One From Shives’ Heart

I think I really need to flag this Steve Shives video up today. As you may know, I’ve been watching Shives’ videos for a while: I think he’s one of the best film and TV analysts on Youtube, especially when it comes to franchises like Star Trek. In this vid, however, he discusses his adoration for Superman, particularly he earlier Superman films when he was played by Christopher Reeve. What interests me about this video is how, as Shives himself admits, he forgoes any in-depth discussion and instead just tries to convey his love and fascination with what he sees on screen. He knows that what he is watching is silly, campy and far fetched, but that somehow does not matter: Shives feels intrigued and compelled to watch. He does not use the term, but to me that is instantly recognisable as cinephilia, the discourse of filmic love I spent seven years analysing and writing about.

In a way this is cinephilia in it’s purest form. The way Shives picks out films, actors or just moments of film and speaks about them so adoringly is quintessentially cinephiliac. I was particularly struck by the moment when, two and a half to three minutes into the piece, Shives deviates slightly and starts talking about the moment he first saw Atticus Finch appear on screen. He had apparently been studying Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird at school, but this was the first time Shives had seen the film adaptation. Shives describes how he was struck by how Gregory Peck’s portrayal of Finch looked uncannily like he had imagined the character; how he had to stop himself ‘audibly gasping’; how amazed he felt at the sight of a character he had previously only imagined brought to life on screen. Shives might not use the term – or even know it – but what he is describing is a cinephiliac moment: a moment in a film when the viewer is absolutely taken by what they are seeing, although they can’t quite articulate why. It touches them on a deep, personal level; they feel compelled to explain and talk about it, even though it somehow seems to go beyond words.

To be honest I find it incredible to see one being expressed so clearly and obviously. Shives probably hasn’t read the literature surrounding cinephilia, let alone my zarking thesis, but this is a primary example of it’s development, and how it is emerging online more and more. The thing is, until Shives and commenters like him recognise what they produce as such, and start to talk about their love of film in and of itself, what they produce will always remain a form of fandom.

3 thoughts on “One From Shives’ Heart

  1. Interesting reading. I always say with Spider-Man films that I struggle to watch them objectively as the character elicits such a strong response from me. One that taps into childhood excitement and nostalgia and my deep love for this fictional character. To me this isn’t cinephilia though. Not that there aren’t moments in the films, where the film is able to portray a moment that links with my love and knowledge of the character and what I am seeing on screen (Spider-Man stopping the train in Spider-Man 2). But I think overall I watch these films as a giddy child might. I’m not sure where I am going with this, but I think there is a distinction between loving something and cinephilia?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. but surely fan boys can articulate why they like a certain Star trek or star wars movie. Like as a fan boy I can articulate why I love Spider-Man and how his films make me feel, but that’s separate from the film.

    cinephilia to me is more about the art form of cinema. Like the first time I watched Reservoir Dogs or many scenes from the Bicycle Thieves? Does this make sense? I think from your post it seemed you were saying to fan boy over a film is to experience cinephilia. I’m not saying they are mutually exclusive, but I think there is a difference.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Steven Cancel reply