Each medium of storytelling has its purpose; each has its strengths. Film has the unique opportunity over every other medium to make the audience “see” new, strange, and wonderful things. Books and theatre both require so much use of the imagination on the audiences’ side that there is no guarantee that the audience will imagine the same sweeping vistas, alien worlds, or emotional responses that the director or author intended. And isn’t that one of the pivotal points of making art, determining what to put in and take out in order to ensure that the audiences “gets it?” Is there any greater joy for an artist than to see that eureka moment? With film, in terms of visuals, the director is able to make sure the audience understands and sees what they envisioned because they literally show it to them. Now, this isn’t to discount written or stage preformed narratives, not in the slightest. Obviously there are things that films do not do as well as novels, such as hearing a character’s thoughts. This happened in older movies, specifically the film noir genre, but today it’s considered hokey. I simply want to point out the unique capability of film in representing visuals.
Now, it is because of all that I just mentioned that I prefer the formalistic take on film. Realism has no doubt done some great things for the industry and it is interesting as an exercise to see what can be accomplished with the limits of the genre. But, I would rather come out of a film theater having seen things I’ve never seen before or in ways I’ve never seen them before. For instance, a crane shot of the Himalayas. You simply can’t use crane shots in Realism, but they can produce moving moments and all you’re looking at is scenery. Conversely , I prefer the classically structured plot. The traditional structure of the inciting incident, rising action, climax, and resolution offers virtually limitless possibilities but is held within a form that is familiar to the audience. If there’s nothing I hate more in films it is leaving feeling confused.
In terms of actor vs. director, for me it’s a tie. I will not go spend ten dollars just to see Kate Beckinsale (my favorite actress) on the big screen or the latest Ridley Scott film, but their involvement is enough to get me interested in a film. But, if there were a movie directed by Ridley Scott staring Kate Beckinsale, that would be enough to get me to spend ten dollars. Also, I equally like personality stars and actor stars. Some personalities I enjoy seeing repeatedly, like John Cusack, he’s virtually the same character in every film. In Grosse Pointe Blank (1997), he’s an assassin. In Serendipity (2001), he’s a writer for ESPN, but he’s the same person in both. On the other hand, I like the breadth of roles someone like Russell Crowe can pull off, from gladiator (Gladiator, 2000) to schizophrenic (A Beautiful Mind, 2001).
Looking back at the movies I’ve watched, I think my love for this less realistic style of film stems from the first movie I can ever remember, Superman (1978). I remember watching that movie, sitting in my father’s lap as my mother cut my hair for the first time. I was two, maybe. I remember trying to push my mom out of the way when she would stand between me and the TV. I remember not being able to close my eyes even though hair was falling in them. Superman did things my two-year brain could not even comprehend, from the fantastic (for the time) special effects to the crazy story, I was enthralled. But I think that looking at the character himself, explains what I look for in films. In the same manner I look at Superman the character (and in the same manner I think all superheroes are meant to be viewed), I watch movies to escape life, to witness the improbable, the impossible, and the fantastic. I get enough real life as it is. Film for me, is about seeing things you’ve never seen before in ways that are impossible with our human limitation. And in that, we are set free to experience that which could previously only be imagined.
No comments:
Post a Comment