Here's a thought. I wonder if the reason why metamodernist artists are so obsessed with the postmodern obsession with narrative is that the average artist's art is increasingly informed by their experience of art rather than the 'real world.' By this, I mean that many artists during the modernist period were artists in conjunction with or following experiences as soldiers, lawyers, grocers, construction workers, teachers, mothers/fathers, etc. Whereas the average moviemaker now has probably been interested in and pursuing such a career since they were in high school, meaning that they don't get to experience the real world before they begin to actively pursue art. They grew up consuming media and thus their perception of reality has been dominated by that filter, and less balanced by other experiences of 'real life'. I realize this is an overgeneralization, as is the notion of 'real life', but I wonder whether the angst that pervades artists in part stems from the fact that they're not sure what value their art has, which stems from the fact that they've never done anything else that they can compare it to. Just a thought...
doesn't really track well with many film makers, though, and film makers having lived their entire lives with an always around media starts with boomers (actually boomers, not the now meaningly meme term).
Well said, I couldn't agree more. Traditional stories work because people who have lived real lives and in the real world can relate tot hem. Whereas the majority of the working class cannot relate to the views of a sheltered arthouse snob. Postmodern and Metamodern artists lack real context.
[THUNDERING AGREEMENT] There was another video essay I saw called The Epidemic Of Passable Writing that was the first time I called this out. Kids who grew up in Hollywood (literally or figuratively), basing their understanding of human behavior not on human interaction, but on movies. So their writing feels like cliches made of cliches. It's got the same creepy vibe as the uncanny valley but... situational? Emotional? A gigantic example is Disney live action kids' shows. No human behaves or speaks like this. But that's done for the purpose of squeaky-clean sanitization. I've definitely seen movies where, no matter the characters' ages or competence levels, they all just act like bitchy mean dumb teenagers. Because that's the extent of human interaction the writer has experienced.
@Leandro Aude Which soldier one should glorify depends on which side of a war -- i.e. what the cause of -- that soldier is. There is no difference between a "soldier" versus a "murderer". There IS a huge difference in having GOOD reasons to kill one's opponent versus BAD reasons. Reductionism treats ALL opponents -- no matter whether some government labels them a murderer or rapist or whether some government proves they initiated unjust murder or rape-- as opponents. In any conflict. There is nothing absolute nothing sacred about the status quo, and that includes the existence of nations. We Antinatalists understand the basic absolute fact that nobody consented to be born. But, unlike natalists, we understand the logical consequence of this fact: that nobody is entitled to the status quo, that if you defend breeding/breeders being allowed to breed, then you have no right to complain about those who are born of changing all the pre-existing rules/laws/including pre-existing nations, if they so choose, to, preferably, make the rules/laws more fair, but, breeders also have no right to complain if those being born without their consent make the rules/laws less fair.
I used to say I miss the "campiness" of 90s movies. But now I'm starting to think what I'm missing is sincerity. As someone who has enough issues to worry about in my real life, I seek out movies as a form of escapism. And a simple story let's me forget about the chaos for a couple hours.
Sometimes post modernism can provide that escapism too, im thinking more in terms of live theater though. One thing i love about art is how frustrating it can be to try and define what we want to see for a certain reason. As humans we yearn for meaning and definition. On another note, paddington 2 is my go to comfort film
I think this is why I prefer horror movies these days despite the fact that they aren’t typically “good cinema” or “heady” in any way. They are (usually) just sincere, straightforward, and a perfect vehicle to escape reality momentarily. Plus, it has the added bonus of imagining a fantasy threat that you always survive when the credits roll.
My biggest gripe with modern film and media has always been the growing lack of sincerity. So many writers end up afraid that their audience won't buy in to genuine emotion and sentiment, so they cop out and end any genuine moment with bathos or irony, resulting in a story where it's hard to really attach to anyone. What's worse is that sincerity isn't even a problem for most viewers-rather, it's the way sincerity is expressed, and for what subjects. It's not that we don't want stories that encourage bravery or friendship or kindness; we just want them expressed in a way that matches our current beliefs.
Stick to film from pre-1990 (and make sure to explore pre-1950 films!). You’ll find a lot of sincerity and creativity without any of the postmodern malaise that defines the current moment. The past already has so much, it would take a lifetime to watch and read it all. No need to take anything from today’s dystopia.
this breakdown of recent movies feels so accurate. everything has a sort of self-aware, self-deprecating undertone, and it feels almost more insincere and self-indulgent than the movies that take themselves seriously. as a young person, i feel a constant desire to prove that i don’t take myself too seriously (because then i am always in in the joke even if it is about myself.) it is a way to subvert criticism: if you point out what is wrong with yourself first, then no one can use it against you. it is the same thing with post modernism and meta-modernism. when directors and writers noticed the public pointing out inconsistencies and cheesiness in movies, they felt the need to make everyone laugh with them at the expense of their personal dignity.
I feel like you got the perfect description with "self-indulgent", it's the exact same frustration I feel about myself when I finish sentences with the "but if not that's ok too no worries", "idk if that made sense though maybe I'm just crazy", "sorry I'm just being overdramatic", etc. It is a self-indulgent self-consciousness that really undermines whatever point was being made or feeling was being shared. The anxiety of potential criticism is temporarily soothed but ultimately just fed into by this kind of preemptive defensive self-deprecation. When you're constantly striving to be "self aware" above all else it can lead to a lack of identity, which then only feeds into the problem as you start to feel like being self aware IS your identity, and criticism feels more and more threatening as you're defining or valuing yourself solely by your ability to always be "right".
Writers have this flawed belief that if they point out a stupid plot, it stops being stupid. Unfortunately that's not how it works, the plot is still stupid. For example one character will point out how ridiculous this heist plan is, but the writers don't do anything with it apart from pointing it out. Just pointing it out does absolutely nothing, in fact you're just bringing more focus to it.
@tonimashdane33498 zizek speaks about this with white liberals being the first to point out how horrible they are but not willing to actually change things “ I know I’m a horrible sexist racist etc but at least I’m aware I am”
The impact of South Park in particular here is pretty interesting, because it's kind of the antithesis of sincerity. It's obviously not the only piece of media to do this, but it's had a massive impact on millennials, especially men of a certain age bracket who grew up with it and deeply internalized its fundamental unwillingness to genuinely engage with almost anything without a level of ironic detachment or mockery. This unwillingness then became actual incapability for some of them.
@@jarkkolaiho462 I've got a friend who recently remarked that he's been unable to enjoy a lot of popular songs because he's heard the parodies too much. It's rough because he's been desperately wanting to figure out how to have deeper friendships with people, rather than always being the class clown. He's aware that he's been trying to mask his insecurities, but it's a process to change years of habit and mindsets. It's a set of skills you're not going to find by interacting with mass media these days.
I have always considered good movies as ones that take me on a journey. Not necessarily a physical journey as having the characters jumping around from place to place, or even necessarily a mental or spiritual journey, but that feeling that time dilates during the course of the movie. You only spent an hour and a half watching it, but you feel like it took you around the world and back in that short time. That, as opposed to movies that have you sitting there wondering "is this thing EVER going to end?"
I agree. I see movies that way too. Seeing a character or relationship grow shouldn't be looked at as a cheap formula. It's a necessity for good storytelling. When a movie has a main character that just stays the same with no real or meaningful change, it can get pretty boring. Which is why I don't blame people not really into ghibli films. Top gun maverick and EEAO are both films that I love that year.
The irony is that movies seem to be getting more bloated runtimes lately, and yet viewers increasingly come away feeling that "not much happened". A 142 minute runtime doesn't matter for shit if nothing of consequence or value ever really happens within the story itself. But then there are long films that feel like the time flies by, precisely because of that command of pacing and editing and sharp writing that creates the time dilation effect you identified. John Wick 4 I felt managed this, I honestly forgot it was nearly a 3 hour movie, there was never a dull moment and by the end I just wanted MORE.
How soundtracks have changed is one thing that drives me nuts. Modern movies are afraid of silence, so they CONSTANTLY have to have some song playing. But, sometimes you NEED silence to convey certain emotions.
This is so true. There are rare movies being made with little to no sounds or invasive explosions or twists. One of the few that comes to mind is Portrait of a Lady on Fire” by director Céline Sciamma created something quite unique. I've been an avid international independent film watcher for years. A few others have an ambience of drama, love, honesty, and suspense without going overboard.
One thing that really surprised me when rewatching Dragon Ball was the silence - the show can go minutes without it, usually to build tension, and it really works (that does not apply to the english dubs because they have a different sountrack).
That's right, when I checked out the soundtracks of the Star Wars by John Williams, I realized that there are tracks that weren't used in the movies (but used in other media like videogames) like the scene of the trash compactor in ANH, first minutes of that scene are without music, helps up to bring suspense, also scenes without music help to slow down a movie in contrast with fast action packed scenes.
11:42 This is kinda how I felt watching Gran Turismo. I went into the film almost expecting to come out thinking it was bad because I knew the plot was straightforward based on the trailer but they actually did the predictable structure so well and I thought it was amazing. It surprised me that that simplicity can still work nowadays. Helps that the acting was great too.
This is what C.S. Lewis had to say about deconstructionism, which is closely tied to post-modernism. “You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”
I will never cease to be amazed by people who are smart enough to fully flesh out ideas that I myself can only "feel." I'm 48 year old. When it came to movies I knew something had changed, something was different, but it was just a feeling. I wasn't smart enough to really pull it together. It was nice to be able to roadmap it. Small aside: The entire video I was thinking "there is something familiar about this guy". Then it came to me; he's wearing what I knew 25 years ago as Marine Corp Woolly Pully.
I share your amazement, and I aspire to be better at fleshing out my own ideas. However, I also think that as an individual, I have a limited ability to recognize "grand patterns." It's hard for one person to attain the perspective required. These ideas were probably conglomerated through many discussions with many people. By trying to engage genuinely with others, we can help make a fertile bed for ideas to grow 😊
I'm 55 and stop watching movies and TV about 15 years ago for various reasons and yet I'm was captivated by this commentary. It's smart and well spoken and gives one plenty to think about. What is the reality? How do I feel about it, and In a meta-sense; How do I feel about how I feel and how did I get here?
This guy is actually full of sh^%--he's just getting you to think he's smart by coming up with a BS explanation for you getting old and choosing to see the films you grew up and matured with as a standard. I mean, to acknowledge all this is to admit that no older movies had a self-referential slant to them and no newer ones have straightforward storytelling, when there are PLENTY of both. He even acknowledges it, but he glosses over it as if there are just a few examples. These kinds of people, film critics and film 'academics,' ALWAYS come in after the fact to hindsight bias their explanations of the world into everybody's history books. Why they need to do that is the only deep human philosophical question needing to be asked here. You want a reason why you can't enjoy newer films as much as you did older ones? Maybe because you're still seeing the latter through the lens of a child and the former through the lens of a know-it-all? Just a suggestion...
It's interesting too that these philosphies and musings about art and culture don't just spring up out of nowhere. This video is the first I've heard to articulate the scope of meta-modernism in film, but the feeling, the vibe of creating meaning from chaos isn't new. While watching Thomas lay out the evolution of movie storytelling, I couldn't help but be reminded of a 1998 episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer titled "Amends". In it, Buffy's major love interest is propelled to near suicide by The First Evil, convincing him the battle between good and bad can never be won. But in the end, he is saved by Fate, and Buffy shows him the very act of fighting for good has meaning and purpose. Those viewpoints can be summed up in the philosophies of nihilism and absurdism. Buffy's creator Joss Whedon himself has cited French author Albert Camus, a leading Absurdist thinker, as a major influence, and Camus's major works were from the 1940s and 50s.
My main takeaway is "So I am not crazy!" lol This video basically puts words to a feeling (that many of us have) that we didn't know how to express or explain.
Yeah this is great.. I have noticed increasingly over the past decade or so that society is constantly deconstructing what it enjoys and wallowing in guilt about literally everything (ie "this cheeseburger is so delicious, but there are poor people that will never eat a cheeseburger, also its so bad for my arteries, and a cow died for this meat, etc, etc) I think self awareness is overall a good thing but too much of it results in defeatist attitudes and inaction, 'these problems are too numerous and big and I'm just one person with a limited perspective, who am I to even begin to have answers?' It's beneficial to get out of your own head and just enjoy something or just DO a thing without thinking so much about the repercussions.
@@gman7497 This is true, but I want to be optimistic, and believe that the alternative we are finding now, of finding meaning in art WHILE acknowledging its shortcomings, or better yet, finding meaning IN the shortcomings of the art we consume is a far better approach than to pretend there are no shortcomings in the first place.
The first thing you learn in writing school is choose an audience and write to that audience. Movies as of late, are trying to make movies for all audiences.
"I think a big part of why we see this kind of self-reflectivity (in meta-postmodernism) is that viewers and artists feel self-conscious about art that is just passive entertainment". I think this is the crux of it and not just about the relation between meta and post, but in essence an explanation of how each new "wave of change" to any expressive medium is based on its desire to analyze, deduct and ultimately escape the previous generation that precedes it. Also, it describes the genius of David Lynch.
The ability to treat this like a short film is great. Being able to incorporate the concepts you’re discussing not just as examples (clips from film) but even more so using them yourself as editing and writing techniques is so great!
Blacks are always the criminals, poor, in the background, asking questions and subordinate in Hollywood movies. Its an agenda. The China film administration is better than Hollywood.
I just watched the Barbie movie and thought immediately about this video essay that I watched months ago. The Barbie movie is a perfect example of metamodernism.
THATS WHAT IT WAS MISSING. The whole time, something was lacking and it upset me so much because I was so eager for this movie for YEARS, from the first pictures circling on twitter, it excited me so much. And it didn't deliver. I left sorely disappointed and equally existential because it was a GOOD movie, just not good in the way I was hoping it to be. Reading your comment made me realize that what I was hoping for, was probably akin to Top Gun, just a simple, effective story structure that has the ability to become an instant classic. But I was left with just another critique on society, like every other movie has had.
Community is a great example of metamodernism. It's well known for its 'parodies', but it always uses these high concept references and moments to create humour, connection and emotion between the characters. Its a very traditional, warm sitcom that warps and changes to view itself through different lenses.
@@black-aliss One thing you gotta recognize is that the transition from sincere to cynical started in the 1910's and was virtually complete by the 70's. _Community_ was not so much the last piece of not-cynical entertainment as it was one of the first to ask how we can _deconstruct_ the cynicism to find our humanity - a move that has not yet fully caught on in the mainstream culture.
@@LincolnDWard That is definitely why I loved Harmon' writing in Community, especially in the last two seasons, despite its loss of the original cast members. I was expecting the same for Rick and Morty, but as the show progressed, it kinda felt more stagnant as opposed to his work on Community.
@@lukeGGlee Agreed, and sounds like the Star Wars sequel trilogy felt that 0%. Way too much fanservice compared to original plot, and "how" gets thrown into the trash and replaced with "because magic!" deus ex machina.
Also the tone of the script vs art direction have changed from hope/survival/anger to bleak/depressive/sad. The script may be all inspiring and hopeful, revengeful, the movie direction is the opposite. Which leaves audiences not knowing how to feel. You knew what you were feeling in Aliens (go Ripley) vs Indiana Jones Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (huh???)
Your definition of modernism seems to line up more with what I learned to be romanticism. Romanticism was more concerned with the genuine, authentic sweeping emotions and high stakes moral battles. I understood modernism to be more concerned with trying to figure out the world after WWI after all those notions of romanticism had been squashed by the industrial scale of death that was the Great War.
I thought the same thing. I learned romanticism to be about endulging in emotion and trying to find a sort of personal truth or authenticity. Where I think modernism departs is that the individual part is left behind for the belief that there is a universal truth we should all work toward. Like a romantic painting says, "I think this is beauty and I want to convey my personal view of it" with not a whole lot of importance placed on it being grounded in concrete fact. It just needs to convey the same feeling those facts make us feel. Modernism says, "this one single point is true fact, unequivocally, and I want to display it wholly and completely" Like modernism would be a photograph of a battlefield with mud and dirt and a darkness of death, where romanticism would be a painting of soldiers charging, shiny swords drawn, horses bucking, flags waving. This is just how I feel though, so don't take it as fact.
Romanticism emphasizes nature and the natural world, as well it emphasizes man's relationship with the world itself. That's a difference between it and modernism
I can distinguish a world history dominated by 5 clear human-based art eras. Primalism- where the majority of human history stood in the view of secularists and atheists, didn't exist for other religions. this was when humans didn't have any established art expression and Dadaism (without the goal of creating chaos and trying to destroy art) and Abstract Expressionism are probably the closest things to it. Traditionalism - a response to Primalism, an evolution in the art world in a sense that art should be governed by rules as the world moved in from proto-anarchist hunter-gatherers to rule-based states and organizations, this led the more confined rules to the people we associate like Mozart and Beethoven for the music, and Michaelangelo and Da Vinci for the art. Modernism - a response to traditionalism, and it's inherent mistakes that made people "evil" in some modernist eyes. This led to the modernist ideologies of Liberalism, Socialism (in some cases, branched off to Communism) and Fascism, which are all responses to the Traditionalist monarchs and replace them with more modern leaders to win people over. Modernism is a movement to put people over the leaders. Surrealism and Dadaism are modernist art movements, though Dadaism doesn't really want labels as they are completely anti-art. Postmodernism - a response to Modernism and its ills to society. It's a response of irony and cynicism to Modernism due to the fact that real-life doesn't show the same lens that Modernism does, and Postmodernism attempts to show reality in an exaggerated sense where people can attribute their life into the films and not follow with modernist escapism. Also because of how Modernism exaggerates fantasy over reality, and how the modernist promise was really based on half-faced truths which Postmodernism used against the modernist movement. Metamodernism - a response to Postmodernism or maybe also Modernism. Postmodernism is viewed by Metamodernists to be the point where you can't just parody and joke about everything anymore, leading people to try and figure out what their lives is anymore and completely driving society to the point of utter complexion and confusion. Metamodernism attempts to solve it by having it oscillate between modernist optimism and postmodernist irony in such a way that people would feel refreshed about it having sincerity instead of irony and leaving audiences baffled at the thoughts.
I think you’re right that his definition of modernism is just not correct. All his references to modernism are realism, in literature terms, and apply equally to film.
You can see this trend outside the arts in people's every day behaviour too. Often when speaking to older people there's a genuity and sincerity that comes across, while speaking to millennials or gen z it's easy to pick up on their self-awareness, irony or at worst anxiety and embarrassment.
While I do like this view, I have to wonder if the older generation is genuinely more sincere, or at times comes off as such. I think there is a difference between having confidence gained from temperament and having confidence gained from self-rationalization or even ignorance. And that is why there is such a divide between the two camps of old and young. I don’t think young people really always buy what old people are saying, because there’s so much poor examples mixed in with the good. One bad apple ruins the bunch, as they say.
@Alejandro-gk9jw They won't be able to overturn anything if they're too anxious or overwhelmed mentally. Which is what's currently happening. Being cynical for the sake of being cynical is also not healthy in any way, especially for a functioning society and that kind of behavior used to be reserved for the internet.
@Alejandro-gk9jw *"but youre ignoring the hope that is present in this perspective as well."* But there is no hope in this perspective, the people who hold these cynical beliefs have already given up.
Ultimately, art imitates life imitating art. Our stories have become meta modern because we're searching for glimmers of hope and romanticism in a world that has become increasingly bleak. Modernism is too idealist to be believable, but meta modern allows escapism without denying reality.
Individuals who create art should be held to a high standard because the words of an artist represent the opinion of a particular person. Art should be trustworthy, considering that an artist's words likely hold the same weight as an official document. Providing verbal representation for the inner thoughts or opinions of a targeted individual is invaluable, as it allows multiple perspectives to be heard and appreciated. Additionally, meta modernism can be interpreted as being truthful despite presenting unrealistic situations or ideas, which is something to be admired. Consequently, sincerely representational artwork should be pedestaled high as it objectively sheds light on various 20th century ideals, portraying just how important it is to accept complexity in the world. Awn7mFktpB4
Chiming in a bit to also say 'well said.' I think absurdist nihilism is an underrepresented facet of nihilism, as absurdism (and by proxy metanihilism) allows for a warm and meaningful embrace in the presence of utter devastation where postmodernism only would allow it to end in a cry of despair and isolation.
