The idea of the frame as a unit of language is difficult to
explain because just as a frame is part of a shot, the content of the frame
can be broken down to a point where we can't see the forest for the
trees. To be practical, a movie maker needs to understand basic
principles of framing (composition) that have been developed over
centuries by painters. Clearly a single frame can communicate rather
complex stories. One only has to look at some of the Dutch masters for
evidence of this truth.
If communicating with motion pictures becomes the primary mode of
two way communication for the majority of people, we may see the
imposition of grammatical rules. Daniel Arijon has already taken great
strides in this direction with his book, "The Grammar of the Film
Language". Motion Picture language relies heavily on metaphor.
Therefore wise motion picture artists learn the great text artists
(poets), painters, and musicians.
What will happen to the language of motion pictures as we open to
the possibility of the creative commons? Will frames, shots, scenes,
acts be remixed into on going dynamic works of community expression?
Will movie production and distribution corporations kill the open
development of motion pictures as a language? Time will tell.
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|