I’m honored that my piece resonated with you! This is right on point: “Now, for many, it’s an arena of ironic self-display, with the film reduced to a prop in one’s ongoing social script. It’s no longer about seeing the film, it’s about being seen reacting to it.” 💯
Hi. Yes, it just hit with me. Although for years I've been thinking about the idea that of the expectations around audience behaviour, I think it's was too far (in a cinematic and societal context) that individual autonomy Trumps anything. I kind of forgot to put this in the piece but there actual now an anxiety in waiting for the film to start and hoping that the audience is not going to ruin things. Phone use and talking have always been a problem and always will, but I think you captured a new strain in this laughing at the film. It's also laughing at the people who are talking the process of watching seriously.
Very reminiscent of the scene with Lydia Tar at Juliard discussing Bach. I’ll give a positive read - I actually think that the age of ironic detachment is coming to an end. Look at the success of “Superman” which claims kindness and empathy as punk rock in the 21st century (it is). I think people are hungering for others to tell them it’s ok to engage emotionally with sincere art, without deconstruction and detachment.
I'll take that Tar comment absolutely as a compliment.
I hope you're right about the era coming to an end, however what's interesting is I've never been again irony, or even being a contrarian. But the political aesthetics of how they are enacted seems to be tinged with a bad faith nihilism.
It's interesting you mention Superman, another nostalgia reboot, painted in the broad brushstrokes of the blockbuster comic adaptation. (I haven't seen it yet so I can't comment.) This is just speculation but I think those who engage in "performative wankerdom" will have films (music/books) that they are serious about, and so would be annoyed/offended if there sincerity was undercut in relation to the things they love. Ardent fans of the comic book films are very indicative of this in my experience. Teaching film for years through this era, I've constantly been told I have to treat this strain of pop culture seriously. And I do. But I also reserve the right of critique in "good faith".
I think the point I'm making is a little different though. What's actually on screen is important in this phenomenon ("old" movies are, I would say where you see the ironic laughter a lot), but it's more about environment and context. There is a kind of loosening of the way we orientate ourselves to collective structures or institutions. The practice of cinema watching has been culturally institutionalised as a practice. But like all forms of institutionalisation its being challenged by today's ultimate social authority: individual autonomy.
And on top of that, because of the way the internet and now AI amalgamates culture, we kind of live in a perpetual psychological present. Everything then becomes ground in subjective experience of the here and now.
So when viewers see old films they kind of aren't able to think about the idea of pastness, of alternative ways of being and thinking. Which is exactly what cinema (at it's best) offers us.
It kind of links to the zero sum game polemics that defines culture today.
Thanks for the response, and it was absolutely meant as a compliment. I will freely admit that I do enjoy a good comic book movie — but I do think that Superman is a bit different, as it challenges the notion of individual autonomy as the highest good. Unlike the irony drenched MCU, sincerity, and good old fashioned Jimmy Stewart corniness is held up as a higher virtue. This is much more in line with the virtues, mores, dialogue and aesthetic of the classic cinema you rightly cite as harder for audiences raised on bad faith nihilism.
A super dog with a cape is hard to read nihilistically.
I read a lot of “wanker” behavior as performative — but performative because it’s easier to act, than engage emotionally. It’s a defense against discomfort (the reason for turning inward in the first place). As for the turn — look at this year’s box office. Highly romantic films like Sinners, Superman, Materialists, and even F1 (its a lot more sincere and corny than recent films) are dominating. My hope (but also belief) is that as audiences warm to more contemporary portrayals of sincerity, romance and humanism — when they encounter Capra, or Von Sternberg, or Lubitsch or Minnelli (to name a few) it will be with more direct emotion and less wankerism.
my algorithm is spot on today and after reading a short piece about DFW, i had to come back to this comment section and add the quote “Irony is the song of a bird who has come to love its cage,” from his essay E Unibus Pluram. we’re so used to being being perceived and performing that it becomes impossible for people to not mask their sincerity with sarcasm and cynicism. though in this case it happens to be extra annoying for the rest of us that actually enjoy feeling things :/
Spot on! I now regularly experience shared space anxiety from that moment of taking my seat to the film starting. Will someone sit near me loaded with noisy snacks? Will a phone fiend decide to sit in front? Add to that instances of Performative Spectatorial Wankerdom and the cinema visit can become a site of true misery. Which is so sad. Remember though that some screenings are not blighted by this and can be magnificent experiences. A couple of recent examples - Come and See (1985) at the Prince Charles Cinema, a full theatre watched in what felt like a shared intensity. Everyone exited the cinema at the end in complete, reverent silence. Testament (1983) also at the Prince Charles, a similar feeling of empathy and connection amongst the audience. These films share a sadness and profundity that perhaps elicits such focused and respectful viewing and are therefore immune to 'PSW'?
People have been cooped up at home for so long during COVID that they've forgotten their manners when watching in a public place. I always think back to that scene in 'Scary Movie' where Brenda gets brutally taken out in the cinema for being loud and disruptive. Maybe we should bring that policy (joking, not joking).
I'm shocked that the audience were laughing at 'Heat'. Sure, Al Pacino delivered some funny lines but the rest of the film was serious and awesome.
