Is Film Art? Part IV

Is film art if it is a representation of something real? While formalists thought that any further movement on film's part toward reality would lessen the artistic appeal (thus making the early 20's the height of film as art), realist theorists believed that the more "real" the motion picture was, the truer to nature, and thus to art it is. This is not necessarily to say that something like "impressionism" was not considered art to realists. To realists, art (and in this case the film itself) was like a window through which to reveal the natural.

Any technological advance toward mimicking reality then would be great for a film theorist like Bazin who believed sound (once it was seemingly perfected as a filmic technology) was an amazing boon for film. Other movements toward reality would be color, stereoscopic sound, anamorphic format (widescreen), 3D, surround sound, maybe even CG in certain circumstances. All these advancements allowed film to create this window through which the subject matter is viewed. the difference between realists and other theorists might be akin to the difference between two verbs associated with the art of film, "capture" and "create". Formalists would say that art is "created" more or less, and realists would argue that art is "captured".

But, here is the question: Do you agree? Is a film that is more real closer to (if not fully) art? What are some examples of this?

I personally would say that this goes beyond just "lifelike" acting or any other technical aspect of the production but into the content as well. A good example of this is Italian Neo-Realism. In Italy, after World War II, film was not just seen as an entertainment, but as a representation of the times. An event around which, audiences might find a catharsis for their troubles. Two of my favorite of these films are by the Italian director, Vittorio De Sica: They are The Bicyle Thieves and Umberto D.

What are some of your favorite "realistic" films?

Is Film Art? Part II

Is film art? We've now discussed a little bit about what makes film unique (acting, the use of space in relation to viewed objects and in relation to the audience), but there are two areas of formalism that I'd like to touch on before we put this matter to rest, the psychological miracle of the mind's eye and the montage. Maybe we should start with the psychological reaction that takes place when viewing a film.

This miracle occurs in the brain. It is what led Munsterberg to say that the raw material of the photoplay (cinema) is not camera, lens, nor celluloid, but is the mind. Two distinct things have to occur in order to actually perceive a moving image. One, the retention of visual stimuli. This is the brain holding on to the last image it sees for a split second longer (nearly 1/50th of a second) than the image is presented. This is the same thing that occurs during a strobe light or when we close our eyes, the image remains just a tiny bit longer. Why or how this exactly occurs, is still somewhat of a mystery.

The next is called the phi-phenomenon. This is the brain's ability to sense movement in disjointed stimuli. It will combine different images and transform them into what is perceived as a single movement. This is similar to how we see a row of blinking Christmas lights and see a movement down the line. Does that make sense? When the spectator views the slightly different images in quick succession, the mind combines them into a single moving image. This is a profound trick of the mind unique to cinema. (A rudimentary form of this is the flip book)

So what application does this have in relation to reading cinema?
Does this make film unique enough to be called art?
Is more needed to distinguish film, that is to ask, beyond just a unique way of perceiving, does film need a unique way of communicating ideas? And what might this be?

Is Film Art?

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.