Rider Film Symposium: A Reflection

Rider University’s Film Symposium has come and gone, and now I feel that it’s appropriate to reflect upon the discussions that transpired during this superb two-day event. For those readers who are unfamiliar with the Film Symposium, it is an annual film event that requires both faculty and students to come together and show and discuss a variety of films. Each year, the Symposium takes on a different film genre as its central theme. In 2010 – my first experience with the event – horror films like The Exorcist were the main showcase, while 2011 saw the Symposium turn its focus toward independent films, such as Tarnation. This year, the Symposium’s think-tank decided that it would be a nice gesture to honor the Liberal Arts and Sciences department’s 50^th birthday by celebrating the cinematic offerings of 1962.

Like many of my Seminar in Cinema Studies classmates, I personally participated in a panel involving a motley crew of ’62 staples: Cape Fear, The Sword in the Stone, Gypsy, King Kong vs. Godzilla, and of course Dr. No. Being a big Godzilla fan, I naturally presented on King Kong vs. Godzilla. In retrospect, I must say that being a part of a panel is quite exhilarating; I felt that each of my co-panelists had something unique and fascinating to say about their respective movies. As I listened to their presentations, I noticed that we all seemed to automatically acknowledge the 1960s as a milestone of change for not only the world, but in film as well. I find it intriguing that many people, especially of this generation, see the 1960s as synonymous with the idea of great change. With that in mind, each film that was showcased in the panel exhibited some radical shift within the plot or during the creation process. For example, Danielle’s presentation on The Sword and the Stone centered on the film’s animation style and how it reflected the changing ideologies of Walt Disney Productions at the time. Disney’s neglect of The Sword and the Stone’s drafting and coloring not only marked a change for the studio, but also for the rest of the industry, as many competitors imitated the animation style.

The idea of change can also be applied to film critic Dr. Gerald Peary’s keynote address and the subsequent roundtable discussion. An English major at Rider in 1962, Peary explained during his speech his belief that film today has taken a creative nose-dive, and as a result, the current generation does not actively seek out variety in the films that they watch; foreign films are especially neglected by youngsters due to the lack of diversity in America’s movie theaters. Instead of movie dates to current offerings like Michael Bay’s Transformers series, Peary said that it was once hip and “sexy” for young couples to go and see films by directors like François Truffaut. Additionally, Peary said that there are little to no options when it comes to deciding what to see at the local multiplex, since television and internet ads only serve to promote the same dull action films. I tend to agree with a lot of what Dr. Peary said; when it comes to movies (as well as a great many other things), this generation is practically brainwashed by marketing tactics and the movie studios’ vertical integration of theaters.

I think that Peary would agree with Charles Taylor’s assessment of the general public attitude toward film critics. In regard to the masses of amateur film critics on the internet, Taylor says that “not only was film criticism in better shape in the print era, but good work stood a greater chance of making an impact” (1). As a result, Taylor believes that “what a critic actually thinks about the movie is often drowned in the ongoing publicity deluge” (1). I, however, tend to disagree with Taylor; I think that the accessible nature of the internet allows for people to become exposed to films of better quality, especially through the methods of social networking. The problem that I think Taylor, Peary, and I would agree on is the capitalist stranglehold that Hollywood has on movie theaters. If vertical integration could be eliminated today, much like it was in the 1948 Supreme Court case United States vs. Paramount Pictures, Inc., only then could American audiences be treated once again to the wonderful assortment of films that the world has to offer.

So there you have it: the Symposium did its job. Any good discussion will lead one to ponder topics that are too often ignored in this roaring age of speed and demand. It is through events like the Rider University Film Symposium that we can embrace the magic and beauty of motion pictures while also guarding ourselves from the seductive qualities of profit and fluff.