Thanks for reading. This is the thing, it's the notion that there is laughter at films and sentiments in films, that is completely outside of a logical response, that's actually so disconcerting. It isn't even about policing acceptable behaviour. I just can't get my head around it beyond thinking that we're in a culture of performative reaction. I mean, since the internet arrived, we've been implicitly and explicitly conditioned to vomit out ever thought into the digital ether. Just shutting the fuck up and contemplating in the moment internally is so passé.
This is so, so correct. Something changed in recent years with the noise and "interactions" in the cinema, and you've absolutely nailed it here.
A few weeks ago a couple in front of me were on their phones during the trailers. Once the film started, the guy still didn't put his phone away. So I leaned over and asked "Can you please put your phone away? We're at the cinema", and the couple immediately, without missing a beat, looked at eachother and burst out laughing, saying "Are we?! We know where we are! Wow, thanks for the info!" and went on giggling and shaking their heads - performatively. I have been so baffled by their reaction that I've been trying to work it out all this time. You've put it very eloquently.
Thanks for reading Filip. Yeah, the level of Wankerdom is exacerbated by those who actually enjoy being disruptive to point where someone says something. Because that give them license for further layers of performance, and to ridicule not just the film, but those respecting the viewer process. I have to just move (if possible) because I feel I might end up in a proper altercation. And who know where that can lead.
Thanks for the response, and it was absolutely meant as a compliment. I will freely admit that I do enjoy a good comic book movie — but I do think that Superman is a bit different, as it challenges the notion of individual autonomy as the highest good. Unlike the irony drenched MCU — sincerity, and good old fashioned Jimmy Stewart corniness is held up as the highest virtue. This is much more in line with the mores, dialogue and aesthetic of the classic cinema you rightly cite as harder for audiences raised on bad faith nihilism to engage with directly.
A super dog with a cape is hard to read nihilistically.
I read a lot of “wanker” behavior as performative — but performative because it’s easier to act, than engage emotionally. It’s a defense against discomfort (the reason for turning inward in the first place). As for the turn — look at this year’s box office. Highly romantic films like Sinners, Superman, Materialists, and even F1 (its a lot more sincere and corny than recent films) are dominating. My hope (but also belief) is that as audiences warm to more contemporary portrayals of sincerity, romance and humanism — when they encounter Capra, or Von Sternberg, or Lubitsch or Minnelli (to name a few) it will be with more direct emotion and less wankerism.
I’m honored that my piece resonated with you! This is right on point: “Now, for many, it’s an arena of ironic self-display, with the film reduced to a prop in one’s ongoing social script. It’s no longer about seeing the film, it’s about being seen reacting to it.” 💯
Hi. Yes, it just hit with me. Although for years I've been thinking about the idea that of the expectations around audience behaviour, I think it's was too far (in a cinematic and societal context) that individual autonomy Trumps anything. I kind of forgot to put this in the piece but there actual now an anxiety in waiting for the film to start and hoping that the audience is not going to ruin things. Phone use and talking have always been a problem and always will, but I think you captured a new strain in this laughing at the film. It's also laughing at the people who are talking the process of watching seriously.
Very reminiscent of the scene with Lydia Tar at Juliard discussing Bach. I’ll give a positive read - I actually think that the age of ironic detachment is coming to an end. Look at the success of “Superman” which claims kindness and empathy as punk rock in the 21st century (it is). I think people are hungering for others to tell them it’s ok to engage emotionally with sincere art, without deconstruction and detachment.
Thanks for reading Doug.
I'll take that Tar comment absolutely as a compliment.
I hope you're right about the era coming to an end, however what's interesting is I've never been again irony, or even being a contrarian. But the political aesthetics of how they are enacted seems to be tinged with a bad faith nihilism.
It's interesting you mention Superman, another nostalgia reboot, painted in the broad brushstrokes of the blockbuster comic adaptation. (I haven't seen it yet so I can't comment.) This is just speculation but I think those who engage in "performative wankerdom" will have films (music/books) that they are serious about, and so would be annoyed/offended if there sincerity was undercut in relation to the things they love. Ardent fans of the comic book films are very indicative of this in my experience. Teaching film for years through this era, I've constantly been told I have to treat this strain of pop culture seriously. And I do. But I also reserve the right of critique in "good faith".
I think the point I'm making is a little different though. What's actually on screen is important in this phenomenon ("old" movies are, I would say where you see the ironic laughter a lot), but it's more about environment and context. There is a kind of loosening of the way we orientate ourselves to collective structures or institutions. The practice of cinema watching has been culturally institutionalised as a practice. But like all forms of institutionalisation its being challenged by today's ultimate social authority: individual autonomy.
And on top of that, because of the way the internet and now AI amalgamates culture, we kind of live in a perpetual psychological present. Everything then becomes ground in subjective experience of the here and now.
So when viewers see old films they kind of aren't able to think about the idea of pastness, of alternative ways of being and thinking. Which is exactly what cinema (at it's best) offers us.
It kind of links to the zero sum game polemics that defines culture today.
That's my hotchpotch hypothesis anyway.
