What's wrong with Hollywood?

[MiniJamesW]

You haven't mentioned a single one, let alone several.



Huh, that's exactly what you're doing!! You're stating as fact that a number of films are "enduring cinematic masterpieces" when the evidence clearly indicates there is no such thing as an "enduring cinematic masterpiece".



You seem to be ignoring the obvious: Except for a tiny fraction of one percent of cinema-goers Citizen Kane has not only already been forgotten, it was forgotten decades ago!



Actually, that is exactly what they are! They're not obscure to me personally but then I'm in the business and am part of that insignificant "tiny fraction of one percent" of cinema-goers.



What evidence? By not even attempting to answer my question and by going off on a complete tangent you've proved my point, although you apparently don't realise it! Thanks for playing

G

Okay, I think I'm kind of done with this discussion.

I did in fact mention several enduring films that are regarded as masterpieces, there is simply no denying this fact. Look at the countless lists if you want, but I'm sure you don't have to look at any particular list to know that Citizen Kane is a film that is considered to be among the greatest of all-time.

A film that is widely distributed on Blu-Ray/DVD, and screened in many places every year doesn't count as obscure, no way not in a medium where there are so many directors from many nations. I already mentioned relatively obscure filmmakers, filmmakers that are actually obscure such as Patrick Tam or Mikio Naruse, and even these aren't the most obscure significant directors. If you really think that films that are in the Criterion Collection are obscure, then I wonder what you would call a film that doesn't even have a home video release and can only be seen in rare screenings.

You say that the evidence clearly shows that there are no enduring cinematic masterpieces, but am I supposed to be convinced just because you say so? Or am I to look at the increasing amount of film restoration projects, the increasing amount of repertory screenings, the increasing amount of home video releases of older films, and still conclude that cinema is not an enduring medium. I don't see why your interpretation of the evidence necessarily has to be right. I know that you have some good points, most film goers don't know these films but people who care about the medium do. Most people don't know much about art or classical music or poetry, does that mean that only the works that everyone knows are enduring? If you think so, then in that case we just have different ways at looking at what an "enduring work of art" is.

But I do know that most film goers have forgotten these films, I mean I even stated that many people within the Cinema Studies department at the university I go to have not heard of these films or seen them, so I don't see how I have ignored that.

Well I guess I'm tired of playing, maybe I'm not smart enough to see how all old films are boring and irrelevant, and how new films are inherently superior. I find it to be a very flawed way of thinking that lacks nuance, but I guess I'll just live in my own fantasy land where films can be as enduring an art form as other mediums with its own works that can speak to many people (and I seem to be the only person that thinks this way), I prefer this fantasy land than to the truth you have presented me with.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Haha, I highly disagree with this. I think this is just a matter of taste. But the 60's was at least known for starting one of the greatest eras of Hollywood history, the New Hollywood wave of filmmakers that continued into the 1970's.

Psycho
Inherit The Wind
Breakfast At Tiffany's
Lawrence Of Arabia
Charade
Dr. Strangelove
Mary Poppins
Guess Who's Coming To Dinner
The Graduate
Night Of The Living Dead
Take The Money And Run
The early James Bond films
Planet Of The Apes
2001: A Space Odyssey
Jason And The Argonauts
Spartacus
Doctor Zhivago
Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid
Bonnie And Clyde
Rosemary's Baby
The Sound Of Music
The Apartment
The Great Escape
My Fair Lady
To Kill A Mockingbird
The Wild Bunch
In The Heat Of The Night
Cape Fear
The Haunting
The Birds
Easy Rider
Midnight Cowboy
The Time Machine
True Grit
Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf?
It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
West Side Story
and many more.

Admittedly, I personally think that the 60's is one of Hollywood's weaker decades when compared (I think it's a decade where foreign cinema was definitely much more interesting) with the previous decades or the 1970's but it's still a hell of a lot better than post-1990 Hollywood.

