|
|
Post by spiderwort on May 6, 2017 2:49:46 GMT
I first came to understand film as an art form in 1961 with the films of Elia Kazan (starting with Splendor in the Grass) and Ingmar Bergman (starting with Through a Glass Darkly). From there I worked my way backwards to the beginnings and forward to the present to explore all the permutations and potentials of the medium.
I love film's ability to convey emotion and create empathy, catharsis, and enlightenment in the audience. That, along with its extraordinary plasticity, makes it a potential art form of the highest order. (I say potential, because we all know that not all films are art.)
I appreciate the medium's power to entertain, too. But I believe the best films are, at their core, ART DISGUISED as entertainment. For me, there’s no greater magic than that.
It is such a mystery, isn't it? This thing so many of us in one way or another devote so much of our lives to. Art in the form of moving images? A gift from the gods, truly.
Please share your thoughts on this subject, and your experiences as a viewer of this amazing medium.
|
|
|
|
Post by manfromplanetx on May 6, 2017 3:05:44 GMT
I have framed this favourite little quote , I think it perfectly expresses ,why we appreciate and love the cinema medium so much.
"When Art can Dramatize and Hypnotize, Entertain, Educate, Inspire and Reveal, Gripping Imagination and Convey a Sense of Reality, Play Sacred Emotions and Interplay Blinding Colours, That is Art in it's Purest Form and that Form is the Film"
Samuel Fuller 1964
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on May 6, 2017 3:23:30 GMT
Two filmmakers alone taught me the value of art as film and one of them you've already mentioned; a common factor perhaps may be the irascible and notoriously difficult cinematographer Boris Kaufman who the French rightly or wrongly proclaimed to be a photographic genius.  "Action!" |
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on May 6, 2017 3:33:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on May 6, 2017 3:36:52 GMT
Two filmmakers alone taught me the value of art as film and one of them you've already mentioned; a common factor perhaps may be the irascible and notoriously difficult cinematographer Boris Kaufman who the French rightly or wrongly proclaimed to be a photographic genius. I assume your other director is Sidney Lumet? As for Boris Kaufman, I'd be inclined to agree with the French. I don't know if you know that he was the brother of director Denis Kaufman (a.k.a. Dziga Vertov of The Man with the Movie Camera Fame), and of cinematographer Mikhail Kaufman, who remained in Russia but did not have nearly the success of Boris.Sorry, I wasn't trying to be deliberately obtuse; just sinking a few beers at the end of my working week, padre. Yes, Elia Kazan and Sidney Lumet, who both understood the limitations and possibilities of existing stagecraft. The Kaufmans - what a talented family they were! |
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on May 6, 2017 3:42:41 GMT
David Lean was an absolute beast. His editing techniques are up there with Dede Allen, Walter Murch and Thelma Schoonmaker in terms of influence, the dude delved so far within his dedicated craft. Steven Spielberg says Lean is a magician any filmmaker can learn from. I think he's one of the 5 greatest British filmmakers of all time. |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on May 6, 2017 3:51:22 GMT
I do think of film at its best as an art form, but among any of those so designated, it's unique in its existence as a single one created from a compendium of others: performance, in the forms of acting, singing or dance; literature, in the forms of story and script; the visual, incorporating painting, sculpture and architecture within the photographic mise-en-scène. And of course, music.
And in its arrangement of these elements into the depiction of motion, it created a new art form in itself: that of montage, in the form of linear assemblage of a succession of images and, eventually, sounds.
Unless there are one or more I've neglected, I can't think of another art form that's essentially comprised of all the others.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on May 6, 2017 4:11:02 GMT
My second favourite David Lean edit - at 6 minute 50 seconds into this - www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTv6jqKUNz8Zhivago sees a pool of bright red blood in the virgin snow....cut to Lara leaving Komarovsky having just been "deflowered" (is that still a word?). |
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on May 6, 2017 4:15:38 GMT
There's a splendid transition shot in Pygmalion, reminiscent of the match/sun one in Lawrence, that begins with a gaslight going out. Lean edited Pygmalion.
|
|
|
|
Post by spiderwort on May 6, 2017 4:18:19 GMT
I do think of film at its best as an art form, but among any of those so designated, it's unique in its existence as a single one created from a compendium of others: Precisely, Doghouse. Perfectly and beautifully stated. It is indeed a compendium of all the other arts. And one in which creative collaboration is the wheel that makes everything turn. Kudos to you for explaining this so well. |
|
|
|
Post by skribb on May 6, 2017 18:41:06 GMT
Colors, patterns, music, silence, movement, sound, dialog, craftsmanship, storytelling, entertainment, disgust, reality, imagination...
