Does film belong among the great art forms of painting, music,theatre, sculpture, dance, and photography? Formalist thinkers (those guys in the early days of cinema, 1890's to 1920's who were concerned with the actual mechanical and visual apparatus of film ie. celluloid, lens, montage) believed that film was like a canvas, on which the Autuer created the image. They believed film was art if the apparatus could do something different, something no other art form could do. So, if film is art, what does it do differently than 1) theatre, 2) dance, 3) literature or 4) photography? And what was it that film "does" that art does or should do?
Please feel free to comment. I'd also like to hear some examples. Name a film that does something other art forms cannot, but be sure to name the thing it does and why.
For further reading on Formalist Theory of Film, try Munsterberg, Arnheim, and/or Eisenstein.
ReplyDeleteOne of the first differences between film and theatre that comes to mind for me is how underscoring works in each medium. In film, underscoring is a very effective way to enhance or define a moment. It rarely, if ever, works as well under dialogue in live theatre. I wonder if this is because in the theatre the audience is present with the actor, sharing the same physical space. Due to the way we are wired, another present human being will take precedence over other stimuli. So underscoring while that person is speaking is jarring, because it is a sudden and very different input from the person we on whom we are focusing. But in film, the actor's face and voice become visual and auditory elements alongside the scenery, sound effects, etc. of the film. Underscoring of dialogue works far better because the music and words arrive to the audience as part of a single entity. Perhaps this is part of why film is often called a director's medium while the basic unit of theatre is often named as the actor. The director of a film has more control over the experience of the audience because they can blend the various elements and focus the audience's attention in a way not possible in the theatre.
ReplyDeleteChester,
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting point. There is underscoring in theater, such as ballet and opera. However, I think you're right that in a play it would compete for attention with the dialog. I also agree with you about the focus of film allows music to be controlled in a way that can't be done in a play. We shouldn't forget that historically, silent films were augmented with music from the early days of silent film. So I'm sure that we as an audience have been primed to expect it.
An interesting difference between film and theater is the expectations of the audience. A bare stage and a single actor can be enough to transport a theater audience into a different world. In film, we have come to expect to be taken away visually. Granted there are experimental films that take minimalist approaches, but generally, the willing suspension of disbelief is far superior in the theater. Movies have made it so that the audience doesn't have to work so hard to get involved in the story. We expect the world to be real, even if it is virtual. The economics of film have allowed for this to evolve, with some seriously horrendous side affects. (Transformers 2, et al)
ReplyDeleteThe style of acting is another major factor. The camera allows an intimacy that a stage actor could never project to the back of the theater. There was once a time where acting in film was closer to what we saw on stage. Pretty much everything prior to 1950 is the this way. After that, we gradually moved to a more natural approach. The movie Giant (1956) shows a great example of the two styles, where Rock Hudson was more theatrical and James Dean was more natural. The brilliance of Elizabeth Taylor is that she matched the styles of her screen partner. She was natural with Dean and theatrical with Hudson. Today, we almost universally dismiss the old style of dramatic movie acting. In fact, it has been parodied on TV by the likes of Carol Burnett and even current episodes of SNL.
What strikes me about the comments above is that film is not so much an art, but a collection of arts.
ReplyDeleteJames Morrison: That is an excellent point. So often we talk about film as a mish-mash of what we already know from other arts ie. color, composition, sound, acting. So what is it about film that is so unique?
ReplyDeleteOne thing that Chester touches on that I love, and that I find to be one of the major differences in film from any other art, is "space" the eefect of space on the audience, and the use of space in the film. One of the most cinematic conventions, and uniquely cinematic at that, is the chase sequence? While theatre, dance, music even try to repliate a certain spacial movement, it is only in film that this is fully represented. Moving not only subjects but the audience as well.
I also love what Mason talks about with actors. while it is often regarded as a native art of the theatre, acting is quite a different beast in film. I daresay it is a different art form altogether. We will go more in depth about acting in film in the coming months, but this, I believe does set film apart.
ReplyDeleteOf course I'm referring to acting apart from dialog and stage movements, something belonging to the theatre realm. Great start to a discussion of film!
I think film is not only something pretty to look at or hear. Music and paintings can do that. I think film is somehow able to touch us differently. (not in a dirty way, like "I need an adult") There is something that makes us enjoy the experience, but also learn form it. Is this too close to entertainment to be art? Can they be the same thing?
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly what we're trying to define. And maybe we'll discover worth within this conversation.
ReplyDeleteI briefly mentioned the chase sequence being one example of the way space is manipulated in film to create something unique from other art forms. What are your favorite chase scenes?
Mine is definitely from The French Connection. Although vertigo utilizes some very interesting chases in which (quite often) the stakeout and the chase is tied with the act of viewing or gazing, something we as spectators are also doing at that very moment.