I think that if we're looking for ephemeral, superficial pleasure from the cinema then the most recent decade will always be best, but if we look at the best enduring work, I think it's likely that the 2010's won't be remembered as well as the 1940's or 1970's when we look at Hollywood cinema. Heck, I think that 1939 alone is better than what Hollywood has produced this decade so far.

Aha! I knew if I threw down the gauntlet somebody would respond. Cheers! For me, debates like this are all in good fun.

I don't quite agree with the way that APE has worded things, but I think there's a logic there that I can at least partially agree with.

I think a lot, if not most, of the movies on your list are movies that were GREAT for their time. I don't mean that as a back-handed compliment, I promise. In fact, if a movie is great for it's time, I think that just makes it great. Culture changes. Audiences change. The entire movie-going experience changes over time, and I think most of us on here can bear witness to that fact, just from our own life experiences.

I think if the vast majority of those films were released today (supposing that they'd not been released before), audiences would absolutely reject them. Even critics would reject them. The Birds would be laughed out of the theater; it would probably not even get a direct-to-DVD release. Because movies are different now. Better? Worse? Neither, just different.

What if we did the reverse, and put a modern movie in front of past audiences? How would people in the 1960's respond to Guardians of the Galaxy? I think they'd be seriously weirded out by it, and they certainly wouldn't get the vast majority of the humor. One movie is great for one era, and another movie is great for another era.

Neither movie is "better". They're both great films because they connected with their audience, and their audience existed/exists in a specific time and place. I think the only reason The Birds is so highly regarded as a culturally significant historic piece of art is because old people say it is, and they were young when it was released. By the time I'm old, I assure you, people will be talking about how culturally significant Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is. And by the time the next generation gets old, people will be talking about how culturally significant Guardians of the Galaxy is.

So, where do I come off saying that we've got it better now than in the 60's? It's the sheer volume of movies being made. Holy crap, there's a lot of them. That of course also means that we've got more movies that are absolute crap. But good and great movies are still being made, and in my opinion, there are more now than ever before (if we're just talking entertainment value).

 

[AudioPostExpert]

A film that is widely distributed on Blu-Ray/DVD, and screened in many places every year doesn't count as obscure

When you say these films are screened in "many places" every year, of the 130,000 odd commercial cinema screens in the world, what are we talking about, 50% of them, 10%, 1%, 0.1%, less than 0.1%? My guess is 0.1% or less, does 0.1% constitute "many" places?

I'm sure you don't have to look at any particular list to know that Citizen Kane is a film that is considered to be among the greatest of all-time.

I don't dispute that Citizen Kane is regarded as one of the greatest films of all time but that fact has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Or am I to look at the increasing amount of film restoration projects, the increasing amount of repertory screenings, the increasing amount of home video releases of older films, and still conclude that cinema is not an enduring medium.

Sure, Citizen Kane (for example) still exists as a restoration project (an historical filmmaking document) and even as a DVD or TV product. However, you have not provided a single piece of evidence or even a guess, to substantiate your claim that Citizen Kane (or indeed any other film) is an example of enduring cinema!

G

 

[MiniJamesW]

Aha! I knew if I threw down the gauntlet somebody would respond. Cheers! For me, debates like this are all in good fun.

I don't quite agree with the way that APE has worded things, but I think there's a logic there that I can at least partially agree with.

I think a lot, if not most, of the movies on your list are movies that were GREAT for their time. I don't mean that as a back-handed compliment, I promise. In fact, if a movie is great for it's time, I think that just makes it great. Culture changes. Audiences change. The entire movie-going experience changes over time, and I think most of us on here can bear witness to that fact, just from our own life experiences.

I think if the vast majority of those films were released today (supposing that they'd not been released before), audiences would absolutely reject them. Even critics would reject them. The Birds would be laughed out of the theater; it would probably not even get a direct-to-DVD release. Because movies are different now. Better? Worse? Neither, just different.

