The Anti-Canon Manifesto

I. The Enemy

Whenever a new art form gains prominence within academia, a group of self-appointed scholars will inevitably rise up to dictate the correct way for one to enjoy the works of that formal medium. This dogma has come to be known as the canon. These canons have existed with each and every form and medium of art, giving importance to certain painters, writers and creators over others, thus setting the path for how each form will be studied for years to come. Canons have been seen as necessary, because they allow beginners and novices to gain an introduction to an art form. However, the issue arises once the viewer gains an understanding of the art form and, rather than moving in new directions, continues to follow the set path. Arguably, one of the most egregious offender of this canon abuse, along with popular music, is cinema, which has the misfortune of being both a young medium and an expensive one. As a result, the cinematic canon has been heavily diluted to a small, chosen few, which are then, without question, fed to another generation of academics, making sure the cycle continues, as new cinephiles watch and re-watch the same handful of films over and over again. This selection also comes from a position of power, resulting in a final product which is western above all else, with the added detriment of coming from a viewpoint that is white supremacist, male chauvinist and generally bourgeois. This is just the beginning of a series of issues which inherently pervade the canonic system, specifically the cinematic canon, which will demonstrate why the dependence on this system needs to be lessened and why this system needs to be removed from the academic circle.

II. The Canon Hinders Conversation

This is the root of all the problems with using the cinematic canon in academia; the canon makes sure that certain topics will never be discussed. The most obvious way that this occurs is by placing certain films out of the reach of criticism. The established academic canon of cinema has placed Citizen Kane at the top of the "list" for many years, which ultimately means that this film is not to be questioned; this film can be revered, whether blindly or through deliberation, and the questioning of it is to be discouraged and actively prevented. As a result, we return to the blind auteurism of early Cahiers du Cinema writing, the same kind of hero worship that led Francois Truffaut to decide that the worst film by Jean Renoir is inherently better than the best by Jean Delannoy. When the "best" films ever are forced on an audience before they have even had a chance to see them, there are really only two results: either the viewer eventually agrees or disagrees and is, therefore, discredited. These two results are also rather problematic in their own areas. The former leads to academic groupthink, with everyone liking or disliking a certain film merely for its placement within the canon, while the latter will frequently lead to simple contrarianism, with certain critics and academics attempting to make a bold stand by speaking out against a film, giving no good reason beyond "it's not that good". It was this empty iconoclasm that led many film critics to speak out against Citizen Kane's number one placement on the Sight & Sound poll, arguably the most respected dictator of the cinematic canon, which then caused it to fall to number two, being replaced by Vertigo, a film which had been consistently on the same poll, peaking at number two the previous time the poll was taken, making no difference in this matter whatsoever! In an attempt to claim that change is occurring, this drop-and-replace event happens frequently on a variety of cinematic aggregators, with zero difference being made to the general makeup of the cinematic canon. Of course, this lack of conversation is merely the root of the serious issues with the cinematic canon.

III. The Canon is Exclusionary

This can be seen as a continuation of the canon's ability to hinder conversation by excluding certain cinemas from general access. Looking at some of the most popular canon-based lists, including the Sight & Sound critic's poll and other, larger lists, one thing becomes clear: canonized films are an unusually homogenized bunch. A canonized film is most likely to be directed by a straight, white male from the United States, with the films often not "keeping up" with modern standards, proven by the continued appearance of films like Birth of a Nation on such lists. Furthermore, the majority of any canon ends up being composed of films from a few specific countries, namely the United States, France, Italy, Japan and Russia, with occasional contributions from other countries which could pass themselves off as productions from one of these countries, specifically American-favoured films from Great Britain and French-favoured films from Belgium and such surrounding areas. The 2012 Sight & Sound critic's poll proves this, as does the 2002 edition. 1992 was the last time that this poll included a film with no participation from these five countries, when Pather Panchali became the sole film from none of these nations to be included on this list. Similarly, on the They Shoot Pictures, Don't They toplist, a list dedicated to aggregating all toplists into a definitive one, the highest-ranking film with no participation from any of these five countries is Persona, the Swedish film landing at number 24. In fact, the top 100 only contains twenty-two films which are not considered productions of the aforementioned five countries, but, even among this selection, a large number are co-productions, including several UK-USA co-productions (although British films in the top 100 tend to be overly Americanized films endorsed by Hollywood). Of these 22, only thirteen had no producing help from those five nations. Similarly, the top 100 of the list only contains one woman (Chantal Akerman, director of Jeanne Dielman at number 83), with the next women not showing up until positions 137 and 339!

There are, of course, approximately two hundred countries on earth, so how does the canon ultimately account for that? Through a system of tokenism. Most filmmaking nations are allowed a specific number of canonized filmmakers, depending on a variety of factors. For example, Poland has had three filmmakers "accepted" by the academic community (Kieslowski, Wajda and Polanski) at the loss of the likes of Zulawski, Holland and Krolikiewicz, while Iran has only had two filmmakers accepted, Kiarostami and Makhmalbaf, at the loss of many others. Obviously, European nations are allowed more "spots", while countries considered more towards the third world are allowed less (Brazil is allowed Rocha, while Algeria is allowed the Italian Pontecorvo!) There are also other groups which fall into this tokenistic system, wherein women are allowed several spots (Akerman, Denis and Varda) at the loss of the likes of Shepitko and Duras. Discounting the middle east, all of Africa is essentially allowed one spot, taken by Ousmane Sembene, while South America is represented by the already mentioned Brazilian Rocha. There is one way to beat this tokenism and that is to remove oneself from one's nationality. It is rather telling that Polanski and Kieslowski did not become famous until they began working on productions based out of the base five countries, just as Kiarostami eventually ended up directing films in France and Japan. And it must not be forgotten that the ultimate sign of "making it" is still considered directing a film in the United States.

Why does all this matter? Because the canon dictates who gets to make more films and what films end up available to be viewed by the most people. This means that the most canon-friendly films will be released on readily available home viewing formats, while receiving more advertising within academic circles and publications. This will also lead to a higher demand for works by the canonized director, causing producers to seek them out, leading to more and more productions. This will of course lead to further canonization, causing this cycle to repeat itself again and again. While academia is supposed to be all-encompassing, this makes it clear that this could not be further from the truth. With the current trajectory of academia, the broken canon will never be fixed.

IV. The Canon is No Longer Necessary

One final issue with canons is that, in the modernized world, with the advancement of technology, canons have simply become defunct. To begin with, the canon is a concentrated effort to make the subjective objective, which, again, leads to contrarianism. This contrarianism then leads to splinters within the canon, leading to several vaguely interconnected canons. This is to say that there are now dozens, perhaps hundreds, of canons which still attempt to keep an artifice of singularity. Canons have split into lists based on genre, country, movement, etc., which begin with canonized films and then evolve into lesser-valued films, which is to say that these sub-canons serve as regular lists of recommendations, with a slight hint of authority. If that hint was removed, nothing would change. In fact, modern technology has proven this. For example, private torrenting websites have taken over the role of the canon with the removal of authority. On some of these websites, nameless and faceless individuals recommend films, which will then be placed in a spotlight and given awareness. These films end up with an audience through a system similar to personal, friendly recommendations. Add to that the proliferation of websites like the Internet Movie Database and it becomes clear that personal exploration may be the future of cinematic discovery. The majority of academics have access to the ultimate tool for unearthing cinematic treasures and yet, they continue to adhere to the old-fashioned canon. Is there any way to break one's dependence on the canon?

V. The Battle

There is a way and, just as with the proliferation of the canon, the destruction of the canon must be set forth by the academics. The rejection of the canon must first be implemented in the pedagogical system. Students can always seek out the canonical; academia should teach them how to find non-canonical material. Students should be taught how to discover what may not be otherwise discovered. Academia should teach about how to discover and how to discuss films by unknown filmmakers and, perhaps more importantly, contemporary filmmakers; filmmakers who have not managed to become canonized. When every filmmaker and film movement is equal, it becomes simpler for every film to be recognized, every filmmaker to be considered and every film movement to be legitimized. Only then can we break our dependence on the canon and manage to study film as objectively as possible. This is what we need to strive for. Film studies still follows a system wherein some concepts and objects are unquestionable. This is what is holding this field back. This must be remedied. Death to the canon!