I think its interesting that Shakespeare used many of the tropes we associate with meta/postmodernism like self-reflexivity etc. In Twelfth Night a character says ‘If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction.’ And Hamlet has lots of good examples of metanarrative eg the play within a play
the thing with shakespeare is that he was not j. wish tehrefore havent completely broken off with reality thats why his books still feel "fresh" 500 years later
@@artistaccount I switched off pretty quick I won't lie, I remember even as like a little kid finding it silly how many movies there were about movies/Hollywood. They've been doing this ever since they let self absorbed men pick up a pen! Also I feel like he's gotten his definition of modernism from dudes with Greek/Roman statue pfps on twitter
It is like we live in an era of self-doubt, where creators don't feel the confidence to tell stories they want to tell. Perfect originality is a myth. Everything is partially based on something else, one or many things all put together. It is the unique point of view of every individual that brings something new and valuable to the public. The reality is that there are surely an infinte number of stories that are worth telling and filming. They don't need to be apologetic, sarcastic, referential or self-referential. Sometimes obsessing about trying to be unique cancels all the things you want to talk about in the first place. Yeah, maybe not everybody is interested in your story, but twisting and inserting quirks everywhere is just going to obscure the true story that you want to tell.
True to some extent, I guess. Are they really just afraid, or - perhaps - they do not really have any interesting story to tell, or know how to? ;) And, that's why we're drowning in a sea of remakes, reboots, sequels, prequels, spin-offs and the like. Have a story to tell, learn how to do it well (it's your job, after all), and there is nothing wrong with good old linearity. No need for 1,000 characters, 300 uninteresting sub-plots, highly foreseeable or useless twists, etc. I agree on the originality myth.
@@DarkSideofSynth well, originality is always an economic risk. People who produce and have the money rely heavily on repeating the formula because they think that's a safer bet. The numbers show that's usually the case... On the other hand, the public will eventually be saturated of recicled stories, and original stories will become economically less risky again. It is a sort of a cycle. I think the self-doubt is just added to this cycle.
@@arkheavyindutries Yeah, I know that. What those people forget, though, is that risk is implied in entrepreneurship, that's part of the game. And, usually, the greater the risk, the bigger the rewards. There is no such thing as a safe bet. If it were safe, it would not be a bet ;) Just stop before saturation is off the charts, not just in terms of repeating things over and over again in time, but also in the quota of things being offered: how about 70% same-old same old, and 30% new stuff? The public should grow some spine, and not just rush in drones to whatever the market spits out. We've had over 20 years of superhero movies... time to call it a day or what?:)))
Meta irony is a cop/out for writers who are embarassed of themselves and embarassed of the genre they are working in . Is preventively trying to avoid criticism by signaling they dont *actually* give a shit.
She Hulk was something I found confusing. It was pretty bad, but then decided to acknowledge that it's bad without actually recognizing what made it so bad. I know that the comics were meta, but this wasn't the way to do it. I want to believe that it was all on purpose, but it wasn't.
Yeah, I gave up on watching newer films fairly recently. There might be a random new movie I'd watch out of curiosity, but it would take the perfect fusion of circumstances to get me to watch it. Also, I don't find a lot of stuff within the last couple of decades as re-watchable as movies from decades ago.
I usually dont leave comments, but I have to say this is one of the most comprehensive video essays i have seen in a while. It seems like you have a deep understanding of the "why" of film-making and im glad you could transfer some of that to us.
I was going to say, in a sense this video represents the steps forward in individual social media producers being able to produce things that previously would have taken a documentary team, and I'm trying to work out wether the piece is modernist, post or meta.
I think it also shows some of the limitations of individual social media producers, because I don't think the video author has an understanding of modernism. It makes me smile that anyone could think of unabashed patriotism as a modernist value when the modernists thrived after the chaos of the first world war.
It's sad that he seems to believe there's such thing as "late stage capitalism." The moment I heard him say that, I knew he was another one of these progressive liberals that want socialism for all. A bit ironic how someone that watches movies at various points in history that even detail the horrors of communism, would be ignored.
The evolution of your artistic style has been really interesting to watch. Also, I think it's clever when you use a quick zoom to insert a "parenthetical" and then zoom back out when you're returning to your original train of thought. It's like I can see the Grammar on camera.
I love the word "self-reflexivity" for how reflexive it is, since "reflexive" already means "in association/reference with one self". So "self-reflexivity" basically means "self-self-reference".
1:08 may be the best sequence I’ve ever seen in a Video Essay, the editing, sound design, and commentary. You have a deep and profound understanding of cinema in all its aspects and it is truly inspiring
I thought a great way to talk about metamodernism is to say that even if we want, we CAN'T go back to the optimism of the modernism. Because we know too much. So the metamodernism is finding optimism while still mentionning the deconstruction.
I don’t think it’s that we ‘know too much’ but rather that irony and meta-storytelling in pop media tells us that we know too much to engage with the work at face value. It flatters us but it (often) doesn’t teach us anything new. I think we can go back (to an extent) but it will take a certain admission on our part as consumers. Just because we can see a work as divisible parts doesn’t mean that we can’t see it as whole again.
I don't think this is relevant at all in the field of storytelling. Suspension of disbelief has always been part of our experience as spectators, of course we were well aware that spaceships didn't exist while watching Star Wars, still we chose to put that aside to enjoy a story set in a universe which had its own set of rules. It is an arbitrary choice made by the audience. I don't see why, nowadays, we wouldn't be able to enjoy a good story for the mere fact it doesn't deconstruct and reflects on its own mechanisms. The fact that the industry is oversaturated with metatextual content does not mean the average cinema lover has lost his ability to believe in a story that does not rely on constant references to the very condition of the object he is watching.
@@samrainnie2104 , you reminded me greatly of the difference between how an audience of a live stage play can appreciate the show differently from an audience of a movie. Namely, nobody in a stage play's audience seems to complain about being able to see the wires during the special effects. i.e. Audiences gets more out of a play by using their imaginations to fill in for an unwieldy special effects budget. Meanwhile, movies have to worry that if the outseam of Han Solo's pants feature a stripe which is 2 mm wider than a few seconds ago, the fans will riot.
We can’t go back (more than once in a while anyways) because modernism movies would be boring to us now. Too simple. Not enough “whoa…” ideas and concepts. Furthermore there’s such a large body of movies now, there’s not a lot of untold modernism content, we’d just be retelling essentially the same story (Hollywood remake anyone?). So of course there’s nothing left but to make reference to those once upon a time original stories (which now seem cliché). The best we could do is start making those “idea” movies of the early 90s (what if death came to life? Let’s explore the seven deadly sins etc). Personally as an old fart genX I got tired of irony by the early 2000s so bring on the meta modern! My kids will be better for it.
Deconstruction and "optimism while still mentioning the deconstruction" both deal with negation - how/whether to negate Western Enlightenment thought (leading to metamodernism) or dwelling in perpetual falsehood in order to validate previous experiences (leading to idealism and escapism). It's a false dichotomy, defining eras of history based on reductionist ideology instead of the complex and multifaceted movements theseughts encompass. Awn7mFktpB4
Metamodernism reminds me of curation. Many just enjoy the collection for what it is. But if you look behind the curtain, you see the references and influences of the curator, and you can appreciate it on an emotional and intellectual level with almost two different story lines - the one presented, and the story made up of the little breadcrumbs left behind by the curator that you can pull together in your own mind.
Yeah! Exactly, I feel like metamodernism (and post modernism to an extent) presents 3 narratives: There's the story, there's the meta narrative, and there's the cultural narrative. The story is just the narrative. Things happen. The meta narrative is the narrative about the narrative: things happen, but what does those things happening mean, and how does it connect to our experiences? The cultural narrative is the intentional reference to other media of the time, it's what marks the time at which the media was created, and as such, in a way, gives us a narrative about what the culture was like when it was created, and specially what culture was like to the specific person responsible for the story in the specific point in time it was written.
I had this feeling that i was watching a movie made in the 80s-90's but released 30-40 years later in theaters while watching Top Gun Maverick, it felt out of place but not in a bad way
I can't stress enough how good this video is. Video essays are my favorite type of youtube content and I watched many. Different topics, durations, delivery styles. This is a Top-5% video essay quality in my subjective view. And why I'm resonating with this particular topic is because, you gave a word to what I've been feeling, but didn't know how to define, and frankly whether or not I even long to define it. Thank you, Thomas, you have removed this itch that I wasn't completely aware of.
I love this essay and how you reflected my feeling about the art of cinema and the world we live in today. We deconstructed everything and then we found a big void that needs to be filled. Hopefully there is way ❤️
@The Creator yeah but I feel too many movies are kinda miserable nowadays. Like there aren’t many movies coming out where you feel good walking out of the movie theaters, and a lot of them try to include complex themes and messages that are hard to incorporate in 2 hours, so it ruins everything. I feel like movies need to take a step back and try to make things such as stories less complicated and focus a lot on character development, which I feel is severely lacking in film today
So basically metamodern is like that shrine in Japan where they tear it down and rebuild it every couple decades so that it never decays and stays fresh forever but also reinforces community and interest in traditional architecture.
I think the reason that Everything Everywhere All At Once hit so hard for me is because for the last few years I, like many people, have been living in a constant state of self doubt. Seeing them return to modern values of family and community towards the end of the film, amidst all the chaos and absurdity, was genuinely heartwarming. It's like them saying "we are all we have in this world, so why waste it?" We always wonder if things could've been better if we made better decisions, which is exemplified through Evelynn, and these possibilities prevent us from living life to the fullest. Then comes Waymond - a character so full of optimism, that it awakes us from the cynicism we are surrounded by, and reminds us that appreciating our reality despite its flaws is not only beneficial, but essential. Combine that with Joy - who's the antithesis to everything her parents stand for, and an all-powerful antagonist that acts as an agent of chaos, and you got yourself a movie that manages to balance a healthy dose of skepticism with a surprising amount of sincerity and emotional nuance. I love it. May we all spend our lives doing laundry and taxes together❤
Around 2021 I became a positive nihilist. I did a 180 from starting to have trouble sleeping, due to anxiety that I would be attacked by who knows what, to just not caring because I can't control it. I accepted not just my inevitable death, but also, my inevitable life. I probably will be here until old age, there is no point, and yet, it's a gift. Life is a gift. Enjoy it.
Documentary Now is a great example of metamodernism. It parodies and deconstructs classic documentaries, both modern and postmodern, yet it repeatedly affirms the value of that genre of storytelling. I always find it oddly heartwarming.
"On one hand, Documentary Now! reflects the metamodern sensibility by being self-aware of the limitations of the postmodern condition and by acknowledging the importance of sincerity and authenticity in art. The series also has a nostalgic and ironic tone that is characteristic of metamodernism. On the other hand, Documentary Now! does not necessarily seek to move beyond the postmodern condition towards a better future, which is another defining feature of the metamodern sensibility"
Naww, that's a post modern documentary with a respect for modernity and metamodernity. It's trying to live in both worlds but it does a better job living in the post modern world.
This is by far my favorite video that you've made--not because the others were low quality, but because this was soooooo well done. This was such a good take and route for explaining these paradigms.
It's important to note that the tendencies of modernity, postmodernity and metamodernity are mainly present in form, rather than content. The same story can be told in all three ways. Take the story of Hamlet for example, which had many adaptations over film history (like "The Bad Sleep Well" or "The Lion King") -the latest one being The Northman that's also based on the myth that inspired Shakespeare's play
It seems to me that metamodernism just reflects the current zeitgeist. To the media-saturated mind of the internet denizen, irony and oh-so-cleverness is tiresome, simple sentimentality is cheesy and awkward authenticity is cringe. Yet, as both consumers and producers, we still want our art to be clever, emotional and authentic. So frame-flipping contortions ensue, with a dollop of humanity. I personally think there is an appetite for compelling human stories, linearly told. Like vinyl, flip-phones and touching grass, we're stepping back from the digital hall of mirrors towards analog IRL, and discovering what is old is new again.
Yes I’ve been looking for a comment like this. In real time our society is actually shifting more towards the old ways (tradition) ironically as we progress further into the future but now with knowledge and a better understanding of what we didn’t know back then. Audiences are done with subversion and want movies to fulfill their end of the bargain. No more lecturing, cynicism, or deconstructing. ESCAPISM with a good story is the only thing SELLING nowadays. Which is very interesting. Barbie is the exception as it was geared towards women specifically and the female market for film has been starved for a while.
Yes. It's a desperate attempt to salvage something from the chaos of a culture that lacks collective meaning while making something that can be sold to disparate audiences. The root of it all is this: there is no "we" anymore. Just individuals with their own personal likes and dislikes, political worldviews and philosophies and so on. The other thing: we live in a world of products and commodified "art". When it comes to movies, for the individual consumer it's about finding the right product, and for the producer it's about finding the right set of individuals to sell to. "We" are fragmented. Some not insignificant number of people will love something you call cheesy or sentimental. All movies outside of art house cinema (which at least desires to be art) want to make big bucks in a culture that remains without an adequately well defined core that everyone can rally around; the result is lowest common denominator stuff and products explicitly targeted towards a niche audience of sufficient size. Also, the audiences are global, which magnifies the effect. Massive miscalculations happen (this used to be very rare when the audiences weren't global and there existed a strong unity at home) precisely because the world is changing so fast and not everyone experiences the world in the same way because of the fragmentation that I outlined before; the people who miscalculate live in their own bubble like everyone else, and so they believe that everyone sees the world like they do. There is no making movies for the society anymore - now movies are made for audiences, and the audiences are becoming increasingly diverse and disparate every passing day. I agree especially with your final sentence.
I don't think simple sentimentality is cheesy. It plays into our most basic instinctual emotions. Like it or not, we aren't as smart or insightful as we think we are. Why do you think people still love The Wizard of Oz? Or Casablanca? Or Citizen Kane? These are three incredibly different films that feel simple by today's standards, but they are timeless art pieces. Because they're simple. They're honest. When something is honest about what it is, there is a deep thought inside of all of us that can respect the sincerity of something. Simplicity isn't bad. It's just simple. And simple is what we need right now.
the channel 'Lessons from the screenplay' has an interesting video on the movie 'Adaptation' thats done in an interesting almost 'meta-meta' breakdown. worth a look at if you're interested in the intricacy of storytelling in film told through a fun, informative and self-aware film analysis.
I interpret the moment shared between Evelyn and Joy in Everything Everywhere All At Once, resembles what the directors are truly attempting to convey to the audience, which is a mentality of transcendence to a new perspective for a younger generation that is bombarded with a plethora of entertainment that can be consumed continuously in large quantities. This may cause the younger generation to not truly have a strong commitment to any individual philosophy, but rather a combination of them all hemmed on the idea of "Take What You Can Use and Leave the Rest Behind."
I've been thinking of a way to elaborate on why the film made me feel the way it did and I think you just perfectly described it. Gen Z is seems to be torn apart by this clash between a very nihilistic and cheap pop culture and a lack of direction, while also witnessing the complete collapse of most of the old social norms. Not to mention the fact that they were the guinea pigs for social media and the general integration of tech into our society and everyday lives. It just feels like most of us wander through a fog most of the time; there is a crushing worry on most Gen Zers of general hopelessness for the future.
@@blarblablarblar I don't agree with it either. I think the metamodern project is about more than just acceptance of things as they are thats just ancient stoicism. Metamodernism is a project to restore and imbue mediums with a genuine sincerity while also preserving the self awareness
I lived in France for a while and believe this video describes the difference between the typical epic Hollywood, blockbuster, film, and the artistic stylistic aspects of French films. I think of Woody Allen films and films like Flirting with disaster when I think of postmodernism that come close to French cinema. I always enjoyed the feeling and depth you get from watching character development of films in France while I enjoyed the rush of fast paced, adventure driven and sometimes fantastical stories of Hollywood.
Amazing! 15 years of lurking on TH-cam with maybe a half-dozen comments to my name, but you deserve the kudos here. Thoughtful and clear narrative. Your own own use of stylistic editing and framing of your shots was on point, impactful, and reinforced the message. This deserves to be shared and seen by everyone. Life is full of luck, but regardless what comes your way, know that you are as talented as many of the great storytellers your reference in this video. Again, amazing video!
I think this is one of the reasons I absolutely love Edgar Wright's films, where most all of them are very metamodern. Hot Fuzz for instance is absolutely a deconstruction of cop movies, but rather than making fun of them it often embraces the tropes for comedy instead. For instance there is absolutely a central twist to the movie, but instead of making it some obvious twist it can comment on it instead goes in an absolutely insane way it then spends the rest of the film having absolute fun with. It's one of the reasons I think it's genuinely the greatest film of all time, as it manages to both be a genuinely entertaining story, a deconstruction of film and a film genre, while also an embracing of the things it deconstructs. It's an incredibly layered movie where you can just sit back and have dumb fun with it while also being able to analyze through so many different levels.
@@loadishstone They said its metamodern though not postmodern. Meta modernism is about recapturing sincerity and embracing tropes with awareness. In the modern period embracing the trope was done completely unironically. A lot of old Westerns are just pure unabashedly raw ideology made art
@@loadishstone I'm not disputing that classical art had many themes of irony and self awareness I'm specifically talking about modernism, it was a period of intense propaganda in all areas of life film is just one. This idea of a raw unironic portrayal of what is good is pretty unique to the modernist period. It was a time of the Cold War, US good Russia and China bad was running through the veins of nearly every average american with no self awareness a propaganda bubble that modern film helped to create.
@@loadishstone classic film not classical era I thought that was obvious and yes of course propaganda is present in all times the point is that since the postmodern film is about the deconstruction of all narrative it’s a lot harder to make effective propaganda to the tune of good Cowboys bad Indians I know what I’m talking about you just want to argue
I had thoughts like this when seeing the trailers for Renfield and Barbie, oddly enough. They both carried a certain 2000s camp and straightforwardness that I honestly appreciated after a decade of artsy movies by the likes of A24 filling the forefront of what we consider to be 'good cinema.' I'm glad general audiences have a greater appreciation for the strange and less literal aspects of art, but I'd hate to see straightforward tellings of great standalone stories get abandoned for the thin veneer of artsy-ness I think some filmmakers are now trying too hard to paint on projects that simply don't need it.
That never went away. I think people are more aware of these "artsy" films now because the general audience are more receptive towards them than back then. Simple films are still being made, but I do agree with you that some people mistake "serious", "realistic" and "satirical" for hallmarks of good cinema. This is happening to the videogame market as well, where game developers are following cinema trends and you can't have a goofy story with campy acting in your videogames unless you're Nintendo or Indie. Everyone else gets knocked for it. The more receptive trend is king.
@@Manganization I dont think I would agree with your comment about videogame audiences hating "goofy story," and the reason is a comparison between forspoken and hi fi rush. While I have played only hi fi rush, I can confidently say that the story is very campy and goofy, but was still appeciaed nonetheless. I think what people don't like nowadays with the so called "malenial writing" is that it doesn't seem sincere. Hi fi rush accepts its goofy story and quirky characters, and is confident in its entertainment value. Meanwhile, most "goofy story with campy acting" seem to be plagued with insecurity (such as forspoken), which results in an attempt by the author to lampshade every part of its story, and not accepting the goofy situation it is in. really, I do beleave people want sincerety, and most of the writing nowadays seems to be compensating for its lack of self confidence through a mask of goofy and quirky characters and plots.
I watch the trailers of A24 films so confused. It just seems so dark to me. You're right that Barbie Trailer really did give me a nostalgic 2000s vibe. Back when I was still excited to go to the cinema to see a movie.
I'm am blown away by this video. The subject matter, how it's explained, the meta-ness of the narrative itself, etc., etc. made this incredibly engaging and thought provoking to watch.
I cannot lie may man, this was my big reminder of how much I enjoy your content and need to consume more of it. I don't quite have the vocabulary to express how valuable this video essay is, save that I beg the algorithm and winds of content proliferation to put this in front of many more eyes. Thanks for the great work.
"Viewers will think you just don't get it, that you're cheesy or corny." This ladies and gentlemen is the bane of modern cinema. Confusing the viewers with the critics. To explain: Viewers watch movies for fun, not to see that you really get "it" whatever "it" is in the current zeitgeist. They also don't care if something is a bit cheesy if it fits well, because they care about the story not what technique is used to achieve it. For critics this is the opposite.
All of this. I notice critics just like things if they seem "different" and hate things that are entertaining if they seem "familiar" or "common"...I've noticed that with the new live action Disney trailers seeming so dark (literally) and gloomy. Compare the Golden Compass (based on a book) movie for example to the miniseries. They basically removed all the magic and replaced it with nothing. All in the name of realism and making their fictional world seem more like ours.
@@godsfavoritest no, I get what he's saying. This has always been a problem; after all, the problems of marketing to masses, getting a box office hit, being commercial vs writers and directors who are serious about their art want to say something more, while not alienating the paying public too much. And at some point it gets too much, but the idea was to get ahead of the larger commercial audience rather than catering to them. Actually I don't see this as "confusing viewers with critics", it's trying too hard to impress your peers at the expense of the larger audience. "Critics" really don't count at all; before the internet, the "film critics" in major newspapers were in the most part paid off (or their bosses were paid off). They're not being catered to at all, and certainly weren't before the 90s. Haven't you ever seen a film where you agreed with the Tomatometer and not the audience score? Maybe you don't, because why would you say that? Actually I think the OP here missed the conclusion of the video, it's neither good nor bad, it's just some creators are able to appeal to a smaller or larger audience and sometimes they fail. Again; no one is making films for critics, no matter how pretentious, no matter how badly they fail, it's because they are failing on their own merits. Wes Anderson does a good job at appealing to both audiences, but he definitely is appealing to cinephiles and actors, at least as much as a wider audience. Maybe you think his films are pretentious, but I disagree, and Thomas Flight would, too.
