I’ve been reading about film movements recently (IE- Golden Age of Hollywood, German Expressionism, French New Wave) and that got me thinking about modern movies, since these would have to be part of at least one film movement even if we don’t recognize it that way. Are there various 21st century film movements that we don’t think about in that vain currently. An idea I’d like to stress-test is that there are right now several distinct film movements in (but not exclusively limited to) English language film, starting with a split between what makes money and what is made to win Oscars.
21st Century Film Movements
This divide may be exemplified by two movies that came out in 1993 made by the same director. Jurassic Park was a summer blockbuster with groundbreaking computer-generated imagery. Schindler’s List swept more industry and critical awards than any film to date.
The first film movement dominates the box office.
21st Century Blockbusters: CGI allows for 3D-animated films, as well as a greater emphasis on fantasy and superhero films. With the advent of DVD and then Blu-Ray and streaming, it’s possible for filmgoers to see any major film they want, which allows for much more complex narratives in film series with crossovers and callbacks years later.
Think about Avengers: Endgame ending with a reunion between characters from a movie that came out eight years earlier, Alfred telling the truth about Rachel’s letter in The Dark Knight Rises, or the reveal that Spectre was connected to previous James Bond villains. We also have sequels to films from generations earlier (the new Halloween, Star Wars: A Force Awakens and Top Gun: Maverick introducing a new generation.) There’s also a greater effort to appeal to the international film market, which may result in some artistic compromises as blockbuster films are made less specific and more universal.
A general rule in art movements would be that talent moves around, so the same session players will be part of Yacht Rock and the same actors will be in Czech New Wave films. There are actors, screenwriters and directors who are successful in one role across multiple films, and then get hired for another franchise. Think Warner Brothers hiring Twilight star Robert Pattinson for Batman and MCU director James Gunn to run their line of DC movies.
This movement has a counterpart. It used to be that the films that won Oscars were often big blockbusters, but now these typically come from a different source.
21st Century Prestige Cinema: The big independent directors of the 1990s (Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson, Steven Soderbergh, Paul Thomas Anderson, etc.) became part of the system at an unusual time. With genre stuff making money, and the golden age of television dominating cultural discussions, the Oscarbait films have gotten more niche.
There’s a greater focus on films about Hollywood/ actors/ film history (One Weekend With Marilyn, The Aviator, Argo, Hugo, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood), or influenced by earlier styles (Nomadland, The Good German, Django Unchained, The Brutalist) or both (The Artist, La La Land.) There are still the traditional period pieces (Lincoln, The King’s Speech) and films about serious contemporary issues (Crash, Green Book, Silver Linings Playbook, The Big Short) although these are made in order to get awards rather than get the best Return On Investment.
According to one New York entertainment lawyer, the Oscars have spawned an entire subset of movies: “Harvey Weinstein’s sole lasting legacy in this business, apart from his disgustingly piggish and criminal behavior, is that he is primarily responsible for creating the ‘Awards Film’ as a genre, not unlike horror and the rom-com,” the lawyer wrote. “Even though this genre of film doesn’t necessarily make sense from a financial standpoint, the prestige and bragging rights they bring to their studios/platforms, somehow justifies its existence and the insane marketing money spent to win. This phenomenon helps to protect an entire form of literary storytelling whose existence might otherwise be endangered. And we would all be worse off for that.”
A complication is that there may be a shortage of truly contemporary films because directors don’t like smartphones and how that would affect the narrative.
In recent years, there has been a backlash against the largely white male voices telling these stories. “New Queer Cinema” had previously been recognized as its own movement, but I think this approach and understanding has also spread among racial and gender lines, leading to a parallel movement.
New Representative Cinema:There’s an emphasis on underrepresented voices telling their own stories when it comes to films about people of color. In 1990, August Wilson summed this up expressing his preference that his work be adapted by African-American directors.
What to do? Let’s make a rule. Blacks don’t direct Italian films. Italians don’t direct Jewish films. Jews don’t direct black American films. That might account for about 3 percent of the films that are made in this country. The other 97 percent – the action-adventure, horror, comedy, romance, suspense, western or any combination thereof, that the Hollywood and independent mills grind out – let it be every man for himself.
The essay was in 1990, but it’s only been in the last decade that we’ve had major adaptations of his work with African-American directors. Obviously, we’ve seen well-regarded movies by black directors dealing with racial issues and black culture for decades (Spike Lee’s Malcolm X and Do The Right Thing, John Singleton’s Boyz in the Hood) but this has become more pronounced lately, with Barry Jenkins’ Moonlight and If Beale Street Could Talk, Steve McQueen’s Twelve Years a Slave and Widows, Shaka King’s Judas and the Black Messiah, Ava Duvernay’s Selma, Regina King’s One Night in Miami, as well as more attention than ever for Spike Lee (Blackkklansman, Da 5 Bloods.)
