About a month ago, I heard part of a 1A show on MPR. It was one of those times where I didn't totally know what the topic was... something about films, but I've pieced together that it was this: The 1A Movie Club sees the most significant political films. (There's a helpful transcript of the whole thing on that page in addition to the recording.)
The thing I noted at the time was when critic Jim Hoberman made this statement: "Cinema is an innately authoritarian medium."
He had just been talking about Birth of a Nation, and then Triumph of the Will — both of which are on the list of most significant films. He then goes on to explain what he meant about film being authoritarian:
...people sit there, they watch it from beginning to end — I'm not talking about streaming at home or looking at a DVD. Going to a theater, the movie just goes on, it's larger than life, and it's really addressing you, in a way.
And the filmmaker has tremendous power over time and space. I mean, that's what makes it an art form. The Birth of a Nation taught filmmakers how to tell an exciting story, an epic story. Triumph of the Will taught filmmakers how to glamorize and exalt a political figure.
It's an interesting point that there's a difference based on where you watch a film (or a television show), in terms of how controlling it is of your response. That takes me back to my graduate school days, particularly to the "active audience" television researchers, who were committed to the idea that audience members were not passively receiving messages as they were intended by their creators.
No comments:
Post a Comment