Media and Culture: Chinese Cinemas and the Past
Introduction
The film is a masterpiece tackling the most controversial beliefs regarding life and reality (or even abstract thoughts). Truly, this makes the film even more compelling. It presented claims and arguments that question the grounds of man’s existence as well as the possibilities of a multi-dimensional world. It wittingly disrupted the distinction between fact and fantasy as the movie transcended the audience to cross socially and culturally defined beliefs. The movie lures the viewers to think outside the confined notions of reality and existence by illustrating possible impossibilities.
Even though film do not have an interactive audience in terms of acting as compared to theatre (Benedetti 2001, 10), it could be said that there are billions of people who watch films. They find their personalities in the portrayals of the characters and relate their life experiences to the plot of the particular movies. Also, they empathize and sympathize with the fate of the characters. Viewers delight when the character in which they can associate themselves with are in good condition after a series of hardships and troubles. They are distressed when the character they adore dies or loses the fight (David 1990, 2-3). These are among the several reasons on why viewers who see the influences behind and surrounding filmmakers can more clearly and fully understand why films are presented in such ways.
In this epoch of globalization and modern technology, it is apparent that the need of the mainstream film audience is constantly changing and demanding. The viewers are no longer constrained with what they see on the screen but they also possess enough knowledge to comprehend and even argue with the messages that the medium provide. As the world develops, the processes inherent to humans also change. Movie viewing and its related processes are not let off. Thus, viewers already know what makes a good or bad film, or ‘smart’ or ‘dull’ film for that matter.
The Idea of ‘Smart’ and “Dumb’ Film
Traditionally, prevalent societal attitudes may exert powerful influences on filmmakers (Phillips 1999, 375). The audiences are drawn to the plot and establish empathy with the characters with whom they are able to identify. Empathy is among the primary mechanisms that results to responses of viewers to frightful stimuli (Bryant & Thompson 2002, 221). People watch films or even shows in the television to liberate themselves from various conditions such as boredom, personal problems, or even for the sake of curiosity, entertainment, and mere appreciation of the film as a form of art. In every given country, it constitutes a significant proportion of the worldwide population of film lovers and viewers.
As Bryant and Thompson (2002, 352) affirmed, the entertainment brought about by film (and other forms of communication medium) is an effective and acceptable way to relieve one’s discontentment and stressing situations of everyday life. Primarily, the entertainment that films offer to everyone who sees it serves as an activity that delights and enlightens people’s viewing experiences even just for a temporary span of time. Today, films are no longer limited for the purposes of art and entertainment but serve as a potent avenue for learning and instruction. However, the presence of many films that vary from genre, languages, and even area of origin plus the factors affecting the growth, commercialization, globalization, and modernization of the worldwide cinema business, needs to qualify the standards of a good and worthy film. The question of what makes a good film is the real challenge to face. The quest for the best film among other films in the commercial market is one of the serious endeavours of every film aficionado. Thus, there is the presence of different worldwide evaluation and classification groups, institutions, and organizations directed to film analyses, reviews and criticisms.
The concept of ‘smart’ cinema was proliferated by Jeffrey Sconce as seen in his article published in 2002 Winter issue of Screen. Sconce categorically defines films of the last and the contemporary decade as ‘smart’ films. He tries to differentiate ‘smart’ film from art film or independent (indie) film. By referring to Murray Smith who draws a film form significant for its ”mix of antagonism toward and dependence on Hollywood” (Sconce 2002, 351), the theory of ‘smart’ film was conceived. Generally, ‘smart’ films are tackling the subjects of development of style, fascination with synchronicity, significance of haphazard fate, the focus on white middle class and dysfunctional families, interest for the politics of taste, consumerism and identity (Sconce 2002, 358). The main identification of a ‘smart’ film is manifested in the aims of such films – to make audiences sensitive to the non-existence of politics or socio-political consciousness in modern film culture in contrast with the importance of politics depicted in art cinema during the 1960s and 1970s eras. Traditional cinematic exhibitions are now replaced by films that are focused, intellectual, and based on reason. To quote, ‘smart’ films are “…concentrating, often with ironic disdain, on the ‘personal politics’ of power, communication, emotional dysfunction and identity in white middle class culture “(Sconce 2002, 352). Unlike earlier films where widespread plot serve as the central idea, ‘smart’ films are more innovative and challenging, compelling and making its viewers reflect using the foundations of reality, logic, and intellect. Sconce defends ‘smart’ cinema from the criticism of political indifference. Accordingly, ‘smart’ cinema is neither apolitical nor nihilistic. In the perception of cultural conservatives and leftists, this kind of cinema is ambivalent. Its incongruity has a premeditated and political value. With the given characteristics of ‘smart’ cinema, it prompts audiences to look for a political concept, which has become semiotically capable and entirely responsive of the nature of depiction and its opinionated (political) and/or cultural implications.
