Theory for Film Practice - Essay Example

?Harris Kamran Film and Visual Studies Argumentative Essay 15 April Film is both a Science and an Art Film, or cinema, has undergone a massive change in perception and acceptance in the social and especially the bourgeois circles over the years, since its development as an art form and as a means of entertainment. Today, it has become a profession and a skill, and we have dedicated film schools to teach the techniques of making quality films and connecting to the audience. However, what is commonly accepted as a fact that films or cinema belong to the art world is not such a simple concept in the artworld itself, and there is an ongoing debate about its exact categorization (Prinz). Also, with the development in camera techniques and computer graphics, film and film production are not merely restricted to artforms any more; science has an increasing role in modern film making. Therefore, this institutes a new angle to the old debate: how exactly do we define film and cinema? This paper purports to present some arguments in the favor of film being both an art and a science, and tries to justify this stance through a detailed discussion and explanation. Film as an Art: film, and film production, were not always considered a form of art by the experts, and the medium of cinema was frowned upon by the traditional and more conservative critics (Prinz). For the masses, however, the case may have been different; film was entertaining, and artform or not, it was successful. Cinematography and clever camera work had given rise to the concept of motion pictures, or moving film (Deren). This meant that the audience could now enjoy the spectacle in real time, and could feel part of it. Film was revolutionizing in that it was entirely different from still pictures; whereas the latter afforded only two-dimensional entertainment and left much to the imagination, the former provided a more real, if only fictional, and more importantly, three-dimensional form of entertainment to the public which involved them and moved them and made them feel part of a larger-than-life world where they could forget about the real and engross in the world of reel (Metz). This acceptance by the public was generally referred to as mass media or art for the masses, and indeed, Noel Carrel, in his book Mass Art, did try to justify film as an artform based on this very public acceptance and demand (Prinz). The critics, however, differ from each other in their views of this medium. To begin with, let us observe if film can at all be qualified as art. Film has become increasingly more than just the visual recording of events and performances on reel (Prinz). Initially, some experts were of the opinion that since it is a recording, the actual performance and not the medium of film is a piece of art. It was not until the concept of cinematography and set designing, with proper direction and production process were developed that it became clear that film is much more than a mere recording (Prinz). The advent of the advancements of editing especially led to this realization, as editing changes the entire perspective that is possible by simple recording (Prinz). So in Europe, and especially in Italy, film began to be called the seventh art (The Seventh Art). The verdict, therefore, would be that film is art. However, this statement is oversimplified and too generalized to be accepted, for it leads to the question of whether all genres and productions of film are art or is this designation reserved for selected works (Prinz). To tackle this matter from the layman’s point of view and from common sense, some films cannot be denied this status, such as Un Chien Andalou, L’Avventura, Raw Deal, The Searchers, and Tokyo Drifter (Prinz). These films, although made for the masses and not just the selected few from the bourgeois community, retain the beauty and detail of a fine piece of art, and deal with the camera work and direction as artforms in their separate rights, so that the medium of film experiences a new wave of development and growth with these films (Prinz). However, films like Die Hard, Transporter, and Child’s play, and shows like America’s Next Top Model and Master Chef certainly do not qualify as high work of art (Prinz). Another concept can be that those films which are only intended for the artworld, generally called art films, produced by independent film houses and directed by amateur directors, should be included in the category of art, whereas the rest, those made for the general public and released into mainstream cinema, should be excluded (Prinz). However, this distinction is flawed as there are many independent and amateur directors who make films for the public and release into mainstream cinema, but their films, based on the quality and technique, can not be excluded from the artworld (Prinz). Such directors include Polanski, Hitchcock, Renoi, and others (Prinz). There are several theories proposed by the proponents of including film into art, and some are discussed here, along with the objections related to them. Perhaps it is best to examine film from the aesthetic perspectives and theories that determine and analyze the other forms of art, such as paintings and photography. Carroll, as discussed earlier, in his book Mass Art, mentions several of these arguments (Prinz). He makes use of the Formist perspective, in that the