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on May 6, 2017 19:16:14 GMT
That is Art in it's Purest Form Nice try, film buff, but "all art aspires to the condition of music". On the other hand, if architecture is "frozen music", I suppose film could be called "molten music". |
|
|
|
Post by london777 on May 6, 2017 19:21:37 GMT
You nancy boys make me sick with your wishy-washy, arty-farty theorizing. All the real men here are posting in this thread:
|
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on May 7, 2017 20:20:15 GMT
...I would suggest that "Russian Ark" is artful filmmaking...
...also, the "Koyanisquaytsi" trilogy as well as "Baraka..."
|
|
|
|
Post by Eλευθερί on May 8, 2017 7:06:31 GMT
I love film's ability to convey emotion and create empathy, catharsis, and enlightenment in the audience. That, along with its extraordinary plasticity, makes it a potential art form of the highest order. (I say potential, because we all know that not all films are art.) I appreciate the medium's power to entertain, too. But I believe the best films are, at their core, ART DISGUISED as entertainment. For me, there’s no greater magic than that. If you exclude "documentary" films, amateur films (like from family gatherings), and technical stuff (such as recordings of surgical procedures or legal procedings), I think most of what we usually mean when we are talking about film IS art. It's just that some works of art affect us more profoundly than others do. |
|
|
|
Post by Eλευθερί on May 8, 2017 7:14:54 GMT
it's unique in its existence as a single one created from a compendium of others: performance, in the forms of acting, singing or dance; literature, in the forms of story and script; the visual, incorporating painting, sculpture and architecture within the photographic mise-en-scène. And of course, music. ... Unless there are one or more I've neglected, I can't think of another art form that's essentially comprised of all the others. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by spiderwort on May 8, 2017 11:58:35 GMT
If you exclude "documentary" films, amateur films (like from family gatherings), and technical stuff (such as recordings of surgical procedures or legal proceedings), I think most of what we usually mean when we are talking about film IS art. It's just that some works of art affect us more profoundly than others do. It's a matter of semantics, in the end. It depends upon how you define art. Some documentary films, for example, I think are unquestionably art. Likewise, in the broadest definition of art, I suppose that one could say any narrative film is art. It's a highly subjective matter, however. I make films for a living (intending them as art), and I fully understand your thesis. But I don't hold the same broad view that you do; rather a more narrow one about the design and intention of the filmmaker's process. But we could debate it forever and never reach an agreement. I'll concede that for most viewers, if they consider it at all, film would be thought of broadly as an art, though very often it is only meant (in America at least), as entertainment or, more specifically, as a way to make money. Again, it's a subjective judgement. I think I came the closest to your position when I said in my OP that films at their best are art disguised as entertainment. But I appreciate and thank you for your thoughtful post. Oddly enough, if we were to debate it further, I suspect we're not as far apart as we might seem. |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on May 8, 2017 14:11:41 GMT
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. |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on May 8, 2017 14:22:36 GMT
it's unique in its existence as a single one created from a compendium of others: performance, in the forms of acting, singing or dance; literature, in the forms of story and script; the visual, incorporating painting, sculpture and architecture within the photographic mise-en-scène. And of course, music. ... Unless there are one or more I've neglected, I can't think of another art form that's essentially comprised of all the others. 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. At the risk of sounding middlebrow, I'd venture to say that musical theater comes the closest among the performing arts to ticking off the boxes as an amalgam of other art forms, if only for its incorporation of spoken drama into the mix. Spiderwort has already zeroed in on the one artistic element that film adds and requires: that of photography, which not only documents live action but adds an additional artistic layer in the forms of focus, composition, framing and movement, as well as the aforementioned montage. . |
|
|
|
Post by spiderwort on May 8, 2017 15:35:12 GMT
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. A much better word, indeed. And all of this so beautifully said by you, I might add. I'm sorry for responding ahead of you. I should have left it for you first, and I have no doubt you would have said it just as well, if not better, than I. One only has to look at your comments here to understand that. I just got carried away. Please forgive me. (Actually when I was writing my piece, I was trying to figure out how to reference you, but it got clumsy, so I just moved on. You were considered, however, just so you know.)
|
|
