Movie, Film, Screen, Cinema, Kino
It seems to me that what we are all talking about the message that the
medium can transmit or not. We know that differences between mediums can
influence the message like Mcluhan postulate, but we all know that in
digital reality, the mediums are all converging into one only platform.
In the end the medium is only one and it's the same for everyone, it's
digital. What we care about the medium, all we want to know is what is
being messaged. We don't care if it goes trough plain narrative as we
know it since Aristotle. All we know is that we are receiving a message
trough a medium composed by images and sounds.
About interactivity I've read the entire article from the NYtimes,
posted here, I accept some of the statements. But, we cannot forget one
simple thing, the need for interactivity it's not a fashioned need, it's
a basic human need.
Our life is completely ruled by interaction with the world. Does this
mean that we control the world, that we control people, that we even
control ourselves? I don't think so. So we need to find new forms of
narrative, forget Aristotle and try to see further. This doesn't mean we
will put away Aristotle forms of drama. Cinema doesn't killed theatre,
neither literature, neither Painting
By the way, seeing movies in a theatre can be seen really like the "most
controlling art form in human history". But, if you see the same movie
in a DVD, you'll have the same power to stop or pause as you have when
reading a book. All depends on the capacity of the movie or book to
retain our attention in way to attain our emotions by deluding our
senses and intellect.
Nelson
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark O'Connell [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: narrative 2
>I've always thought it was the artist's job to make that
>sort of decision, but as I watched Lyne smugly leaving it
>up to the viewer, I realized with a jolt that I had fallen
>behind the times. I still think of a film as a unified,
>self-sufficient artifact that, by its nature, is not
>interactive in the way that, say, a video game is. To my
>old-media mind, the viewer ''interacts'' with a movie just
>as he or she interacts with any other work of art -- by
>responding to it emotionally, thinking about it, analyzing
>it, arguing with it, but not by altering it fundamentally.
I should've read further, this following post (not just the bit I copied
and pasted) is right on the money, my sincere apologies to the author
any
unforseen or distasteful implications....
Mark O'Connell
[log in to unmask]
www.markoconnell.org
|