What if we did the reverse, and put a modern movie in front of past audiences? How would people in the 1960's respond to Guardians of the Galaxy? I think they'd be seriously weirded out by it, and they certainly wouldn't get the vast majority of the humor. One movie is great for one era, and another movie is great for another era.

Neither movie is "better". They're both great films because they connected with their audience, and their audience existed/exists in a specific time and place. I think the only reason The Birds is so highly regarded as a culturally significant historic piece of art is because old people say it is, and they were young when it was released. By the time I'm old, I assure you, people will be talking about how culturally significant Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is. And by the time the next generation gets old, people will be talking about how culturally significant Guardians of the Galaxy is.

So, where do I come off saying that we've got it better now than in the 60's? It's the sheer volume of movies being made. Holy crap, there's a lot of them. That of course also means that we've got more movies that are absolute crap. But good and great movies are still being made, and in my opinion, there are more now than ever before (if we're just talking entertainment value).

Yeah actually after thinking about it more, the 1960s was mostly a weak decade for Hollywood in the first place. But I wouldn't agree that these films are no longer good, I watch them today and I just enjoy them. I don't know about how people experienced them in the 1960s because I wasn't even alive back then, I can only give my opinion based on what I feel about the films. And in the case of most of the films I listed, I enjoyed the films a lot personally.

It's very much possible that this decade will be superior to the 1960s for Hollywood, but I personally don't like the direction that Hollywood is going in, I simply don't like the films. But this is my point of view, I want to make this clear because I'm just talking about what I enjoy. I enjoy a lot of films from the 2010s but not ones made in Hollywood, I like indie films and foreign films from the 2010s. I love a lot of Hollywood films from the 1910's-1970's, and I actually don't think there will be as much Hollywood films from the 2010's that are celebrated like the films from these decades. I think there will definitely be some great films that are remembered from the 2010's, but not as much as say the 1940's or the 1970's (possibly more than the 1960's though). In any case, no one knows, it's all really just opinion.

 

[Firm1]

Yes. I love provoking a controversial discussion!

 

[sfoster]

APE - Regarding enduring cinema I would reference it's a wonderful life.

That film seems to get played on TV every single year across major networks. something I can't say for citizen kane

 

[MiniJamesW]

When you say these films are screened in "many places" every year, of the 130,000 odd commercial cinema screens in the world, what are we talking about, 50% of them, 10%, 1%, 0.1%, less than 0.1%? My guess is 0.1% or less, does 0.1% constitute "many" places?



I don't dispute that Citizen Kane is regarded as one of the greatest films of all time but that fact has nothing to do with what I'm saying.



Sure, Citizen Kane (for example) still exists as a restoration project (an historical filmmaking document) and even as a DVD or TV product. However, you have not provided a single piece of evidence or even a guess, to substantiate your claim that Citizen Kane (or indeed any other film) is an example of enduring cinema!

G

Here we go again with your arguments based on pure semantics. I thought you knew that film and cinema are now (and have always been) words that are used to refer to all motion pictures regardless of the format in which it they are made or presented. But if I was to take your one definition of these words, I would still say that Citizen Kane is more of an example of enduring cinema than any blockbuster as it is screened in film classes in high schools and universities, repertory cinemas, and even the occasional mainstream multiplex every year, many decades after its release. But no, if we're talking about widespread cinematic presentation, then no, of course no films are enduring. I agree with that, but to be honest, I don't even care about that. I mean even new movies are not "cinema" or "films" anymore since they are projected digitally. But yes, technically you are right, even though that wasn't what I was talking about in the first place.

And yes, I'll concede that my "many places" comes from the fact that I currently live in a vibrant cinematic community that plays classics and foreign films even in some multiplexes. If we look at the whole picture, these films are not played in many places statistically. You're right about that. Although showing classics at a low price is a trend I am seeing within multiplexes (and not just near where I live), it still isn't a significant amount compared the the amount of screenings current Hollywood films have.

