flavo5000 wrote: ↑February 16th, 2021, 7:34 pm
St. Gloede wrote: ↑February 16th, 2021, 12:19 pm
I like the unlocking idea, though we don't need to be overly restrictive either.
I think the host can decide which movements count (we can also do a discussion, make appeals, etc.). Personally, I'd say everything that is called a new wave counts, and that there are other inclusions as well, such as Berlin School. Not sure about Neorealism, Dogme, Expressionism, etc. should be counted, as these are more specific stylistic movements, rather than a wave (it is not the "Film Movement Challenge") but I'm not overly invested either way.
I thought it was basically the "Film Movement Challenge". It seems kind of arbitrary to limit to just film movements with Wave in the title since that's just kind of a random buzzword used by film critics every time a resurgence in good films pops in a country that may not have had much output of merit in a while (I heard a podcast a couple weeks ago referring to the Turkish New Wave and Romanian New Wave from recent years for instance). I will say if it's limited to just film. movements with "wave" or "new wave" in the title, that probably makes it easier to determine inclusion assuming there is a comprehensive list of those somewhere that could be added to the OP. If it's really any film movement though, that's gonna be tough to determine what actually constitutes a "movement".
Taste of Cinema defines a film movement as "a wave of films usually following a particular trend in cinema of the time. Most trending movements in cinema are regional but influence world cinema. These films have cultural origins usually influenced by national tragedy, popular culture, or social issues." So they muddy the waters by essentially equating a movement and wave as the same thing.
Based on this definition even things like slasher films in the '80s and Nudie Cuties of the '60s would qualify which I'm sure wasn't really the intent.
It is not about the name, but rather what the movement represents/does and their influences.
The key waves, that is to say the French, Japanese, German, Czechoslovakian and Brazilian (beyond all starting within a decade of each other, and being part of an easily identifiable wave around the world) had one clear proponent that separated them from what came before, namely a more overt self-awareness and eagerness to play with the medium.
As Rohmer described it, it was a compromise between avant garde and popular cinema - essentially avant garde techniques, such distancing effects (editing, framing, etc.) , meta elements, etc. merged with narrative cinema. Across the word directors started to get creative, and question what cinema could be.
There's a clear Brecthian influence across all these movements, which is to say you are aware that you are watching a film (sometimes hyper-aware) - and you can see this exact type of considerations playing into later key new waves such as the Iranian and Romanian New Waves. There is a clear line of familiar thought and cinematic ideology. In some ways they could all be said to be part of the same movement, and that is especially clear as you see elements of say the German, Brazilian and Romanian new wave enjoying clearer overlaps with the more experimental work of Godard, Rivette, etc. After the French New Wave was deemed to have ended. Judge's recent films for example play with meta elements, archival footage, screens, etc. in a way that is similar to Godard is the late 60s and 70s.
I don't think neo-realism fits in very well with this, while I can see an argument for Dogme. Still, Dogme had a clearly defined ideology and aim, which makes them very much their own thing, ie an official movement - far more specialized than what the new wave was. As for German expressionism, yes, to the extent it existed does fit in the same tradition however - though that was mainly trends from theater seeping into a few films in the late 10s/early 20s.
Now, among film movements deemed new wave there are a few exceptions, notably the first and second Taiwanese Waves, both of which were leaning more towards the broader contemplative movement/wave in Asia, and the first of which in particular had an interest in coming of age/family stories - though there are still elements of comparison, same goes for Fifth Generation (China) and the South Korean New Wave (which was a big talking point a decade ago, but the term has rather disappeared).
There is also a broader trend among the new waves to move towards minimalism and contemplative cinema, ie Taiwan is by no means alone. Even in the early days, Rivette was moving towards minimalism at a rapid speed, and there were always varying degrees of minimalism in various forms (including Cinema Maginal taking it in a direction closer to Dogme), but from the Iranian New Wave and onwards - slower, immersive and serene narratives started to take the focus. This can also be seen within the Berlin School and of course, the Romanian New Wave - which seems to just love placing you in awkward, long scenes. In other words, we can craft a narrative of how new waves grew and inspired each other.
That said, there is also an eager inclination to call any country having a set of filmmakers diverge from conventions and bringing in something fresh a new wave - which is perfectly applicable, and does not neccesarily need to be tied to the previous history or "family tree".
This said x2, movements like French Expressionism and Soviet Montage does fit Rohmer's general description, and definition - and who even cares what Rohmer, or any one individual or set of individuals think.
Personally I'm inclined to keep it more canonical, to highlight the familiar bond between the new waves (which was my idea when I pitched it) but I don't mind an extended interpretation at all.