You have a rare combination of talents and skills that work perfectly for me. Every time I watch one of these videos, I am left with a sense that some rewiring has occurred in my neural pathway. Your essays are always intricate without getting pedantic, engaging without trying to be entertaining. Thank you for educating me a little bit more on cinematography. It gives me heart to pick up the camera again.
just a small clarification, since this was the first thing I wanted to know when I saw Top Gun: 'flew their own aircraft' means in this case: backseat in the aircraft while a navy pilot was flying. Later on they did some CGI tricks to make it look like they were sitting in the front of the two seater aircrafts. But what you see on screen is indeed real camera footage and real G forces etc. Sorry for nerding out on this, I'll continue watching your video which should be amazing as always !
The Rehearsal and even Nathan for You would be another fantastic example of metamodernism in action in a medium where you might not expect it. Comedy-to-horror-back-to-comedy genre play seems to be a through-line too. Beau is Afraid, Inside, the Rehearsal and Jordan Peele films all play with this.
@@StepPappyKit's absolutely wild. I recommend seeing it with a group for the viewing experience but it's a love/hate film for sure. I preferred the relative restraint of Hereditary if I'm honest
I finally watched Chernobyl absolutely loved the storytelling and feeling of that it felt very confident and straightforward and didnt have that silly feeling i get from a lot of the other new produced stuff also fantastic soundtrack, the podcast with the writer about the work behind should be mandatory listening to any film student
I really love the fact that you actively paralleled and showcased several of the concepts, e.g. Breaking 4th wall, Post-Modernism, Meta-Modernism, etc. Very enjoyable video essay!
This is why I love Wes Anderson. His movies take you to fantastical world. But while you are lost in the humor, bright colors, sets, and shots he is actually setting up a complex narrative about life.
@@dustinmatthews387 yeah my friends and I have a joke that we are going to write Wes a letter just saying, “What the hell was the third act of the French Dispatch”
I'm realizing that this shift to postmodernism and metamodernism is also why live action superhero movies tend not to be all that good anymore, but animated superhero shows continue to be good (more or less). Most Marvel films strip away a lot of the sincerity (and at times straightforwardness) of Modernism in a way that makes it harder to genuinely invest in the art's story. The best ones keep that sincerity alive and check postmodernist cynicisms at the door (examples of this would be Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 1, Spider-man: No Way Home, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, which while deconstructing patriotism, doesn't deconstruct the same values that a traditional patriot might have, merely insinuating that "the American way" may no longer be synonymous with truth and justice.) It's the hyper-meta films that earn the most derision from audiences, like Thor: Love And Thunder.
Totally.. you can wink at the audience on occasion but if the whole mission of your superhero movie is to illustrate that superheroes are inherently stupid, you're kinda sabotaging yourself. It worked at the beginning coz it was novel and unexpected but now that it's a go-to formula in many cases, not as much.
That is why DC movies are hated oftentimes, Superman isn't really good or is it... us who are bad and he is good? When you just question the basics of everything about the characters or the world they inhabit eventually it will turn the people who love that thing away.
I genuinely think one of the first meta modernism movies i can remember was Tropic Thunder. It was a movie about making a movie that starred a method acting character in black face who spoke like a stereotype from the 70s. It had actors pretending to be actors who would get entirely different roles than the actor playing them. The biggest name on the cast was tom cruise, who is hired for being a charasmatic hero type but instead plays a disgusting predatory hollywood "film producer" (who looked a bit like a mr Weinstein). Just everything about it had so many layers of meta irony.
OP - love love love Tropic Thunder for the sheer genius of pointing ridicule at the Film Industry - which was what Ben Stiller was aiming at. Making a comedy that appeals to the masses, has a poignant tone, is on side with the audience & ultimately has you in belly laughs - nothing short of brilliant. Anyone can cry on screen - it takes a special talent to make you laugh. Straight actors can only act straight. Comedians can make you laugh or weep - it's one & the same coin.
The movie is post modern, just because it’s meta ironic doesn’t make it meta modernist. It makes fun for making fun of, it doesn’t present solutions nor leaves you hanging or puts up a fetishised way of self resolve
So this echoes the conversations that my wife and I have had about Gen Z and how they approach the chaotic post-deconstruction world they were brought into. They aren't terminally ironic like Gen X, or nihilistically pragmatic like Millennials. They have rediscovered sincerity. And because they've had to kind of reinvent sincerity out of nothing, they've done it a bit clumsily. They're taken up with things like "identity" and thinking of themselves in terms of mental health syndromes as tools to try to unearth some happiness or self-possession in a world that makes no promises anymore. Whatever might have been carried forward in terms of experiential learning by the pre-modern era was wiped out when that paradigm took over, for the most part. The world collectively went inside its own head for several generations, and when it came back out again found out that it had no tools to understand the world anymore. So what we're seeing is people who are members of a "post-disillusionment" generation, who never internalized the "purpose and order" of modernism or the nihilism of postmodernism, trying to figure out what humans are supposed to even be doing here in the first place. We hope that "touch grass" might turn from an expression into a kind of manifesto in the future for these kids. I'm reminded of a documentary called The Swedish Theory of Love about extreme social isolation, that looked at a group of young people who were pushing back against that by trying to form intentional communities, spend time in nature, and just be friends with each other. The idea of someone finding a centre of sentimental authenticity in the midst of a mess of chaos in Everything, Everywhere, All At Once sounds a lot like what young people now find themselves in need of doing. I hope that this might happen in connection with a return to engaging with the physical world around us, rather than just going further into our collective heads some more.
This is easily your finest work yet. It's insightful and incisive cultural anthropology but it's also edited like poetry. Side note: I think Greta Gerwig's Little Women might be another movie worth throwing into the ring for metamodernism, especially since the changes to the source material are so easy to distinguish from other adaptations. Gerwig deconstructs the conventional ending of Little Women (with Jo's engagement to Professor Bhaer being depicted as a maybe-fictional change forced by the publisher) while also playing the sequence with complete sincerity...and then finds independent meaning in the meta element of Jo actually publishing Little Women. It's deconstruction and reconstruction with a twist. To make things even more complicated: I think The Last Jedi has been such a controversial piece of Star Wars media because it's the first metamodernist take on an essentially modernist property. This leads to feelings of confusion, with some people pointing fingers and saying it's "postmodern" when in fact they're just attuning to the oscillation.
@The Creator Ehhhhhhh.... I enjoyed it for what it was in the theater, which was Star Wars turned on its head and turned inside out just for the sake of being different. I like different, it's fun. But as part of a larger continuity of Star Wars movies, it suuuucks. Completely threw off the arc of the trilogy, especially when the last movie ran away screaming from everything it did (destroying itself in the process). "Good" is subjective. Is it the most self aware and arguably most artistic? Sure. Is it the most enjoyable? Not to me, at least.
@The Creator I’m all for a director to express themselves artistically and put their fingerprint on something. Which is why I really enjoy what JJ Abrams brought with Lost, Cloverfield, and Super 8 as well as what Rian Johnson brought with Brick, Brothers Bloom, Looper, and his Knives Out films. However for a franchise like Star Wars it needs an overall plan and blueprint for how stories can move forward in a way that respects the characters and the world that they preside in. The people involved need to work together and cooperate, sacrificing some of their creative input in order to service the overall story. As we now know JJ Abrams and Rian Johnson did not do that.
I like movies that aren’t just over-the-shoulder shots of conversation, with desktop wallpaper shots in between. I want to see the stuff around the story, not just the face/emotions of the actors. I know this video is more about the values/tropes within the stories, but I think people can like twists/postmodernism if they’d shoot it correctly instead of trying to shove what we’re supposed to be feeling down our throats. A Scarface scene comes to mind, when Tony first meets Lopez, you see the whole room and everyone’s in the shot. Nowadays it’d be close-ups showing the suspicion in Tony’s face, and the hesitation on any word, trying to milk every frame for drama and suspense. It’s a drug dealer’s mansion and Tony just watched his friend die, we get that it’s tense
Thanks for this. As a GenXer, this honestly feels like a description of the GenX perspective on life as we were growing up, versus what both later generations have done instead. I know you didn't really frame it as such, but I couldn't shake that sensation. And it gave me one of hope that after a generation of tearing down things that we felt were wrong, there's a generation that is trying to build meaning back up, understanding the open wounds we exposed from before.
The actual problem with film is not in any of these three movements, but that modernism was not replaced by postmodernism or metamodernism. It was simply replaced by neoliberalism in film as in policy (basically continuing a trend that Reagan started ~40 years ago). Where once movies were made according to a director's vision, the modern blockbuster is so expensive that it is made by committees who market test the hell out of everything. Thus, a Hollywood blockbuster resembles a film written by aliens who have only had the notion of a film described to them rather than by people. The end result are things like the new Star Wars Trilogy, which were made by committees of GenXers.
"...understanding the open wounds we created from before." FTFY. You exposed some, but created a lot more. I understand why it would make you feel better that future generations are picking up the pieces for you.
The wounds were already open, but healing. A healed wound requires no doctor. Those who wished to be seen of society's doctors ripped them open anew before a mostly history-illiterate country, who did not know how to research broadly into original sources and are therefore too-easy pawns. The faux doctors stand ready to help you rebuild -- under their guidance/control. You write in a method that reflects deep thinking. Hope you you have the time to read deeply. and perhaps see some old movies like Raison in the Sun.
Playing the generational blame game is a fool's errand. It's just divisive reductionism in pursuit of making oneself feel superior. There'll be new narratives created with each new generation to provide blame for society's ills, and ensure that generally only those with generational wealth are the only ones with generational unity. Today's zoomer will be tomorrow's boomer
I think the reason why anime like Demon Slayer has gotten so mainstream in the west is partly as a response to postmodernism in western media. It knows its being ridiculous but still embraces it sincerely rather than try to deconstruct itself. Sometimes people just want a good hero story.
Yeah, the issue with "artsy media" in general is that is not why people are consuming the media, they're doing it because they want to hear a good story, they're not trying to listen in on someone else's internal struggle of whether or not their life decisions were worth it If I go to a film festival? Sure. If I go to an art museum? Sure. But the notion that mainstream popular stories should be like this makes everything just miserable
Yes, it is true, that all art (films, music, literature, painting, etc), reflect the times/moods/values/perspectives of the existing culture in which creation occurred. In this sense, art represents a time capsule of the period. The fact remains for better or worse is that art and culture never remain static and that time will inevitably consign all art and culture into the past and that the present only exists for a brief blink of time.
In the terminator, the interrogation scene where the police mockingly ask Sarah how she managed to escape a "time traveling robot from the future" is a brilliant piece of work by James Cameron. This moment not only highlights the skepticism and disbelief of the authorities but also cleverly explains the main theme of the movie to the audience.
The Terminator is my #1 film of the 80s! For a film with such a ridiculous premise, it somehow manages to feel entirely grounded and gritty in a way that many films with much less silly premises fail to do. The skepticism of the cops and psychiatrist is a huge reason that movie holds up for me because REAL PEOPLE would actually react the way that they did about Reese's story. We the viewer knows that Reese is telling the truth, but the characters within the narrative are disbelievers because, in reality, this is the way virtually any person would react to his story with disbelief, sarcasm, and condescension. I watch a lot of movie reaction videos and I've seen more reactions to The Terminator than any other film and since most of the reactors are younger and used to the newer movies with a lot of unrealistic stuff, they get frustrated at the cops and psychiatrist for not believing Reese and thus being dismissive of them as characters in the story like they don't matter. But I'm just as impressed with the acting of these "irrelevant" minor characters as I am from the 3 main characters. I think a lot of people unfortunately want unrealistic perfect fantasy characters instead of grounded and relatable which is a big reason why I think films have taken a major nosedive over the last couple of decades.
I think the lack of sincerity is also the growing lack of empathy. We’re all so detached from other people due to whatever it is ab social media and our devices and all that, so expressing genuine emotion and showing vulnerability is a “thing of the past” and is therefore cringe. I see this attitude in a lot of my peers and my siblings and it’s quite saddening that I can’t be genuine without being afraid of being laughed at or not taken seriously. This also correlates with people’s growing nihilism and young people questioning the systems under which we live in, causing us to question everything else and constantly questioning sincerity. Irony and satire dont allow people to question it, because it’s meant to not be taken seriously and therefore makes its point without being “corny”. I could say I hate this generation but really I just hate that previous generations let us become like this. This rant did not make sense but whatever
no man, your rant really actually does make sense (in a sincere, honest way) i actually sort of agree with the idea of vulnerability, and it's a bit depressing since i'm such an honest and empathetic person it kind of hurts to be in an environment where most people are just too alien to the idea of being sincere and trying to be genuine, so i get what you mean
it feels to me like that era peaked a couple years ago and that people today are gradually getting more open about these things. maybe I'm just getting older. in any case I see a positive trend in my own surroundings. Looking across the atlantic, not so much.
Generations that were before yours are not to blame for why your generation became the way it is. It's not something anyone can control single handedly. The act of rebelling from what the previous generation does or what they stand for has always been something that has happened for every single generation. You can't put blame on others for your how own generation acts, you should blame your own generation instead.
Something tells me it's definitely the effects of social media (not so social!) as a psychological virus that's causing today's people to be all sorts of weird, detached, socially stunted beings.
I didn’t realise until now, but the reason I love modernism films like TG Maverick while also loving Everywhere All At Once is that because they are at such odds in their writing and purpose, that they both fill different gaps in what I want in films. One is simple, but absolutely refined to near perfection in every aspect. The other, is also very refined, but is far more chaotic in its story and direction, that it can’t create the same feeling as TG, yet still be incredibly well written. The fact now we can enjoy such diverse films now (not taking into account for the many bog standard Hollywood films), is something I love. It’s like video games, especially with indie games. You can enjoy new releases focused on just being a fun game, or a cinematic story that can run tears, or a sim that tests your patience. They all have a place now in their respective medium.
At their core though, they're both _The Hero's Journey._ They share a message of _"This world is chaotic, and terrifying, and it will eventually kill you. But you can find meaning in being good to other people."_ I'd argue that _Everything Everywhere_ isn't nihilist, it's existentialist.
Honestly, the only reason I liked TG Maverick was for it's pure entertainment value. I walked out of that movie feeling like I had been on a 2 hour rollercoaster ride and I LOVED it. I didn't have any thoughts about the message, the story or the characters really at all. I was just like "WOW!!! Fighter Jets! Amazing!". Whatever its agenda was flew right over my head because it tricked me into not caring about anything. In fact, I'm kind of embarrassed by how much I liked that movie because I certainly don't like the military or this country at all at this moment and the fact that a film could make me forget all of that because the ride is THAT MUCH FUN is slightly terrifying to me. But hey, I'm a sucker for thrills as much as anyone is I suppose. As for Everything, Everywhere All At Once: I got exactly what it's title suggested it was. It had every sliver of action and excitement that TG had but infinitely more on top of that. I walked out of that film every bit as thrilled but also in tears, pondering everything and pretty much emotionally ravaged in the best way. So yeah, I'd have to agree. TG Maverick: nihilist to the core. Everything, Everywhere: supremely existentialist.
As a seasoned industry professional & a graduate of Art and Film Institutes I really appreciate how you did this. Seriously, your care to bring others to an idea or understanding does not go unnoticed.
I had a thought when briefly watching one of the Harry Potter movies on TV the other day, that there were no twists coming, that everything played out almost exactly as expected, very modernist. This is in opposition to the movies of today where we are always expecting something to subvert expectations, or play a scene out for humor, like in the MCU.
Harry Potter is a poor example because it's a series that sacrifices it's emotional content from the novels to reduce the story into simple action sequences. The main criticism the movies received is that they became increasingly less about the characters, their daunting task, and their trauma which the novels focus on. The movies simply rush from scene to scene to hastily progress the story of increasingly longer novels, so there was very little room for the movies to do anything else. The novels spend less time of action sequences and more time on the characters and their emotional struggle, also a lot of time is spent on dealing with authority. Action in the novels is often very punchy, chaotic, and brief, it's proceeded and concluded via conversation and exploration of consequences. Meanwhile the movies never give themselves that breathing room, they simply set up a conflict, execute an action sequence, and then move on to the next conflict, they are relentlessly paced and erratic.
hey, so I had an interesting thought after finishing Spiderman: across the Spiderverse. That movie does a great job of breaking down the differences between the post-modernist, and the meta-modernist approach. Miguel symbolizes post-modernism and the complete awareness/critique of our own flaws and systems, and Miles represents meta-modernism and the willingness to move past these flaws. Miguel became aware of the flaws in his story and how inevitable they seemed, whereas Miles sees the same perspective, but chooses to try and improve anyway; he lives moment to moment.
This is an exciting take on the film. I did watch it twice when it premiered in theatres. Most films are or can be flimsy, cringy or politically made and it only shows a one-sided view. I've noticed that I enjoy various views and angles that demonstrate how the characters express or explain something and you forget your surroundings and are immersed in that character's world. The best part is when your favourite character loses and then the end card says 'To be continued...' Once you leave the room or the theatre you are already thinking how you could have solved that problem, or if you had that ability, what would you do? or other possibilities. Even movies with flaws are good because that means it leaves the viewer(s) asking questions.
One big thing that I learnt from this video is how philosophy affects culture & art. I love philosophy but never really understood HOW it affects the world an 'ordinary' individual experiences. It also demonstrates the immense impact of art on people's sense of priorities and sense of action. Thank you Thomas for this fantastic video and analysis. Subscribed
I literally just wrote an essay on metamodernism, specifically in the TV show Community for my Bachelor in Cinema. Finished it two days ago ! 👏 Edit : Omg you’re literally explaining what I wrote ! Two freaking days ago ! That’s amazing Update : I got my grade … 19/20 !!!
I’m so glad the sincerity is back while retaining the silliness that can be really fun. Really seems like it’s something Dan Harmon has done more or less his whole career
This is probably the best content I had during this week. Kudos for your video essay, perfectly explained even for someone not used to these artistic concepts
22:04 this sketch was brilliant I think every new movement in culture and society is a response to how it was before, deconstructing and building upon it. History shows it with art movements, always building upon previous thoughts
I don't know if a lot of postmodernism is especially constructive - it's mostly intellectual/aesthetic acid that dissolves what's come before. Metamodernism might be the first steps to stepping out of the acid pool.
I think that's why I liked the new Dungeons and Dragons movie so much. Because it was simply a fun romp that was just a fun story. Nothing crazy went into it and no huge twists and I was able to escape for awhile. It was great.
the setting and characters were also all quite lovable and the actors seemed to have fun. the costume and set design was great, and in general the tone was entertaining.
Blacks are always the criminals, poor, in the background, asking questions and subordinate in Hollywood movies. Its an agenda. The China film administration is better than Hollywood.
I unironically much preferred D&D to EEAAO for exactly that reason. The story was fun, it had a lot of heart and just set out to be entertaining. I felt very satisfied after watching it and would watch it again, even if the film isn't exactly life-changing. EEAAO on the other hand felt like it was trying way too hard to be deconstructive and wacky that it utterly lost me in the last 45 minutes or so, and I started just wishing it would end already. Give me D&D any day!
