The Role of Film as Visual Art
 

I have recently been introduced to the works of the Welsh filmmaker Peter Greenaway by a friend who is a big fan of his work. I find most of his stuff to be pretty baffling, and so I set out on an internet adventure to find out what I could about the guy.

His IMDB profile contains several quotes from him about the nature of film as visual art, and he seems to feel that there has been very little in the history of cinema that even begins to approach the potential of the medium. Some examples:

"I don't think we've seen any cinema yet. I think we've seen 100 years of illustrated text."

"Cinema has been dragged down by mimetic association with all the other art forms, predominantly with the 19th century novel, and because of its distribution situation and its apparent desire to appeal to the lowest common denominator, it has gone in directions which have not fulfilled those extraordinary promises, in general terms."

My question is, do you agree with this assertion? Do you think film is simply an offshoot of other artistic mediums, with little or no distinguishing characteristics? Or do you think it clearly stands on its own as a distinct, clearly defined art form with valid and important contributions?

FWIW, I think the guy's right, but I far prefer the world of cinema as it stands now to the one Greenaway would create.

Re: The Role of Film as Visual Art
 

I don't really agree with this. Which is to say that I think his criticism applies to the vast majority of commercial films, but not to all films. I'd have a hard time buying the claim that Michelangelo Antonioni or Masahiro Shinoda (just to randomly pick two of my favorite directors who do a lot of stylistic visual stuff) are just doing illustrated text.

Re: The Role of Film as Visual Art
 

i'd be curious about the larger context of some of those quotes.

my first tendency is to think he's over-simplifying things, but seeing as how i'm not familar with his work, i hesitate to do so.

Re: The Role of Film as Visual Art
 

Actually, I realized after I wrote my post that I probably shouldn't have, as I'm completely unfamiliar with Greenaway's work or statements. I was only commenting on the quotes.

I do think that he's correct that most film is simply a visual novel or more intricate version of a play. I'm not sure why that's the way mainstream film developed, but I think it's an interesting question. But judging purely from the quotes, I have to disagree that all film is as he says.

Re: The Role of Film as Visual Art
 

I tried to be as brief as possible in my original post, and in doing so I was also misleading. Greenaway never said those things about all films; there are many films and filmmakers he admires, David Lynch in particular. Rather, I think he intended his remarks for all mainstream commercial films, and in that sense I think they apply.

With that being said, does it diminish films like Casablanca or The Godfather in any way? Or are they just as valuable as the most progressive works of any maverick filmmaker? (By valuable I mean fully exploiting the medium of film.)

I personally find his remarks to be most applicable to independent films. Instead of pushing the envelope and experimenting with movies the studios would never make, the vast majority of independent films today are simply derivative of major studio pictures, except with smaller budgets.

Re: The Role of Film as Visual Art
 

a lot of early movies were very much mimics of plays. the camera was stationary, the set had no depth, the acting was exaggerated. many early theorists argued that artists should take advantage of qualities unique to film, e.g. the mobile camera, cross-cutting, flashbacks, close-ups.

besides these attributes, movies can also combine motion, images, and sound in a way that other artforms cannot.

the best movies are pieces of art that would lose something were they expressed in another medium.

Re: The Role of Film as Visual Art
 

Some good responses. I've watched all the films of the great French Director Robert Bresson, and can say that he brought film to its highest and purest form of artistic potential as a medium.

The problem with film as an art is that it is also a business, and therefore most films are there to make money. Is entertainment bad? Not really.

If one can distinguish between literature and popular fiction within the medium of the novel, than one can distinguish between film as art and film as entertainment.

Would Tolstoy be complaining about someone like...Sidney Sheldon? Obviously we hold Tolstoy in higher esteem, but Sidney Sheldon has his place too. However, if one were to try and claim that the work of Sidney Sheldon is better than that of Tolstoy we would have reason to criticize and complain.

Re: The Role of Film as Visual Art
 

[ QUOTE ]
I tried to be as brief as possible in my original post, and in doing so I was also misleading. Greenaway never said those things about all films; there are many films and filmmakers he admires, David Lynch in particular. Rather, I think he intended his remarks for all mainstream commercial films, and in that sense I think they apply.

With that being said, does it diminish films like Casablanca or The Godfather in any way? Or are they just as valuable as the most progressive works of any maverick filmmaker? (By valuable I mean fully exploiting the medium of film.)

I personally find his remarks to be most applicable to independent films. Instead of pushing the envelope and experimenting with movies the studios would never make, the vast majority of independent films today are simply derivative of major studio pictures, except with smaller budgets.

[/ QUOTE ]

this seems much more reasonable.

i doubt it diminishes, say, "The Godfather" b/c it's not the type of film that needs to deviate much in a different direction. there's a great deal to be said about doing something "simple" and doing it exceptionally well. it takes all kinds

but, yeah, i'd agree that indies as a group need to push the envelope more.