(no subject)
This is a post that I had to make on my Documentary Film class' online message board:
While watching the films screened in class this week, I questioned the role that form and content play in the enjoyment of works of art. As I’m sure many of you noticed, Rain (1929), belonging to the impressionist film genre of the 'City Symphony,' looked beautiful -- a particular shot through the window of a moving car, with slow moving beads of water splashing on the glass contrasted against the quickly moving skyline in the background, comes to mind. However, watching this film became boring to me after some time.
Film theorist Noel Carroll once wrote about 'Soft Formalism' as his basis for the evaluation of a film. Any movie can have great form, such as Star Wars, just like any movie can have relevant or important content, such as Fahrenheit 9/11. However, the best films are those that combine the two. In his writings, Carroll cites La grande illusion (1937) by Jean Renoir as a good film because of its remarkable, formal use of long-takes and deep focus, and its political/philosophical criticism of WWI.
More contemporarily, I regard Koyaanisqatsi (1983) as an example of a good, ‘soft formalist’ film. Its formal elements are outstanding. Philip Glass wrote for it, in my opinion, one of the strongest film scores ever. Varying in tone, the music reflects the mood of the film. Soft, serene music is used effectively with shots of natural terrains across America. The shots are often breathtaking.
Moreover, the formal elements come together to suggest an implicit theme. Derived from the Hopi word, the title of the film means ‘life out of balance.’ The images of natural landscapes, suggesting peace, tranquility and things being the way they should be, are contrasted against stark shots of the slums of what appears to be Brazil. There are many buildings shown that have broken windows and are abandoned. Intercut are shots of poor and homeless people on the street - they sit, nestled between piles of garbage. In later shots, the buildings are demolished. This connotes that it is our civilization that is destroying the natural resources of the world, replacing in its stead concrete playgrounds which are abandoned and left behind when their purpose is no longer of importance.
Having seen the film in its entirety several years ago, I can say that while I do indeed recognize the ‘soft formalist’ merit of Koyaanisqatsi, I did not enjoy it. My personal socio-political beliefs that I, as an audience member, bring with me when watching the film have influenced my opinion to a great extent. For reasons that I will not get into here, I do not have any interest in films about the environment. This element of subjectivity deterred my enjoyment of the film. Perhaps, then, subjectivity should be considered in the Form vs. Content debate. More so than the other two, I consider it to be the most important factor in the personal enjoyment of a film.
While watching the films screened in class this week, I questioned the role that form and content play in the enjoyment of works of art. As I’m sure many of you noticed, Rain (1929), belonging to the impressionist film genre of the 'City Symphony,' looked beautiful -- a particular shot through the window of a moving car, with slow moving beads of water splashing on the glass contrasted against the quickly moving skyline in the background, comes to mind. However, watching this film became boring to me after some time.
Film theorist Noel Carroll once wrote about 'Soft Formalism' as his basis for the evaluation of a film. Any movie can have great form, such as Star Wars, just like any movie can have relevant or important content, such as Fahrenheit 9/11. However, the best films are those that combine the two. In his writings, Carroll cites La grande illusion (1937) by Jean Renoir as a good film because of its remarkable, formal use of long-takes and deep focus, and its political/philosophical criticism of WWI.
More contemporarily, I regard Koyaanisqatsi (1983) as an example of a good, ‘soft formalist’ film. Its formal elements are outstanding. Philip Glass wrote for it, in my opinion, one of the strongest film scores ever. Varying in tone, the music reflects the mood of the film. Soft, serene music is used effectively with shots of natural terrains across America. The shots are often breathtaking.
Moreover, the formal elements come together to suggest an implicit theme. Derived from the Hopi word, the title of the film means ‘life out of balance.’ The images of natural landscapes, suggesting peace, tranquility and things being the way they should be, are contrasted against stark shots of the slums of what appears to be Brazil. There are many buildings shown that have broken windows and are abandoned. Intercut are shots of poor and homeless people on the street - they sit, nestled between piles of garbage. In later shots, the buildings are demolished. This connotes that it is our civilization that is destroying the natural resources of the world, replacing in its stead concrete playgrounds which are abandoned and left behind when their purpose is no longer of importance.
Having seen the film in its entirety several years ago, I can say that while I do indeed recognize the ‘soft formalist’ merit of Koyaanisqatsi, I did not enjoy it. My personal socio-political beliefs that I, as an audience member, bring with me when watching the film have influenced my opinion to a great extent. For reasons that I will not get into here, I do not have any interest in films about the environment. This element of subjectivity deterred my enjoyment of the film. Perhaps, then, subjectivity should be considered in the Form vs. Content debate. More so than the other two, I consider it to be the most important factor in the personal enjoyment of a film.