This approach is not exclusively African-American. Curiously, there seems to be a high number of films by Asian-American directors about Asian-American themes (Minari, Crazy Rich Asians, The Farewell) compared to the work of Hispanic-American directors (Babel, Beatriz at Dinner) dealing with their cultures. There has also been increased focus on the work of indigenous filmmakers, most prominently Taika Waititi. One development which blurs the lines in media is the willingness of top directors within this group to make TV mini-series (Ava Duvernay’s When They See Us, Barry Jenkins’ The Underground Railroad, Steve McQueen’s Small Axe.)
One question may be why we’re seeing these films now, and there are a few considerations. It’s cheaper than ever to make movies. There are more places to show movies. Identity politics has become more vogue on the cultural left, which is quite involved in filmmaking.
A distinction with typical 21st Century prestige cinema is that these tend not to be stories about Hollywood or movies. A subtext in discussion is that these are the types of Hollywood should have made years earlier.
Another underrepresented group has been making more films, with an emphasis on identity.
New Women’s Cinema: There is also the idea that female directors and screenwriters should tell the stories of women. Recent acclaimed examples in a variety of genres include Little Women, Lady Bird, Promising Young Woman, Wonder Woman, Zero Dark Thirty, Meek’s Crossing, The Babadook, Winter’s Bone, The Edge of Seventeen, Nomadland, and The Lost Daughter.
There is a question of whether some female directors would qualify as being part of the movement. Kathryn Bigelow won an Oscar for directing The Hurt Locker about a male bomb disposal operative in the Iraq War, and made a film about male police officers in Detroit. In a New York Times spotlight interview about a movie with a female lead, she described her ambivalence on the focus on gender.
But it is hard to watch “Zero Dark Thirty” and not see a reflection of the filmmaker, perhaps not exactly as she is but as she would like to be.
Does Ms. Bigelow agree? She was reluctant to contradict Mr. Roy but noted that there have been plenty of strong female characters in her films (like Angela Bassett in the 1995 drama “Strange Days”), and that she wasn’t drawn to “Zero Dark Thirty” because of Maya.
“I just followed Mark’s brilliant screenplay,” she said, referring to Mark Boal.
As a female director who specializes in male-focused action movies — and who, with “The Hurt Locker,” became the first woman to win an Oscar for directing — Ms. Bigelow, 61, is often defined first by her gender and second by what she puts on screen. It drives her crazy, she said, but she knows that there isn’t much she can do about it except steer attention back to her movies.
There can be some ambiguities about what qualifies. Is Power of the Dog an example of the movement because it was made by a prominent female director, one of the four major characters is a widow, and it deals with difficulties she had as a woman in the early 20th century? This was certainly part of the marketing campaign.
There are less distinctions between genre and medium than ever before, so if there are multiple film movements, you could expect these to intersect with one another, as well as with other acknowledged movements. Jordan Peele is one of the major directors of Elevated Horror, and would qualify as part of a film movement with Steve McQueen and Barry Jenkins. Bong Joon-Ho is the preeminent director of the Korean New Wave, and he’s got a big budget sci-fi film coming out with Robbie Pattinson.
Some movies will fall in multiple categories. 21st Century Blockbusters have adopted the idea that women should direct stories of female superheroes, and that white people shouldn’t direct stories of protagonists of color. Joker was a comic book movie that also heavily referenced 1970s/ 1980s Scorsese (and then went on to get 10 Oscar nominations.) Movies by female directors of color may simultaneously be part of the new representative cinema, and new women’s cinema. So there will be some intersections. But these do seem to be the movies that dominate box office dollars, awards bodies and cultural conversations.
Film movements are useful to help put movies in context. It doesn’t mean that every movie that’s made can easily be categorized. Veteran filmmakers were still making movies during the French New Wave or New Hollywood, but it’s still useful as a frame of reference.
There seems to be a lack of discussion about this question, so I figured I’d throw my hat in the ring for speculation before anyone else gets credit for the same insights. It’s also possible that someone did already come up with the same observations, or maybe a different analysis based on other standards (equipment type, use of smartphones, etc.) I’m just figuring this out from first principles.
It’s entirely possible that we’re going into a new era of film, and the 21st Century Film Movements will soon be understood differently. Some big superhero event films have flopped, so the blockbuster model is changing. American studios are warier about the compromises required to appeal to the Chinese box office. There’s pushback against the cultural excesses of the left, which could also lead to an overcorrection and perhaps a radical movement in response to it. Some of the streaming money has contracted and major studios are up for sale. Whatever happens next, I’m looking forward to it.
If you liked Thomas Mets’ take on movies and cinema you may like his article “Top Ten Films of 2024″
