What do you think we are up to when we call a movie "cinematic"? It
seems to be a term of praise. Rohmer, for example, is often derided
as uncinematic. This has important implications for our thinking
about the role of the "medium". I'm curious what people think. Are
we praising movies for being good as movies, or is something else
going on? Why is it sometimes good to be cinematic and sometimes bad
to be uncinematic? Or is this a misperception?
I suspect that "cinematic" is just a short-hand for a way of
describing and typically praising a certain style of movie that
features wide-sweeping panoramas of great expanses perhaps replete
with figures massed in tremendous numbers, or something like this. I
don't think that it means, good as a movie or good doing what is
distinctive of movies. Again, this has important implications for the
earlier discussion of medium essentialism. . . .
Cheers,
Aaron
(Note: Carroll talks about this some. And I was told that Berys Gaut
recently delivered a talk, which I didn't hear, where he brought up a
similar question. I'm not sure about the specifics. I note this
merely to avoid the impression that I'm taking credit for raising the
general issue.)
*
*
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]
**
|