I wouldn't know, I've never seen a film in a cinema with "purely visuals alone". I have seen a few amateur or experimental videos with "purely visuals alone" and they were not well told stories. I don't dispute that it may be possible to tell a story with visuals alone (even though I've never witnessed it and know of no examples), I dispute what H44 said that: "You can perfectly tell what is going on by picture alone"!
Yeah, in this case my argument was more theoretical and hypothetical, because even the films I've seen without any sound do have title cards. I think your argument against H44's statement is completely valid.
I was playing "devil's advocate" and throwing H44's statement back at him but turned upside-down! Cinema is the marriage of visuals AND sound to tell a story, and I love cinema.
What you have described (moving image without sound) is NOT cinema. I could throw your statement back at you and say: "If you're not bothered with sound at all, leave cinema to the lovers of cinema" but I don't need to, because the decision is not in your hands!
We have argued about the definition of cinema at length and we don't agree. The moving image without sound, can be cinema as long as it is made by a filmmaker for a cinematic presentation (in order to eliminate the possibility of video art and CCTV). If you can prove to me how a silent film like Yasujiro Ozu's
A Story With Floating Weeds is not cinema because its original score is lost (along with most silent films by the way), then I'll agree with you. But you can't because it is completely inaccurate to say that it isn't a film or that it isn't cinema. I love sound though and have never suggested otherwise, so you can't just throw that statement back at me.
This paragraph encapsulates the differences between us! You personally (and many critics and cinephiles) evaluate a film based on some abstract notion of "art" ... and not the art of film, the art of only certain aspects of film (in your case apparently, just the moving image)!
Once again, I think you misunderstand my point of view. The moving image alone is not what I value about cinema, but I feel that it is the only REQUIRED element in order for something to be a film. If a film has no moving image, I think that it is NOT a film (with exceptions like Chris Marker's
La Jetee). If a film has no special effects though, it can still be a film. If a film has no camera movement, it can still be a film. If a film has no sound, it can still be a film. If a film has no dialogue or actors or color, it can still be a film. Just because I think that the moving image is the ONLY REQUIRED ELEMENT for cinema, it does not mean it is the only thing I value about cinema. I'll concede that aside from music and more experimental uses of sound, I do not have the knowledge to understand and appreciate the element of sound in film in a nuanced manner. At the same time though, I see no reason why we shouldn't appreciate the artistry of cinema through mise-en-scene, acting, cinematography, editing, writing, etc. I think your argument should be that we should learn to appreciate the element of sound more, not to altogether abandon the notion that cinema should be appreciated as art. But I guess that's not your point of view.
However, audiences do not, audiences now and in the past pay to go to the cinema to be entertained! Creating good cinematic entertainment is an art (!) which may or may not also contain great examples of your narrow sub-set of cinematic arts. If it does, then it's liked/loved by the public AND by the critics (and you), if it doesn't then it's liked/loved by the public but NOT by the critics (or you) and if it contains ONLY great examples of your narrow sub-set of cinematic arts and not the wider art of cinematic entertainment then it's liked/loved by the critics (and you) but not by the public.
So the quality of a film is only determined by its popularity with a wide audience? I can't agree with that as I find it to be extremely flawed on many levels. First of all, with marketing and distribution, Hollywood films will always be the 'best' films according to this standard simply because they are available to a larger amount of people. You and I don't share the same view about how to evaluate cinema though so I guess I understand. To you a film like
Transformers is better than
Citizen Kane because it is loved by the public more. By that definition, popular music will also always be better than classical music, and New York Times bestsellers will always be better than the classics of fine literature. I don't know what your stance is with films that are liked/loved by the public but hated by critics (and me!).
So, when you say that audiences embrace new technology regardless of whether it leads to greater artistry or not, that statement is incorrect because you are basing it on your narrow personal concept of what constitutes "artistry"!
I don't think it's so narrow because it encompasses a much greater variety of films than those that are appreciated by the public. I think there is great artistry in a John Woo film, a Chaplin film, a Mizoguchi film, a Bergman film, an Ozu film, and countless of other filmmakers working in different genres, different countries, and different time periods. In my opinion, it is the 'public' that has much more narrow views about cinema.
