Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 481032" data-attributes="member: 3887">Doc...That's a good point Tom. Its part of what I was trying to say. I don't think meaning {in film, text, any artform really} should thought of in terms of being something that the creator {or gaggle of creators for film} "transmits" to the audience. Its always made from both what the makers and the viewers bring to the table. That's the real joy of it. And you're so right about ambiguity being a vital part of any good, lasting work. The same work can be revisted many times, each being a new experience. And surely a work can transcend the creator's direct intent or vision. Sometimes I think of individual works of art as stepping stones --not the diminsh what artists do in any way.So Doc, that's the point I should have stressed. There's no ideal medium to use in bringing about artist vision. There's only the choice of medium and the constraints found therein. Filmakers should make films, writers should write, and performance artists should do whatever it is that they do. You're absolutely right in saying film does what text can't. And vice-versa. I was wrong to argue for the surpremacy of novels... That's just me bias showing. So we agree that neither film nor prose offers the more "robust toolset"... just different tools.And Doc, back to earlier point. No medium offers an artist the potential for convey exactly whe he/she intended. In order to garauntee the the exact meaning/experience is conveyed {and that's assuming a lot about the creator explicitly knowing said meaning}, the viewer would need the exact same knowlege, life experience, heck they'd have to be the exact same person. Different people take different things away from the same work. I stand by what I wrote: everything need to translated and interpeted. Films as much as books, albeit in different ways. There's no pure method of storytelling. And that's a great thing...And my crack about jailing filmakers was my way of giving props to the power of film as a medium. Film can be affecting in a way text just can't. As text can be complex and discursive in a way filmed narrative can't.And lastly, wasn't this about LotR??! Let me ask this... Could you create Middle Earth in film alone? Peter Jackson's movie is stunningly beautiful, but I'm convinced that no film and filmaker could create such a rich, vivid, living world --and history-- as Tolkien did in the books. The camera just can't do that...</blockquote>

Verification