EDIT: I now just think that this whole thing about "enduring" cinema is just us talking about it with different meanings. When I refer to enduring cinema I mean films that continue to speak to audiences many generations after their initial release, and in general these audiences are significant enough to keep these films well-distributed and viewed every year (even though they aren't popular). Citizen Kane, the works of Stanley Kubrick, Charlie Chaplin and Alfred Hitchcock, and even foreign filmmakers like Akira Kurosawa, Federico Fellini, Ingmar Bergman, and Yasujiro Ozu definitely fit this idea of "enduring cinema." After reading sfoster's response though, I realize there are few "enduring" works if we define it as films that are viewed by very large audiences many years after the initial release, very few of those exist, and again I don't care about this because I already accept that classic cinema isn't appealing to mainstream audiences. Every now and then I'll show my friends a classic film, and they'll like it, but they aren't devoted followers of the cinematic medium so they won't ever choose to watch anything that isn't currently popular, and I think that's fine. I feel like I'm somewhat of an expert on the cinematic art for my young age, but at the same time I'm very ignorant about cuisine, jazz music, art, sports, and many many other topics so I just think that not everyone needs to be or should be an expert on film or anything else. But so yeah, I really just think we're looking at it in different ways.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

APE - Regarding enduring cinema I would reference it's a wonderful life.

That film seems to get played on TV every single year across major networks. something I can't say for citizen kane

That would make it enduring TV then, not enduring cinema! Virtually all cinema films are converted into other product types after their theatrical run; TV movies and/or BluRay/DVD for example. It's entirely possible for these subsequent products to endure but then of course they would be enduring TV movies (for example), rather than enduring cinema.

Here we go again with your arguments based on pure semantics.

Something I see frequently here on IT and which has been one of the biggest surprises is that there seems to be very little understanding of the difference between video and film. The differences are far from semantic and has or will bite many here in the a$$! I'm not sure why this lack of appreciation of the differences exist, maybe it's because many of the low tier festivals which call themselves "film festivals" are actually video festivals. I find it difficult to believe that you, being a self-proclaimed student/expert of film, seem to think the differences are "pure semantics".

G

 

[sfoster]

That would make it enduring TV then, not enduring cinema!

IDK if I really buy that.

What if I'm filthy rich and my TV is digitally projected onto a 60' screen with 64 speakers. Is that still a 'television' experience? What if i have stadium seating too and invite 25 of my best friends over

If the sistine chapel burned down, and all we had was a digital photo, would that not be enduring art. it would be enduring digital photography?

 

[MiniJamesW]

Something I see frequently here on IT and which has been one of the biggest surprises is that there seems to be very little understanding of the difference between video and film. The differences are far from semantic and has or will bite many here in the a$$! I'm not sure why this lack of appreciation of the differences exist, maybe it's because many of the low tier festivals which call themselves "film festivals" are actually video festivals. I find it difficult to believe that you, being a self-proclaimed student/expert of film, seem to think the differences are "pure semantics".

G

The thing that I really hate is that you make this seem so clear cut, as if there isn't a debate about it. As a matter of fact, my own teacher just complained about someone who has very similar opinions to you because it really isn't a relevant discussion, it really is just one word that can be used in different ways. Once again, one word can have multiple meanings. Cinema can mean the cinematic medium or where films are presented. Film can mean motion picture regardless of the way it is presented or made, or it can literally mean celluloid. This is common knowledge. At the same time, we can discuss whether the nature of cinematic art has changed with the switch to digital in presentation and especially production. I think this is an interesting discussion, and I don't have a strong stance right now, I'm just learning about this.

Almost all screenings are digital now so none of us watch "film" anymore, we watch videos. But obviously these videos have to be distinguished from YouTube videos from TV from video art, so we call them films or movies or we call the medium cinema to distinguish it. But even then, I would argue that the lines are getting blurry between the different forms of moving images.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

What if I'm filthy rich and my TV is digitally projected onto a 60' screen with 64 speakers. Is that still a 'television' experience?

