What do films mean really? (1 Viewer)

[Lew Crippen]

I actually was just wondering if even these subconscious reactions were somehow conditioned by our culture, as though people with no formal knowledge of more rhythm based forms of music would also have fairly universal subconscious reactions to pieces of that type, if they grew up in societies where that form of music was the norm.

I thought that I understood exactly what you meant John—your entire post was clear. I too went back and read it again to see if I misunderstood. I can’t come to the same conclusion that Daniel seems to draw (of course it is possible that I am misunderstanding his post).

But as to music, even though a good many people believe it to be the universal art form, I have to admit that I don’t understand or appreciate a great deal of Eastern music. I’ve tried and tried to like Chinese Opera, for example and each time come away scratching my head in puzzlement. On the other hand I love a lot of the music from Indonesia and also from many other parts of Southeast and South Asia.

For some reason I’ve never had the same problem with Asian graphic arts, although I know that in most cases I’m missing a great deal of cultural information.

 

[ChuckSolo]

To my way of thinking, film is a much less abstract artform than say painting or music. Film mirrors more exactly the human condition whereas, grahic art is all about interpretation and how it affects the individual. Music is a much, much different animal as it is much closer to pure mathematics than any other art form. Where a Jason Pollack can use random splotches of paint to move the human mind, music must be exact or it just plain doesn't work. Ramdomly played notes do not constitute music. Film is, after all, mostly about US, the human population of earth, and what the particulare film maker wants to say about US and the world around US. Literature is more closely related to film than either music or graphic art. Graphic art still mirrors US in some instances, but is more flexible than either film or music.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I disagree. The latest Christina Aguilera single is significantly more concrete than an Ingmar Bergman film and a Mahler Symphony is significantly less concrete than the latest Adam Sandler flick.

If you choose both ends of both, sure. What i'm saying is the very nature of film's format makes it lean toward the concrete. Except in animation, we are seeing actual concrete objects, people and to soem degree events. They can certainly be shown or arranged in abstract ways, but there's always some underlying reality.

Music, on the other-hand, has no inherrent meaning beyond what's in the lyrics (which may not be present at all) unless you're going super-literal and just pointing out what instruments are being used.

 

[Justin W]

Oliver Stone is the antithesis to this argument. At then end of any one of his films you know exactally what he wants you to be thinking. Whether you agree or not is a totally different argument.

Personally I like movies that leave alot up to you. Spike Lee did this brilliantly in Do The Right Thing. Mulholland Drive is another great example. I think these movies are more personal because you feel like you had a part in creating them. Because in fact you did create your interpretation.

I think this argument like almost all others concerning art is true sometimes, and not true other times.

 

[JohnRice]

What i'm saying is the very nature of film's format makes it lean toward the concrete.

If you take it only on the surface, then sure. Looking at it that way, both film and literature have the literal of "what happens" but I think it is a huge mistake to take it only for that. To me, it is the complexity of literature and film that make them often even more open to interpretation than most other forms of art. Because they are (for the most part) the only art forms which have a narrative, a story line, characters, interaction, etc, etc, the different ways "what they mean" can be interpreted can be far more complex that other forms.

 

[JohnRice]

Also, Justin might point out a reason I have never liked Oliver Stone's work. I never thought about it that way before. I know I don't like being preached to.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

It means a negative of a certain diameter with evenly spaced perforations on either side is run through a series of moving, mechanized sprockets and gears and flashed onto a white-ish screen at 24 frames per second (split further to 48 fps with a specialized shutter to reduce flicker and eye strain-- 30 fps if you're counting early Todd-AO 70mm, and true 48 fps for Maxivision) using a high wattage Xenon ark bulb and either a spherical or anamorphic lens to create the illusion of movement...


What?

Dan