Rereading my comment before posting, I want to add up front that I really do love this channel and did find value in this video, clearly the product of extensive thought and work. The illustrations of each approach in the form of the video essay itself were really fantastic, and I'm sure helped a lot of people learning about these terms for the first time. Anyway. Watching this is a very odd experience as a lit guy rather than a film guy; on the one hand, I feel like this is such a thoughtful, insightful essay, and I find myself agreeing with a lot of big picture stuff, but then when I think about some of the details, I don't just disagree, I find myself kind of confused at the assertions. First of all, the definition of modernism that seems to be at play here centers on certainty, simplicity, and objectivity, but that's not what "modernism" feels like to me when I read The Wasteland (or, hell, to use a non-fiction example from the video, when I read Hume). "Traditional story structure" is not a feature you are going to find very easily within the great modernist novels; many will be *engaging* with that kind of structure or trying to *make it into something new*, but it won't be there as plainly as it is in a movie like TG:M. As I Lay Dying may be an Odyssey, but it's a weird Odyssey, fragmented apart then combined together again. "Unapologetically arguing for values" isn't something I'd ascribe to, for example, the work of Virginia Woolf. Some of the Modernists were traditional, sure; you have Eliot's Anglo-Catholicism, Hemingway's masculinity, stuff like that. But none of those cases are "unapologetic," and they often admit the limits of the things they wish would be valued in their modern world. And then when you get to science and rationalism, it sounds like you're describing Enlightenment literature more than Modernist. The definition of postmodern and examples given seem far less troublesome to me overall, and I do think by the end a much more accurate idea of the Modernist impulse appears: not the impulse to adopt simple structures, embrace objjective/rational science, and advocate unapologetically for a set of values, but rather an "optimism" that the old can be made new again, that we can build something out of our past's ruins. But I wonder about the focus on No Country; yeah, it's a great example of "deconstructing" a Western, but neither the Coen Brothers nor McCarthy have that kind of sneering, empty irony that so often characterizes the postmodern (and while I don't know about the former, the latter has definitely been examined as a kind of metamodernist writer, or a writer with metamodernist tendences, or a writer in the stages between the two, or even, at times, as a kind of very late modernist). The definition of metamodernism (or postpostmodernism or the New Sincere or etc etc) is, I think, very much the accepted standard among those who believe that the movement exists/ can be meaningfully distinguished from postmodernism. The opening of Fargo vs Swarm is really useful illustration, but again, I can't help but see the Coen Brothers' product here as ultimately a work of sincerity rather than a work of postmodern irony. When we reach the final shot of Fargo, we're not reflecting on the empty artifice of it all, but rather basking in the hope and love of two people who feel incredibly real. But of all the movies that I want to quibble with here, I think I want to quibble with Top Gun: Maverick the most. The argument here that metamodernism (or, if you don't agree with that periodization, a shift from irony to sincerity) is becoming more and more prevalent in film and television is, I think, really excellent. But I'm not sure what that has to do with people watching Top Gun: Maverick and going "they just don't make them like that anymore." Like, yes, TG:M differed structurally and thematically from a lot of big movies, but I think people were more lamenting the prevalence of cinematic universe superhero movies shot in front of green screens with grey color palettes, convoluted overly CGI-ified action scenes, overwhelmingly cosmic stakes, and characters that primarily exist to set up other superhero movies shot in front of green screens. EEAAO and TG:M both feel like the products of several human beings who really cared about the art they were making rather than the product of a corporate factory trying to churn out as much Content as they could. When people asked "Why don't they make them like that anymore?" I don't think EEAAO was the primary point of comparison, or Babylon, or Avatar 2, or any of a great number of movies that have come out since. Rather, I think the primary point of comparison was the most common kind of Blockbuster today, the shared universe superhero movie. I really hope I'm not being a dick here. I'm not trying to be. I find this channel immensely valuable, and I found this video very enlightening. I just couldn't set it aside without commenting on some of these details, because they struck me as so odd.
A little addendum rereading again: I know Hume isn't a modernist, but he was used (I think correctly!) in the video as an example of how we can find stuff relevant to Modernism pretty far back in history, further back than we'd expect. But I think Hume is an example not of simple, straightforward, unproblematic rationalism, but an example of the kinds of *hurdles* the modernists had to overcome (or try to overcome). Hume proves, in a way that to this day has not successfully contested (at least, not in a way that epistemologists all agree is successful) that induction is inherently uncertain, that all our scientific processes can only get us towards *likely* truth rather than *certain* truth. The modernist failure to actually overcome that hurdle means that he's ultimately important for the *postmodern* thinkers who question all those Theories that seem so certain about the stories they tell about our world, all of which remain largely founded on induction.
Wow Robert S. Great insights. I prefer what you wrote here to the essay that inspired it. Your writing is engaging, if somewhat prolix. It's also earnest and sweet, in a DFW/Dave Eggers way. It's also been proofread (except for that errant "jj" in there). For these reasons I am responding to you, rather than replying to the video. some comments: 1) Cinema is arguably Modernism's poster child. Montage, close-ups, panning, flashbacks, and so forth were hailed as Modernist artistic breakthroughs. They were breakthroughs even though the stories told told were anodyne, and would have been familiar to an audience at the Festival of Dionysus. 2) Mr. Flight has the perfect ASMR voice. He uses it brilliantly, calmly seducing us into assent. TG and TG:M are star-driven thrill rides. As always, Kilmer is the best part of both. Who cares what our essayist host says, so long as he keeps saying it? 3) Like Mr. Flight, NCfOM, both novel and film, are slick and seductive. a. A brilliant writer, McCarthy has never been quite as pro forma as when he took that stab at noir thriller. Is this the same person who wrote Suttree? Seems a little commercially cynical in retrospect. Chigurh can only ever be Judge Holden's errand boy. b. The Coen brothers make professional-looking films. Slick fun. Their pervasive disdain--their sheer contempt--for every* character in every one of their films, makes those films cartoonish.** Is everyone truly an idiot? Go back and look. *By sheer chance there's likely somebody somewhere in their filmography they don't show contempt for, or insist we feel superior to. Denzel's MacBeth might be half right. Or the plucky-tending-toward-Asperger's Mattie in the True Grit remake. **Bambi's a cartoon. So is Grave of the Fireflies. Calvin and Hobbes is sequential art. The Coen Brothers don't even make cartoons. Bouffon movies. Masturbatory farce.
I think you're right. Here's another point of view. Metamodernism doesn't exist, but Metamodernists do, and they've invented themselves. If you dig deeply into the stuff that these various isms explain, there are also likely other clearer explanations. In TG:M, you might simply find that a bunch of old school film makers were tired of green screens and missed making movies like it was the 80s. I think that metamodernists are themselves a cultural subgenre, who are trying to explain the world in a broad, sweeping, understandable narrative where these isms follow one another and are a reaction to the previous. This becomes obvious when you see modernists being generally derisive of what they see to be post-modernism. They do it in the same way that alt-right politically commentators "react to the left" by making a big fuss about gender and blue hair, while not talking about trade unions. Hot take: Metamodernism is alt-right political art. It *thinks* it is "transcending and analysing culture", in the way that Joe Rogan is "just asking questions." It anchors itself on a few very ephemeral things like ironic sincerity, which is also classic of the alt-right, using jokes to hide antisemitism etc. In reality, MM is pushing a particular cultural view of reality, which is mostly "upper middle class hipster," and a big part of that view is a sort of paternalistic misunderstanding of the world. Maybe a useful question: What does Metamodernism explain that could more easily be explained by something else?
Fun Fact: the ending to Monty Python and the Holy Grail is actually what happened. Their license to shoot at that location had run out and they continued to film regardless. Then the Rossers showed up and shut it down.
Apropos of the TV series where they intentionally never ended a sketch...they just went into the next sketch or swam out to sea or went riding a bus or something.
They had a huge comical battle sequence written for the climax, which I think involved swallows carrying a coconut, but there was no way they were ever going to be able to afford to film it even if they had permits.
I know a lot of people hate it, but I think Cloud Atlas is meta modern and it's also one of my favorite movies. The Wachowski's have always been at the cutting edge, in my opinion.
I started noticing in college that it was really becoming obvious that film directors were making their song choices with their computer tracklists in mind. They were choosing songs across many types of genres....it began to reflect my own tracklists in the way that their films would have a punk song, a classic rock cover by some newer artist, a pop country original..... especially during the pandemic you could feel the whole of the country just start going through these very freaking odd zeitgeists? I don't know what to call them How else do you explain everyone from coast to coast suddenly sharing originally composed sea shanties. It's like a joke God would put into reality like an Easter egg in one of our current, metamodern films.
I remember when I began to learn more about postmodernism in my Media & Popular Culture class this past semester but I was curious as to why films feel different now from those of the later 20th century. Thank you for explaining the concept of metamodernism that I knew was there but could never really explain or name. Incredible video essay!!
A few thoughts: 1) This is really well done. 2) I understand what metamodernism is trying to do, but I think it's as flawed and incomplete as its parents. The sincerity almost always strikes me as empty and hollow, the same way that I used to meet postmodern thinkers who would argue that life is meaningless and you have to find your own meaning, and then would viciously attack you whenever you actually did find or construct meaning. I feel like the message is, "Yeah, go ahead and find meaning, just don't you dare actually believe in it in a real-world sense." Getting past this would require a sort of solipsistic nature to meaning in a way that's not cheap. I'm not sure if this is a fundamental flaw in the idea, or if it's just very hard to fully grasp, let alone communicate. 3) You're correct in that subversion got old a long time ago, but honestly I'm even more tired of constant media referencing, especially franchise self-referencing. The only thing I find to be more obnoxious in the world of film is remakes. 4) Keep the beard.
Your second point is speaking more to the Existentialist/Absurdist tradition, rather than "post-modernism", which came about later, partially as a response to the very popular Existentialim, though mostly as a response to Modernism which had dominated academic philosophy since Descartes. "Post-modernism," is a buzzword, an umbrella term, and ambiguous, but all it really means is turning the critical and analytic tools of Modernism against the foundations of Modernism itself. A pithy example could be, "what if Descartes methodological doubt, doubted reason as an access to truth?" Another could be, "knowing that all language exists in context and all specific communications, such as a talk or publication further happen in a context, rather than trusting language to a flawed but generally reliable tool for communication of thoughts in their real terms, what if we asked what out language reveals about our relationships to our contexts and situations?" So, Post-modernism isn't a unified theory or body of work, it's a collective term for the broad response to previous philosophy, that has happened in the contemporary era, and as such does not have an opinion or perspective on the meaning of life, suffice it to say that many, many contemporary and recent philosophers felt the question to be simplistic, reductive, and unreflective. There is an entire web of contexts, thoughts, feelings, and motivations behind and around that question and much of contemporary philosophy is more interested in that what is revealed about that web of context, rather than in unreflective, bombastic and dramatic declarations about the meaning of life. From there, the component you're missing on Existentialism/Abusrdism, the aspect of, "just don't you dare actually believe in it," is the analysis of Good Faith, my explanation here is going to be very Sartre-flavored, there are others. You can believe in whatever it is just fine, in fact in order to be operating in Good Faith, which is to say authentically, you kind of have to believe in it. At the same time, to be operating in Good Faith, you cannot cease to recognize that you have freely chosen. You can be an Existentialist and be profoundly religious, many of the Existentialists were, what they can't do in Good Faith the evangelical/new-age thing, where they start talking about how they always knew they were "meant" to walk this path, making references to "destiny", or how this simply what they "must" do, etc etc. That's the rub in Existentialism. There is no *inherent* meaning in the world to be discovered/found. That does not mean there is no meaning, simply that we are *responsible* for creating and making it. In order to be in Good Faith, *authentic* to our relationship with the world as creators and makers of meaning, we cannot abdicate that responsibility and put the onus for meaning in our lives on some external other, whether that be an ideology, "the way I raised," a religious or spiritual faith, a creed, any of that. We are free to choose any of those things, but to be authentic, we must always recognize that as our choice. So, for the snotty philosophers sneering about whatever "meaning" someone comes up, well if it's mean-spirited, that's just academic/intellectual bullying, which is never okay and has no bearing on the ideas. If it's good-spirited, perhaps among members of philosophy program, it's almost a Socratic exercise. We're talking about how people are *choosing* to commit their lives, they should probably get it right, and be willing to double check.
2 is a useful critique. As someone who hangs out with all the MM writers and thinkers, we're still debating A LOT whether this category of stuff can be truly considered MM yet, or is just a more complex form of pomo (post-modernism). No debate that it's all pointing in that direction. But we're still arguing about semantics and whether it's fair to say there's a real state transition from pomo achieved yet (which can only really be proven in retrospect). The debates themselves are still productive, as it hones our definitions, shared interpretations, and lookinh for proceduralization - all necessary parts. Here's a quick tidbit for those whom are interested: some of the sociologists argue MM isn't here until we see art demonstrating a set of actionable ethics or morality. From a systems theory perspective, my counter is that that's emergent and pluralistic; and already underway as the MM themes raised in this video change people's thinking and choices.
Hey man just wanted to say that part were youre talking to your double explaining meta modernism vs post modernism in dialogue form while portraiting it in a meta modernist way of filmmaking is one of the best pieces of creative creation I have ever seen.
The idea of modern, postmodern and metamodern is limited because it doesn't factor in that modern values can eventually become traditional, those traditional values can be responded with an "antithesis" of sorts and that will eventually lead to a response to the new-tradition; ie become the new modern. This perspective doesn't factor in how eventually metamodern perspective will eventually become the zeitgeist and eventually become tradition.
I didn't know my love for movies as a form of art so much before this video. I always thought I loved the good stories and the experiences brought to me via movies as a vehicle, but in fact it turns out there's something about this art form that fascinates me at the same time. Thank you and absolutely excellent work!
I've been waiting, WAAAIIITING, for metamodernism to be discussed more. Ever since wisecrack did that video on shia labeauf back in 2016 (holy shit that was 7 years ago), I haven't been able to get it out of my head. I feel like it's the perfect antidote to what's been happening across the board in our broader culture as we yearn for connection amidst a world that feels more disconnected, more unfair, and just... worse. How else do you combat all the art, artists, and- quite frankly- average online anonymous commenters hiding behind snarky retorts and middle fingers and sighs of ennui but to be brave enough to expose your most vulnerable and authentic self, to offer up your real hopes and dreams, and to tell the people you love that you care about them and need them? While movies like Once Upon A Time in Hollywood might check all the boxes for what the "quintessential" metamodern work of art is, I think it's kind of missing the forest for the trees. What I think really makes Metamodernism work, what makes it so important, is that in its simultaneous support of paradoxical positions, like of being both derisive and sincere, both cynical and hopeful, both analytical and empathetic, both deconstructive and constructive, its stories create a whole that's greater than the sum of its parts, and somehow feels more honest about the human experience than either side would alone. It feels truly human, as if to say "I don't have the answers either, but I do care" and I think it creates emotional connections with the audience that only that level of vulnerability and instability can produce. I'm thinking of the grip Bo Burnham's INSIDE had on the world in the middle of COVID lockdown, and the feeling of oscillating between bone-chilling recognition and laughter in That Funny Feeling. I'm thinking of how we all cried watching a pair of silent rocks with googly eyes on them in Everything Everywhere All At Once. I'm thinking of watching Bojack Horseman grapple with death in The View From Halfway Down in absolute despair after saying "wait was that Zach Braff in roller skates?"
This is really well written and insightful. I agree with a lot of what you're saying and am really glad you took the time to articulate this in a youtube comment lol.
Three trends that disrupt(ed) Modernist film: 1. 1950-1970s: French New Wave, creators with non-directing backgrounds (animators, comedy writers (Woody Allen, Monty Python), painters, art directors (Alfred Hitchcock), photographers), birth of the auteur. 2. 1980s-2000s: Commercial (advertising) directors, T.V. and music video sensibilities (Tim Burton, Tony Scott, Quentin Tarantino, Oliver Stone, self-reflexive movies like _Private Parts_ (1997) and _Spice World_ (1997) could only work at this time), new media and non-linear editing suites (Video Toaster). 3. 2010-Present: The amount of production technology, especially cameras, editing tools and distribution platforms, available to non-directors, the new-auteurs (Daniels, Jordan Peele) is unprecedented.
Just.. wow. It's been a long time since I've seen such an engaging, neat, and informative video essay. The comments here already cover most of the details of how this is so well done, but I just had to leave a comment to tell you that you did an amazing job with this in every way that you could have.
Thomas, I must say this is one of, if not the most impressive thing I've seen on TH-cam. Truly impeccable writing and presentation on your part to condense such enormous ideas into something so digestible and easily understandable. Keep up the amazing work man!
18:58 THIS!!!!!! this is my biggest issue with so much art that comes out these days. the cynicism is so deep that ppl have come to devalue the very art they are so invested in.
Here's a thought. I wonder if the reason why metamodernist artists are so obsessed with the postmodern obsession with narrative is that the average artist's art is increasingly informed by their experience of art rather than the 'real world.' By this, I mean that many artists during the modernist period were artists in conjunction with or following experiences as soldiers, lawyers, grocers, construction workers, teachers, mothers/fathers, etc. Whereas the average moviemaker now has probably been interested in and pursuing such a career since they were in high school, meaning that they don't get to experience the real world before they begin to actively pursue art. They grew up consuming media and thus their perception of reality has been dominated by that filter, and less balanced by other experiences of 'real life'. I realize this is an overgeneralization, as is the notion of 'real life', but I wonder whether the angst that pervades artists in part stems from the fact that they're not sure what value their art has, which stems from the fact that they've never done anything else that they can compare it to.
Just a thought...
Yes agreed
doesn't really track well with many film makers, though, and film makers having lived their entire lives with an always around media starts with boomers (actually boomers, not the now meaningly meme term).
Well said, I couldn't agree more. Traditional stories work because people who have lived real lives and in the real world can relate tot hem. Whereas the majority of the working class cannot relate to the views of a sheltered arthouse snob. Postmodern and Metamodern artists lack real context.
[THUNDERING AGREEMENT] There was another video essay I saw called The Epidemic Of Passable Writing that was the first time I called this out. Kids who grew up in Hollywood (literally or figuratively), basing their understanding of human behavior not on human interaction, but on movies. So their writing feels like cliches made of cliches. It's got the same creepy vibe as the uncanny valley but... situational? Emotional? A gigantic example is Disney live action kids' shows. No human behaves or speaks like this. But that's done for the purpose of squeaky-clean sanitization. I've definitely seen movies where, no matter the characters' ages or competence levels, they all just act like bitchy mean dumb teenagers. Because that's the extent of human interaction the writer has experienced.
@Leandro Aude Which soldier one should glorify depends on which side of a war -- i.e. what the cause of -- that soldier is. There is no difference between a "soldier" versus a "murderer". There IS a huge difference in having GOOD reasons to kill one's opponent versus BAD reasons. Reductionism treats ALL opponents -- no matter whether some government labels them a murderer or rapist or whether some government proves they initiated unjust murder or rape-- as opponents. In any conflict. There is nothing absolute nothing sacred about the status quo, and that includes the existence of nations. We Antinatalists understand the basic absolute fact that nobody consented to be born. But, unlike natalists, we understand the logical consequence of this fact: that nobody is entitled to the status quo, that if you defend breeding/breeders being allowed to breed, then you have no right to complain about those who are born of changing all the pre-existing rules/laws/including pre-existing nations, if they so choose, to, preferably, make the rules/laws more fair,
but, breeders also have no right to complain if those being born without their consent make the rules/laws less fair.
I used to say I miss the "campiness" of 90s movies. But now I'm starting to think what I'm missing is sincerity.
As someone who has enough issues to worry about in my real life, I seek out movies as a form of escapism. And a simple story let's me forget about the chaos for a couple hours.
I feel ya. I think Star Trek The next Generation is my modernism go to thing, and now I better understand why :)
Sometimes post modernism can provide that escapism too, im thinking more in terms of live theater though. One thing i love about art is how frustrating it can be to try and define what we want to see for a certain reason. As humans we yearn for meaning and definition. On another note, paddington 2 is my go to comfort film
@@alpenjonthen when we get too comfy in that modernism we move to deep space 9s metamodernism
I think this is why I prefer horror movies these days despite the fact that they aren’t typically “good cinema” or “heady” in any way. They are (usually) just sincere, straightforward, and a perfect vehicle to escape reality momentarily. Plus, it has the added bonus of imagining a fantasy threat that you always survive when the credits roll.
@@alpenjonTNG and DS9 were both great, DS9 is probably the better show but TNG is my go to feel good show.
My biggest gripe with modern film and media has always been the growing lack of sincerity. So many writers end up afraid that their audience won't buy in to genuine emotion and sentiment, so they cop out and end any genuine moment with bathos or irony, resulting in a story where it's hard to really attach to anyone. What's worse is that sincerity isn't even a problem for most viewers-rather, it's the way sincerity is expressed, and for what subjects. It's not that we don't want stories that encourage bravery or friendship or kindness; we just want them expressed in a way that matches our current beliefs.
Yeah, because their films were shit and attacked the audience.
Why do you want art that matches your current beliefs? Art is supposed to be challenging; it's not supposed to placate.
Stick to film from pre-1990 (and make sure to explore pre-1950 films!). You’ll find a lot of sincerity and creativity without any of the postmodern malaise that defines the current moment.
The past already has so much, it would take a lifetime to watch and read it all. No need to take anything from today’s dystopia.
@The Creator Those creators are definitely not the fully sincere modernists/traditionalists that OP is talking about.
@@Charliehund100 Art is not supposed to be anything.
this breakdown of recent movies feels so accurate. everything has a sort of self-aware, self-deprecating undertone, and it feels almost more insincere and self-indulgent than the movies that take themselves seriously. as a young person, i feel a constant desire to prove that i don’t take myself too seriously (because then i am always in in the joke even if it is about myself.) it is a way to subvert criticism: if you point out what is wrong with yourself first, then no one can use it against you. it is the same thing with post modernism and meta-modernism. when directors and writers noticed the public pointing out inconsistencies and cheesiness in movies, they felt the need to make everyone laugh with them at the expense of their personal dignity.
