Post a response to this discussion thread
The problem is that when you string together a series of images into a sequence, provided that there's SOME kind of pattern between them, that they're not 100% disjoint (even Dali's movies had patterns, etc.) Take comic books for example. You've got technically images, but you combine them with the element of sequence, and the element of dialogue, and you get a narrative, which is now evaluated not as art (though that is certainly an element of it) but as a fusion of art and literature, and judged on the merits of both...comic book critique factors in elements of literature (story, characters, linguistics) and elements of visual critique (artwork, lettering, etc.)
It's the same with film. Film fuses a variety of sensory receptors (visual, audio) with in the strong strong majorit of cases, a sequence of some kind, ala literature. As such, it ought to be, in my opinion at least, critiqued on the tenements of both, on form ala art and on narrative ala literature. To praise only one and completely write off the other reduces a major component of film, and a truly good film in my opinion fuses them.
Post a response to this discussion thread