RE: Martin Scorsese says Marvel movies are "not cinema"
October 14, 2019 at 1:51 pm
(This post was last modified: October 14, 2019 at 1:58 pm by Alan V.)
(October 10, 2019 at 10:31 pm)EgoDeath Wrote:(October 10, 2019 at 8:24 pm)Alan V Wrote: In my case, I don't trust serious messages which are conveyed through the usual emotional impacts of movies. I would rather assess them without that kind of potential distortion.
However, if it's some story rather than information, movies are better. But again, I consider stories as entertainments primarily.
How do you differentiate between the tactics authors use from the tactics directors use, outside of the obvious difference in medium?
And how does that affect the seriousness of the message?
Reading creates a kind of intellectual distance which is not easy to maintain watching a movie, with all of the in-your-face techniques a movie employs.
So movies are better for emotional impacts and books are better for details and intellectual content. To me that means whatever serious content a movie might have tends to be undermined by the methods employed to convey it.
(October 10, 2019 at 10:31 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: I think all forms of art can be entertainment and still convey a serious message, if done correctly.
That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with The Avengers... but to call it art? I'd say that's a stretch.
These days, I am more inclined to define efforts as "art" in accordance with their methods rather than their content. Art is about applying attention to attract attention from others. That is done through a variety of methods, including the display of talent, spectacle, action, emotion, color, contrast, texture, story-telling, empathy, and so on. Whether something succeeds as art is measured by the attention it attracts, including long-term attention. That's why it's so hard to judge art in the present, but much easier from the past. Better quality art gets sorted out over time by what people continue to find interesting.