Thanks for the response, and it was absolutely meant as a compliment. I will freely admit that I do enjoy a good comic book movie — but I do think that Superman is a bit different, as it challenges the notion of individual autonomy as the highest good. Unlike the irony drenched MCU, sincerity, and good old fashioned Jimmy Stewart corniness is held up as a higher virtue. This is much more in line with the virtues, mores, dialogue and aesthetic of the classic cinema you rightly cite as harder for audiences raised on bad faith nihilism.
A super dog with a cape is hard to read nihilistically.
I read a lot of “wanker” behavior as performative — but performative because it’s easier to act, than engage emotionally. It’s a defense against discomfort (the reason for turning inward in the first place). As for the turn — look at this year’s box office. Highly romantic films like Sinners, Superman, Materialists, and even F1 (its a lot more sincere and corny than recent films) are dominating. My hope (but also belief) is that as audiences warm to more contemporary portrayals of sincerity, romance and humanism — when they encounter Capra, or Von Sternberg, or Lubitsch or Minnelli (to name a few) it will be with more direct emotion and less wankerism.
my algorithm is spot on today and after reading a short piece about DFW, i had to come back to this comment section and add the quote “Irony is the song of a bird who has come to love its cage,” from his essay E Unibus Pluram. we’re so used to being being perceived and performing that it becomes impossible for people to not mask their sincerity with sarcasm and cynicism. though in this case it happens to be extra annoying for the rest of us that actually enjoy feeling things :/
Thanks Caden, very apt quote.
Spot on! I now regularly experience shared space anxiety from that moment of taking my seat to the film starting. Will someone sit near me loaded with noisy snacks? Will a phone fiend decide to sit in front? Add to that instances of Performative Spectatorial Wankerdom and the cinema visit can become a site of true misery. Which is so sad. Remember though that some screenings are not blighted by this and can be magnificent experiences. A couple of recent examples - Come and See (1985) at the Prince Charles Cinema, a full theatre watched in what felt like a shared intensity. Everyone exited the cinema at the end in complete, reverent silence. Testament (1983) also at the Prince Charles, a similar feeling of empathy and connection amongst the audience. These films share a sadness and profundity that perhaps elicits such focused and respectful viewing and are therefore immune to 'PSW'?
Nice piece, Dario. But honestly, you should’ve gone with your impulse and yelled at the little bastards! :)
People have been cooped up at home for so long during COVID that they've forgotten their manners when watching in a public place. I always think back to that scene in 'Scary Movie' where Brenda gets brutally taken out in the cinema for being loud and disruptive. Maybe we should bring that policy (joking, not joking).
I'm shocked that the audience were laughing at 'Heat'. Sure, Al Pacino delivered some funny lines but the rest of the film was serious and awesome.
Hi Shiona.
Thanks for reading. This is the thing, it's the notion that there is laughter at films and sentiments in films, that is completely outside of a logical response, that's actually so disconcerting. It isn't even about policing acceptable behaviour. I just can't get my head around it beyond thinking that we're in a culture of performative reaction. I mean, since the internet arrived, we've been implicitly and explicitly conditioned to vomit out ever thought into the digital ether. Just shutting the fuck up and contemplating in the moment internally is so passé.
This is so, so correct. Something changed in recent years with the noise and "interactions" in the cinema, and you've absolutely nailed it here.
A few weeks ago a couple in front of me were on their phones during the trailers. Once the film started, the guy still didn't put his phone away. So I leaned over and asked "Can you please put your phone away? We're at the cinema", and the couple immediately, without missing a beat, looked at eachother and burst out laughing, saying "Are we?! We know where we are! Wow, thanks for the info!" and went on giggling and shaking their heads - performatively. I have been so baffled by their reaction that I've been trying to work it out all this time. You've put it very eloquently.
Thanks for reading Filip. Yeah, the level of Wankerdom is exacerbated by those who actually enjoy being disruptive to point where someone says something. Because that give them license for further layers of performance, and to ridicule not just the film, but those respecting the viewer process. I have to just move (if possible) because I feel I might end up in a proper altercation. And who know where that can lead.
Thanks for the response, and it was absolutely meant as a compliment. I will freely admit that I do enjoy a good comic book movie — but I do think that Superman is a bit different, as it challenges the notion of individual autonomy as the highest good. Unlike the irony drenched MCU — sincerity, and good old fashioned Jimmy Stewart corniness is held up as the highest virtue. This is much more in line with the mores, dialogue and aesthetic of the classic cinema you rightly cite as harder for audiences raised on bad faith nihilism to engage with directly.
A super dog with a cape is hard to read nihilistically.
I read a lot of “wanker” behavior as performative — but performative because it’s easier to act, than engage emotionally. It’s a defense against discomfort (the reason for turning inward in the first place). As for the turn — look at this year’s box office. Highly romantic films like Sinners, Superman, Materialists, and even F1 (its a lot more sincere and corny than recent films) are dominating. My hope (but also belief) is that as audiences warm to more contemporary portrayals of sincerity, romance and humanism — when they encounter Capra, or Von Sternberg, or Lubitsch or Minnelli (to name a few) it will be with more direct emotion and less wankerism.