I feel like you got the perfect description with "self-indulgent", it's the exact same frustration I feel about myself when I finish sentences with the "but if not that's ok too no worries", "idk if that made sense though maybe I'm just crazy", "sorry I'm just being overdramatic", etc. It is a self-indulgent self-consciousness that really undermines whatever point was being made or feeling was being shared. The anxiety of potential criticism is temporarily soothed but ultimately just fed into by this kind of preemptive defensive self-deprecation. When you're constantly striving to be "self aware" above all else it can lead to a lack of identity, which then only feeds into the problem as you start to feel like being self aware IS your identity, and criticism feels more and more threatening as you're defining or valuing yourself solely by your ability to always be "right".
Writers have this flawed belief that if they point out a stupid plot, it stops being stupid. Unfortunately that's not how it works, the plot is still stupid. For example one character will point out how ridiculous this heist plan is, but the writers don't do anything with it apart from pointing it out. Just pointing it out does absolutely nothing, in fact you're just bringing more focus to it.
@tonimashdane33498Did you mean brothers?
@tonimashdane33498 zizek speaks about this with white liberals being the first to point out how horrible they are but not willing to actually change things “ I know I’m a horrible sexist racist etc but at least I’m aware I am”
@@One.Zero.One101 its just a way to avoid being held accountable to known standards, such as having a good plot
"A cynicism that tears everything down and leaves you unable to sincerely engage with anything" feels very, very real today.
"You can pull yourself up by your bootstraps and levitate in the air." -1990s
"Check out this guy. He thinks he's the Lorax." -2020s
The impact of South Park in particular here is pretty interesting, because it's kind of the antithesis of sincerity. It's obviously not the only piece of media to do this, but it's had a massive impact on millennials, especially men of a certain age bracket who grew up with it and deeply internalized its fundamental unwillingness to genuinely engage with almost anything without a level of ironic detachment or mockery. This unwillingness then became actual incapability for some of them.
Cynicism is either the refreshing twist of lime cutting through a boring drink, or the acid eating away at your face
@@jarkkolaiho462 I've got a friend who recently remarked that he's been unable to enjoy a lot of popular songs because he's heard the parodies too much. It's rough because he's been desperately wanting to figure out how to have deeper friendships with people, rather than always being the class clown. He's aware that he's been trying to mask his insecurities, but it's a process to change years of habit and mindsets. It's a set of skills you're not going to find by interacting with mass media these days.
@Leandro Aude the 90s were edgy
I have always considered good movies as ones that take me on a journey. Not necessarily a physical journey as having the characters jumping around from place to place, or even necessarily a mental or spiritual journey, but that feeling that time dilates during the course of the movie. You only spent an hour and a half watching it, but you feel like it took you around the world and back in that short time. That, as opposed to movies that have you sitting there wondering "is this thing EVER going to end?"
I agree. I see movies that way too. Seeing a character or relationship grow shouldn't be looked at as a cheap formula. It's a necessity for good storytelling. When a movie has a main character that just stays the same with no real or meaningful change, it can get pretty boring. Which is why I don't blame people not really into ghibli films. Top gun maverick and EEAO are both films that I love that year.
when the movie ends and youre start becoming aware of your surrounding again, is often a good sign that i was fully immersed in a good movie
@@illnesslilin9633 Well said. You went to another place and time for a couple of hours and heard a good story. Nothing beats that.
The irony is that movies seem to be getting more bloated runtimes lately, and yet viewers increasingly come away feeling that "not much happened". A 142 minute runtime doesn't matter for shit if nothing of consequence or value ever really happens within the story itself. But then there are long films that feel like the time flies by, precisely because of that command of pacing and editing and sharp writing that creates the time dilation effect you identified. John Wick 4 I felt managed this, I honestly forgot it was nearly a 3 hour movie, there was never a dull moment and by the end I just wanted MORE.
Can you tell me some examples of movies like this? I feel like these are the types of movies that I'm looking for but I don't know where to find them
How soundtracks have changed is one thing that drives me nuts. Modern movies are afraid of silence, so they CONSTANTLY have to have some song playing. But, sometimes you NEED silence to convey certain emotions.
This is so true. There are rare movies being made with little to no sounds or invasive explosions or twists. One of the few that comes to mind is Portrait of a Lady on Fire” by director Céline Sciamma created something quite unique. I've been an avid international independent film watcher for years. A few others have an ambience of drama, love, honesty, and suspense without going overboard.
You don't like variations of the electronic "brahaaaam" sound effect every scene?
One thing that really surprised me when rewatching Dragon Ball was the silence - the show can go minutes without it, usually to build tension, and it really works (that does not apply to the english dubs because they have a different sountrack).
@@ironroad18 I talk about that every time it comes up!!! It’s horrible! 😂 A sign of our times… soulless, uncreative anti-art
That's right, when I checked out the soundtracks of the Star Wars by John Williams, I realized that there are tracks that weren't used in the movies (but used in other media like videogames) like the scene of the trash compactor in ANH, first minutes of that scene are without music, helps up to bring suspense, also scenes without music help to slow down a movie in contrast with fast action packed scenes.
11:42 This is kinda how I felt watching Gran Turismo. I went into the film almost expecting to come out thinking it was bad because I knew the plot was straightforward based on the trailer but they actually did the predictable structure so well and I thought it was amazing. It surprised me that that simplicity can still work nowadays. Helps that the acting was great too.
This is what C.S. Lewis had to say about deconstructionism, which is closely tied to post-modernism.
“You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”
Beautifully said
🤷♂️ postmodernism is badass so you’re gay lmao, sentimentalism is cringe and so is modern religion
Just to be clear I don’t even know what I’m responding too and I haven’t watched the video yet
Love that quote!
I love seeing CS Lewis quotes in the comments. I had thought of this one too!
I will never cease to be amazed by people who are smart enough to fully flesh out ideas that I myself can only "feel." I'm 48 year old. When it came to movies I knew something had changed, something was different, but it was just a feeling. I wasn't smart enough to really pull it together. It was nice to be able to roadmap it.
Small aside: The entire video I was thinking "there is something familiar about this guy". Then it came to me; he's wearing what I knew 25 years ago as Marine Corp Woolly Pully.
I share your amazement, and I aspire to be better at fleshing out my own ideas.
However, I also think that as an individual, I have a limited ability to recognize "grand patterns." It's hard for one person to attain the perspective required. These ideas were probably conglomerated through many discussions with many people.
By trying to engage genuinely with others, we can help make a fertile bed for ideas to grow 😊
I'm 55 and stop watching movies and TV about 15 years ago for various reasons and yet I'm was captivated by this commentary. It's smart and well spoken and gives one plenty to think about. What is the reality? How do I feel about it, and In a meta-sense; How do I feel about how I feel and how did I get here?
This guy is actually full of sh^%--he's just getting you to think he's smart by coming up with a BS explanation for you getting old and choosing to see the films you grew up and matured with as a standard. I mean, to acknowledge all this is to admit that no older movies had a self-referential slant to them and no newer ones have straightforward storytelling, when there are PLENTY of both. He even acknowledges it, but he glosses over it as if there are just a few examples. These kinds of people, film critics and film 'academics,' ALWAYS come in after the fact to hindsight bias their explanations of the world into everybody's history books. Why they need to do that is the only deep human philosophical question needing to be asked here. You want a reason why you can't enjoy newer films as much as you did older ones? Maybe because you're still seeing the latter through the lens of a child and the former through the lens of a know-it-all? Just a suggestion...
Wikipedia helps a lot
It's interesting too that these philosphies and musings about art and culture don't just spring up out of nowhere. This video is the first I've heard to articulate the scope of meta-modernism in film, but the feeling, the vibe of creating meaning from chaos isn't new.
While watching Thomas lay out the evolution of movie storytelling, I couldn't help but be reminded of a 1998 episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer titled "Amends". In it, Buffy's major love interest is propelled to near suicide by The First Evil, convincing him the battle between good and bad can never be won. But in the end, he is saved by Fate, and Buffy shows him the very act of fighting for good has meaning and purpose.
Those viewpoints can be summed up in the philosophies of nihilism and absurdism. Buffy's creator Joss Whedon himself has cited French author Albert Camus, a leading Absurdist thinker, as a major influence, and Camus's major works were from the 1940s and 50s.
My main takeaway is "So I am not crazy!" lol This video basically puts words to a feeling (that many of us have) that we didn't know how to express or explain.
Yeah this is great.. I have noticed increasingly over the past decade or so that society is constantly deconstructing what it enjoys and wallowing in guilt about literally everything (ie "this cheeseburger is so delicious, but there are poor people that will never eat a cheeseburger, also its so bad for my arteries, and a cow died for this meat, etc, etc)
I think self awareness is overall a good thing but too much of it results in defeatist attitudes and inaction, 'these problems are too numerous and big and I'm just one person with a limited perspective, who am I to even begin to have answers?' It's beneficial to get out of your own head and just enjoy something or just DO a thing without thinking so much about the repercussions.
@@gman7497 Yeah it really does explain why its so hard to escape watching modern stuff and why its so easy to binge old content.
@@gman7497 This is true, but I want to be optimistic, and believe that the alternative we are finding now, of finding meaning in art WHILE acknowledging its shortcomings, or better yet, finding meaning IN the shortcomings of the art we consume is a far better approach than to pretend there are no shortcomings in the first place.
Same! It now makes sense to me why I love some movies, while some audiences are baffled and frustrated by it (For example The Last Jedi or EEAAO)
The first thing you learn in writing school is choose an audience and write to that audience. Movies as of late, are trying to make movies for all audiences.
"I think a big part of why we see this kind of self-reflectivity (in meta-postmodernism) is that viewers and artists feel self-conscious about art that is just passive entertainment".
I think this is the crux of it and not just about the relation between meta and post, but in essence an explanation of how each new "wave of change" to any expressive medium is based on its desire to analyze, deduct and ultimately escape the previous generation that precedes it. Also, it describes the genius of David Lynch.
The ability to treat this like a short film is great. Being able to incorporate the concepts you’re discussing not just as examples (clips from film) but even more so using them yourself as editing and writing techniques is so great!
Easily the best essay you’ve ever written. This is exactly what I’ve been looking for.
but as a video is sounds like your typical douchbag nonsense.
strong agree. i feel privileged to have been given a voice to a feeling that I otherwise wouldn't have been able to express. thank you!
This video is how I’ve been introduced to you, so I can’t say anything about your past essays, but this one is really done well.
Blacks are always the criminals, poor, in the background, asking questions and subordinate in Hollywood movies. Its an agenda. The China film administration is better than Hollywood.
Tom Cruise is the world's biggest movie star! 🔥🔥
this is definitely a video essay
oh man is it ever
One of the video essays of all time
Surely one of them
This is definitely a comment
@@artharys One of THE comments primates have ever commented
I just watched the Barbie movie and thought immediately about this video essay that I watched months ago. The Barbie movie is a perfect example of metamodernism.
What are you talking about Barbie is fantastic
@@randomuser-795Barbie was fantastic *because* it's metamodernist.
@@pivotguydc1149 whats metamodernist?
This video went through me like a ghost
THATS WHAT IT WAS MISSING. The whole time, something was lacking and it upset me so much because I was so eager for this movie for YEARS, from the first pictures circling on twitter, it excited me so much.
And it didn't deliver. I left sorely disappointed and equally existential because it was a GOOD movie, just not good in the way I was hoping it to be. Reading your comment made me realize that what I was hoping for, was probably akin to Top Gun, just a simple, effective story structure that has the ability to become an instant classic. But I was left with just another critique on society, like every other movie has had.
Community is a great example of metamodernism. It's well known for its 'parodies', but it always uses these high concept references and moments to create humour, connection and emotion between the characters. Its a very traditional, warm sitcom that warps and changes to view itself through different lenses.
It’s not Family Matters or Full House, that’s for sure, but it’s okay compared to other things from this dystopian age.
I think it was one of the last examples of not wholly cynical entertainment.
@@black-aliss One thing you gotta recognize is that the transition from sincere to cynical started in the 1910's and was virtually complete by the 70's. _Community_ was not so much the last piece of not-cynical entertainment as it was one of the first to ask how we can _deconstruct_ the cynicism to find our humanity - a move that has not yet fully caught on in the mainstream culture.
It was fun then, but it's a long time and anything that becoming mainstream just degrade.
@@LincolnDWard That is definitely why I loved Harmon' writing in Community, especially in the last two seasons, despite its loss of the original cast members. I was expecting the same for Rick and Morty, but as the show progressed, it kinda felt more stagnant as opposed to his work on Community.
1. Don't talk down to the audience
2. Feelings over ideas
3. "How" is as important as "what" and "why"
4. Be sincere to yourself and to the audience
Sounds like Tenet felt that movie 100%
1a. Dare to be an enthusiast. (kept in check by rule 1 and 4.)
@@lukeGGlee Agreed, and sounds like the Star Wars sequel trilogy felt that 0%. Way too much fanservice compared to original plot, and "how" gets thrown into the trash and replaced with "because magic!" deus ex machina.
Also the tone of the script vs art direction have changed from hope/survival/anger to bleak/depressive/sad. The script may be all inspiring and hopeful, revengeful, the movie direction is the opposite. Which leaves audiences not knowing how to feel. You knew what you were feeling in Aliens (go Ripley) vs Indiana Jones Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (huh???)
>don't be like this video
deep
Your definition of modernism seems to line up more with what I learned to be romanticism. Romanticism was more concerned with the genuine, authentic sweeping emotions and high stakes moral battles.
I understood modernism to be more concerned with trying to figure out the world after WWI after all those notions of romanticism had been squashed by the industrial scale of death that was the Great War.
it kind of goes in a spiral always - a more 'sincere' paradigm gets replaced by a more 'nihilistic' one, and then back, doesnt it
I thought the same thing. I learned romanticism to be about endulging in emotion and trying to find a sort of personal truth or authenticity. Where I think modernism departs is that the individual part is left behind for the belief that there is a universal truth we should all work toward. Like a romantic painting says, "I think this is beauty and I want to convey my personal view of it" with not a whole lot of importance placed on it being grounded in concrete fact. It just needs to convey the same feeling those facts make us feel. Modernism says, "this one single point is true fact, unequivocally, and I want to display it wholly and completely" Like modernism would be a photograph of a battlefield with mud and dirt and a darkness of death, where romanticism would be a painting of soldiers charging, shiny swords drawn, horses bucking, flags waving. This is just how I feel though, so don't take it as fact.
Romanticism emphasizes nature and the natural world, as well it emphasizes man's relationship with the world itself. That's a difference between it and modernism
I can distinguish a world history dominated by 5 clear human-based art eras.
Primalism- where the majority of human history stood in the view of secularists and atheists, didn't exist for other religions. this was when humans didn't have any established art expression and Dadaism (without the goal of creating chaos and trying to destroy art) and Abstract Expressionism are probably the closest things to it.
Traditionalism - a response to Primalism, an evolution in the art world in a sense that art should be governed by rules as the world moved in from proto-anarchist hunter-gatherers to rule-based states and organizations, this led the more confined rules to the people we associate like Mozart and Beethoven for the music, and Michaelangelo and Da Vinci for the art.
Modernism - a response to traditionalism, and it's inherent mistakes that made people "evil" in some modernist eyes. This led to the modernist ideologies of Liberalism, Socialism (in some cases, branched off to Communism) and Fascism, which are all responses to the Traditionalist monarchs and replace them with more modern leaders to win people over. Modernism is a movement to put people over the leaders. Surrealism and Dadaism are modernist art movements, though Dadaism doesn't really want labels as they are completely anti-art.
Postmodernism - a response to Modernism and its ills to society. It's a response of irony and cynicism to Modernism due to the fact that real-life doesn't show the same lens that Modernism does, and Postmodernism attempts to show reality in an exaggerated sense where people can attribute their life into the films and not follow with modernist escapism. Also because of how Modernism exaggerates fantasy over reality, and how the modernist promise was really based on half-faced truths which Postmodernism used against the modernist movement.
Metamodernism - a response to Postmodernism or maybe also Modernism. Postmodernism is viewed by Metamodernists to be the point where you can't just parody and joke about everything anymore, leading people to try and figure out what their lives is anymore and completely driving society to the point of utter complexion and confusion. Metamodernism attempts to solve it by having it oscillate between modernist optimism and postmodernist irony in such a way that people would feel refreshed about it having sincerity instead of irony and leaving audiences baffled at the thoughts.
I think you’re right that his definition of modernism is just not correct. All his references to modernism are realism, in literature terms, and apply equally to film.
You can see this trend outside the arts in people's every day behaviour too. Often when speaking to older people there's a genuity and sincerity that comes across, while speaking to millennials or gen z it's easy to pick up on their self-awareness, irony or at worst anxiety and embarrassment.
While I do like this view, I have to wonder if the older generation is genuinely more sincere, or at times comes off as such. I think there is a difference between having confidence gained from temperament and having confidence gained from self-rationalization or even ignorance. And that is why there is such a divide between the two camps of old and young. I don’t think young people really always buy what old people are saying, because there’s so much poor examples mixed in with the good. One bad apple ruins the bunch, as they say.
Exactly. You nailed it.
It is also why it's more fun to make fun of them instead of older people
@Alejandro-gk9jw They won't be able to overturn anything if they're too anxious or overwhelmed mentally. Which is what's currently happening.
Being cynical for the sake of being cynical is also not healthy in any way, especially for a functioning society and that kind of behavior used to be reserved for the internet.
@Alejandro-gk9jw *"but youre ignoring the hope that is present in this perspective as well."*
But there is no hope in this perspective, the people who hold these cynical beliefs have already given up.
Ultimately, art imitates life imitating art. Our stories have become meta modern because we're searching for glimmers of hope and romanticism in a world that has become increasingly bleak. Modernism is too idealist to be believable, but meta modern allows escapism without denying reality.
Well said. 🎉
Individuals who create art should be held to a high standard because the words of an artist represent the opinion of a particular person. Art should be trustworthy, considering that an artist's words likely hold the same weight as an official document. Providing verbal representation for the inner thoughts or opinions of a targeted individual is invaluable, as it allows multiple perspectives to be heard and appreciated. Additionally, meta modernism can be interpreted as being truthful despite presenting unrealistic situations or ideas, which is something to be admired. Consequently, sincerely representational artwork should be pedestaled high as it objectively sheds light on various 20th century ideals, portraying just how important it is to accept complexity in the world. Awn7mFktpB4
Chiming in a bit to also say 'well said.'
I think absurdist nihilism is an underrepresented facet of nihilism, as absurdism (and by proxy metanihilism) allows for a warm and meaningful embrace in the presence of utter devastation where postmodernism only would allow it to end in a cry of despair and isolation.
Yeah, nah, you're a ponce. Life is life and "artists" are too far removed from real life to imitate it. Instead they're a bunch of boring movie nerds.
@@The_Ballo lmao we get it you’re not paying attention
I think its interesting that Shakespeare used many of the tropes we associate with meta/postmodernism like self-reflexivity etc. In Twelfth Night a character says ‘If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction.’ And Hamlet has lots of good examples of metanarrative eg the play within a play
the thing with shakespeare is that he was not j. wish tehrefore havent completely broken off with reality thats why his books still feel "fresh" 500 years later
@@bahshas Did you accidentally take a dump on your keyboard?
yep thats right reflexivity is not postmodern, this video essay horribly misuses all 3 terms
@@RoboSlaughterlol I saw another TH-cam vid misuse terms so it kinda makes the vid pointless but still a fun watch imo
@@artistaccount I switched off pretty quick I won't lie, I remember even as like a little kid finding it silly how many movies there were about movies/Hollywood. They've been doing this ever since they let self absorbed men pick up a pen! Also I feel like he's gotten his definition of modernism from dudes with Greek/Roman statue pfps on twitter
It is like we live in an era of self-doubt, where creators don't feel the confidence to tell stories they want to tell. Perfect originality is a myth. Everything is partially based on something else, one or many things all put together. It is the unique point of view of every individual that brings something new and valuable to the public. The reality is that there are surely an infinte number of stories that are worth telling and filming.
They don't need to be apologetic, sarcastic, referential or self-referential. Sometimes obsessing about trying to be unique cancels all the things you want to talk about in the first place. Yeah, maybe not everybody is interested in your story, but twisting and inserting quirks everywhere is just going to obscure the true story that you want to tell.
True to some extent, I guess. Are they really just afraid, or - perhaps - they do not really have any interesting story to tell, or know how to? ;) And, that's why we're drowning in a sea of remakes, reboots, sequels, prequels, spin-offs and the like. Have a story to tell, learn how to do it well (it's your job, after all), and there is nothing wrong with good old linearity. No need for 1,000 characters, 300 uninteresting sub-plots, highly foreseeable or useless twists, etc. I agree on the originality myth.
@@DarkSideofSynth well, originality is always an economic risk. People who produce and have the money rely heavily on repeating the formula because they think that's a safer bet. The numbers show that's usually the case...