Are we talking about 64 TV speakers or an actual cinema sound system with 64 speakers? Either way, it's going to sound like sh*t and you'd be much better off just sticking with a standard TV experience!

If the sistine chapel burned down, and all we had was a digital photo, would that not be enduring art. it would be enduring digital photography?

You're joking right? I take it you've never actually seen the Sistine Chapel ceiling? If you had, you could never equate the experience of looking at some photos of it on your laptop with actually being there. The effect of the art, the experience Michelangelo created would be completely lost. If I took a photo of my wonderful lunch yesterday, would that lunch still "endure" even though I've already eaten it?

You might not be able to tell the difference between watching a cam-rip on your smartphone and experiencing a film in the cinema but fortunately tens of millions of people can and, they are willing to pay a considerable amount for the privilege, even though cam-rips are free.

The thing that I really hate is that you make this seem so clear cut, as if there isn't a debate about it.

It is clear cut and there isn't a debate about it! Or rather, it is clear cut and there isn't a debate about it within the TV and film industries. It may not appear clear cut to the public, to newbies or to those who aspire to enter one of these industries, so I'd understand if there were some debate amongst those people.

Once again, one word can have multiple meanings. Cinema can mean the cinematic medium or where films are presented.

No, cinema does not mean one or the other, it means both! You cannot present the cinematic medium in anywhere other than a cinema and you cannot present any other medium in a cinema other than cinematic media. Actually, under certain circumstances you can present other mediums in a cinema but it requires jerry-rigging a cinema with consumer equipment, re-calibrating the cinema and effectively converting it from a cinema into a large home TV/video experience.

At the same time, we can discuss whether the nature of cinematic art has changed with the switch to digital in presentation and especially production. I think this is an interesting discussion, and I don't have a strong stance right now, I'm just learning about this.

That would not be an interesting discussion at all! Having a discussion about the ways in which it's changed could be interesting but not whether it's changed. That is, unless you are talking about a student discussion where the students have no experience of previous cinema specifications, have not yet been taught about current cinema specifications and therefore have no idea how this affects the budgeting, planning, workflows or aesthetics of filmmaking.

Almost all screenings are digital now so none of us watch "film" anymore, we watch videos. But obviously these videos have to be distinguished from YouTube videos from TV from video art, so we call them films or movies or we call the medium cinema to distinguish it.

When I used the terms "film" and "video" I was not specifically referring to physical celluloid/polyester (35mm, 65/70mm film), I was referring to a film made for theatrical presentation as opposed to professional video made for TV broadcast or amateur video made for uploading to Youtube. I appreciate why the general public maybe confused by the specific differences but there's really no excuse for those who call themselves "film-makers" not to know what it is they are actually making!

Unless I've completely misunderstood your last post, all you've done (yet again) is prove what I've previously stated. In this instance, you appear to have confirmed my worst fears; that you don't actually know what the difference is between film and video and so you're just relying on the general public's understanding/definition. At some stage though, if you want to create films for a living, you are going to have to develop a much deeper understanding than that of the general public, otherwise you will find yourself making videos (which you call "films") which are only fit for certain forms of self distribution and/or low tier "film" festivals.

But even then, I would argue that the lines are getting blurry between the different forms of moving images.

Certain aspects of video are getting closer to film and are therefore becoming more "blurry", other aspects are actually getting further apart and less "blurry". To make a valid argument which encompasses the whole of these two media types, rather than just certain aspects of them, it seems to me you would need a much better understanding of the differences between them and of the history of the differences.

G

 

[MiniJamesW]

It is clear cut and there isn't a debate about it! Or rather, it is clear cut and there isn't a debate about it within the TV and film industries. It may not appear clear cut to the public, to newbies or to those who aspire to enter one of these industries, so I'd understand if there were some debate amongst those people.