constituents of film, and its treatment, stem from established art (Prinz). For example, the genres of comedy and tragedy come from the Greek comedy and tragedy genres, and they are the core elements of art (Prinz). Therefore, the formist perspective says that film is art. However, it could be viewed as an oversimplification that the mere use of camera and genres results in art creation (Prinz). This also includes Carroll’s other argument that the process of film production stems from the process of creating art, and therefore, film is art (Prinz). Other aesthetic perspectives include the Institutionalist approach by Dickie, and the Historical approach by Levinson (Prinz). Dickie says that an artwork is an artwork only if it is made for the artworld (Prinz). Whereas some films, such as art films are made as such, the mainstream films are not (Prinz). Levinson says that if the films draw upon the techniques that have been historically considered art, then film is art (Prinz). The same argument could be applied here about the aesthetically excellent films and the reality shows of TV. The conclusion, then, could be what Carroll proposed in his theories, that all film is art, however, some is good or high art and some is bad or low art (Prinz). Another approach could be that whereas all films might not be work of art, all films are definitely artworks (Prinz). Film as Science (and art): the previous discussion of categorizing film as art did not purport to exclude any other associations with the medium of film, and term it exclusively as an artwork. It merely presented the idea that film can be defined as art. However, where there are artistic elements to film production, there are also significant and equally important scientific elements to this medium. As already discussed, film production is not merely a recording of performances on the reel (Prinz). Even if it were so, it would have made use of scientific methods to make a sound and aesthetically pleasing recording, and to capture the good angles of the performance (Prinz). Although it could be rightfully argued that merely using scientific equipment and technique for a process does not merit the process as scientific, just as, in the formalist and historical aesthetic perspectives, it was argued that just because film is based on artistic genres and camera work, it does not qualify as art, even in mere recording, the use of a specific type and quality of film, the light intensity, and the angles have to determined by some scientific reasoning, and it is this reasoning and ground that merits the process of recording as scientific (Prinz). And we have already determined that film is more than a recording (Prinz). This is mainly because it tends to create and develop scenes and performances just for the sake of recording, and this fictional quality to cinema brings with itself innovation and a spirit of its own. The first element of science that is involved in film production is that of time (Landecker). Although this element is similar to still photography, the use of time and its modification to bring certain presumed effects for the film is unique to this medium. Whereas photography tends to freeze an action in time that has past, thereby creating a memory or an image of something that does not exist now in the space that does exist now, film creates images in space and time that both exist now, even if not in reality (Landecker). This led to the concept of real time (Landecker). That is, the image, taken in time, and the space, also taken in that time, coincide with the space and time of the audience, to create a world where the audience feels one with the image, and is involved in it to the point where he feels like a part of the film (Metz). This development, hence, is entirely scientific, and has led to a great aesthetic improvement, enabling the film makers to connect with their audience on a whole new level (Metz). This also leads towards the union of science and art in film, a concept discussed in more detail shortly. The other element of science in film is the combination of lighting, and camera angles, collectively known as cinematography (Deren). This technique is again unique to the medium of film. It does not involve the mere use of natural light as the source, and when it does, it is channeled and modified (Deren). More often, the light is artificial, and its tone, intensity, color, and angle are all carefully calculated and selected to develop a certain mood and imagery for film (Deren). This selection is a scientific process, and the end result, an artful imagery. With the increasing use of computer graphics in film production, and the subsequent advancements and improvements in the said technology, the element of science has been given a completely different meaning and face in the field. Thanks to the action movies, and the science fiction thrillers, which mostly use the computer graphics and animations, there now is a place for computer experts, software engineers, electronics engineers, graphic designers, and other such technical staff at most of the big studios in Hollywood (Science of the Movies). Another angle to the use of computer graphics is the production of entirely animated films, completely made on the computer without any live actors involved (Science of the Movies). There are dedicated studios just for animations, such as Pixar and Dreamworks Animations. A