 |
|
| [FILM] |
| |
| [Luben Damianov] |
 |
| [Veronica Varlow] |
 |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Word
vs. Image, or Why Movies are Doomed
By Luben Damianov
The
thing that has always bothered me about
movies is that they have such a limited
lifespan. The medium of film is so temporary,
so prone to dating and vulnerable to time
passage, so dependent on ever-changing trends
in technology and the cultural climate that
it renders a movie unwatchable to general
audiences in a generation or two. I should
note here that I exclude anyone with an
otherwise greater than average interest
in film from my definition of a general
audience.
Movies
are very much like tales told by the campfire
on a summer night. They belong to the time
they are born in. After that they become
pale memories.
A great and popular movie is like a cultural
explosion, it reaches a multitude of people
and then with time slowly turns into something
of a museum piece to be studied by scholars
and enjoyed by film connoisseurs, but otherwise
remaining unavailable to larger audiences
of new generations.
Classic
movies like "Casablanca", "Citizen
Kane" and "Vertigo" may top
the best-films-of-all-time lists of most
critics, yet the average audience member
has little desire to see them. You think
the average kid get excited about seeing
"The Wizard of Oz"?
Right. Probably not.
In fact, when was the last time you saw
a bunch of kids, or adults for that matter,
getting excited over a movie that was made
before they were born? Right again. That
doesn't happen too often, does it. And when
it does we are probably talking about a
movie like "Star Wars" which has
a longer than usual lifespan due to the
phenomenon known as franchising, as in multiple
sequels, prequels, novelizations, comics,
all accompanied by an ongoing massive merchandise
campaign, including video games and toys.
|
 |
|
Everything
in film is about a specific moment in time.
The current technology used in the production,
the particular storytelling trends, the way
people talk in the movie, the socio-political
and cultural climate, the sensibilities of
the period, the popular tastes and fashions
in vogue, the reflected general attitudes
in the relationships, and so on.
In a movie everything is set in stone. Or,
rather photographed. Freeze-framed. A specific
moment gets frozen in time exactly as it occurred,
guided by the creative effort of the filmmakers.
It's exactly the way you see it. Never to
be changed. There is no option for varying
and evolving interpretations as there is in
literature among different readers.
Compared to literature movies have a far more
pressing if not a definite expiration date
stamped over them. The ability of words to
allow for constant and current interpretation
and reinvention is the reason for their endurance
and staying power. In literature every word
is reborn for each particular reader through
his or her imagination. The reader creates
a unique mental image filtered through current
cultural perspectives.
In film, the image is already there, prefabricated
and ready for mass consumption. Ready to be
instantly processed. This combined specificity
of the medium timeframes everything it captures.
This is how a movie gets its expiration date.
This is the process that dooms it.
This is not to say that literature doesn't
age. Yes, it does. Nobody talks like Shakespeare
anymore. Sure, most books also depart into
obscurity. But then there are the classics
that stay. Here, I am referring to the notion
of general lifespan. Let's make it fair. Classic
literature versus classic movies? No contest.
Literature lives longer. Why? Words have more
endurance than images. Words age better. Old
movies look... hmm, old. They feel like ancient
history. Old words, on the other hand, feel
stylized.
Do I sense your crying out for an example?
Sure. Take the currently popular children's
literature instant-classic series "Harry
Potter" and its contemporary movie adaptations.
In a hundred years the books will probably
still be a popular read among children. The
movies? You guessed it. There will probably
be newer movie adaptations that will reflect
the current cultural climate and sensibilities
much better.
There
is a definite nostalgic pleasure to watching
a classic movie. Film buffs revel in the
nostalgia factor, after all, it's what makes
a geek a true geek... It's like watching
something that once was glorious and is
now just a pale memory of it all. A certain
melancholic quality can be perceived as
in the music of Ennio Morricone. Like an
old man reminiscing about his youth. Wow,
that Lauren Bacall, she was a hot number.
Just look at how gorgeous she is in "The
Big Sleep". Nothing wrong with her.
At least nothing that Humphrey Bogart can't
fix. See what I mean?
|
Everything
in film is about a specific moment in time.
The current technology used in the production,
the particular storytelling trends, the way
people talk in the movie, the socio-political
and cultural climate, the sensibilities of
the period, the popular tastes and fashions
in vogue, the reflected general attitudes
in the relationships, and so on.
In a movie everything is set in stone. Or,
rather photographed. Freeze-framed. A specific
moment gets frozen in time exactly as it occurred,
guided by the creative effort of the filmmakers.
It's exactly the way you see it. Never to
be changed. There is no option for varying
and evolving interpretations as there is in
literature among different readers.
Compared to literature movies have a far more
pressing if not a definite expiration date
stamped over them. The ability of words to
allow for constant and current interpretation
and reinvention is the reason for their endurance
and staying power. In literature every word
is reborn for each particular reader through
his or her imagination. The reader creates
a unique mental image filtered through current
cultural perspectives.
In film, the image is already there, prefabricated
and ready for mass consumption. Ready to be
instantly processed. This combined specificity
of the medium timeframes everything it captures.
This is how a movie gets its expiration date.
This is the process that dooms it.
This is not to say that literature doesn't
age. Yes, it does. Nobody talks like Shakespeare
anymore. Sure, most books also depart into
obscurity. But then there are the classics
that stay. Here, I am referring to the notion
of general lifespan. Let's make it fair. Classic
literature versus classic movies? No contest.
Literature lives longer. Why? Words have more
endurance than images. Words age better. Old
movies look... hmm, old. They feel like ancient
history. Old words, on the other hand, feel
stylized.
Do I sense your crying out for an example?
Sure. Take the currently popular children's
literature instant-classic series "Harry
Potter" and its contemporary movie adaptations.
In a hundred years the books will probably
still be a popular read among children. The
movies? You guessed it. There will probably
be newer movie adaptations that will reflect
the current cultural climate and sensibilities
much better.
There
is a definite nostalgic pleasure to watching
a classic movie. Film buffs revel in the
nostalgia factor, after all, it's what makes
a geek a true geek... It's like watching
something that once was glorious and is
now just a pale memory of it all. A certain
melancholic quality can be perceived as
in the music of Ennio Morricone. Like an
old man reminiscing about his youth. Wow,
that Lauren Bacall, she was a hot number.
Just look at how gorgeous she is in "The
Big Sleep". Nothing wrong with her.
At least nothing that Humphrey Bogart can't
fix. See what I mean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
