While studying historically significant works that predate the influences many of the influences of current films, the discourse of the canon is ever-present. The concept of an asset of hallowed films that in some way mark milestones in the evolution of the art form is the engine that drives discussion, but more importantly attracts the attention of study.
As contemporary students, we have virtually no input to what is considered as part of the film canon. We can’t evaluate the total value each piece afforded in its time as we sit at a long progression of inspiration and re-inspiration stemming from the initial piece like descendents. Basically, we can never construct a comprehensive image of what the world was like before the film, and how it influenced what came immediately after.
For this reason, we have to accept that the film canon that is defined is canonical. But I wonder how valid this is? Billy Stevenson’s pursuit of re-watching the supposed film canon is an intriguing experiment but on the surface seems to have low expectations of itself. I am not aware of what Stevenson intends to do once he has reviewed the canon, but I assume that it won’t go as far as to challenge the existing canon. By re-watching each film in order, he is a position to effectively chart the influences even with the gaps in between. And with that sense, he is better equipped than anyone to identify if the canon is still relevant today.
I feel that a film canon is weakened by the unwillingness to start removing films from the list. It’s not illogical to assume that a film, although it may influence film for one, two, or even three decades after its premiere only to be forgotten for every year afterward. As the world changes, the relevance of film adjusts. Where once the story may have engaged
Some would argue though that even if a canonical film is no longer in the chain of inspiration, it should retain its position in the canon for its previous influence. It remains there for study, and retrospection. I find the value of this dubious. The film canon should be dynamic, forever changing to ensure its relevance to the most current society, and even if we haven’t reached a point where the influence of a film has died out, the mindset of the canon should at least reflect that it is not a concrete folder of films that are untouchable. A film canon, in my mind, shouldn’t be an archive but rather a shifting cohort of exemplary films that matter. Note present tense.
Perhaps this an unreasonable and myopic approach, but it’s worth thought. Often I get a sense of over-retrospection; a continual and unrelenting reflection of the best of past and how it sat in the time with extrapolations of possible influence to an audience that has seldom been exposed to the film’s of that canon. This leads into an even greater question: If you look back too often and for too long, do you miss the present?
