|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 7, 2008 3:02:50 GMT
What does this phrase mean? What does it mean to have knowledge about Cinema, or any other artform for that matter?
What, specifically, is there to "know" about cinema? I've always thought that you can learn the history, you can learn who influenced who, you can familiarize yourself with the artists and their bodies of work, but the idea of "knowing" anything about any art form seemingly ends there.
I'd like to read your thoughts.
|
|
Capo
Administrator 
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Oct 7, 2008 15:37:26 GMT
As you say: the history; the influences (schema plus variation; the inherent intertextuality of it); the artists, the practitioners, their bodies of work.
But also: the technicalities, how films are made; structurally, narratively; you "understand the language" of the medium.
And: you have a more sophisticated, developed understanding of the themes and content of specific films, and how the language of the medium might help to create such meaning. This isn't just specific to cinema, though; I think anyone who fully understands cinema (as fully as "fully" means) understands how art works in general.
I'm still learning, of course.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Oct 7, 2008 15:39:02 GMT
Also, the most convenient, most modest reply to someone who says, "You know a lot about cinema", is to shrug and say, "Nah, I've just seen a lot of films."
A dull reply, one which is barely relevant, but the initial comment is often equatable to it.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Oct 7, 2008 15:39:48 GMT
And I still maintain that most people like films, but not cinema.
|
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Oct 7, 2008 17:38:53 GMT
No one makes such a comment to me (i.e. knowing a lot about cinema)  I don't think knowing the history or the trends is as simple as you put it, DVC. I watched the long scorcese documentary where he talked about American movies starting from the early 20th century till before his time. He talks about the themes, changes in morals, etc. It was pretty impressive and I would classify that under "knowing about cinema". In addition to that, your knowledge can be technical as well. I have always wanted to know the technical side of cinema. It is very fascinating. As things stand, I probably watch slightly more movies than an average person, not a whole lot. It is usually the type of films I watch that differs from the majority. In most conversations when I tell people that I like watching movies, they ask me if I have watched some particular popular movie and it usually happens that I wouldn't have watched it. So my claim of liking movies goes for a toss immediately. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 4, 2008 1:30:41 GMT
Something's been on my mind lately. I always get the feeling if you mention a novel/musician people haven't heard of they tend to show respect, while if you mention a more obscure film people are more apt to call you a "film snob" or be an asshole about it in general. Why do you guys think this is?
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Nov 4, 2008 2:23:14 GMT
Why do you guys think this is? Because most people fail to recognize film as an art, which is not what they do with music or novels. |
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Nov 4, 2008 3:10:21 GMT
No one plans to read a novel or visit an art museum on a friday evening, but that is not the case with films. Whether or not people understand the medium or the technology behind it, everyone watches films for entertainment. As long as this trend continues, you will be frowned upon for watching/suggesting non-entertaining(in the common use of the word) films.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Nov 4, 2008 15:30:12 GMT
Plus, living in this country, were are automatically brought up in a mainstream society and culture. It is our jobs to break away from that and find ourselves for who we truly are in context to the art around us.
Mick and Blibble were discussing this very same thing somewhere else on here.....
|
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Nov 4, 2008 16:49:57 GMT
I guess that is true in most countries, not specific to US. Even though great cinema is being produced in Asia, they are not part of the mainstream. But in a way, I think it is good for the cinema. The whole medium is thriving because of the blockbusters that make money. If it were to be limited to just great quality art films, cinema would be heading the same way as theater.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 5, 2008 14:35:55 GMT
If it were to be limited to just great quality art films, cinema would be heading the same way as theater. Which way is that? I met my girlfriend's parents last night; her dad asked me at the dinner table, "So, Mike, you have an encyclopaedic knowledge of film?" Haha, talk about preceding reputations. I said, "No, far from it." I was happy, after some verbal negotiation (he only wanted to know because he was wondering if I'd seem some old William Holden western), to settle at having seen a lot of films. But I'm still learning. Soon after I was asked how I would be grading the new James Bond film (which we were seeing later that night). I said (LOL!): "By how well it meets its intentions." That was about as elusive and vague and honest an answer I could give, I think. They seemed impressed. We briefly got onto cultural snobbery, whether conscious or inverse. I mentioned that earlier that day his daughter and I had gone into an Oxfam bookstore, in which there were various sections. One of these read "Fiction" and the other read "Literature". I raised my eyes at the time; it's an odd little annoyance of mine. I said there's never been such hierarchical categorisations in Film, probably because of how young it still is as a medium, and how quickly it developed in the first place as a commercialised commodity. Pop into a DVD store and the closest you get to that sort of canonical hierarchy is probably having a "World Cinema" or "Classical" aisle, and even then the analogy falls flat because "World Cinema" and "Classical" are treated more as genres than as judgements of lasting quality. |
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Nov 6, 2008 6:08:29 GMT
We briefly got onto cultural snobbery, whether conscious or inverse. I mentioned that earlier that day his daughter and I had gone into an Oxfam bookstore, in which there were various sections. One of these read "Fiction" and the other read "Literature". I raised my eyes at the time; it's an odd little annoyance of mine. Is this because you view them as synonymous or because all books and essays are literature? |
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 6, 2008 12:26:01 GMT
Both.
And it can vary from store to store, which is annoying. There's no concrete basis on which people categorise them. Sometimes, for instance, you'd find Fowles and Calvino in Literature; but then you go to another store and they're in Fiction.
They're all "Literature". Classics as much as Chick Lit. And people are never going to broaden their cultural spheres if they're inherently nowhere near the "Literature" section. Have you got stores that have little "We recommend" stickers on shelves? Having Dan Brown beside Emily Bronte might have a positive knock-on effect. As it is, it's all a load of bullshit snobbery, whether high-low or low-high.
Literature should denote the medium, not the worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Nov 6, 2008 19:45:26 GMT
If it were to be limited to just great quality art films, cinema would be heading the same way as theater. Which way is that? Terribly obscure. I know a lot of you would disagree with me and maintain that the medium is thriving*. Maybe it is me and my bunch of illiterate/ignorant friends and I am grossly extrapolating, but I don't know anyone who goes to theater (I don't mean like once in a life time) to watch plays. * There are always dedicated followers of anything, however obscure. For example, may be somewhere in the world, there are a bunch of enthusiasts for donkey racing, and maybe their number is increasing every year, but you would hardly classify it as a popular sport. Such is my view of theater as an art form. |
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 6, 2008 20:27:27 GMT
Theatre is terribly non-obscure, I think.
|
|
I don't think knowing the history or the trends is as simple as you put it, DVC. I watched the long scorcese documentary where he talked about American movies starting from the early 20th century till before his time. He talks about the themes, changes in morals, etc. It was pretty impressive and I would classify that under "knowing about cinema". In addition to that, your knowledge can be technical as well. I have always wanted to know the technical side of cinema. It is very fascinating. As things stand, I probably watch slightly more movies than an average person, not a whole lot. It is usually the type of films I watch that differs from the majority. In most conversations when I tell people that I like watching movies, they ask me if I have watched some particular popular movie and it usually happens that I wouldn't have watched it. So my claim of liking movies goes for a toss immediately.
