 |
 |
Please, read Philip Kolker's "The Altering Eye", he has a web version here http://www.otal.umd.edu/~rkolker/AlteringEye/ He certainly clarifies mostly of the topics you're interested in. Best regards, Juan Antonio > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]] En > nombre de nelson zagalo > Enviado el: viernes, 19 de noviembre de 2004 17:22 > Para: [log in to unmask] > Asunto: Film as art or entertainment > > Hi > > I would like to know if anyone here does knows any paper or book that > deals profoundly with this matter, (film as art or entertainment)? > > I'm working with the so called entertainment film structures, as my study > object. But I'm trying to define some kind of border line with some > plausible and founded definitions. The text below is the only little piece > I found written on the subject on the internet. > > Thanks > > Nelson Zagalo > Research Unit of Communication and Arts > University of Aveiro, Portugal > > > ======================================================================== > > > Film as "art", not "entertainment." What's the difference? > > > Most people would be more likely to see 2001 as "art" versus > "entertainment" (due to 2001's slow pace and seeming lack of action and > variety; to some the film is deadly boring). So what's the difference > between film-as-"art" and film-as-"entertainment"? > > The best fast argument against film entertainment as art is the > following web server > > http://www.well.com/user/vertigo/cliches.html > > which documents hundreds of film cliches, like: > > * Dogs always know who's bad, and bark at them. > > * When men drink whiskey, it is always in a shot glass, and they always > drink it in one gulp. If they are wimps, they will gasp for air, then > have a coughing fit. If they are macho, they will wince briefly, > flashing clenched teeth. > > * Bombs always have big, blinking, beeping timer displays. Evil geniuses > who devise bombs to destroy things/people are always thoughtful enough > to include a visible display (usually LED) of how much time remains > before the bomb detonates, giving the hero accurate feedback on > exactly how much time remains. > > * Explosions always happen in slow motion. When an explosion occurs, > make certain you are running away from the point of detonation so the > blast can send you flying, in slow motion, toward the camera. > > * Pedestrians in Hollywood have the world's best reactions, so don't > worry if you have to drive down a sidewalk. Mr. Pappodopolus is quite > used to having his fruit cart smashed, and despite his gesticulations > and curses, he always manages to get out of the way in time. > > and so forth. Thanks to the Web, now you don't have to pay $8.00 to get > a healthy dose of visual cliches. They're free for the asking. > > That's a short differentiation: "entertainment" is the recycling, flow- > chart style, of images which "worked" before. To those who have seen > these images umpteen-cubed times, the images, funny how it happens, sour > up on the mind, kind of like orange juice which has worn out its > welcome. Yes, Virginia, that's NOT entertainment. > > Here's a long, wordy one: > > The "art" object, like its cousin the "entertainment" object, is a means > of communication. This communication is via a medium [whether rock > (sculpture), oil on canvas (painting), sequential varying images > projected on a screen (film), words on a page (poetry, novel), metallic > tube (trumpet), and a whole host of other media]. Here the similarity > begins to end. > > A primary difference between film "entertainment" and "art" is in the > quality and quantity of the messages sent and the level upon which they > are pitched; the intentions of the two vis a vis the spectator are very > different. Entertainment typically hews close to the base level of the > human psyche, tugging at the most elemental emotions -- pushing buttons, > to be pejorative about it. Art, while also seeking to engage the viewer, > generally attempts to tap into more complicated and rarer emotions, and > invites the viewer to not only be hypnotized (i.e. "get into" the work), > but also to examine the work objectively -- an integration of cognition > with emotion. While film entertainment frequently sends only one primary > message, the greatest film artworks are sending many messages at once, > and echoing and/or counterpointing these messages across many different > domains (e.g. verbal, set design, montage, lighting, performance, etc.), > in the same way musical works do. Because of this, the "entertainments" > frequently exhaust themselves after a few viewings, while the greatest > artworks, on the other hand, frequently get richer and richer upon > subsequent viewings. On the philosophical dimension, (at the risk of > oversimplifying this issue), the entertainer is typically focused on > telling the audience what it WANTS to hear, while the artist is more > often focused on what it NEEDS to hear. For this reason, many people > would say that entertainment is "light," art "heavy," and thus, on > Friday night after a hard week's work, would check out DIE HARD or DUMB > AND DUMBER from the local BLOCKBUSTER, and not, say, Bergman's THE > SEVENTH SEAL. > > If art is communication, then information theory comes into play when > evaluating art. The following is a list of parameters partially derived > from information theory