did not believe in the revolution” (Zeising).
The actions of the Chinese government had broken families. Some of the 5th generation film directors that exposed the corruption of the political system through their films were banned in the country. Zhang Yimou, Tian Zhuangzhuang and Kaige were three such directors. Their films, To Live, The Blue Kite, and Farewell, My Concubine were all banned in China because they realistically portrayed the negative effects of the socialist upheaval in the ordinary lives of individuals as well as families. All three films explored the hardships suffered by families in the face of political and social pressures. Even so, To Live delivered the message that although bad actions of the government could tear families apart, it is possible for people to stay united no matter how government attempts to reshape society with radical principles (Cangialosi).
Given that the political influences of the Chinese government were the most important of influences in China at the time that the 5th generation filmmakers were growing up, these influences were apparent in the films that they made. It is, therefore, impossible to separate the remembrance of the Cultural Revolution from the films of the 5th generation directors of China. Likewise, people in all countries where revolutionary films have been aired during times of political change, have mentally associated the films with the political events that led to such film creation. Indeed, the medium of the film has the power to capture history through revolutionary movies. The competing mediums appear pale in contrast. Even so, modernity would not allow introspective art and business art to be replaced by the spirit of revolution. Rather, the revolutionary film of today is a separate art form altogether, equally important as introspective and business uses of film, if not more or less at times.
Works Cited
Benjamin, Walter. (1964). “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.”
Retrieved June 5, 2007, from http://web.bentley.edu/empl/c/rcrooks/toolbox/common_knowledge/general_communication/benjamin.html.
Cangialosi, Jason. (2005). Personal Revolutions from China’s 5th Generation Filmmakers.
Associated Content. Retrieved April 26, 2007, from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/17286/personal_revolutions_from_chinas_5th.html.
Devine, Shannon. (2003, October 23). “Revolutionary Art.” McGill Reporter. Retrieved June 5,
2007, from http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/36/04/dallago/.
“Walter Benjamin.” Retrieved June 5, 2007, from http://www.egs.edu/resources/benjamin.html.
Zeising, Fabien. “Films of 5th Generation Chinese Film-Maker.” Retrieved April 26, 2007, from
http://home.nikocity.de/fabianweb/5thgene.html.
;