Film as Art | IMDB v2.1

Film as Art May 8, 2017 14:11:41 GMT Salzmank likes this

Quote

Post by Doghouse6 on May 8, 2017 14:11:41 GMT

May 8, 2017 12:19:17 GMT spiderwort said:

May 8, 2017 7:14:54 GMT Eλευθερί said:

Um, opera? Dance (or danse)? A Julie Taymor stage production which defies traditional boundaries ...

They often feature music, singing, dancing, the artistry of costume design and set design - and at the heart of it, storytelling.

Live theater (opera and danse are, both, forms of live theater) can sometimes even take it one step further, by inviting the audience to become participants in the production--something film as we usually conceive of it can never do.

Having started in the theatre, I completely understand and agree with your general assessment, save this: historically (and only now in snippets) photography and especially cinematography are not a part of the theatrical experience. If nothing else, it's that singular element that makes film particularly unique, and also permits a realism that theatre cannot have because of it's physical constraints. Oddly enough, when I was a theatre student 50 years ago, I used to write plays that incorporated films (for I was always a filmmaker, even before that) to be played on a screen behind the actors on stage - visual narratives meant to enhance the stage narrative. But, alas, I didn't have the time or, more importantly, the money to do what I wanted to do then.

That is sometimes done in theatrical productions today, but it is still a limited element when used at all. What film offers that theatre can't is the integration of all the elements you mention with the visual/photographic image, too. Taymor does defy traditional values, for sure. And I applaud her for that. But it's only with film, in my opinion, that one gets the broadest application of all the different artistic elements in one form.

That said, you have thrilled me by reminding me of the power of live theatre, opera, and dance. Those are art forms that are so inspiring - and deeply collaborative, yes - in their own wonderful ways, with an intimacy that only the live experience can provide. That's the thing they offer that film can't.

You said pretty much everything I'd have - and more - if I'd seen Eλευθερί's reply first, and said it better (and with the considerably greater authority that your personal experience imparts).

If you'll forgive one suggestion for an amendment, however, I wonder if "immediacy" might be an even more applicable term than "intimacy." Although the latter can't be denied in live performance, especially in certain types of venues and formats, it's an aspect in which film excels, with its ability to focus on the tiniest detail down to the fluttering of an eyelid or twitch of a finger, not only conveying that intimacy but magnifying it.

The quicksilver nature of live performance is perhaps its most beguiling characteristic. Even with the longest-running show, each performance is not only unique, but elusive in its for-this-moment-only essence.