Commercial success doesn't tell us anything about the quality of the cinematography beyond the fact that it was at least of acceptable quality. It does however generally tell us something about the quality of the film as a whole, of it's entertainment value.
I agree with your first statement.
I don't agree with the second one. I don't think that the quality of the film as a whole should be based entirely on its 'entertainment' value. First of all, not every film is made for entertainment. Second of all, it depends again on the way you are evaluating a film. If you are evaluating film as a way of entertaining the audience, usually in simplistic ways, then yes commercial success is a great way of evaluating a film according to those standards. But if you want to evaluate a film that can enlighten, engage, and make audiences think for a longer period of time, then commercial success has not proven to be the best way to evaluate films.
When I watch films, I don't care what ANYONE thinks about the film, especially the mass audience. I watch it, and if it moves me then I think it is great. And I try to articulate what I feel is great about the film (which isn't limited purely to cinematography, which seems to be the only aspect you think I appreciate), and I try to read what others think about the film as well. A lot of other people do this, people who love cinema, people who generally try not to have unnecessary biases or agendas such as: bias for or against b&w films, bias for or against silent films, bias for or against foreign films, bias for or against genre, and many other irrelevant biases that prevent the appreciation of all great cinema. Then we cinephiles, along with critics and scholars of the field have shared tastes which lead to an intersubjective consensus among experts on what are the 'great' works of film. These films are usually considered to be part of a vague notion of a cinematic canon. Not every film on the canon must be liked by everyone, and not every film that's not in the canon is necessarily unworthy of the status of greatness that is placed on canonized films. However, in general this approach does a good job at giving people who are interested in the medium a chance to explore a selection of films that are considered among the most important and of the highest quality. I have always had reservations with the 'canon' simply because I think many films go unwatched because people only look at the most "important" films, and because some people aren't even genuine in their "appreciation" of the films within the canon. However, I think that this form of looking at cinema is much better than simply looking at the current box-office hits in order to watch great cinema.
Another classic example of what I've said above. What falls outside of your personal definition of cinema as art, is not art (according to you), the other cinematic arts and the art of film as a whole can only be classified as the "technical aspects" of cinema and are "pretty much irrelevant" (according to you).
All cinema is art, but there are aspects of filmmaking that are not artistic. The use of each and every formal element of a film is an art, but the tools used to accomplish them are not art. The fact that a newer camera was used is not the art, it's the way that camera was used that is an art. In that way we can observe that some older films have had much more inventive use of camerawork than many films today, even though the cameras used today are superior. That's the thing, I evaluate films individually based on their merit, I don't care whether its a silent film or a sound film, a film from a certain country or budget, or the genre of the film, its all about the individual films for me. The technical aspects of cinema are indeed irrelevant when viewing it and analyzing it as an art form, but it is necessary to understand the technical aspects and how to apply them well in order to achieve artistry when making a film.
Correct, my agenda in this instance is to stand up against the tiny minority of people (some critics, filmmakers and cinephiles) who believe that only they have the right to define what is "art" (based on their personal preferences for certain cinematic crafts) and, that they have the right to belittle others who don't define cinematic art using the same criteria. If silent cinema really is superior to, or even equally as good as, "talkies" why aren't silent films made commercially today? Surely with such a commonly held belief there must be a huge commercial demand for silent films?
Analyzing any form of art critically isn't based on personal preferences, its based on intersubjective observations and assessments made over a long period of time. There are a lot of flaws with this method, but has proven to be very effective at helping people value all art forms over the years.
The simple answer to your question is that audiences today prefer watching "talkies" and have no interest in watching silent films. The commonly held belief that I mentioned was that the silent films were superior to the EARLY TALKIES (1929 - mid-1930's). Many critics also subscribe to the belief that cinema without synchronized sound (or even continuity editing sometimes) is somehow more purely cinematic and so they often make statements like the one Ebert made in order to support their ideal vision of cinema, even though they know perfectly well that there are many sound film masterpieces. I personally do not share this belief and I think it's just as absurd and narrow-minded as the belief that somehow sound film is inherently superior to silent film as you seem to be saying.