No, cinema does not mean one or the other, it means both! You cannot present the cinematic medium in anywhere other than a cinema and you cannot present any other medium in a cinema other than cinematic media. Actually, under certain circumstances you can present other mediums in a cinema but it requires jerry-rigging a cinema with consumer equipment, re-calibrating the cinema and effectively converting it from a cinema into a large home TV/video experience.



That would not be an interesting discussion at all! Having a discussion about the ways in which it's changed could be interesting but not whether it's changed. That is, unless you are talking about a student discussion where the students have no experience of previous cinema specifications, have not yet been taught about current cinema specifications and therefore have no idea how this affects the budgeting, planning, workflows or aesthetics of filmmaking.



When I used the terms "film" and "video" I was not specifically referring to physical celluloid/polyester (35mm, 65/70mm film), I was referring to a film made for theatrical presentation as opposed to professional video made for TV broadcast or amateur video made for uploading to Youtube. I appreciate why the general public maybe confused by the specific differences but there's really no excuse for those who call themselves "film-makers" not to know what it is they are actually making!

Unless I've completely misunderstood your last post, all you've done (yet again) is prove what I've previously stated. In this instance, you appear to have confirmed my worst fears; that you don't actually know what the difference is between film and video and so you're just relying on the general public's understanding/definition. At some stage though, if you want to create films for a living, you are going to have to develop a much deeper understanding than that of the general public, otherwise you will find yourself making videos (which you call "films") which are only fit for certain forms of self distribution and/or low tier "film" festivals.



Certain aspects of video are getting closer to film and are therefore becoming more "blurry", other aspects are actually getting further apart and less "blurry". To make a valid argument which encompasses the whole of these two media types, rather than just certain aspects of them, it seems to me you would need a much better understanding of the differences between them and of the history of the differences.

G

I feel like a lot of what you say, you just assert because it's what you believe when there are people with different opinions including myself! And I can't believe that you're denying that the word film can be used one way or another, just look at any dictionary and the usage of the word every day! I don't think you can have it both ways, that "film" has to be a certain kind of video that is made for theatrical distribution unless that is clearly stated in a definition (which it isn't in any dictionary or usage that I've encountered before). And just because you don't find a discussion interesting at all, doesn't mean that I shouldn't or others shouldn't. Some of us are interested in discussing whether cinema is becoming a more painterly medium now that it can be manipulated much more easily through the digital medium or whether it is still a primarily photographic medium, and how these two ideas can be used when making new films.

I get what you are saying, but I just don't think it has anything to do with one of the definitions of 'film' (the one that I always use and most people). You think that when we watch It's A Wonderful Life on TV we're not watching a film, that we're watching a TV program, or that if I watch any movie on Blu-Ray then I'm not watching a film.

There's one thing that I am sure about, and that is that it isn't so clear cut as you say. I am constantly around people who are into film production and film studies and there are debates about this all of the time. Maybe to you, all of us are just ignorant but at the same time I think most anyone would disagree with your idea that film has to be presented in a theater in order to be a film.

And in the end, we really are just talking about semantics. Would you prefer if I called them 'movies' or 'motion pictures'?

 

[Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC]

Won't THE BUTLER be a film about what Firm1 believes Hollywood is not getting involved with about racial tension?

That was a powerful film very worth seeing.

 

[sfoster]

APE my point was to define the difference between cinema and television..

Okay how about the mona lisa. that is a small piece of art. If it decays over time, and all we have left is a picture. Is that enduring photography rather than art? Hopefully you won't go all good will hunting on me here again and talk about how I've never see the art in person and smelled the floor

I think that it would be enduring art.. even though technically the medium has changed. Like putting film on a television. That was my point, if you didn't catch what I was going for.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I can't believe that you're denying that the word film can be used one way or another, just look at any dictionary and the usage of the word every day!

