The advantage in any new medium of art is that there are no rules. Ironically, rather than bringing freedom in choices, the lack of rules brings a responsibility. The early filmmakers had no possible way of knowing that their choices would become the rules that still shape a global industry a century later. What brings a side-show gimmick into a glamorous pinnacle of human success in just 50 years? Innovation and improvisation built it.
Recently, however, the most exciting ingredient of film has faded into the past behind a curtain of lawsuits and pride. Danger has all but disappeared. The early greats, like Buster Keaton, built their careers on daredevil stunts. As the industry matured, the focus shifted onto story rather than spectacle, and the danger adapted as well. Some of the greatest film stars of all time built their careers on their willingness to really do something rather than rely on technology to fake it.
The most enduring quality of classic film is the reality they portray. When the danger is real, when the characters face obstacles without pretending or "acting," the audience is magnetized to the silver screen. Modern film has produced a dissatisfaction with the current mode of storytelling. Audiences are no longer captured by story because they are distracted by unnecessary visuals.
The reality of doing is what made classic film great: there were no gimmicks, merely sleights of hand. Much like a skilled magician, film lured you not just into believing, but into wanting to believe. That's why they call it the "magic" of cinema.
The most enduring quality of classic film is the reality they portray. When the danger is real, when the characters face obstacles without pretending or "acting," the audience is magnetized to the silver screen. Modern film has produced a dissatisfaction with the current mode of storytelling. Audiences are no longer captured by story because they are distracted by unnecessary visuals.
The reality of doing is what made classic film great: there were no gimmicks, merely sleights of hand. Much like a skilled magician, film lured you not just into believing, but into wanting to believe. That's why they call it the "magic" of cinema.
Very interesting topic. After watching the video you posted it was amazing to see the real danger the actors were in. What a commitment they had to being actors and making the stunts look good. In class there was the example of the house falling on the man and just the thought of if he was a few inches off was shocking. Stunts in movies for our time have less of an effect I feel because the audience knows the actors are safe in the back of their minds. Back then there was real danger which made the stunts more appealing. Great first blog.
ReplyDeleteInteresting read. I can honestly say that just watching that compilation, my heart began to race. I agree fully that the Hollywood of late has become a bit lazy in one sense or another. Innovations in techniques and technologies are great, but they cannot replace talent or a gripping narrative. Jackie Chan was always a refreshing change of pace for this topic. The "clown of Kung-Fu" would often do his own stunts which were extremely dangerous. Where I have my beef, is traditional special effects versus computerized everything. In other words, instead of using a very effective makeup for a character, they'll just CG them. The frustration can be too much.
ReplyDelete