Whilst a movie may appear to be phyically discrete - a hefty package of 9 lumps of celluloid, and also linearly discrete - in that it has a beginning, middle and end as an experience (though not necessarily in that order, as Godard provoked), a movie is not discrete. The peephole is, but not the movie. Any understanding of a movie (especially one made within a different zeitgeist) has to contemplate both the influence of the culture on the movie, and the influence of the movie on the culture. And the same applies to the individual viewer in relation to the movie.
As a moviemaker I also enjoy talking about the tools of film-making and how they are used, but these can be rather esoteric. In the end, it should be never forgotten that big screen movie-making is a business - whoever the great artist is. You can't be me, I'm taken
Ted, we disagree on many things. but I thought your contributions to the movie debate were pertinent, interesting and, as usual, challenging.
Thanks for that Sven. Actually I doubt if we disagree about "many" things :-)
Any understanding of a movie (especially one made within a different zeitgeist) has to contemplate both the influence of the culture on the movie, and the influence of the movie on the culture.
Yes, agreed; in fact a lot of my career was spent trying to broaden media students' awareness of the wider context and not to focus too much on technique and biography of directors. The main course I taught was called "History and theory of the media", and students (and some of my bosses) couldn't understand (at first) why it included general history and culture and not the usual trot through the history of photography, film, TV, etc. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
