Quote
Originally posted by: Athrun Zala
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
There's no difference between substance and style.
bold statement... care to explain why?
The substance and style dichotomy (also called form and content) seeks to divide art into "what" and "how," as if each artwork is a personal
statement that needs
interpreting in order to find the
meaning. These three words are overused in art (by me too!). We believe people make works of art not for the sake of aesthetics but for their
meanings. The problem is our definition of "aesthetics" and our definition of "form." In film, is form the way a shot is composed? What about the content of the shot? What about the dialogue and the meaning of the words? Or the concept of "murder" or "adultery" or "responsibility" or "sex" or any of the many themes of any film? Which of these is form and which is content?
Our problem is that we want there to be a
meaning to all the formal elements, a single statement of opinion that is the thesis, the reason the work of art exists at all. But do we enjoy films for their social consciousness, or their deep-minded ideas? Why do we enjoy films at all? Is enjoying a film wrong? No, not at all, if it is a good film, like The Bourne Supremacy. In that film we have a character faced with moral choices in the film, but even if he DIDN'T the movie would still be superb because of its formal elements, which in the end are its content too. To repeat that confusing sentence, the form of The Bourne Supremacy IS its content. There is no separation - the division is something we do unfairly to the work, as though The Bourne Supremacy is a film that
should have been about something, but wasn't. We pretend it is a collection of shots that are exciting to us, but that excitement does not qualify as "content" because it is not a "statement."
Interpretation as a concept adds something extra to a film; it is not the film.
Interpretation treats any film or artwork as an unfinished piece that must be "completed" by "solving" it. Instead of this idea, we must admit that films are not statements, and the pure joy or disgust or fear we feel because of art, or the ideas we think about, or any other thing that happens as a result of the art's many elements all make up the "meaning" (if we have to use that word) of the movie. No single statement sums up a movie. Someone asks me what a movie is about and I could talk for ages. Ask me what the point, what the movie was saying, I'd say it says nothing. (I also believe that art stirs up a lot of questions and answer nothing. If art answered questions we'd all make movies instead of writing message board posts.) This is all a long way to say that "meanings" are the same as "themes" which are included in "aesthetics."
Same with paintings. Mona Lisa? Tribute Money (which I talked about in a blog recently)? Last Supper? The David? Jackson Pollock, Piet Mondrian, Pablo Picasso? The interplay between the "story" of these works of art and their specific artistic methods is so complex, I could hardly call the "story" or the "subject" of any painting the "content." A painting of Jesus could never just be a stylistic look at "Jesus," at least no more or no less than any other painting of Jesus. Form and content are the same thing, and the words ought to be redefined forever. The moral choices of characters in a film are just as "aesthetic" as the camera movements or color choices. All of these aesthetics are the reason movies (and art) exist.
So substance is a non-thing: style is substance. Style is the point of everything, because style is perspective. An artist puts something on canvas, on paper, on celluloid to show it, first and foremost. As a result, "agenda" films and others that add up only to simplistic "statements" are mostly worthless.
Most of these ideas come from a great art critic, Susan Sontag. Her other controversial idea is that there is no division between the aesthetic and the moral.
Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
Tastes like a well-disguised poll to me..
I just wanted to talk about Peter Weir more, and find out what people thought of Master and Commander. Oh look:
Quote
Originally posted by: vudu
At the risk of getting flamed, can someone tell me what was so great about Master And Commander? I thought it was shot very well, but the story went nowhere and Russel Crowe was overacting almost as much as he was in Gladiator. I walked away feeling very bitter.
Good point about story, wandering; we must approach each film on its own merits, and Master and Commander certainly lets its story build and does not give it an appropriate ending. The films aesthetic concerns are ship life and the relationship between the doctor and the captain, and how each of these impacts the war and each individual battle. The beauty of the film is not in finding out what happens next, but watching it happen. I wish we could see the end of the story, but I know that if we did follow the Surprise to its next battle only more plots would arise and there would be more to see and the story wouldn't end.
Perhaps that's a complicated way to say that it's fun to watch, but it is also challenging, filled with characters who are real and have complex thoughts. It is sometimes brutal to watch, yet it has a soft humor. The Galapagos Islands look gorgeous and inspire the best parts of the film, when Bettany's doctor must sacrifice his scientific concerns so the Surprise can go on its next mission.
I love every minute of Master and Commander, and I only hope that upon second viewing (perhaps after seeing some other Weir; may I suggest The Last Wave, Witness, and Picnic at Hanging Rock?) it will reveal its many pleasures to you.