After a viewing of the Peter Jackson's 2005 film King Kong a member
of a group of adolescents in the cinema 'that we have been in the
presence of cinematic genius'. What we find interesting about such a
claim is not his normative assessment of the film as it was generally
favorably reviewed. The criteria used for his assessment was markedly
different in its aesthetic origins allowing the critic to establish this
film's superiority over its two previous versions. What had changed in
the Jackson version was the incredible improvement at the hands of the
technology that was used to make it. The special effects the digital
technology allowed the film maker to present much more 'powerful' visual
and aural computer animated effects. It is here where I think these
amateur film analysts were confusing aesthetics with computer wizardry
or at least not being mindful that their film aesthetics were propped up
by them. This type of film posits its own set of conditions, effectively
determining the parameters of film making by suggesting it is all there
is. It is here where we can draw a distinct theoretical conclusion that
the market system constructs its own aesthetic conditions then
surreptitiously ensures that these conditions are rarely needed to be
accounted for. This of course makes good business sense but also shapes
good compliant consumers. Realism has very little to do with it.
Representation seems to often be a matter of competing commercial
interests at this level.
In short, although he tends to the ad hominem Bill is exposing some
philosophical wounds to attend to.
rwm
*
*
Film-Philosophy 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]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|