But what do we call it? The rise of a NEW film style or movement...

A recognition after my NYFF deep dive…

poster by Ramell Ross

The week before last, I saw 25 films on the big screen. I got a my first press pass to any event ever. The fact that it was to the NYFF and their press and industry screenings in the week before the festival began, and that it may well have been my best film festival film viewing experience ever will now never leave me.

Granted I may feel this way partially because I didn’t have to do any project pitching, which far too many of my festival experiences have been defined by; all I had it to do was watch. It was my first film festival I’ve successfully attended NOT as a producer (even if I am a producer). I’ve tried to do this before, but whenever you get out, they pull you back in. I did manage to meet a couple of FilmStackers, thankfully IRL. Hello, Max Cea and Adam Krtizer! That was fun. And I made some new friendships amongst my fellow film fanatics too. It was truly a great experience.

Perhaps, other than my mother, the NYFF has had the greatest influence on my taste. The first year I moved to NYC I could afford one ticket. I bought it to an unknown film called BLOOD SIMPLE. Perhaps you know this story of mine. It’s included (minus the weed) in this 3 minute video from Ondi Timoner.

So perhaps it is not a surprise that I really liked 90% of the films I saw at this year’s NYFF. The fewI didn’t care as much for, I could still understand why NYFF programmed them. I even heard folks saying that the ones I didn’t care for were their favorites. So be it. To each their own, right? Over the years, through a wide variety of programmers and chieftains, the NYFF has been pretty clear that they favor the international critics’ canon. That’s better than fine in my book. But yeah, I think they have ingrained such a bias upon my own taste gene and sensors. I felt like this year’s selection was pretty much made for me.

I got to complement one of the programmers on what I thought was such an excellent 2025 selection, and they reminded me that a selection can only ever be what the year offers. Their ambition may exceed what was available, and then sometimes we all just get lucky. Sure, you could chalk it up to a good year, but I go to a lot of festivals. And I read the programming at others. Even in a good year, many fail to put together a good program. The NYFF selection committee did an awesome job this year. You all have a lot to look forward too in the year ahead.

But one of the things that makes NYFF so special, is that they really don’t feel compelled to be part of the “awards race”. The chase of the gold is not helpful to film culture -- although I do love what it does to LA. Starting in mid-September, LA turns into a feast of free screenings with the director and stars in attendance, often with food and booze afterwards.

Not only though does the NYFF not get involved in this silly scheme beyond the bare minimum that is needed to satisfy their benefactors, but they also show the films that won’t necessarily have much distribution, at least beyond NYC or a few days elsewhere in the cinema landscape. The thing with global art cinema IMO is that you MUST see it on the big screen. In the theater is a completely different experience from at home and I don’t care how effin big your screen at home is – it is not cinema unless it is in a cinema. I particularly love the smallest, most intimate films when they are in a cinema; that is the only way I think they work, in that, it is the only way that the full intent of the filmmakers can immerse you. As much as I am pleased that the few streaming platforms that specialize in art house cinemas exist, the home experience will never compare. And I particularly want to see the NEW on the big screen. I am not going to watch something at home that I want to see if I think there is a chance that I might see it on the big screen.

Which is all to say, I had sort of a profound experience watching and digesting NYFF’s latest offering. I had the recognition that a new type of cinema arrived and one that I had been longing for my entire film fan life. Although my terms have not become common house names, I do find it interesting that it feels like the third new style of cinema I find landing since I started this latest version of the newsletter. First we had Committed Cinema.

COMMITTED CINEMA: Time To Name A New Movement

And we are still exploring The Big Messy.

The Big Messy: a cinema style that I want but rarely ever get

But what is this new thing that has landed upon us? It grounds four of my favorite aspects of cinema, ones that I don’t think many would feel can not peacefully coexist and demonstrates that yes they can. Beautifully so. I found this across three films particularly, ones all from different countries, and I would say it is precisely these four elements together that I have searched for throughout my career amongst the American directors that I have enjoyed the most access too and yet have come up empty-handed with. I’ve seen several American directors that combine two of the elements, but never three, let alone four.

The fact that American directors rarely bring us a new form or texture of cinema is a failure of the American system -- even when it is at its most non-dependent -- far more than it is the fault of our filmmakers. We don’t have an ecosystem that encourages risk or breaking new ground. Until we fix that, I think all efforts at furthering the cinematic language won’t be coming from these shores, unless those who have already scaled the palace walls and seduced our greatest stars, chose to break such new ground. In America, our new voices have to beg for approval by first ape-ing their predecessors. Such a sorry state of affairs…

In spotting this phenomenon, or trend, or movement, it also helped me recognize how “favorite” is not a term I can ever easily apply to cinema, particularly at the festival level. And I should mention that one of these three films that helped be recognize what is happening in global cinema wasn’t part of the festival, but I saw at Film Forum. Oh, how I wish Los Angeles had something like Film Forum! Or rather, how I wish I could have a Film Forum within walking distance of wherever I may be.

“Favorite” doesn’t work as a term to apply to cinema for me because there are multiple levels and aspects for which I love cinema. On one hand I could call the two films I saw at the NYFF that helped me with this recognition, SOUND OF FALLING and THE LOVE THAT REMAINS favorites, but I could equally say that about SIRÂT, THE MASTERMIND, WHAT DOES THAT NATURE SAY TO YOU, BLCKNWS, NOUVELLE VAGUE, and THE SECRET AGENT. That’s eight “favorites”, or about one third of the films I saw. And there’s another ten films I saw that I would totally recommend and would be excited to talk about. “Favorite” is a bogus term when it comes to cinema, particularly when you love cinema in general like so many of us do.

But what festivals do so well is spot cultural trends, and this year’s NYFF helped expose what I hope becomes a greater phenomenon, more than a trend, and an actual film movement, a new genre…