Svitska Donkun wrote:I thought you were referring to the period between 1900 and 1920, but what you're talking about has even less to do with anything.
The period of which I am speaking about concerns the creation and original distribution of the entire medium as a whole. That very much has bearings on what happens to the medium afterwards. This is how culture works. It builds upon what came before and is directed by other cultural facets of a given time. What film is, fundamentally and aesthetically, very much has everything to do with where it started.
You incorrectly inferred that this means that everything that has been added to film (most notably narrative and synchronized sound) is irrelevant. This is not the case. All aspects of what defines any particular film's aesthetic is equally as much a part of the medium as anything else. Characters, effects, mise-en-scene, framing, sound mixing: It's all part of what the medium of film is about. Artistic excellence in one facet of the medium should be applauded when applicable. Artistic excellence in ALL FACETS, given any film, is impossible. There is no group of individuals who is willing to take the time to sit down and collaborate on a piece that could possibly cover all the bases.
Material plausability aside, it's simply impossible due to the lack of shared aesthetics across social groups. This is where the more exonomic side of film art steps in. Projects are undertaken to please certain demographics. Every film cannot please everybody. Every film will have lovers and haters, no matter what you do. This is an accepted part of any creative undertaking. People will love your work; people will hate your work. Each individual project gets tailored to pander to a given group or groups. Smaller independent films tend to skew towards a more artistic crowd that has at least minimal knowledge of the facets of film media aesthetics. Avant garde films pander to a high-art crowd. Popular cinema is made for a popular audience. This is pretty basic, and it's fairly exasperating that you cannot grasp this concept. It's a core part of how art is created.
My point, which you clearly cannot infer, is that the original intent of film was to show people things that were amazing. Feats of technology, impressive talents of the human body (musclemen and dancers), and exotic wildlife were staples of early cinema. It was incredibly popular, as people were amazed at the actual photographed images before them. There was a sense of wonder associated with seeing something amazing that you'd rarely get a chance to see otherwise (or see them in a different way). This is the core principle behind the cinema of attractions: some people watch movies simply to see something incredible. As technology would improve, this would also include sound.
The introduction of narrative film (largely due to DW Griffith) would add a non-sensory aspect to motion pictures that would greatly expand the creative possibilities of the medium. Griffith would almost single-handedly coin the majority of cinematic language by the release of The Birth of a Nation
. This is a small aside, but I'm including it under the assumption that you think films exclusively tell stories through dialogue, when this is not the case. If you are aware of this already, don't take this as an insult; I'm just covering my bases.
The upshot is that cinema of attractions has never disappeared. It's true that it's largely died out as an all-consuming aesthetic direction outside of avant garde films, but it remains a key facet of popular cinema and many smaller films as well. It's an incredibly large contributing factor to science fiction and fantasy films in particular, as they are geared towards transporting an audience to another time or place. To show them something that doesn't exist. It's the main factor behind the success of the early Hollywood and British monster films and their continued success into the 1970s. Almost every plot is the same, and almost all the characters are flat. Those films were created and became popular with the expectation that there was an audience who really wanted to just experience the monsters on the screen. It's where the current superhero fad hinges. People want to see Spiderman swinging through Manhattan, or Batman kill six henchmen with one batarang. While yes, The Avengers
will probably be an enjoyable film for the characters they've created and the conflux of years of preplanning through individual plots, most people are just going to watch it to see Hulk smash and Iron Man fly and Black Widow be chesty. You're simply naive if you think otherwise.
The fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not, the Transformers films have pushed and reset the limits on both the technological and aesthetic standards of computer generated characters.
That logic is retarded.
This is a coherent, well thought out argument that I simply must yield to. Bravo, good sir, on your quality rhetoric and astute use of basic logical principles to craft such an elegantly simple retort.
You are simplifying things to a borderline insulting degree.
And this is the part where I stop being an adult and just giggle at you.