― Sterling Clover, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
What is the equiv on a song of a film's story?
It is two minutes past two and I am old and have yoga tomorrow. That pillow looks very wickedly tempting.
― mark s, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Sterling Clover, Friday, 20 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 20 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
So, new related question -- "naturalism" in film vs. music: the most important thing to learn about images is that the camera pretends to tell the "truth" but is as manipulable as anything. Hence, demystification of film undertaken as conscious act by french new wave, not byproduct of film. So the camera urges naturalism but does the recording studio? I think we expect noise to be purely synthetic these days, that the origins of music in the speech act made rhythmic are already fractured in perception, perhaps even that we are better equipped to handle a variety of sonics than a variety of visual stimuli. Perhaps our visual recognition system becomes set earlier in life and has a slower learning curve.
Also, unrelated, on the film vs. music thing, music can accompany life, while the concept of an "ambient" film has not been truly explored. (Ambience, on the other hand, is the WHOLE POINT of 57.3% of TV.) Thus music massizes through repition as much as quantity of audience, wheras film for the most part relies on its wide cultural reach. Also, folk-culture aspects stronger in music than film, also due to pervasiveness of ACTUAL MUSIC as opposed to pervasiveness of DISCOURSE W/R/T FILM.
― Josh, Friday, 20 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Friday, 23 May 2003 19:08 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 23 May 2003 19:50 (twenty-one years ago) link
Frank: way upthread you write,
The type of film theory that I hate: the sort that claims to describe the "nature" of the film "medium" and claims to be the theoretical foundation for making movies and for criticizing them. Even worse are claims that there's a theory of meaning (or of signification or of language) which provides the foundation for a critical method.
Who did you have in mind here? I'm curious.
― amateurist (amateurist), Saturday, 24 May 2003 03:38 (twenty-one years ago) link
Partly I was talking about low standards, but much of it was that comics criticism hadn't developed at all as a distinct form - the best writing was by people adapting slightly from reviewing books or films or something. Cinematic terminology was particularly levered in all over the place, to the point of cliche. The only place that seemed to be getting anywhere, in the English language, was the Comics Journal, and while I always admired that mag and aspired to its high standards (and I do think I did something to improve the craft of comic criticism in Britain, probably as an editor more than as a critic myself) I was uneasy with its old-fashioned high cultural assumptions. I would argue against that stance in lit or art crit, but it seemed especially inapt in a popular art form like comics. I explicitly referred to music writing a number of times back in those days. A blend of people writing serious academic critiques with a real understanding of critical methods and people ranting about political ideologies and others excited about the vigour and silliness of superheroes seemed far more desirable to me, and it's what I strived towards, I think with some success - but here I'm talking much more about attitude than about the critical toolkit.
There were a lot of things that were unique to the way comics worked that weren't covered by approaches transplanted from books and movies, much as those sources were valuable. The passage Frank quotes way upthread about Rossellini is a rewarding way to look at some comics, but of course there are other things to look at simultaneously that are unique to that form - where is the panel placed, how big, how does it realte to others, and on and on. I guess I'm saying that it worries me when people try to force parallels between the way of examining and talking about two differing artforms (except maybe in the earliest stages of developing a way of talking), because I think they are most often sources of error and misunderstanding, and they clutter the path to comprehending a form for what it is. Movies and music, despite certain similarities (I think demographics is a more important one than most that have been raised here), are such different forms that hardly any parallels sytike me as remotely useful. Cinema and comics and novels are storytelling forms, and therefore have substantial similarities, but music, like painting say, is not inherently (or is far less inherently) a storytelling form - and I say that as a big country (lowercase first letter on both words!) fan. Story is far more of an optional bolt-on in music (or painting) than it is in cinema, so I think the way we think about structure and pacing and meaning needs to be very different.
I think the purpose of music and the way it is consumed covers a very wide range of things. Much music has no narrative or meaning. I love some records for their stories and messages and ideas and the emotional content of their lyrics, but the absence or lack of appeal of these factors by no means makes a record uninteresting. A record can have appeal for a pretty tune and nice sound, or a driving, exciting beat or whatever. Nearly everyone values music to some degree, and they all have different relationships to it, and they use it in different ways and it does different things to their mood and feelings and it is involved in the way they relate to others in a variety of ways. I think all this is far less true of movies, which are consumed in two main ways (and both mainly involve sitting quietly facing the screen) and involve little or no interaction with others and don't accompany us on journeys or have the ambient role music does.
In conclusion my point seems to be that this is one of the best threads I've read in a while, and I think it's a pointless comparison because everything about the fields is too different to be worth the thought that everyone has put in, so apart from making a great thread we've all wasted our time...
― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 24 May 2003 19:45 (twenty-one years ago) link