On the other hand, the public will eventually be saturated of recicled stories, and original stories will become economically less risky again. It is a sort of a cycle. I think the self-doubt is just added to this cycle.
@@arkheavyindutries Yeah, I know that. What those people forget, though, is that risk is implied in entrepreneurship, that's part of the game. And, usually, the greater the risk, the bigger the rewards.
There is no such thing as a safe bet. If it were safe, it would not be a bet ;)
Just stop before saturation is off the charts, not just in terms of repeating things over and over again in time, but also in the quota of things being offered: how about 70% same-old same old, and 30% new stuff?
The public should grow some spine, and not just rush in drones to whatever the market spits out. We've had over 20 years of superhero movies... time to call it a day or what?:)))
Meta irony is a cop/out for writers who are embarassed of themselves and embarassed of the genre they are working in . Is preventively trying to avoid criticism by signaling they dont *actually* give a shit.
She Hulk was something I found confusing. It was pretty bad, but then decided to acknowledge that it's bad without actually recognizing what made it so bad. I know that the comics were meta, but this wasn't the way to do it. I want to believe that it was all on purpose, but it wasn't.
I was really struggling to articulate (even to myself) why I don't like movies anymore and I'm glad I stumbled upon this video.
Yeah, I gave up on watching newer films fairly recently. There might be a random new movie I'd watch out of curiosity, but it would take the perfect fusion of circumstances to get me to watch it. Also, I don't find a lot of stuff within the last couple of decades as re-watchable as movies from decades ago.
I usually dont leave comments, but I have to say this is one of the most comprehensive video essays i have seen in a while. It seems like you have a deep understanding of the "why" of film-making and im glad you could transfer some of that to us.
I was going to say, in a sense this video represents the steps forward in individual social media producers being able to produce things that previously would have taken a documentary team, and I'm trying to work out wether the piece is modernist, post or meta.
I think it also shows some of the limitations of individual social media producers, because I don't think the video author has an understanding of modernism. It makes me smile that anyone could think of unabashed patriotism as a modernist value when the modernists thrived after the chaos of the first world war.
Why do I keep comments always starting with “I don’t make comments usually” or something now
@@andrewtucker94 Would you say that patriotism is more of a traditionalist value then?
It's sad that he seems to believe there's such thing as "late stage capitalism." The moment I heard him say that, I knew he was another one of these progressive liberals that want socialism for all. A bit ironic how someone that watches movies at various points in history that even detail the horrors of communism, would be ignored.
The evolution of your artistic style has been really interesting to watch. Also, I think it's clever when you use a quick zoom to insert a "parenthetical" and then zoom back out when you're returning to your original train of thought. It's like I can see the Grammar on camera.
I love the word "self-reflexivity" for how reflexive it is, since "reflexive" already means "in association/reference with one self". So "self-reflexivity" basically means "self-self-reference".
😀
🤘
Yes, but you can reflect about something other than yourself OR reflect about yourself. Both happen within one's self, but the object is different.
1:08 may be the best sequence I’ve ever seen in a Video Essay, the editing, sound design, and commentary. You have a deep and profound understanding of cinema in all its aspects and it is truly inspiring
I thought a great way to talk about metamodernism is to say that even if we want, we CAN'T go back to the optimism of the modernism. Because we know too much. So the metamodernism is finding optimism while still mentionning the deconstruction.
I don’t think it’s that we ‘know too much’ but rather that irony and meta-storytelling in pop media tells us that we know too much to engage with the work at face value. It flatters us but it (often) doesn’t teach us anything new. I think we can go back (to an extent) but it will take a certain admission on our part as consumers. Just because we can see a work as divisible parts doesn’t mean that we can’t see it as whole again.
I don't think this is relevant at all in the field of storytelling. Suspension of disbelief has always been part of our experience as spectators, of course we were well aware that spaceships didn't exist while watching Star Wars, still we chose to put that aside to enjoy a story set in a universe which had its own set of rules. It is an arbitrary choice made by the audience.
I don't see why, nowadays, we wouldn't be able to enjoy a good story for the mere fact it doesn't deconstruct and reflects on its own mechanisms. The fact that the industry is oversaturated with metatextual content does not mean the average cinema lover has lost his ability to believe in a story that does not rely on constant references to the very condition of the object he is watching.
@@samrainnie2104 , you reminded me greatly of the difference between how an audience of a live stage play can appreciate the show differently from an audience of a movie. Namely, nobody in a stage play's audience seems to complain about being able to see the wires during the special effects.
i.e. Audiences gets more out of a play by using their imaginations to fill in for an unwieldy special effects budget. Meanwhile, movies have to worry that if the outseam of Han Solo's pants feature a stripe which is 2 mm wider than a few seconds ago, the fans will riot.
We can’t go back (more than once in a while anyways) because modernism movies would be boring to us now. Too simple. Not enough “whoa…” ideas and concepts. Furthermore there’s such a large body of movies now, there’s not a lot of untold modernism content, we’d just be retelling essentially the same story (Hollywood remake anyone?). So of course there’s nothing left but to make reference to those once upon a time original stories (which now seem cliché). The best we could do is start making those “idea” movies of the early 90s (what if death came to life? Let’s explore the seven deadly sins etc). Personally as an old fart genX I got tired of irony by the early 2000s so bring on the meta modern! My kids will be better for it.
Deconstruction and "optimism while still mentioning the deconstruction" both deal with negation - how/whether to negate Western Enlightenment thought (leading to metamodernism) or dwelling in perpetual falsehood in order to validate previous experiences (leading to idealism and escapism). It's a false dichotomy, defining eras of history based on reductionist ideology instead of the complex and multifaceted movements theseughts encompass. Awn7mFktpB4
Metamodernism reminds me of curation. Many just enjoy the collection for what it is. But if you look behind the curtain, you see the references and influences of the curator, and you can appreciate it on an emotional and intellectual level with almost two different story lines - the one presented, and the story made up of the little breadcrumbs left behind by the curator that you can pull together in your own mind.
Yeah! Exactly, I feel like metamodernism (and post modernism to an extent) presents 3 narratives:
There's the story, there's the meta narrative, and there's the cultural narrative.
The story is just the narrative. Things happen.
The meta narrative is the narrative about the narrative: things happen, but what does those things happening mean, and how does it connect to our experiences?
The cultural narrative is the intentional reference to other media of the time, it's what marks the time at which the media was created, and as such, in a way, gives us a narrative about what the culture was like when it was created, and specially what culture was like to the specific person responsible for the story in the specific point in time it was written.
@Radiofloyd 235 thank you for this insight!
A good thought!
@@radiofloyd2359 well said!
the way you analyze movies while explaining it with the same techniques those movies use is just perfect
I had this feeling that i was watching a movie made in the 80s-90's but released 30-40 years later in theaters while watching Top Gun Maverick, it felt out of place but not in a bad way
For all your work on this channel. Thank you
Hope you donate to the homeless too
I can't stress enough how good this video is. Video essays are my favorite type of youtube content and I watched many. Different topics, durations, delivery styles. This is a Top-5% video essay quality in my subjective view. And why I'm resonating with this particular topic is because, you gave a word to what I've been feeling, but didn't know how to define, and frankly whether or not I even long to define it. Thank you, Thomas, you have removed this itch that I wasn't completely aware of.
he's not gonna fuck you bro
I love this essay and how you reflected my feeling about the art of cinema and the world we live in today. We deconstructed everything and then we found a big void that needs to be filled. Hopefully there is way ❤️
@The Creator yeah but I feel too many movies are kinda miserable nowadays. Like there aren’t many movies coming out where you feel good walking out of the movie theaters, and a lot of them try to include complex themes and messages that are hard to incorporate in 2 hours, so it ruins everything. I feel like movies need to take a step back and try to make things such as stories less complicated and focus a lot on character development, which I feel is severely lacking in film today
@The Creator lol Rian Johnson...
@The Creator Rian Johnson ? really ?
@@thomervin7450 what did "the creator" say about rian johnson?
Queue Nietzsche
So basically metamodern is like that shrine in Japan where they tear it down and rebuild it every couple decades so that it never decays and stays fresh forever but also reinforces community and interest in traditional architecture.
I think the reason that Everything Everywhere All At Once hit so hard for me is because for the last few years I, like many people, have been living in a constant state of self doubt. Seeing them return to modern values of family and community towards the end of the film, amidst all the chaos and absurdity, was genuinely heartwarming. It's like them saying "we are all we have in this world, so why waste it?"
We always wonder if things could've been better if we made better decisions, which is exemplified through Evelynn, and these possibilities prevent us from living life to the fullest. Then comes Waymond - a character so full of optimism, that it awakes us from the cynicism we are surrounded by, and reminds us that appreciating our reality despite its flaws is not only beneficial, but essential. Combine that with Joy - who's the antithesis to everything her parents stand for, and an all-powerful antagonist that acts as an agent of chaos, and you got yourself a movie that manages to balance a healthy dose of skepticism with a surprising amount of sincerity and emotional nuance. I love it.
May we all spend our lives doing laundry and taxes together❤
Around 2021 I became a positive nihilist. I did a 180 from starting to have trouble sleeping, due to anxiety that I would be attacked by who knows what, to just not caring because I can't control it. I accepted not just my inevitable death, but also, my inevitable life. I probably will be here until old age, there is no point, and yet, it's a gift. Life is a gift. Enjoy it.
@@manictiger If you haven't seen it, you will like The Big Lebowski
@DeadManWalking Every word of this resonates with me.
@@manictiger How did you do it? How does one stop caring?
Man up
Documentary Now is a great example of metamodernism. It parodies and deconstructs classic documentaries, both modern and postmodern, yet it repeatedly affirms the value of that genre of storytelling. I always find it oddly heartwarming.
Good point! In my case, this got me thinking about Community as a metamodern sitcom.
"On one hand, Documentary Now! reflects the metamodern sensibility by being self-aware of the limitations of the postmodern condition and by acknowledging the importance of sincerity and authenticity in art.
The series also has a nostalgic and ironic tone that is characteristic of metamodernism.
On the other hand, Documentary Now! does not necessarily seek to move beyond the postmodern condition towards a better future, which is another defining feature of the metamodern sensibility"
Naww, that's a post modern documentary with a respect for modernity and metamodernity. It's trying to live in both worlds but it does a better job living in the post modern world.
The episode with the son of the chef was incredible! Perfect example of what you’re talking about
Parody and deconstruction is post modernism.
This is by far my favorite video that you've made--not because the others were low quality, but because this was soooooo well done. This was such a good take and route for explaining these paradigms.
It's important to note that the tendencies of modernity, postmodernity and metamodernity are mainly present in form, rather than content. The same story can be told in all three ways. Take the story of Hamlet for example, which had many adaptations over film history (like "The Bad Sleep Well" or "The Lion King") -the latest one being The Northman that's also based on the myth that inspired Shakespeare's play
It seems to me that metamodernism just reflects the current zeitgeist. To the media-saturated mind of the internet denizen, irony and oh-so-cleverness is tiresome, simple sentimentality is cheesy and awkward authenticity is cringe. Yet, as both consumers and producers, we still want our art to be clever, emotional and authentic. So frame-flipping contortions ensue, with a dollop of humanity. I personally think there is an appetite for compelling human stories, linearly told. Like vinyl, flip-phones and touching grass, we're stepping back from the digital hall of mirrors towards analog IRL, and discovering what is old is new again.
Yes I’ve been looking for a comment like this. In real time our society is actually shifting more towards the old ways (tradition) ironically as we progress further into the future but now with knowledge and a better understanding of what we didn’t know back then. Audiences are done with subversion and want movies to fulfill their end of the bargain. No more lecturing, cynicism, or deconstructing. ESCAPISM with a good story is the only thing SELLING nowadays. Which is very interesting. Barbie is the exception as it was geared towards women specifically and the female market for film has been starved for a while.
Yes. It's a desperate attempt to salvage something from the chaos of a culture that lacks collective meaning while making something that can be sold to disparate audiences. The root of it all is this: there is no "we" anymore. Just individuals with their own personal likes and dislikes, political worldviews and philosophies and so on. The other thing: we live in a world of products and commodified "art". When it comes to movies, for the individual consumer it's about finding the right product, and for the producer it's about finding the right set of individuals to sell to. "We" are fragmented. Some not insignificant number of people will love something you call cheesy or sentimental. All movies outside of art house cinema (which at least desires to be art) want to make big bucks in a culture that remains without an adequately well defined core that everyone can rally around; the result is lowest common denominator stuff and products explicitly targeted towards a niche audience of sufficient size. Also, the audiences are global, which magnifies the effect. Massive miscalculations happen (this used to be very rare when the audiences weren't global and there existed a strong unity at home) precisely because the world is changing so fast and not everyone experiences the world in the same way because of the fragmentation that I outlined before; the people who miscalculate live in their own bubble like everyone else, and so they believe that everyone sees the world like they do. There is no making movies for the society anymore - now movies are made for audiences, and the audiences are becoming increasingly diverse and disparate every passing day. I agree especially with your final sentence.
@@TheMASTER4real here in India audiences are demanding more postmodernist films.
I don't think simple sentimentality is cheesy. It plays into our most basic instinctual emotions. Like it or not, we aren't as smart or insightful as we think we are. Why do you think people still love The Wizard of Oz? Or Casablanca? Or Citizen Kane? These are three incredibly different films that feel simple by today's standards, but they are timeless art pieces. Because they're simple. They're honest. When something is honest about what it is, there is a deep thought inside of all of us that can respect the sincerity of something. Simplicity isn't bad. It's just simple. And simple is what we need right now.
Wow that sketch in the middle was completely genius, I don't think I've ever seen someone push the video essay format this far, 10/10
Contrapoints
the channel 'Lessons from the screenplay' has an interesting video on the movie 'Adaptation' thats done in an interesting almost 'meta-meta' breakdown. worth a look at if you're interested in the intricacy of storytelling in film told through a fun, informative and self-aware film analysis.
Patrick H Willems does this also in a lot of his videos interestingly enough.
@@Jason-yw2ow th-cam.com/video/bsEkGGc5_OU/w-d-xo.html
@@Tash014 very fair
I interpret the moment shared between Evelyn and Joy in Everything Everywhere All At Once, resembles what the directors are truly attempting to convey to the audience, which is a mentality of transcendence to a new perspective for a younger generation that is bombarded with a plethora of entertainment that can be consumed continuously in large quantities. This may cause the younger generation to not truly have a strong commitment to any individual philosophy, but rather a combination of them all hemmed on the idea of "Take What You Can Use and Leave the Rest Behind."
I've been thinking of a way to elaborate on why the film made me feel the way it did and I think you just perfectly described it. Gen Z is seems to be torn apart by this clash between a very nihilistic and cheap pop culture and a lack of direction, while also witnessing the complete collapse of most of the old social norms. Not to mention the fact that they were the guinea pigs for social media and the general integration of tech into our society and everyday lives. It just feels like most of us wander through a fog most of the time; there is a crushing worry on most Gen Zers of general hopelessness for the future.
@@KR-rs3sj I don't like this framing but it's hard to disagree
@@KR-rs3sj most Gen Zers of general hopelessness for the future---partly created by sh..t media and "pop" art...
@@blarblablarblar I don't agree with it either. I think the metamodern project is about more than just acceptance of things as they are thats just ancient stoicism. Metamodernism is a project to restore and imbue mediums with a genuine sincerity while also preserving the self awareness
I lived in France for a while and believe this video describes the difference between the typical epic Hollywood, blockbuster, film, and the artistic stylistic aspects of French films. I think of Woody Allen films and films like Flirting with disaster when I think of postmodernism that come close to French cinema. I always enjoyed the feeling and depth you get from watching character development of films in France while I enjoyed the rush of fast paced, adventure driven and sometimes fantastical stories of Hollywood.
Amazing! 15 years of lurking on TH-cam with maybe a half-dozen comments to my name, but you deserve the kudos here. Thoughtful and clear narrative. Your own own use of stylistic editing and framing of your shots was on point, impactful, and reinforced the message. This deserves to be shared and seen by everyone. Life is full of luck, but regardless what comes your way, know that you are as talented as many of the great storytellers your reference in this video. Again, amazing video!
I think this is one of the reasons I absolutely love Edgar Wright's films, where most all of them are very metamodern. Hot Fuzz for instance is absolutely a deconstruction of cop movies, but rather than making fun of them it often embraces the tropes for comedy instead. For instance there is absolutely a central twist to the movie, but instead of making it some obvious twist it can comment on it instead goes in an absolutely insane way it then spends the rest of the film having absolute fun with. It's one of the reasons I think it's genuinely the greatest film of all time, as it manages to both be a genuinely entertaining story, a deconstruction of film and a film genre, while also an embracing of the things it deconstructs. It's an incredibly layered movie where you can just sit back and have dumb fun with it while also being able to analyze through so many different levels.
It's one of my favourite comedies! Truly exceptional
Love hot fuzz because of that.
@@loadishstone They said its metamodern though not postmodern. Meta modernism is about recapturing sincerity and embracing tropes with awareness. In the modern period embracing the trope was done completely unironically. A lot of old Westerns are just pure unabashedly raw ideology made art
@@loadishstone I'm not disputing that classical art had many themes of irony and self awareness I'm specifically talking about modernism, it was a period of intense propaganda in all areas of life film is just one. This idea of a raw unironic portrayal of what is good is pretty unique to the modernist period.
It was a time of the Cold War, US good Russia and China bad was running through the veins of nearly every average american with no self awareness a propaganda bubble that modern film helped to create.
@@loadishstone classic film not classical era I thought that was obvious and yes of course propaganda is present in all times the point is that since the postmodern film is about the deconstruction of all narrative it’s a lot harder to make effective propaganda to the tune of good Cowboys bad Indians
I know what I’m talking about you just want to argue
I had thoughts like this when seeing the trailers for Renfield and Barbie, oddly enough. They both carried a certain 2000s camp and straightforwardness that I honestly appreciated after a decade of artsy movies by the likes of A24 filling the forefront of what we consider to be 'good cinema.' I'm glad general audiences have a greater appreciation for the strange and less literal aspects of art, but I'd hate to see straightforward tellings of great standalone stories get abandoned for the thin veneer of artsy-ness I think some filmmakers are now trying too hard to paint on projects that simply don't need it.
That never went away. I think people are more aware of these "artsy" films now because the general audience are more receptive towards them than back then. Simple films are still being made, but I do agree with you that some people mistake "serious", "realistic" and "satirical" for hallmarks of good cinema. This is happening to the videogame market as well, where game developers are following cinema trends and you can't have a goofy story with campy acting in your videogames unless you're Nintendo or Indie. Everyone else gets knocked for it.
The more receptive trend is king.
Renfield copped a lot of flak but I appreciated how 1997 the film felt. It was charmingly straightforward fun.
@@Manganization I dont think I would agree with your comment about videogame audiences hating "goofy story," and the reason is a comparison between forspoken and hi fi rush. While I have played only hi fi rush, I can confidently say that the story is very campy and goofy, but was still appeciaed nonetheless. I think what people don't like nowadays with the so called "malenial writing" is that it doesn't seem sincere. Hi fi rush accepts its goofy story and quirky characters, and is confident in its entertainment value. Meanwhile, most "goofy story with campy acting" seem to be plagued with insecurity (such as forspoken), which results in an attempt by the author to lampshade every part of its story, and not accepting the goofy situation it is in.
really, I do beleave people want sincerety, and most of the writing nowadays seems to be compensating for its lack of self confidence through a mask of goofy and quirky characters and plots.
Renfield is super pretentious honestly if you actually watch it and maybe Barbie too it seems like its going to be postmodernist.
I watch the trailers of A24 films so confused. It just seems so dark to me. You're right that Barbie Trailer really did give me a nostalgic 2000s vibe. Back when I was still excited to go to the cinema to see a movie.
I'm am blown away by this video. The subject matter, how it's explained, the meta-ness of the narrative itself, etc., etc. made this incredibly engaging and thought provoking to watch.
I cannot lie may man, this was my big reminder of how much I enjoy your content and need to consume more of it.
I don't quite have the vocabulary to express how valuable this video essay is, save that I beg the algorithm and winds of content proliferation to put this in front of many more eyes.
Thanks for the great work.
"Viewers will think you just don't get it, that you're cheesy or corny." This ladies and gentlemen is the bane of modern cinema. Confusing the viewers with the critics.
To explain: Viewers watch movies for fun, not to see that you really get "it" whatever "it" is in the current zeitgeist. They also don't care if something is a bit cheesy if it fits well, because they care about the story not what technique is used to achieve it.
For critics this is the opposite.