that sets some lines of demarcation that will > enable us to say "while both are food (communication), art is more like > the main course, and entertainment is more like dessert." > > I have included after these parameters some films which, in my view, are > prototype (but non-exclusive) examples satisfying that particular idea. > > ======================================================================== > > 1) Totality of Conception > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > 2001, CITIZEN KANE, ERASERHEAD, THE SHINING > > 2) Multi-dimensional Voicing > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > 2001, CITIZEN KANE, ERASERHEAD, THE SHINING > > 3) Complexity of Information > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH, ERASERHEAD > > 4) Formal Beauty > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > BARRY LYNDON, 2001, NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS > > 5) Excellence of Parts > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?, HUDSUCKER PROXY, CITIZEN KANE, > NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS > > 6) Metaphoric Significance > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?, 2001 > > 7) Understanding of Film Language > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > CITIZEN KANE > > 8) New vision/Exploding possibilities of the medium > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > CITIZEN KANE, ERASERHEAD, BLUE VELVET, MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH, 2001 > VERNON FLORIDA > > 9) Power/Impact > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?, SWEPT AWAY > > 10) Verisimilitude (feeling of reality) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > MIDNIGHT COWBOY, WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? > > 11) Lack of superfluous information (high signal, low noise) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > 2001 > > 12) Necessity (feeling it could only be done that way) > ^^^^^^^^^ > 2001, RAISING ARIZONA, WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?, ERASERHEAD > > 13) Expressionistic > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ERASERHEAD > > 14) Number of parameters satisfied > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > 2001, WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? > > 15) New content > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > MARAT/SADE, ERASERHEAD > > 16) Theme and Variation (reworks and transforms conventions) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > HUDSUCKER PROXY > > 17) Unpredictability/Freshness > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ERASERHEAD, VERNON FLORIDA > > 18) Depth (number of interpretations possible) > ^^^^^ > 2001, THE SHINING, MARAT/SADE > > 19) Creation of salient mood > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > MARAT/SADE, ERASERHEAD, OBSESSION, BLUE VELVET, TITICUT FOLLIES, > BARRY LYNDON > > 20) Form follows content > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > 2001, ERASERHEAD, NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS > > 21) Significance of themes > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > 2001, MARAT/SADE, SWEPT AWAY, WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? > > 22) Striking imagery > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ERASERHEAD, AGUIRRE: THE WRATH OF GOD, NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS > > 23) Integrity/Uncompromising > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ERASERHEAD, 2001, NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS, MY DINNER WITH ANDRE, > MINDWALK > > 24) Universality (speaks to everyone regardless of spatial, temporal > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ location) > > WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?, THE SHINING > > 24) Communicativeness > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > SWEPT AWAY, WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? > > 24) Intellectual (engages cognition) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > MINDWALK, WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?, 2001, MARAT/SADE, > MY DINNER WITH ANDRE > > ======================================================================== > > Another important aspect of art as a medium of communication is > avoidance of the following negatives: > > Cliche > > Pretentiousness > > Art-by-numbers (e.g. doing what the "school" tells you to do) > > Unethical imagery (e.g. positive framing of sadism, etc.) > > Contrived images > > Reliance on cheap "effects" > > Compromising: going down the mountain and cheapening the > message > > Those who are fascinated by the issue of "what is art?" (a question > around which a whole discipline, aesthetics, revolves) must get the > brilliant PUZZLES ABOUT ART: AN AESTHETICS CASEBOOK by Battin, Fisher, > Moore, and Silvers (St. Martin's Press, NY, 1989). This book uses, quite > uniquely, the case method found in law schools to explore this very > complex question, discussing in the process well over a hundred > hypothetical situations in non-technical language, introducing the > layman to "the issues" in a very accessible way. Highly recommended. > > (B.K.) > > from http://www.krusch.com/kubrick/kq.html > > * * 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. ** * * 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. **