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.