I always like seeing the Google review stats on movies. 5% on rotten tomatoes, 98% of google users liked this film.
u know nothing about cinema
@@vitorfreirezannin3075 please educate us good sir
All of this. I notice critics just like things if they seem "different" and hate things that are entertaining if they seem "familiar" or "common"...I've noticed that with the new live action Disney trailers seeming so dark (literally) and gloomy. Compare the Golden Compass (based on a book) movie for example to the miniseries. They basically removed all the magic and replaced it with nothing. All in the name of realism and making their fictional world seem more like ours.
@@godsfavoritest no, I get what he's saying. This has always been a problem; after all, the problems of marketing to masses, getting a box office hit, being commercial vs writers and directors who are serious about their art want to say something more, while not alienating the paying public too much. And at some point it gets too much, but the idea was to get ahead of the larger commercial audience rather than catering to them. Actually I don't see this as "confusing viewers with critics", it's trying too hard to impress your peers at the expense of the larger audience. "Critics" really don't count at all; before the internet, the "film critics" in major newspapers were in the most part paid off (or their bosses were paid off). They're not being catered to at all, and certainly weren't before the 90s. Haven't you ever seen a film where you agreed with the Tomatometer and not the audience score? Maybe you don't, because why would you say that? Actually I think the OP here missed the conclusion of the video, it's neither good nor bad, it's just some creators are able to appeal to a smaller or larger audience and sometimes they fail. Again; no one is making films for critics, no matter how pretentious, no matter how badly they fail, it's because they are failing on their own merits. Wes Anderson does a good job at appealing to both audiences, but he definitely is appealing to cinephiles and actors, at least as much as a wider audience. Maybe you think his films are pretentious, but I disagree, and Thomas Flight would, too.
You have a rare combination of talents and skills that work perfectly for me. Every time I watch one of these videos, I am left with a sense that some rewiring has occurred in my neural pathway. Your essays are always intricate without getting pedantic, engaging without trying to be entertaining. Thank you for educating me a little bit more on cinematography. It gives me heart to pick up the camera again.
Ditto! I’m like “I feel I just got brain-hacked, but idk how and…I kinda like it” 🤣🤣🤣
Yeah, this guy is wicked smart.
I love it how you sync your filming and editing with each part you were describing
speaking about the art while making an art piece itself, love what you do and how you present it all.
just a small clarification, since this was the first thing I wanted to know when I saw Top Gun: 'flew their own aircraft' means in this case: backseat in the aircraft while a navy pilot was flying. Later on they did some CGI tricks to make it look like they were sitting in the front of the two seater aircrafts. But what you see on screen is indeed real camera footage and real G forces etc.
Sorry for nerding out on this, I'll continue watching your video which should be amazing as always !
Yes I could have said that more clearly haha
Thanks. Helpful clarification. I had no idea how any of this worked and I am nerdy enough to appreciate knowing!
The Rehearsal and even Nathan for You would be another fantastic example of metamodernism in action in a medium where you might not expect it. Comedy-to-horror-back-to-comedy genre play seems to be a through-line too. Beau is Afraid, Inside, the Rehearsal and Jordan Peele films all play with this.
I haven’t seen beau is afraid yet, do you recommend it?
@@StepPappyKit's absolutely wild. I recommend seeing it with a group for the viewing experience but it's a love/hate film for sure. I preferred the relative restraint of Hereditary if I'm honest
I finally watched Chernobyl absolutely loved the storytelling and feeling of that it felt very confident and straightforward and didnt have that silly feeling i get from a lot of the other new produced stuff also fantastic soundtrack, the podcast with the writer about the work behind should be mandatory listening to any film student
I really love the fact that you actively paralleled and showcased several of the concepts, e.g. Breaking 4th wall, Post-Modernism, Meta-Modernism, etc. Very enjoyable video essay!
This is why I love Wes Anderson. His movies take you to fantastical world. But while you are lost in the humor, bright colors, sets, and shots he is actually setting up a complex narrative about life.
TRUE
Yeah, Wes is probably the most pedagogical example for metamodernism, because he is so exaggerated both in his decknstruction and his sincerety
Bloody awful.
Wes' movies have gone downhill since the Isle of Dog. The French dispatch was a 😴😴😴😴 & I had a friend say asteroid city was extremely slow.😕
@@dustinmatthews387 yeah my friends and I have a joke that we are going to write Wes a letter just saying, “What the hell was the third act of the French Dispatch”
I'm realizing that this shift to postmodernism and metamodernism is also why live action superhero movies tend not to be all that good anymore, but animated superhero shows continue to be good (more or less). Most Marvel films strip away a lot of the sincerity (and at times straightforwardness) of Modernism in a way that makes it harder to genuinely invest in the art's story. The best ones keep that sincerity alive and check postmodernist cynicisms at the door (examples of this would be Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 1, Spider-man: No Way Home, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, which while deconstructing patriotism, doesn't deconstruct the same values that a traditional patriot might have, merely insinuating that "the American way" may no longer be synonymous with truth and justice.) It's the hyper-meta films that earn the most derision from audiences, like Thor: Love And Thunder.
Totally.. you can wink at the audience on occasion but if the whole mission of your superhero movie is to illustrate that superheroes are inherently stupid, you're kinda sabotaging yourself. It worked at the beginning coz it was novel and unexpected but now that it's a go-to formula in many cases, not as much.
That is why DC movies are hated oftentimes, Superman isn't really good or is it... us who are bad and he is good? When you just question the basics of everything about the characters or the world they inhabit eventually it will turn the people who love that thing away.
I genuinely think one of the first meta modernism movies i can remember was Tropic Thunder. It was a movie about making a movie that starred a method acting character in black face who spoke like a stereotype from the 70s. It had actors pretending to be actors who would get entirely different roles than the actor playing them. The biggest name on the cast was tom cruise, who is hired for being a charasmatic hero type but instead plays a disgusting predatory hollywood "film producer" (who looked a bit like a mr Weinstein). Just everything about it had so many layers of meta irony.
the movie about making a movie trope was done all the way back in the 50s with Singing in the Rain and that is kind of seen as a postmodern film
Watch more movies?
OP - love love love Tropic Thunder for the sheer genius of pointing ridicule at the Film Industry - which was what Ben Stiller was aiming at. Making a comedy that appeals to the masses, has a poignant tone, is on side with the audience & ultimately has you in belly laughs - nothing short of brilliant.
Anyone can cry on screen - it takes a special talent to make you laugh.
Straight actors can only act straight. Comedians can make you laugh or weep - it's one & the same coin.
The movie is post modern, just because it’s meta ironic doesn’t make it meta modernist.
It makes fun for making fun of, it doesn’t present solutions nor leaves you hanging or puts up a fetishised way of self resolve
So this echoes the conversations that my wife and I have had about Gen Z and how they approach the chaotic post-deconstruction world they were brought into. They aren't terminally ironic like Gen X, or nihilistically pragmatic like Millennials. They have rediscovered sincerity. And because they've had to kind of reinvent sincerity out of nothing, they've done it a bit clumsily. They're taken up with things like "identity" and thinking of themselves in terms of mental health syndromes as tools to try to unearth some happiness or self-possession in a world that makes no promises anymore. Whatever might have been carried forward in terms of experiential learning by the pre-modern era was wiped out when that paradigm took over, for the most part. The world collectively went inside its own head for several generations, and when it came back out again found out that it had no tools to understand the world anymore. So what we're seeing is people who are members of a "post-disillusionment" generation, who never internalized the "purpose and order" of modernism or the nihilism of postmodernism, trying to figure out what humans are supposed to even be doing here in the first place. We hope that "touch grass" might turn from an expression into a kind of manifesto in the future for these kids. I'm reminded of a documentary called The Swedish Theory of Love about extreme social isolation, that looked at a group of young people who were pushing back against that by trying to form intentional communities, spend time in nature, and just be friends with each other. The idea of someone finding a centre of sentimental authenticity in the midst of a mess of chaos in Everything, Everywhere, All At Once sounds a lot like what young people now find themselves in need of doing. I hope that this might happen in connection with a return to engaging with the physical world around us, rather than just going further into our collective heads some more.
You wrote a lot of horseshit to say nothing.
wonderfully put
I hate being defined by my generation. Can you tell which one I am by that?
Robert DeCaire Wait what?
damn, u kinda ate with this post. thx for sharing
This is easily your finest work yet. It's insightful and incisive cultural anthropology but it's also edited like poetry. Side note: I think Greta Gerwig's Little Women might be another movie worth throwing into the ring for metamodernism, especially since the changes to the source material are so easy to distinguish from other adaptations. Gerwig deconstructs the conventional ending of Little Women (with Jo's engagement to Professor Bhaer being depicted as a maybe-fictional change forced by the publisher) while also playing the sequence with complete sincerity...and then finds independent meaning in the meta element of Jo actually publishing Little Women. It's deconstruction and reconstruction with a twist.
To make things even more complicated: I think The Last Jedi has been such a controversial piece of Star Wars media because it's the first metamodernist take on an essentially modernist property. This leads to feelings of confusion, with some people pointing fingers and saying it's "postmodern" when in fact they're just attuning to the oscillation.
Confusion is a pretty mild term for many peoples feelings about “TLJ”
Thank you! And in regard to both Little Women and TLJ, I think you're absolutely right.
@The Creator OOoooh buddy I would get some security cams in my house if I were you.
@The Creator Ehhhhhhh.... I enjoyed it for what it was in the theater, which was Star Wars turned on its head and turned inside out just for the sake of being different. I like different, it's fun. But as part of a larger continuity of Star Wars movies, it suuuucks. Completely threw off the arc of the trilogy, especially when the last movie ran away screaming from everything it did (destroying itself in the process). "Good" is subjective. Is it the most self aware and arguably most artistic? Sure. Is it the most enjoyable? Not to me, at least.
@The Creator
I’m all for a director to express themselves artistically and put their fingerprint on something. Which is why I really enjoy what JJ Abrams brought with Lost, Cloverfield, and Super 8 as well as what Rian Johnson brought with Brick, Brothers Bloom, Looper, and his Knives Out films.
However for a franchise like Star Wars it needs an overall plan and blueprint for how stories can move forward in a way that respects the characters and the world that they preside in. The people involved need to work together and cooperate, sacrificing some of their creative input in order to service the overall story. As we now know JJ Abrams and Rian Johnson did not do that.
I like movies that aren’t just over-the-shoulder shots of conversation, with desktop wallpaper shots in between.
I want to see the stuff around the story, not just the face/emotions of the actors.
I know this video is more about the values/tropes within the stories, but I think people can like twists/postmodernism if they’d shoot it correctly instead of trying to shove what we’re supposed to be feeling down our throats.
A Scarface scene comes to mind, when Tony first meets Lopez, you see the whole room and everyone’s in the shot. Nowadays it’d be close-ups showing the suspicion in Tony’s face, and the hesitation on any word, trying to milk every frame for drama and suspense.
It’s a drug dealer’s mansion and Tony just watched his friend die, we get that it’s tense
0:01 I love how
Thomas = Tom
Flight = Cruise ✈️
Thomas Flight = Tom Cruise ✈️
Thanks for this. As a GenXer, this honestly feels like a description of the GenX perspective on life as we were growing up, versus what both later generations have done instead. I know you didn't really frame it as such, but I couldn't shake that sensation. And it gave me one of hope that after a generation of tearing down things that we felt were wrong, there's a generation that is trying to build meaning back up, understanding the open wounds we exposed from before.
This was beautiful.
Fellow Old Millenial/Gen X’er from Bermuda.
Felt this.
The actual problem with film is not in any of these three movements, but that modernism was not replaced by postmodernism or metamodernism. It was simply replaced by neoliberalism in film as in policy (basically continuing a trend that Reagan started ~40 years ago). Where once movies were made according to a director's vision, the modern blockbuster is so expensive that it is made by committees who market test the hell out of everything. Thus, a Hollywood blockbuster resembles a film written by aliens who have only had the notion of a film described to them rather than by people. The end result are things like the new Star Wars Trilogy, which were made by committees of GenXers.
"...understanding the open wounds we created from before." FTFY.
You exposed some, but created a lot more. I understand why it would make you feel better that future generations are picking up the pieces for you.
The wounds were already open, but healing. A healed wound requires no doctor. Those who wished to be seen of society's doctors ripped them open anew before a mostly history-illiterate country, who did not know how to research broadly into original sources and are therefore too-easy pawns. The faux doctors stand ready to help you rebuild -- under their guidance/control.
You write in a method that reflects deep thinking. Hope you you have the time to read deeply. and perhaps see some old movies like Raison in the Sun.
Playing the generational blame game is a fool's errand. It's just divisive reductionism in pursuit of making oneself feel superior. There'll be new narratives created with each new generation to provide blame for society's ills, and ensure that generally only those with generational wealth are the only ones with generational unity. Today's zoomer will be tomorrow's boomer
I think the reason why anime like Demon Slayer has gotten so mainstream in the west is partly as a response to postmodernism in western media. It knows its being ridiculous but still embraces it sincerely rather than try to deconstruct itself. Sometimes people just want a good hero story.
People who watch anime in the west are still in the very small minority, so I wouldn't exactly call it "mainstream"
It’s not ridiculous though. Demon Slayer is one of the least ridiculous anime I have ever seen, which contributed to its mainstream success.
"Demon Slayer"
"a good hero story"
🤔
Yeah, the issue with "artsy media" in general is that is not why people are consuming the media, they're doing it because they want to hear a good story, they're not trying to listen in on someone else's internal struggle of whether or not their life decisions were worth it
If I go to a film festival? Sure. If I go to an art museum? Sure. But the notion that mainstream popular stories should be like this makes everything just miserable
@Leandro Aude it’s about a man who slays demons
Yes, it is true, that all art (films, music, literature, painting, etc), reflect the times/moods/values/perspectives of the existing culture in which creation occurred. In this sense, art represents a time capsule of the period. The fact remains for better or worse is that art and culture never remain static and that time will inevitably consign all art and culture into the past and that the present only exists for a brief blink of time.
In the terminator, the interrogation scene where the police mockingly ask Sarah how she managed to escape a "time traveling robot from the future" is a brilliant piece of work by James Cameron. This moment not only highlights the skepticism and disbelief of the authorities but also cleverly explains the main theme of the movie to the audience.
The Terminator is my #1 film of the 80s! For a film with such a ridiculous premise, it somehow manages to feel entirely grounded and gritty in a way that many films with much less silly premises fail to do. The skepticism of the cops and psychiatrist is a huge reason that movie holds up for me because REAL PEOPLE would actually react the way that they did about Reese's story. We the viewer knows that Reese is telling the truth, but the characters within the narrative are disbelievers because, in reality, this is the way virtually any person would react to his story with disbelief, sarcasm, and condescension.
I watch a lot of movie reaction videos and I've seen more reactions to The Terminator than any other film and since most of the reactors are younger and used to the newer movies with a lot of unrealistic stuff, they get frustrated at the cops and psychiatrist for not believing Reese and thus being dismissive of them as characters in the story like they don't matter. But I'm just as impressed with the acting of these "irrelevant" minor characters as I am from the 3 main characters. I think a lot of people unfortunately want unrealistic perfect fantasy characters instead of grounded and relatable which is a big reason why I think films have taken a major nosedive over the last couple of decades.
I think the lack of sincerity is also the growing lack of empathy. We’re all so detached from other people due to whatever it is ab social media and our devices and all that, so expressing genuine emotion and showing vulnerability is a “thing of the past” and is therefore cringe. I see this attitude in a lot of my peers and my siblings and it’s quite saddening that I can’t be genuine without being afraid of being laughed at or not taken seriously. This also correlates with people’s growing nihilism and young people questioning the systems under which we live in, causing us to question everything else and constantly questioning sincerity. Irony and satire dont allow people to question it, because it’s meant to not be taken seriously and therefore makes its point without being “corny”. I could say I hate this generation but really I just hate that previous generations let us become like this. This rant did not make sense but whatever
no man, your rant really actually does make sense (in a sincere, honest way)
i actually sort of agree with the idea of vulnerability, and it's a bit depressing since i'm such an honest and empathetic person it kind of hurts to be in an environment where most people are just too alien to the idea of being sincere and trying to be genuine, so i get what you mean
it feels to me like that era peaked a couple years ago and that people today are gradually getting more open about these things. maybe I'm just getting older. in any case I see a positive trend in my own surroundings. Looking across the atlantic, not so much.
Generations that were before yours are not to blame for why your generation became the way it is. It's not something anyone can control single handedly. The act of rebelling from what the previous generation does or what they stand for has always been something that has happened for every single generation. You can't put blame on others for your how own generation acts, you should blame your own generation instead.
I think this made a lot of sense, actually. Or maybe you were just being ironic :)
Something tells me it's definitely the effects of social media (not so social!) as a psychological virus that's causing today's people to be all sorts of weird, detached, socially stunted beings.
I didn’t realise until now, but the reason I love modernism films like TG Maverick while also loving Everywhere All At Once is that because they are at such odds in their writing and purpose, that they both fill different gaps in what I want in films. One is simple, but absolutely refined to near perfection in every aspect. The other, is also very refined, but is far more chaotic in its story and direction, that it can’t create the same feeling as TG, yet still be incredibly well written.
The fact now we can enjoy such diverse films now (not taking into account for the many bog standard Hollywood films), is something I love.
It’s like video games, especially with indie games. You can enjoy new releases focused on just being a fun game, or a cinematic story that can run tears, or a sim that tests your patience. They all have a place now in their respective medium.
At their core though, they're both _The Hero's Journey._ They share a message of _"This world is chaotic, and terrifying, and it will eventually kill you. But you can find meaning in being good to other people."_ I'd argue that _Everything Everywhere_ isn't nihilist, it's existentialist.
so top gun 2 is a modernist movie, while everyturd everywhere is an existentialist one.
Honestly, the only reason I liked TG Maverick was for it's pure entertainment value. I walked out of that movie feeling like I had been on a 2 hour rollercoaster ride and I LOVED it. I didn't have any thoughts about the message, the story or the characters really at all. I was just like "WOW!!! Fighter Jets! Amazing!". Whatever its agenda was flew right over my head because it tricked me into not caring about anything. In fact, I'm kind of embarrassed by how much I liked that movie because I certainly don't like the military or this country at all at this moment and the fact that a film could make me forget all of that because the ride is THAT MUCH FUN is slightly terrifying to me. But hey, I'm a sucker for thrills as much as anyone is I suppose. As for Everything, Everywhere All At Once: I got exactly what it's title suggested it was. It had every sliver of action and excitement that TG had but infinitely more on top of that. I walked out of that film every bit as thrilled but also in tears, pondering everything and pretty much emotionally ravaged in the best way. So yeah, I'd have to agree. TG Maverick: nihilist to the core. Everything, Everywhere: supremely existentialist.
@@KovacsZoltan12 ...what did you just call it
Man the layers to this video are great. The meta Metamodernism part was pretty well done
As a seasoned industry professional & a graduate of Art and Film Institutes I really appreciate how you did this. Seriously, your care to bring others to an idea or understanding does not go unnoticed.
I had a thought when briefly watching one of the Harry Potter movies on TV the other day, that there were no twists coming, that everything played out almost exactly as expected, very modernist. This is in opposition to the movies of today where we are always expecting something to subvert expectations, or play a scene out for humor, like in the MCU.
Maybe it's because of critical youtubers who attack simple movies for 'dumbness''.
Harry Potter is a poor example because it's a series that sacrifices it's emotional content from the novels to reduce the story into simple action sequences. The main criticism the movies received is that they became increasingly less about the characters, their daunting task, and their trauma which the novels focus on. The movies simply rush from scene to scene to hastily progress the story of increasingly longer novels, so there was very little room for the movies to do anything else.
The novels spend less time of action sequences and more time on the characters and their emotional struggle, also a lot of time is spent on dealing with authority. Action in the novels is often very punchy, chaotic, and brief, it's proceeded and concluded via conversation and exploration of consequences. Meanwhile the movies never give themselves that breathing room, they simply set up a conflict, execute an action sequence, and then move on to the next conflict, they are relentlessly paced and erratic.
Thomas I gotta say, I LOVE old tech, and what you've done for your interview segments having them play on the older TV turned monitor is "chefs kiss".
hey, so I had an interesting thought after finishing Spiderman: across the Spiderverse. That movie does a great job of breaking down the differences between the post-modernist, and the meta-modernist approach. Miguel symbolizes post-modernism and the complete awareness/critique of our own flaws and systems, and Miles represents meta-modernism and the willingness to move past these flaws. Miguel became aware of the flaws in his story and how inevitable they seemed, whereas Miles sees the same perspective, but chooses to try and improve anyway; he lives moment to moment.
This is an exciting take on the film. I did watch it twice when it premiered in theatres. Most films are or can be flimsy, cringy or politically made and it only shows a one-sided view. I've noticed that I enjoy various views and angles that demonstrate how the characters express or explain something and you forget your surroundings and are immersed in that character's world. The best part is when your favourite character loses and then the end card says 'To be continued...' Once you leave the room or the theatre you are already thinking how you could have solved that problem, or if you had that ability, what would you do? or other possibilities. Even movies with flaws are good because that means it leaves the viewer(s) asking questions.
