Film As An Art Form

Hey everybody,

I haven't written in awhile because I just moved to a new town (well, not new, as I lived here a few years ago... but new as in different city/state than where I lived 2 weeks ago) and I've been spending just about my entire day looking on-line and in town for jobs.

I had a little break in my day, so I thought I would spout off about something that I was told this morning...

See, I have been emailing local newspapers to see if there was any need for an entertainment writer (more specifically, writing about film) on their staff. With one paper, I've had the privilege to write an article about a music-based fundraiser for a local performance venue (in which they are taking the "free" in freelance to the nth degree - my article is getting published, but I'm not seeing a dime for it...). The other paper I contacted this morning had no film articles anywhere in their Arts & Entertainment section, so I thought I would be an asset to their team. I emailed the editor and told him about myself and how I noticed the lack of film articles.

He graciously wrote back to me a couple hours later and said Thanks but no - his publisher (and I quote) "doesn't think of film as an art form".

Hold the phone.

WHAT?!?!

Now, I wrote a paper about this very subject for my Art and Morality course in college. Crappy movies like "House of Wax" or "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" are probably not perceived as art. They aren't classy pictures like "The English Patient" or "The Crying Game". But making film *is* an art form. It's amazing that movies get made... they take hundreds, maybe even thousands of people working together using sound, technology, film, actors, various crew members, etc... all working towards a single objective - a finished movie.

Each person who works on a movie is like a different color of paint used in different combinations and applied with different techniques to create this massive moving mural.

This paper's Arts & Entertainment section was full of articles abotu music and theater. I LOVE music and theater. But aren't those also means of entertainment that are created by a group of people working towards one goal? The music articles are about local musicians and not people like Miley Cyrus or Britney Spears. Miley and Britney have out out some catchy songs, but I wouldn't say that their music has shaped history like Mozart or Beethoven. I wouldn't say that the local artists have shaped music history like Mozart or Beethoven... or even Miley and Britney.

Art is meaningful to the eye of the beholder. While I trash films like the aforementioned "House of Wax" and "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry", those might be somebody's favorite movies ever. To that person, these movies are works of art.

When I walk around art museums and see those paintings that are just one, solid color (like Red, or Blue) covering an entire canvas, that does not scream "art" to me. But it's hanging in a musuem in New York City, so it's obviously pretty special, right?

I think it's unfair for someone, especially a publisher of a newspaper, to say that film is not an art form. It is. And there are thousands upon thousands of people who take pride in working in an art form as interesting as film. Movies have been around for less than 150 years... which is a blink of an eye when compared to how long people have been doing other art forms, like drawing and making music. But film is still an art form. And movies and people who love movies will be around for many, many years to come.

***

I'd also like to mention that I did go see The Dark Knight and Mamma Mia! on opening day a couple weeks ago... what a day for movies!!

The Dark Knight was amazing. The best film of the summer, by far. The ensemble is top notch, the script was engaging and was thought provoking. The characters, like Joker and Harvey Dent, are complex people - there aren't cartoony charicatures like in earlier films, these men have depths to them that are worth exploring. The effects and action sequences were great - I jumped in my seat on multiple occasions out of shock/fright.

The whole cast did a great job, but it really is Heath Ledger's portrayal of The Joker that stands out. Even if Ledger were alive today, people would still be talking about the performance. Is it Oscar worthy? When compared to other films that have already been released - Yes. Will that still be the case come nomination time? We'll see.

The Joker is one interesting guy... he's crazy, but not silly-crazy. The Joker was in complete control of his actions throughout the entire film - and in that way, he is entirely sane. The stuff he does is quite grizzly (that whole pencil bit "You wanna see a magic trick?" is unsuspecting, yet highly entertaining) and the way he cackles or licks his lips and brushes his stringy greenish hair off his face is downright disturbing. If all of that was written on the page, props to the screenwriter. But it's Ledger's execution of these little details that stand out and give you the willies.

The Dark Knight was entertaining, but so was Mamma Mia!. The songs are so catchy and everyone just looks like they are having fun.

The biggest problem with the film is Pierce Brosnan... man, it is uncomfortable to watch him sing. He kind of roars while he sings... he doesn't just open his mouth and belt one out, it looks like his face is winding up much like a pitcher ready to bring the heat. The group of people I was with, as well as the women behind us were laughing hysterically each time Bronsan sang - we couldn't help it. I had to look away from the screen because I was laughing so hard. Tears were pouring out of the corners of my eyes and my sides hurt from shaking in my chair. It was *funny*!

I plan on seeing Swing Vote this weekend. I freely admit to being a fan of Kevin Costner and I think it will be nice to see a comedic political film especially since it's Election Year and politics are on everyone's mind.

Have a great day and stay cool... it's getting hot out there.

I'll see ya at the movies!