Arnheim Response

Andrew: Arnheim

This reading was about how Arnheim believed that film could be a form of art. What I gathered from this reading was that not all film is art, but it can be expressed as art if it differs from reality. The way to make film differ from reality is by expressing real objects in different ways. For example, a filmmaker should take away the color or the sound, reduce the sense of depth, or alter how time is portrayed. In real life we do not jump from one day to the next in a matter of seconds. Therefore, Arnheim did not agree with filmmakers trying to make their films appear more realistic because he thought this did not make film an art form. He believed that silent films – before color, sound, and 3-D, was cinema in its finest, most pure form. This is where I disagree with what I believe Arnheim is saying. Arnheim talks about the simplicity of “pure” art and how making films more realistic has made film “impure.” What is his definition of “pure”? What he believes to be pure and what I believe to be pure are two completely different things. Sure, I grew up with sound and color in my movies, so I do not fully understand how “pure” the silent films were. My perspective is different. Yet, Arnheim mentions, according to Andrew, “as time goes by, changing conventions reveal more and more clearly the most powerful peculiarities of the medium until it is purified of all extraneous connections.” Therefore, the medium (film) becomes more pure over time. Yet, then he states that we can “pass up” the pure form. How is this possible? He goes into an example with music, but I do not agree with this either. Sometimes lyrics make music more pure to me than music without lyrics. I do not always understand what Mozart or another composer is trying to say with his music, but I do understand if you add words. The same thing occurs with film. I may not understand everything without sound, but if you evolve and add sound, I will understand. I think that an art is in its pure form when the spectator understands and connects with the piece of art and is able to get something out of it and feel as if they experienced something magical. Making films appear to be more realistic has allowed filmmakers expand what to film. Now we can film in a fantasy world and the audience can feel as if they left Earth and are living in this fantasy world with the characters. I think this can be pure art because the film allowed the audience to experience something they would not normally experience otherwise.

Film and Reality

In this reading, Arnheim discusses how film can be used as art and not merely record real life. Arnheim mentions a few ways that prove this. For example, he mentions how films are two-dimensional, so there is a reduction of depth. He also mentions how the filmmaker can trick the audience by filming an object from certain angles so the object looks disproportionate, or so the object is hiding something else and when the object is removed, the audience is surprised to this other object. Arnheim also briefly points out that in films, we cannot smell or touch the objects, so this also takes away from reality. This allows film to be art because it differs from reality. I somewhat agree with Arnheim. I agree that these aspects that differ from reality help make film a form of art. Yet, I do not necessarily agree that film has to differ from reality to be art. It can portray real life through a perspective of the filmmaker or the screenplay writer. A painting of a real object is still art, and half the time, the more realistic it is, the more the spectator believes it is art and understands the perspective of the artist. I see where Arnheim is coming from, but I do not understand why he stresses straying away from reality so much.

The Making of Film

This reading focuses more on how to make a film artistic. Now that Arnheim has convinced readers that film can be artistic, he explains how. It is basically an extension on “Film and Reality.” One line that I found interesting was when Arnheim says, “Certainly box-office success depends even now much more on what is shown than on whether it is shown artistically.” I found this interesting because Arnheim stresses how we have strayed away from the pure form of film, but this is clearly what audiences want to see. There is a reason that these movies are succeeding in box offices. They clearly have some artistic value to them, otherwise they would not be so popular or succeed as much. The different techniques that Arnheim explains as artistic are some good techniques to enhance the artistic value of a film, but Arnheim is not open to looking at what films are succeeding nowadays. The films that succeed nowadays are art as well otherwise we would not enjoy them as much.

The Complete Film

This reading is very similar to Arnheim’s other readings. He talks about how certain developments within film can ruin the artistic value of a film. However, he does mention how certain aspects, such as color, can still be used artistically. I am glad Arnheim opened up a little and realized the possibilities that new developments could carry. However, then Arnheim continues to talk about other developments and how they ruin film art. For example, he mentions how wide screen makes camera angles less artistic because everything is still too real. I did not understand this. Camera angles are artistic no matter what screen it is portrayed on. A filmmaker can be extremely creative and unique with camera angles. It keeps the audience from becoming bored even nowadays when we have wide screens and three-dimensional films. Arnheim says, “the complete film is the fulfillment of the age-old striving for the complete illusion.” I believe that the complete illusion is better achieved with color and sound and wide screens. Then, the audience believes that what they see is real, and they are fooled by an illusion. An illusion that allows the audience to believe something is real or to allow the audience to connect with the film is successful. Therefore, once again, I do not completely agree with Arnheim.