The entire film Is post modernism
miles being metamodernistic to the spiderverse is insanely sad to witness.
animation is a different beast entirely.
Miguel is thinking about groups as statistics, while Miles sees each individual as its own life/world of possibility.
One big thing that I learnt from this video is how philosophy affects culture & art. I love philosophy but never really understood HOW it affects the world an 'ordinary' individual experiences. It also demonstrates the immense impact of art on people's sense of priorities and sense of action. Thank you Thomas for this fantastic video and analysis. Subscribed
I literally just wrote an essay on metamodernism, specifically in the TV show Community for my Bachelor in Cinema. Finished it two days ago ! 👏
Edit : Omg you’re literally explaining what I wrote !
Two freaking days ago ! That’s amazing
Update : I got my grade … 19/20 !!!
I’m so glad the sincerity is back while retaining the silliness that can be really fun. Really seems like it’s something Dan Harmon has done more or less his whole career
@@daveSoupy I mean Dan Harmon is definitely sincere when he inserts his fetishes into his “work”. Other than that, no not really.
@@daveSoupy My essay is LITERALLY on the metamodernism of Community 🤩
@@Brumsly I have 37 pages that would disagree ^^
@@moltuae2458 Agree to disagree then.
This is probably the best content I had during this week. Kudos for your video essay, perfectly explained even for someone not used to these artistic concepts
22:04 this sketch was brilliant
I think every new movement in culture and society is a response to how it was before, deconstructing and building upon it. History shows it with art movements, always building upon previous thoughts
I don't know if a lot of postmodernism is especially constructive - it's mostly intellectual/aesthetic acid that dissolves what's come before. Metamodernism might be the first steps to stepping out of the acid pool.
Love the usage of all the cutaways and past interviews. Very informative - bravo!
I think that's why I liked the new Dungeons and Dragons movie so much. Because it was simply a fun romp that was just a fun story. Nothing crazy went into it and no huge twists and I was able to escape for awhile. It was great.
the setting and characters were also all quite lovable and the actors seemed to have fun. the costume and set design was great, and in general the tone was entertaining.
@@Bobo-ox7fj was it heavily advertised? I only saw like 3 ads for it
Blacks are always the criminals, poor, in the background, asking questions and subordinate in Hollywood movies. Its an agenda. The China film administration is better than Hollywood.
I unironically much preferred D&D to EEAAO for exactly that reason. The story was fun, it had a lot of heart and just set out to be entertaining. I felt very satisfied after watching it and would watch it again, even if the film isn't exactly life-changing. EEAAO on the other hand felt like it was trying way too hard to be deconstructive and wacky that it utterly lost me in the last 45 minutes or so, and I started just wishing it would end already. Give me D&D any day!
YES and that’s EXACTLY what you go to dungeons and dragons for
Probably not the video I should've watched high, but still incredibly well done. Incredible job on the sketch! My head hurts
beautiful pfp
Stay hydrated brother
Bro foreal, i gotta come back later
lmao actually tho!
Dude WEED LMAO
Rereading my comment before posting, I want to add up front that I really do love this channel and did find value in this video, clearly the product of extensive thought and work. The illustrations of each approach in the form of the video essay itself were really fantastic, and I'm sure helped a lot of people learning about these terms for the first time.
Anyway.
Watching this is a very odd experience as a lit guy rather than a film guy; on the one hand, I feel like this is such a thoughtful, insightful essay, and I find myself agreeing with a lot of big picture stuff, but then when I think about some of the details, I don't just disagree, I find myself kind of confused at the assertions. First of all, the definition of modernism that seems to be at play here centers on certainty, simplicity, and objectivity, but that's not what "modernism" feels like to me when I read The Wasteland (or, hell, to use a non-fiction example from the video, when I read Hume). "Traditional story structure" is not a feature you are going to find very easily within the great modernist novels; many will be *engaging* with that kind of structure or trying to *make it into something new*, but it won't be there as plainly as it is in a movie like TG:M. As I Lay Dying may be an Odyssey, but it's a weird Odyssey, fragmented apart then combined together again. "Unapologetically arguing for values" isn't something I'd ascribe to, for example, the work of Virginia Woolf. Some of the Modernists were traditional, sure; you have Eliot's Anglo-Catholicism, Hemingway's masculinity, stuff like that. But none of those cases are "unapologetic," and they often admit the limits of the things they wish would be valued in their modern world. And then when you get to science and rationalism, it sounds like you're describing Enlightenment literature more than Modernist.
The definition of postmodern and examples given seem far less troublesome to me overall, and I do think by the end a much more accurate idea of the Modernist impulse appears: not the impulse to adopt simple structures, embrace objjective/rational science, and advocate unapologetically for a set of values, but rather an "optimism" that the old can be made new again, that we can build something out of our past's ruins. But I wonder about the focus on No Country; yeah, it's a great example of "deconstructing" a Western, but neither the Coen Brothers nor McCarthy have that kind of sneering, empty irony that so often characterizes the postmodern (and while I don't know about the former, the latter has definitely been examined as a kind of metamodernist writer, or a writer with metamodernist tendences, or a writer in the stages between the two, or even, at times, as a kind of very late modernist).
The definition of metamodernism (or postpostmodernism or the New Sincere or etc etc) is, I think, very much the accepted standard among those who believe that the movement exists/ can be meaningfully distinguished from postmodernism. The opening of Fargo vs Swarm is really useful illustration, but again, I can't help but see the Coen Brothers' product here as ultimately a work of sincerity rather than a work of postmodern irony. When we reach the final shot of Fargo, we're not reflecting on the empty artifice of it all, but rather basking in the hope and love of two people who feel incredibly real.
But of all the movies that I want to quibble with here, I think I want to quibble with Top Gun: Maverick the most. The argument here that metamodernism (or, if you don't agree with that periodization, a shift from irony to sincerity) is becoming more and more prevalent in film and television is, I think, really excellent. But I'm not sure what that has to do with people watching Top Gun: Maverick and going "they just don't make them like that anymore." Like, yes, TG:M differed structurally and thematically from a lot of big movies, but I think people were more lamenting the prevalence of cinematic universe superhero movies shot in front of green screens with grey color palettes, convoluted overly CGI-ified action scenes, overwhelmingly cosmic stakes, and characters that primarily exist to set up other superhero movies shot in front of green screens. EEAAO and TG:M both feel like the products of several human beings who really cared about the art they were making rather than the product of a corporate factory trying to churn out as much Content as they could. When people asked "Why don't they make them like that anymore?" I don't think EEAAO was the primary point of comparison, or Babylon, or Avatar 2, or any of a great number of movies that have come out since. Rather, I think the primary point of comparison was the most common kind of Blockbuster today, the shared universe superhero movie.
I really hope I'm not being a dick here. I'm not trying to be. I find this channel immensely valuable, and I found this video very enlightening. I just couldn't set it aside without commenting on some of these details, because they struck me as so odd.
Thanks for this comment
I don't think you're being a dick. At all!
A little addendum rereading again: I know Hume isn't a modernist, but he was used (I think correctly!) in the video as an example of how we can find stuff relevant to Modernism pretty far back in history, further back than we'd expect. But I think Hume is an example not of simple, straightforward, unproblematic rationalism, but an example of the kinds of *hurdles* the modernists had to overcome (or try to overcome). Hume proves, in a way that to this day has not successfully contested (at least, not in a way that epistemologists all agree is successful) that induction is inherently uncertain, that all our scientific processes can only get us towards *likely* truth rather than *certain* truth. The modernist failure to actually overcome that hurdle means that he's ultimately important for the *postmodern* thinkers who question all those Theories that seem so certain about the stories they tell about our world, all of which remain largely founded on induction.
Wow Robert S. Great insights. I prefer what you wrote here to the essay that inspired it. Your writing is engaging, if somewhat prolix. It's also earnest and sweet, in a DFW/Dave Eggers way. It's also been proofread (except for that errant "jj" in there). For these reasons I am responding to you, rather than replying to the video.
some comments:
1) Cinema is arguably Modernism's poster child. Montage, close-ups, panning, flashbacks, and so forth were hailed as Modernist artistic breakthroughs. They were breakthroughs even though the stories told told were anodyne, and would have been familiar to an audience at the Festival of Dionysus.
2) Mr. Flight has the perfect ASMR voice. He uses it brilliantly, calmly seducing us into assent. TG and TG:M are star-driven thrill rides. As always, Kilmer is the best part of both. Who cares what our essayist host says, so long as he keeps saying it?
3) Like Mr. Flight, NCfOM, both novel and film, are slick and seductive.
a. A brilliant writer, McCarthy has never been quite as pro forma as when he took that stab at noir thriller. Is this the same person who wrote Suttree? Seems a little commercially cynical in retrospect. Chigurh can only ever be Judge Holden's errand boy.
b. The Coen brothers make professional-looking films. Slick fun. Their pervasive disdain--their sheer contempt--for every* character in every one of their films, makes those films cartoonish.** Is everyone truly an idiot? Go back and look.
*By sheer chance there's likely somebody somewhere in their filmography they don't show contempt for, or insist we feel superior to. Denzel's MacBeth might be half right. Or the plucky-tending-toward-Asperger's Mattie in the True Grit remake.
**Bambi's a cartoon. So is Grave of the Fireflies. Calvin and Hobbes is sequential art. The Coen Brothers don't even make cartoons. Bouffon movies. Masturbatory farce.
I think you're right.
Here's another point of view. Metamodernism doesn't exist, but Metamodernists do, and they've invented themselves.
If you dig deeply into the stuff that these various isms explain, there are also likely other clearer explanations. In TG:M, you might simply find that a bunch of old school film makers were tired of green screens and missed making movies like it was the 80s.
I think that metamodernists are themselves a cultural subgenre, who are trying to explain the world in a broad, sweeping, understandable narrative where these isms follow one another and are a reaction to the previous. This becomes obvious when you see modernists being generally derisive of what they see to be post-modernism. They do it in the same way that alt-right politically commentators "react to the left" by making a big fuss about gender and blue hair, while not talking about trade unions.
Hot take: Metamodernism is alt-right political art. It *thinks* it is "transcending and analysing culture", in the way that Joe Rogan is "just asking questions." It anchors itself on a few very ephemeral things like ironic sincerity, which is also classic of the alt-right, using jokes to hide antisemitism etc.
In reality, MM is pushing a particular cultural view of reality, which is mostly "upper middle class hipster," and a big part of that view is a sort of paternalistic misunderstanding of the world.
Maybe a useful question: What does Metamodernism explain that could more easily be explained by something else?
I don't think I've ever seen a better produced video in my whole life til now. This blew me away, great work!!
Fun Fact: the ending to Monty Python and the Holy Grail is actually what happened. Their license to shoot at that location had run out and they continued to film regardless. Then the Rossers showed up and shut it down.
Apropos of the TV series where they intentionally never ended a sketch...they just went into the next sketch or swam out to sea or went riding a bus or something.
They had a huge comical battle sequence written for the climax, which I think involved swallows carrying a coconut, but there was no way they were ever going to be able to afford to film it even if they had permits.
That's hilariously crazy lol imma look this up
That’s hilarious!
Literally funniest thing I've ever heard 😂 god I love that movie
I know a lot of people hate it, but I think Cloud Atlas is meta modern and it's also one of my favorite movies. The Wachowski's have always been at the cutting edge, in my opinion.
I love Cloud Atlas as well. It's hard to find other fans.
I started noticing in college that it was really becoming obvious that film directors were making their song choices with their computer tracklists in mind. They were choosing songs across many types of genres....it began to reflect my own tracklists in the way that their films would have a punk song, a classic rock cover by some newer artist, a pop country original..... especially during the pandemic you could feel the whole of the country just start going through these very freaking odd zeitgeists?
I don't know what to call them
How else do you explain everyone from coast to coast suddenly sharing originally composed sea shanties.
It's like a joke God would put into reality like an Easter egg in one of our current, metamodern films.
i love how aesthetically pleasing your set is. the colors, the setup, impeccable
I remember when I began to learn more about postmodernism in my Media & Popular Culture class this past semester but I was curious as to why films feel different now from those of the later 20th century. Thank you for explaining the concept of metamodernism that I knew was there but could never really explain or name. Incredible video essay!!
A few thoughts:
1) This is really well done.
2) I understand what metamodernism is trying to do, but I think it's as flawed and incomplete as its parents. The sincerity almost always strikes me as empty and hollow, the same way that I used to meet postmodern thinkers who would argue that life is meaningless and you have to find your own meaning, and then would viciously attack you whenever you actually did find or construct meaning. I feel like the message is, "Yeah, go ahead and find meaning, just don't you dare actually believe in it in a real-world sense." Getting past this would require a sort of solipsistic nature to meaning in a way that's not cheap. I'm not sure if this is a fundamental flaw in the idea, or if it's just very hard to fully grasp, let alone communicate.
3) You're correct in that subversion got old a long time ago, but honestly I'm even more tired of constant media referencing, especially franchise self-referencing. The only thing I find to be more obnoxious in the world of film is remakes.
4) Keep the beard.
Your second point is speaking more to the Existentialist/Absurdist tradition, rather than "post-modernism", which came about later, partially as a response to the very popular Existentialim, though mostly as a response to Modernism which had dominated academic philosophy since Descartes. "Post-modernism," is a buzzword, an umbrella term, and ambiguous, but all it really means is turning the critical and analytic tools of Modernism against the foundations of Modernism itself. A pithy example could be, "what if Descartes methodological doubt, doubted reason as an access to truth?" Another could be, "knowing that all language exists in context and all specific communications, such as a talk or publication further happen in a context, rather than trusting language to a flawed but generally reliable tool for communication of thoughts in their real terms, what if we asked what out language reveals about our relationships to our contexts and situations?"
So, Post-modernism isn't a unified theory or body of work, it's a collective term for the broad response to previous philosophy, that has happened in the contemporary era, and as such does not have an opinion or perspective on the meaning of life, suffice it to say that many, many contemporary and recent philosophers felt the question to be simplistic, reductive, and unreflective. There is an entire web of contexts, thoughts, feelings, and motivations behind and around that question and much of contemporary philosophy is more interested in that what is revealed about that web of context, rather than in unreflective, bombastic and dramatic declarations about the meaning of life.
From there, the component you're missing on Existentialism/Abusrdism, the aspect of, "just don't you dare actually believe in it," is the analysis of Good Faith, my explanation here is going to be very Sartre-flavored, there are others. You can believe in whatever it is just fine, in fact in order to be operating in Good Faith, which is to say authentically, you kind of have to believe in it. At the same time, to be operating in Good Faith, you cannot cease to recognize that you have freely chosen. You can be an Existentialist and be profoundly religious, many of the Existentialists were, what they can't do in Good Faith the evangelical/new-age thing, where they start talking about how they always knew they were "meant" to walk this path, making references to "destiny", or how this simply what they "must" do, etc etc. That's the rub in Existentialism. There is no *inherent* meaning in the world to be discovered/found. That does not mean there is no meaning, simply that we are *responsible* for creating and making it. In order to be in Good Faith, *authentic* to our relationship with the world as creators and makers of meaning, we cannot abdicate that responsibility and put the onus for meaning in our lives on some external other, whether that be an ideology, "the way I raised," a religious or spiritual faith, a creed, any of that. We are free to choose any of those things, but to be authentic, we must always recognize that as our choice.
So, for the snotty philosophers sneering about whatever "meaning" someone comes up, well if it's mean-spirited, that's just academic/intellectual bullying, which is never okay and has no bearing on the ideas. If it's good-spirited, perhaps among members of philosophy program, it's almost a Socratic exercise. We're talking about how people are *choosing* to commit their lives, they should probably get it right, and be willing to double check.
This is pure Critical Theorist's nonsensical propaganda gibberish applied to cinema.
@@CalebMajeski haha.
2 is a useful critique. As someone who hangs out with all the MM writers and thinkers, we're still debating A LOT whether this category of stuff can be truly considered MM yet, or is just a more complex form of pomo (post-modernism). No debate that it's all pointing in that direction. But we're still arguing about semantics and whether it's fair to say there's a real state transition from pomo achieved yet (which can only really be proven in retrospect). The debates themselves are still productive, as it hones our definitions, shared interpretations, and lookinh for proceduralization - all necessary parts. Here's a quick tidbit for those whom are interested: some of the sociologists argue MM isn't here until we see art demonstrating a set of actionable ethics or morality. From a systems theory perspective, my counter is that that's emergent and pluralistic; and already underway as the MM themes raised in this video change people's thinking and choices.
@@duppyshumanYeah, I agree with him.
Hey man just wanted to say that part were youre talking to your double explaining meta modernism vs post modernism in dialogue form while portraiting it in a meta modernist way of filmmaking is one of the best pieces of creative creation I have ever seen.
I was just reading this comment when that part came up in the video - so meta meta - commentary :D
The idea of modern, postmodern and metamodern is limited because it doesn't factor in that modern values can eventually become traditional, those traditional values can be responded with an "antithesis" of sorts and that will eventually lead to a response to the new-tradition; ie become the new modern. This perspective doesn't factor in how eventually metamodern perspective will eventually become the zeitgeist and eventually become tradition.
I didn't know my love for movies as a form of art so much before this video. I always thought I loved the good stories and the experiences brought to me via movies as a vehicle, but in fact it turns out there's something about this art form that fascinates me at the same time. Thank you and absolutely excellent work!
I've been waiting, WAAAIIITING, for metamodernism to be discussed more. Ever since wisecrack did that video on shia labeauf back in 2016 (holy shit that was 7 years ago), I haven't been able to get it out of my head. I feel like it's the perfect antidote to what's been happening across the board in our broader culture as we yearn for connection amidst a world that feels more disconnected, more unfair, and just... worse. How else do you combat all the art, artists, and- quite frankly- average online anonymous commenters hiding behind snarky retorts and middle fingers and sighs of ennui but to be brave enough to expose your most vulnerable and authentic self, to offer up your real hopes and dreams, and to tell the people you love that you care about them and need them?
While movies like Once Upon A Time in Hollywood might check all the boxes for what the "quintessential" metamodern work of art is, I think it's kind of missing the forest for the trees. What I think really makes Metamodernism work, what makes it so important, is that in its simultaneous support of paradoxical positions, like of being both derisive and sincere, both cynical and hopeful, both analytical and empathetic, both deconstructive and constructive, its stories create a whole that's greater than the sum of its parts, and somehow feels more honest about the human experience than either side would alone. It feels truly human, as if to say "I don't have the answers either, but I do care" and I think it creates emotional connections with the audience that only that level of vulnerability and instability can produce. I'm thinking of the grip Bo Burnham's INSIDE had on the world in the middle of COVID lockdown, and the feeling of oscillating between bone-chilling recognition and laughter in That Funny Feeling. I'm thinking of how we all cried watching a pair of silent rocks with googly eyes on them in Everything Everywhere All At Once. I'm thinking of watching Bojack Horseman grapple with death in The View From Halfway Down in absolute despair after saying "wait was that Zach Braff in roller skates?"
Great comment.
This is a great comment :)
I read allat
I want to bookmark this comment
This is really well written and insightful. I agree with a lot of what you're saying and am really glad you took the time to articulate this in a youtube comment lol.
Three trends that disrupt(ed) Modernist film:
1. 1950-1970s: French New Wave, creators with non-directing backgrounds (animators, comedy writers (Woody Allen, Monty Python), painters, art directors (Alfred Hitchcock), photographers), birth of the auteur.
2. 1980s-2000s: Commercial (advertising) directors, T.V. and music video sensibilities (Tim Burton, Tony Scott, Quentin Tarantino, Oliver Stone, self-reflexive movies like _Private Parts_ (1997) and _Spice World_ (1997) could only work at this time), new media and non-linear editing suites (Video Toaster).
3. 2010-Present: The amount of production technology, especially cameras, editing tools and distribution platforms, available to non-directors, the new-auteurs (Daniels, Jordan Peele) is unprecedented.
Just.. wow. It's been a long time since I've seen such an engaging, neat, and informative video essay. The comments here already cover most of the details of how this is so well done, but I just had to leave a comment to tell you that you did an amazing job with this in every way that you could have.
That metamodernist sketch at 22:16 was pure genius. Well done!
holy sh-t, that had me rollin' on the ground. His delivery was dryer than that machine next to the washer.
This is one of my favorite video essays I have seen. Your explain the differences between eras so well, great job
Thomas, I must say this is one of, if not the most impressive thing I've seen on TH-cam. Truly impeccable writing and presentation on your part to condense such enormous ideas into something so digestible and easily understandable. Keep up the amazing work man!
18:58 THIS!!!!!! this is my biggest issue with so much art that comes out these days. the cynicism is so deep that ppl have come to devalue the very art they are so invested in.