The Beautiful and the Pointless | Little White Lies

Club LWLies Exclusive

The Beau­ti­ful and the Pointless

27 Sep 2023

Words by Esmé Holden

A black and white portrait of a man playing a harp, surrounded by large pink flowers.
A black and white portrait of a man playing a harp, surrounded by large pink flowers.
If sex scenes, or any oth­er type of scene, don’t need to serve the plot, do they need to serve any­thing at all?

At a cer­tain point in most every Marx Broth­ers film, all the build­ing chaos and thin­ly spread dra­ma sud­den­ly comes to a stop – Chico sits down at a piano and Har­po picks up a harp and, for a few min­utes, they just play. This might seem strange, espe­cial­ly in 1931’s Mon­key Busi­ness when it comes a scene or two before the cli­max, and maybe it’s not sur­pris­ing that their most acclaimed film is one of the few with­out a musi­cal inter­lude. But Jonathan Rich­man, one of the first to recog­nise the genius of The Vel­vet Under­ground, thought they were worth ded­i­cat­ing a whole song to. In When Har­po Played his Harp’ he asks the most impor­tant ques­tion: if some­one else can do it, how come nobody does?”

Every few months, some­one, usu­al­ly from out­side of the online film space, will post about sex scenes. They will com­plain of their gra­tu­ity and how they do noth­ing to fur­ther the plot, as if pro­ject­ing their dis­ap­proval to an uncom­fort­able par­ent sit­ting next to them. Then, nat­u­ral­ly, every­one will dunk on them. The counter argu­ments — that think­ing of art only in terms of func­tion­al­i­ty mir­rors capitalism’s belief that there is only val­ue in pro­duc­tiv­i­ty — almost don’t bear repeat­ing. But of course they will be the next time some­one makes a sim­i­lar post. It hap­pened while I was writ­ing this. It always loops back around, the argu­ments nev­er go any fur­ther, few think to ask that if sex scenes, or any oth­er type of scene, don’t need to serve the plot, do they need to serve any­thing at all?

In cinema’s ear­li­est days, when it was just a car­ni­val attrac­tion, its appeal was part­ly tech­no­log­i­cal. There was a thrill in images mov­ing, so those images could exist for their own sake. The plea­sure was not so much in look­ing as it was in see­ing (whether a for­eign coun­try, a dance or a kiss).
___STEADY_PAYWALL___
This isn’t to say that ear­ly cin­e­ma was entire­ly base. There was, in fact, great artis­tic beau­ty (Hong Sang-soo includ­ed the Lumières 1895 film Boat Leav­ing the Port on his Sight & Sound list of the ten great­est films ever made) but the medium’s com­plex­i­ty, in terms of nar­ra­tives and spe­cial effects, hadn’t yet grown to obscure the pow­er it has in and of itself. 

For all their extrav­a­gance, Hollywood’s large sets, stylised per­for­mances and for­malised gen­res often felt like an espe­cial­ly thin lay­er. Even in the mys­tery film, a genre that, in the­o­ry, is the most con­cerned with nar­ra­tive. Most of the time the plots made no sense; they were impos­si­ble to fol­low because they weren’t meant to be. They cre­at­ed momen­tum between the scenes, the moments that we actu­al­ly engaged with. The best exam­ple being The Big Sleep, a film that is as plea­sur­able as it is inco­her­ent; even the author of the orig­i­nal nov­el didn’t under­stand the end­ing. Howard Hawks’ film of spark­ing chem­istry and straight-for­ward beau­ty made us aware”, Pauline Kael wrote in Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, how lit­tle we often had cared about the ridicu­lous­ly com­pli­cat­ed plots”.

Few under­stood this as well as the peo­ple mak­ing mar­tial arts movies in Hong Kong through the 70s and 80s. The action sequences were some­times shot over months, while plots were gen­er­al­ly con­trived lat­er and filmed quick­ly after the real work was done. The thrill of see­ing bod­ies in motion – an intri­cate and art­ful evo­lu­tion of the Edi­son films of ath­let­ics and weightlift­ing – was the entire point. That’s why they so often end sec­onds, frames after the last ene­my is defeated. 

Shirtless man gesturing dramatically, man sitting on chair in traditional clothing.

Lau Kar-leung, one of the genius­es of their sys­tem, made a joke of this in his 1979 mas­ter­piece Dirty Ho: once the low­er class Ho has escort­ed Wang, a dis­guised prince (a per­fect excuse for a fight scene where he pup­pets some­one else’s body to keep his iden­ti­ty hid­den) to the Emperor’s palace, before find­ing out who is next to be crowned, the prince grabs our hero and throws him out, and us along with him. It sim­ply does not mat­ter. The film doesn’t even last long enough for Ho to hit the ground; it ends in motion. 

But some­thing has changed since then. It’s not just that action movies, to stay with his par­tic­u­lar­ly clear exam­ple of the plea­sures of see­ing, are now so over-edit­ed that the behind the scenes clip of Tom Cruise break­ing his foot is far more excit­ing and vis­cer­al than the scene that footage end­ed up in. That lost sense of real­i­ty also comes from the medi­um itself, which has moved from phys­i­cal to dig­i­tal: the images are no longer pho­to­chem­i­cal reflec­tions of some­thing phys­i­cal but col­lec­tions of end­less­ly mal­leable pixels. 

The arti­fice of Old Hol­ly­wood always point­ed back to real­i­ty: the fake sets point­ed to the craft of build­ing them and the unnat­ur­al per­for­mances point­ed to the much-loved stars. But dig­i­tal arti­fice points only deep­er into itself; even that which looks the most real, we all know, is like­ly enhanced, if not cre­at­ed whole­cloth by some impos­si­bly com­plex com­put­er soft­ware. In the defin­i­tive dig­i­tal meta-film, James Cameron’s Avatar, the CG world of Pan­do­ra seems so pro­found­ly real to the audi­ence-insert main char­ac­ter – enhanced, no doubt, by the cut­ting edge 3D – that it starts to feel more real, more all-con­sum­ing, than his own life. Even­tu­al­ly he dis­solves into it, his soul trans­ferred to anoth­er real­i­ty that J. Hober­man describes in Films After Film as: unbear­ably dis­tant, yet over­whelm­ing­ly close.”

But this is only the most com­mer­cial and inac­ces­si­ble end of the dig­i­tal rev­o­lu­tion on which Agnès Varda’s 2000 doc­u­men­tary The Glean­ers & I sits oppo­site. On her small, con­sumer-grade cam­era, Var­da col­lects footage of aban­doned paint­ings, sur­plus pota­toes and the peo­ple soci­ety has left behind, but not in a point­ed way. Her film is like a dig­i­tal scrap­book, she only fol­lows her intu­ition, and, in doing so, trans­forms the pas­sive plea­sure of see­ing into some­thing active: a shared act of dis­cov­ery. She finds a new beau­ty with clear echoes of Lumière films. Maybe this promise for the dig­i­tal age has been left most unful­filled, but if Varda’s film shows us any­thing, it’s that that which has been aban­doned is only wait­ing to be re-discovered. 

You might like

Accessibility Settings

Text

Applies the Open Dyslexic font, designed to improve readability for individuals with dyslexia.

Applies a more readable font throughout the website, improving readability.

Underlines links throughout the website, making them easier to distinguish.

Adjusts the font size for improved readability.

Visuals

Reduces animations and disables autoplaying videos across the website, reducing distractions and improving focus.

Reduces the colour saturation throughout the website to create a more soothing visual experience.

Increases the contrast of elements on the website, making text and interface elements easier to distinguish.