I think that you have a very closed mind about silent films, because I don't think anyone is saying that all silent films are superior to sound films, or that even most silent films are superior to sound films. But there are silent film masterpieces that should be viewed just as much as sound film masterpieces. The only thing I can say is that if you can't see the value in silent films made by Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Stroheim, Lang, Murnau, Griffith, Dreyer, Mizoguchi, Ozu, and many other silent film masters then I think your missing out.
I didn't say the cinematography in Citizen Kane wasn't important, it is important.
I never said you said that either, I just said that I think that the cinematography in
Citizen Kane is EQUALLY important to the use of sound in the film.
But you seem to be missing the point of what's important and "revolutionary" about it and that point is crucial because it completely contradicts your and H44's argument! What is revolutionary about the cinematography of Citizen Kane is that it specifically does not try to tell the story by the picture alone.
What is surprising, compared to other films of the time and before, is how little the cinematography tells us, how much of the moving image is warped, obscured or not visible. Using sound as a far more significant storytelling tool allowed the cinematography in Citizen Kane the freedom to be far less literal and far more abstract/impressionistic.
Actually, I know this because I learned this from you in our previous arguments. And I agree with you, but I still don't think it makes the use of sound in this film more important than the cinematography as they both worked together to accomplish the task, and storytelling isn't all of cinema, at least it isn't for me.
You seem to be missing the point of cinema and story telling.
No, I just don't think that the point of cinema is purely storytelling, and I think that when it is then it is boring for me and I'm not interested in it. I'm interested in the totality of cinema's formal qualities, with or without storytelling.
By definition, storytelling means telling a story to someone else or, in the case of cinema, groups of other people. Unless you are telling a story exclusively to those interested in the specific mechanics of storytelling, then the history and nuances of the process of storytelling is irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is; is the story interesting/entertaining?
For someone who is only looking for entertainment, then yes that is the only thing that is relevant. But my point still stands, the only difference between the views of most film critics and most average film viewers is the difference in the amount of knowledge they have on the subject of film. You can argue with me whether that difference in knowledge leads to critics being more capable judges on the quality of cinema or not, but I already feel like our points of view on that topic differ too much.
Again, you are trying to force your definition of "cinematic artistry" by using your knowledge of cinema history to dismiss as ignorant the public's right to their own opinion. I suggest the ignorance is yours, you are watching films with blinkers and missing the wider cinematic art of engaging storytelling. Unfortunately for you though, cinemas are expensive to build and operate and cinematic films are expensive to make, market and distribute and therefore, without the public expressing their opinion via their wallets there are no professional cinematic films or "art" (as you define it).
No, the public has the right to have their own opinions, but that doesn't mean its the opinion of a well-informed person on the topic that has spent many years studying on the subject and understands it more. I just don't think that someone with less experience studying a topic has an opinion of equal value or validity, or even more (as you suggest!).
If you're right, then I prefer to be ignorant because I still end up having an appreciation for a much wider variety of cinema than the general public does (even if somehow they can appreciate "the wider cinematic art of engaging storytelling" more than I). As a matter of fact, can you give me examples of great films that fit this definition? I'd like to see them myself, just because I love watching good films even if I don't agree with the way you would even defend these great films.
Somehow great films are still being made every day and in a larger amount of countries than before, so I think I'll be perfectly fine. I don't mind if the films that I hopefully will make or the films that I would love to see that are made by others around the world don't become very popular, I'm not into cinema for popularity or money. I'm simply passionate about films, whether they are popular or not.
You can't have it both ways! You generalise that film critics are more informed on "cinema's history, cinema's aesthetics, the filmmaking process, and simply how to appreciate the nuances of cinematic artistry" and then say one shouldn't generalise about film critics?!
Good point. Most film critics are more well informed on those topics than the average film goer. However, I still don't think you should just act as if all critics have the same opinions. Some critics share the same point of view that you have, and there is a lot of disagreement among critics as well, so I don't think its good to lump them altogether. But still, yeah I make the assumption that most of the film are well-informed on cinema so you can make your own assumptions too.
It's nice talking to you again!
)