latest advent in movies is that of the 3-D films, for although the medium itself captured three-dimensional images, as has been discussed in the paper before, the screen showed a two dimensional panorama (Science of the Movies). However, the 3-D screens now make it possible for audiences to view the film in spatial three-dimensional mode (Science of the Movies). These technologies are obviously purely scientific in nature, used for artistic ends, to produce a product that is both an artwork and a scientific process (The Art & Science). An interesting development in this field is the development of the term “Digital Cinema” (Jay), which in itself combines the two debates. It refers to the now common and increasing use of the digital camera and the digital medium to shoot films instead of the traditional photochemical film, the 16 mm, as it is very fondly called by filmmakers (Jay). The traditional film still rules when it comes to the quality of the product and the effect on the big screen (Jay). However, it is an expensive endeavor to shoot on the film, and the wastage and storage space that is associated with it is also a problem (Jay). The digital medium does not require a huge storage space, and can be easily transferred and transported for the subsequent steps in production. The life of the film is shorter as compared to the digital medium, and it diminishes in quality over time if not stored properly (Jay). The processing time and procedure of the film is also lengthy and expensive, whereas the digital films can be easily and quickly processed and edited on computer (Jay). A big advantage that digital filmmaking has over traditional process is that it gives room for enormous amounts of computer graphics and digital effects, which has resulted in some of the most thrilling films of the modern times (Jay). It also permits the production of 3-D cinema, as discussed (Jay). However, some filmmakers and technical staff still favor the traditional film due to its visual quality (Jay). The digital filmmaking is still a new process, and needs more improvements. However, it effectively combines the aesthetics of art with the technique of science. An example of a movie that beautifully combine the two is that of the Matrix. The Matrix trilogy, a phenomenal work in filmmaking, set the stage for all such future endeavors, and became a style and a study in itself. For the first time, it employed computer graphics to modify the action sequences of the film in a manner that was superbly artistic, yet with a beautiful scent of the scientific and technical mastery of the producers. Technology had been used previously as well to modify scenes in movies and bring an element of fantasy and wonder to the films. However, it was the artistic touch to the computer graphics in the Matrix, and the way those graphics were so intrinsically a part of the very story and cinematography of the film that was so unique and refreshing about the film. It was highly scientific, yet definitely a work of art. It is the best example of what movies have become in the modern times; a combination of art and science (The Art & Science). Conclusion: From the detailed discussion in the paper about all the elements that constitute a film, be they from the artworld or from the realm of science, it has become clear that film cannot be easily categorized into any one of the two fields. There is still an ongoing debate about the inclusion of film in the artworld, and whether a generalized statement about all films being art is valid, or if we have to draft a certain criteria for exclusivity (Prinz). If the scope would be too narrow, a theory about film and art would not be developed (Prinz). Similarly, if the debate is too inclusive and encompassing of all films, it could not be applied to certain exceptions (Prinz). To include film in science is an altogether separate and modern debate that is mostly sided toward the exclusion of film from the world of science, despite all the evidence in support of the film process becoming increasingly scientific. The result, perhaps, is not to reach a definite conclusion at all, then. Perhaps the categorization should best be left for film theorists; for the audience, the film has become a new medium of entertainment that combines elements of both art and science to provide entertainment in a completely different style. Perhaps, the debate should be left at that. Works Cited Deren, Maya. “Cinematography: The Creative Use of Reality.” Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings 1999: 59-70. Print. Jay, C. “Side by Side: The Science, Art, and Impact of Digital Cinema.” The Documentary Blog, 19 Jan. 2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. Landecker, Hannah. “Microcinematography and the History of Science and Film.” Isis 2006: 121-132. Print. Metz, Christian. “On the Impression of Reality in the Cinema.” Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema 1991: 3-15. Print. Prinz, Jesse J. “When is Film Art?” Pacific APA, 2007. Print. “Science of the Movies.” Science Discovery. Discovery Communications, 2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. “The Art & Science of Movie Special Effects.” Movie Special Effects. Moviespecialeffects.org, n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. “The Seventh Art.” Language Forums. Wordreference, 2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. Read More