I am not denying that it's used in many different ways or that dictionaries generalise it's definition according to common usage, I'm saying that as a professional or aspiring professional one must/needs to have a deeper understanding of what exactly film is and how it differs from video. If a filmmaker doesn't have this deeper understanding then they are going to end up making some quality of amateur video which they call a "film" and when they try and sell their video to a film distributor they are either going to be faced with a very hefty bill to turn their video into a film or far more likely, will simply fail at getting any film distribution and will end up having to sell it on Amazon, Youtube or some similar platform.

It doesn't matter whether we call it a film, a motion picture, a theatrical feature or, a video, a TV movie, a DVD or a youtube extravaganza, what matters is whether or not it's actually technically acceptable/possible to distribute the "film/video" to cinemas or broadcasters. Regardless of whether the art/aesthetics/storytelling is deemed to be of high enough entertainment/commercial value, if we make a "film/video" which is not technically acceptable/possible to distribute to cinemas, what possible justification is there for calling it a piece of cinema or a cinematic work?

I'm sure this is, as you say, all just "semantics" as far as the public are concerned but it most certainly is not just semantics for those of us professionally engaged in the creation of commercial cinema or broadcast TV and by extension, it cannot be just semantics for those who want to make cinema or TV content.

Some of us are interested in discussing whether cinema is becoming a more painterly medium now that it can be manipulated much more easily through the digital medium or whether it is still a primarily photographic medium, and how these two ideas can be used when making new films.

That's a rather bizarre discussion but nevertheless, you now seem to be agreeing with me because that is a discussion of how to employ digital technology and how it is affecting cinema rather than if it is affecting cinema.

You think that when we watch It's A Wonderful Life on TV we're not watching a film, that we're watching a TV program...

I take it as self evident that you're watching a TV program because TVs obviously cannot project the original 35mm film (I presume) onto the big screen and cannot play the optical theatrical soundtrack. A more interesting question is the one inadvertently posed by sfoster, what is one loosing when re-versioning a theatrical presentation as a TV program (or BluRay)? Or, to put into film terms sfosters' example of the difference between experiencing the Sistine Chapel ceiling and just looking at photographs of it: What emotional/physical responses to the cinematic craft/art of the filmmakers are perceived differently than designed or no longer exist at all because you are no longer experiencing cinema but are watching TV?

There's one thing that I am sure about, and that is that it isn't so clear cut as you say.

That's a shame because it's going to make your professional progression very difficult if you are unable to objectively question or address something which is causing you to fail because it's the "one thing you are sure about".

G

 

[LOGAN L Productions]

The best way to change Hollywood is to start a career in Los Angeles and affect it directly. Show business is business. Art comes second. After going through the ranks it can be hard to retain artistic integrity - and even if you do, your idea of integrity, good taste, originality, etc. will annoy someone else. Then that person will ask "Whats wrong with Hollywood?"

 

[AudioPostExpert]

APE my point was to define the difference between cinema and television..

Okay how about the mona lisa. that is a small piece of art. If it decays over time, and all we have left is a picture. Is that enduring photography rather than art?

I think that it would be enduring art.. even though technically the medium has changed. Like putting film on a television. That was my point, if you didn't catch what I was going for.