On the other hand, the concept of ‘dumb’ film is the counterpart of the above discussion. By theoretically using the opposite version of the aforementioned description, a ‘dull’ film can be identified. Also, a ‘dumb’ film can also be seen in the technical exhibition – overused plot, lousy characters, poor imagery, and the likes.
Argumentation
More often than not, film criticism is based on the fundamentals of film and its surrounding theories. It is deliberately directed to the eventual compliance of filmmakers to the principles of film production. However, applying the argument of art in which people continuously debate on what is artistic and what is not, films are considered to cater on the sensibilities of every viewer. It is likely that a common viewer is satisfied with the fact that the film made him/her smile or affects him/her in one way or the other while the so-called sophisticated viewer tend to question the ‘this’ and ‘thats’ of the film. The broad spectrum of the society covers a wide array of selective group of people from “nearly half the numbers who go to the movies today ages fewer than 25” (Biagi 1990, 147). They are the current audience. Audience is an inadequate word to determine their characteristics and influences in film. Its etymology refers to the process of hearing. Like viewers, it focuses exclusively on a single perceptual channel (Hart 1991, 30). Further, audiences who watch films differ basically in terms of age, gender, and economic considerations (Vivian 2002, 149). It may also vary in behaviour, perception and cultural considerations.
The viewers differ in taste and perception of what is a good or bad film. What is a good film? A clear purpose, good script, unity of elements and technical presentation, commercial viability, and entertainment value constitutes a good film. The presence of a purpose in creating a certain film is the most basic consideration that a filmmaker must bear in mind. What is his/her intent – to inform, entertain, earn, etc.? With the identification of the specific intention, the filmmaker will have a clearer visualization of the next steps to complete the entire process. A well-written, researched, and prepared script equates to a good story and theme. The universality of the theme may serve as a unifying agent in a wide array of viewers. To have a satisfactory crafted film, there is the presence of unity in terms of its elements and technical superficialities or presentation. Since filmmaking is not just an art but also a form of business, it must be commercially viable and profitable. Lastly, whatever the intent is, the entertainment value of the film must be highly sustainable. As an example, the classic Steven Spielberg’s E.T. (Extra Terrestrial) released in 1982 is considered a good film due to the fact that it convened the standards identified above.
In relation to my belief, each film is deliberately produced. It is imperative to specify that there are three types of audience that may tend to analyse and involve their selves in the process of criticising the work. They are the potential audience – the people that are not yet penetrated by media; the paying audience – people who use media forms daily; and the audience reached – people who are reached by media voluntarily (McQuail 1994, 299). Viewers may also be described as someone “who crave variety, surprise, suspense, and mental challenges (Phillips 1999, 411). Most of the time, these viewers possess a “high level of education that tend to be more vulnerable to some types of media message that includes logical appeals” (Rodman 2001, 381). Moreover, people in different habitat of meanings perceive a variety of implication in the same creative work and their perceptions of meaning tend to change as the time passes by – may it be in terms of symptomatic meanings or ideology (explicit or implicit) (Phillips 1999, 452-53). These meanings are to some extent relative, but a film sets parameters to interpretations of such, and some of these interpretations are vulnerable by members of the audience. Besides, if films are always ‘smart’ or ‘dumb’ the traditional experience of movie watching will never be the same again.
Conclusion
Generally, film is a medium of a “broader global patterns and frameworks, especially the communication industry as an integrated interacting whole” (Mowlana 1997, 97). It provides a giant mirror that serves as a reflection of the values, the half-truths, and the ideals of the society and its people (Whetmore 1997, 201). Universal emotions such as fear, love, disappointment, etc. have been experienced by people. It could be a total ruin, complete love, paralyzing fear, or savage violence. Through film, it blows up these emotions until they become “larger than life” (Whetmore 1997, 201). Because of film’s popularity and universality, many people use films as an agent of communication, education, learning, and entertainment. The feeling of audience and resemblance of existence is the basic element of cinema without which there is no art of filmmaking. The complex, artistic whole and elements are facilitated by a number of linkages with the artistic cultural experiences of the society (Lotman 1994, 1). Film is an externalization of what is real in life. As stated, people relate and learn from it. It is a medium of entertainment, communication, and instruction. Viewers resort to movies as means of diversion and amusement.
Meanwhile, film analysis and criticism plays one principal purpose – to evaluate the overall quality of a particular film. In today’s contemporary standards, it could be theorised that the presence of award-giving institutions are helpful to viewers and film related people especially in determining the aspects that needs further development and the parts that need to be maintained. Award-giving bodies qualify or can also intensify the views of more legitimate and credible film critics. Like all mass media, film has two component parts that serve as basis in film analysis – the form and the content (Whetmore 1997, 207). These alone may determine what is considerably measured as ‘smart’ or ‘dumb’ film.
All in all, the concept of film and its audience is very essential to every individual that consider film as a portrayal of reality. However, today’s film industry is facing several great challenges that are headed for radical transformation (David 1998, 119). Like the film itself, the industry and its people will undergo further dimensions in terms of technological approaches and developments.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment