The other thread was getting a bit long, but to continues where i started
<font size="24">FILM IS NOT ART</font>
The problem why film is not an art is down to what the viewer sees, the viewer has no choice. the decision have already been made by the director.
A lot of what people have said, in the last post arguing against, is just moving more to prove the point , if you re read.
Mikers mentioned the word design, and thats a word i'm going to use in this post as well ;-)
In regards to the flippin through pages malarkey,
JB mentioned
"If you can't work out what your audience needs to see in order to make your film... "
Exactly in film you use a series of well tried and tested devices and techniques to get your film across to the audience, innovation is rare and far between. You are recycling tried and tested things done many times before. choosing the right combinations of the thousands there are is arguably a art , but the end product isnt art. It's just a step up from painting by numbers.
Where Eddie says act like a filter, in the case of my fast flippin dante, yeap exactly that i could do the reverse and flip the book painfully slow and loose my audience. i could use RSVP and apeal it to the speed readers out there, i could blow it up 100 foot high letters and lots of people could read it at the same time. or i could really piss off the partially sigthed and print it on a dark background in dark red text. End of the day, i'm presenting it how i want. The end viewer has no choice but to go with what i have decided.
Going to the painting example and Emjens commment
"But comparing paintings with films is horseshit though. Film is a moving medium, and unlike telling things through small objects somewhere in a corner, it tells things through story and character. It can't put minor details in the frame because that's not what film is about. That doesn't mean it isn't art though"
I wasn't comparing paintings to films, i was comparing art to films. If film is art why hasnt anyone bought up the similiarities ?