I get your point and obviously a photograph is better than nothing if the actual piece of art degrades beyond a certain point, no longer exists or we are unable to physically go and experience it. However, a photograph doesn't capture the art, or rather it doesn't capture all of the art, how much it captures depends on a number of factors including the nature of the artist's artistry. Let me give you an example, I always liked Monet's Water-Lilly Pond, I had a poster of it on my wall for years when I was much younger. When I went to the National Gallery in London and saw the original I was blown away, I thought I knew the painting well but I realised I didn't know it at all! Up close, it just looks like random splotches of paint, almost like a kid had thrown a paintbrush on to a palette full of different coloured paints and then thrown that brush at a canvas and repeated the process a few hundred times. Up close, it's completely abstract, it's not until you take a step or two back that you perceive the actual image and that all those spotches ingeniously blend into hues of water, water-lillies, etc. An optical illusion which simply did not exist or manifest in my photo/poster. I wonder how he painted it without 10ft long arms? Not only that, but the painting changes depending on what angle you look at it from because the paint is quite thickly applied in places and so is affected by one's position/perspective and the ambient light. The poster/photograph I owned only recorded a pretty, colourful, chocolate box type picture but the actual piece of art itself had magnitudes more artistic depth and subtly. In reality the chocolate box type image is only one of the actual work of art's many facets and the experience of it was completely different from what I expected.

Exactly the same is true of viewing a piece of cinema as a TV program. How much of a difference there is depends on a lot of factors; the technology employed by the film, the technology of your TV system, the skill of whoever re-versioned it and particularly, the nature of the artistry of those who made it. In virtually all cases something is lost in the re-versioning, sometimes it maybe relatively insignificant other times it might change the entire perception, feel and experience of the film. Even when a great deal is lost, it might still be a decent/good watch on TV but you've got little idea of the actual cinema experience designed/intended.

G

 

[Cracker Funk]

MiniJamesW, to be clear, I absolutely do NOT believe that any of the movies you listed are no longer good. I only mean to say that they were made for a different audience. Debating which films are better is like trying to decide which city makes better pizza -- Chicago, or New York. I say New York, but I recognize that plenty of people prefer Chicago. We're all correct, because we're all just stating which one we prefer.

I prefer movies of the modern era; you prefer the classics. Neither one of us is wrong; we're both allowed to have our personal preferences. And most modern audiences prefer modern movies, there is no question of that. That doesn't mean that modern movies are better. It just means that modern movies are better at reaching this particular audience. And films of the past were better at reaching their particular audience.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but the only reason I say we've got it better now, is because of the sheer quantity of movies being released, from Hollywood, indie and foreign studios alike. We just have more to choose from, and I think that's great.

 

[JoshL]

No, you're wrong about the pizza

Seconding APE's point about art vs. pictures. I was never much a fan of Picasso or Rothko until I saw the pieces in person. Particularly the Rothko, I just didn't "get it" until I saw it in the right context. And seeing a film in a good theater is a different context than seeing it at home.

 

[MiniJamesW]

MiniJamesW, to be clear, I absolutely do NOT believe that any of the movies you listed are no longer good. I only mean to say that they were made for a different audience. Debating which films are better is like trying to decide which city makes better pizza -- Chicago, or New York. I say New York, but I recognize that plenty of people prefer Chicago. We're all correct, because we're all just stating which one we prefer.

I prefer movies of the modern era; you prefer the classics. Neither one of us is wrong; we're both allowed to have our personal preferences. And most modern audiences prefer modern movies, there is no question of that. That doesn't mean that modern movies are better. It just means that modern movies are better at reaching this particular audience. And films of the past were better at reaching their particular audience.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but the only reason I say we've got it better now, is because of the sheer quantity of movies being released, from Hollywood, indie and foreign studios alike. We just have more to choose from, and I think that's great.

I can agree with this, especially since different films are made for different reasons. The films that Hollywood makes do not interest me as much as the ones they did in the past, but that is because they are aiming at something else. And actually that is why I always make sure to mention that what Hollywood makes today or doesn't make today doesn't really affect me much, I don't hate current Hollywood movies so much that I wish they wouldn't exist, they give a lot of pleasure to a lot of people.

And actually, I definitely agree that we have it better now as film viewers. Not only are there more films being made today everywhere in the world, but they are also well-distributed through home video and streaming services. We also don't have to live in big cities to start watching classics or foreign films and wait for them to be screened anymore. If I didn't live in this era, it would be likely that I wouldn't have seen most of the canonized classics let alone the really obscure films I like to explore.