One of the great questions that pervades the understanding of cinema is simply this: What is its purpose? There are countless theories that attempt to answer it. Film theorists, like Rudolf Arnheim believed that film is art, in that it shouldn't (and doesn't) represent or replicate real life, whereas André Bazin thought films capture an "objective reality". Roger Ebert had his theories as well, and in a commentary on Dark City, he suggests that film isn't the medium to use when trying to express a logical and intellectual argument. Hit the jump to hear Ebert's thoughts on why cinema is an emotional medium.
Although I usually agree with Ebert's reviews of movies, I'm gonna have to disagree with the point that he made here. He believes that films are not a place for "political" or "philosophical" arguments, but the ideal medium for those are "printed works." He backs it up by saying "When we watch a film, the director is essentially standing behind us and saying, 'Look here,' and 'Look there,' 'Hear this,' and 'Hear that,' and 'Feel this,' and 'Feel the way I want you to feel.'" But, Mr Ebert, isn't that exactly what the author of a printed work does? The author presents you with specific points that they want you to read and understand, and they leave out things that they do not want you to read or think about. In my opinion there is just as much deliberation in the making of a film and in the making of a printed work. Film is arguably more powerful of a tool for arguments, since you can utilize the power of words along with the power of visuals and sounds. You can read all the articles you want about how bad drugs are for you, but I swear the most powerful anti-drug message you can get is through watching Darren Aronofsky's "Requiem for a Dream." And that is just one example of a powerful argument done through film.
gummygunk
discoholicmusic
titsay
snowghoul