So as not to further pollute a film-specific thread with a more general (and interesting) discussion...

Here's my review of Public Ememies. It's not favourable. Beneath the formalist veneer the film is insubstantial; even as a homage to the gangster genre of the 1930s it falls way short.

Mann is a tech-fetishist, a control freak, and it shows. A more popular spin on that is to call him an "auteur". I don't think he's that much of a thinker. I love Heat and remember thinking he'd never better The Insider, but his films have become increasingly heartless and "cool", without any real substance.

I think the problem might be that you've got all sorts of students graduating from art school and, more specifically, film school, as skilled technicians and specialists in their field. "You want your film to look good? Hey, go to Joanne over there. You want an editor? Hey, here's Phil's number." It's a requirement - or should be - to learn the theory and the history of the medium alongside practical production, but I'm not sure there's enough emphasis on the socio-economic and socio-historical significance of filmmaking, be that past or present. But filmmaking is becoming more and more an isolated vocation; don't be fooled by that transparent buzz-word you see in university prospectuses, interdisciplinary.

As a result, you've got a lot of well-trained technicians in the industry but nobody has a genuine clue about things demanding further thought. More crucially is the seeming lack of creative ideas in mainstream cinema - and, for the hell of it, a lot of independent cinema too. So long as the art of film is built around profit, it's always going to be a numbers game; creativity is measured by financial gain. It's a travesty.

But it's not just creative ideas that are lacking. There's a real depth of genuine humanity and compassion in films the world over, and a lack too of genuine concern for real, objective, important issues. There's little interrogation or discrimination, and as a result little lasting flair. Films come and go as, one day a breath of fresh air, and the next day, a bloated vacuous product of a filmmaker striving to be fashionable (I think of There Will Be Blood).

Cynicism is becoming more and more marketable in a world very angry with itself. But cynicism doesn't get anybody anywhere. It results in lazy scripts that appear very appealing indeed until one looks deeper and further. A lot of films seem to take as their starting point very important issues, but then give in to silly and unwarranted self-satisfaction that takes the easy way out by settling for a resolution that happily suggests if not outright declares that We're All Fucked. What's the point in that?

I think there's a lot of sincerity up to a certain point, but finally a lack of thought or commercial needs or both weigh in too heavily, so fully-fleshed thinking is neglected long before anything profound can be said.

I've written this in a hurry, so it's possibly very incoherent, and probably very vague. I could certainly say a lot more, and be a lot more specific. I'll not be online as much in the coming week and a bit. But I'd be interested in anybody's thoughts on and responses to what I've written. (Or to anything Fame wrote in the original post I quoted.)

That point's well taken. Nearly all current and recent-past films deal with emotions in a superficial, glib way. Part of it is cynicism: of the writers and directors who believe audiences won't sit still (and pay for) any in-depth, serious exploration of relationships. The other is the fear that critics will pan them for being "sentimental" or worse. We probably will never see the depth of human feelings expressed in some of Bergman's best films, or the unique combination of tragedy, comedy and empathy of Wertmuller and other masters of Italian cinema.

Turnbull, which Bergman films do you like? I am yet to see a lot of his popular films, but I am a huge fan of his Scenes from a Marriage.

My all-time favorite Bergman is "The Virgin Spring," a simple, powerful, beautiful morality tale. I also like "Scenes from a Marriage" (never-again intimacy); "Cries and Whispers," "Through a Glass Darkly"..the list goes on and on.

What is the purpose of art anyway? Is it the responsibility of the artist to find a solution for social problems? Maybe, an artist uses art as a medium to express anger, despair, hope whatever. The way you express your anger in this thread, a filmmaker expresses his/her anger through the films he/she makes. I don't see why every film has to find the solutions for the problems it deals with.

I don't think it's a case of the artist having to be sole problem-solver. But there ought to be some sort of effort towards a moral, intellectual and political responsibility. It's one thing to express such broad emotions as "anger, despair, hope or whatever", but there's got to be some sort of artistic integrity behind it, a willingness to view the world (and thus put yourself in a position from which you can explore it with fundamental honesty) with an eagerness to learn from it. Most films set out with their morality already pre-determined; they're didactic, but more crucially, they're preaching a false premise.

As an example, The Wire is very angry, I think, but it's also deeply compassionate, and presents a clear wish for social change. It explores honestly; it's not cynical. It's not concerned with good and evil; David Simon says it's about "economics and sociology". That's an important issue and it's done in a compelling manner, aesthetically and narratively. If it investigates into one social problem, it inevitably has to delve into further issues too (you can't have the problems at the docks without going into the wider politics concerning the mayor and ongoing budgetary issues).

My initial post is lacking examples. It's an easy one, but I still haven't found any artistic worth in The Dark Knight. Even its supposed levels of "fun" are undercut by a dishonest pretentiousness, an effort to impress its audience, with, as I said, a deep underlying cynicism, which stems more from an economic potential than an artistic desire. It wouldn't be as popular a film under other objective social circumstances.

The more films I'm seeing, I'm moving more and more away from a view of "internality", of a film having to bring us closer and closer towards "knowing our Selves". That would be quite an embarrassing state of affairs, if it were only needed for that. I think art ought to respond directly to the objective reality in which it is produced. Character studies should not be introspective and exclusive, in order for us to "identify with" them, but should emerge from a knowledge of - and curiosity with - a larger social scope.