Just another blogs.elsweb.org weblog

Today’s FTC Discussion brought about many interesting questions. Kraucer’s opinions on what films should be was especially perplexing to me. His approach was that film makers should strive to create a film that is as close to “real life” as possible. Film is a type of art in my opinion, and I think that any artist’s goal should be to try to evoke some kind of thought, and emotion in the person/people viewing their work. Films would be very boring if all we saw were clips of real life events with absolutely no intervention on the part of the film maker. I agree with Arnheim’s view contesting the idea that a film is only complete when it has sound and color. Defining art, and especially “good art” as Dr. Campbel put it is sometimes very difficult; and many times we may need help in understanding certain aspects of films that we may not get the first time around. For example, when I first saw “Gates of Heaven” I thought it was interesting; and quite enjoyed Danny philosophy’s on life, and his guitar playing… however, I didn’t fully understand some of the deeper messages until we discussed the film in class. In terms of films as an art form, I think that as long as the film maker strives to convey some sort of meaning to their audience, he/she has done their job.

July 17th, 2007 at 7:28 pm