Content

mzungu

A recent article by Martin Scorsese in Harper's Bazaar has caused a bit of a stir. Click to read

Basic gist is that Scorcese argues that cinema has been devalued by being reduced to merely "content". A move he blames on media company bigwigs that care little for its artistic status and history. By categorising cinema as content, it reduces it to the same level as cat videos and the like.

Does he have a point, or is it a case of "things were way better back in my day"?

Black Swan

Interesting observation. Wonders to what extent the suspension of disbelief has been affected by content-only films?

Fathom

Willing suspension of disbelief. Acting makes the film. Not just content. Actors can influence viewers to intentionally avoid critical thinking. To affect context beyond content. For enjoyment. Goes beyond plot. Expands. Elaborates. Emotionalizes when needs be. Samuel Taylor Coleridge makes these points.

mzungu

Black Swan wrote: »

Interesting observation. Wonders to what extent the suspension of disbelief has been affected by content-only films?

Fathom wrote: »

Willing suspension of disbelief. Acting makes the film. Not just content. Actors can influence viewers to intentionally avoid critical thinking. To affect context beyond content. For enjoyment. Goes beyond plot. Expands. Elaborates. Emotionalizes when needs be. Samuel Taylor Coleridge makes these points.

In that sense we submit a part of ourselves to whatever we watch/or hear that requires suspension of disbelief. The content itself may not hold up to real world scrutiny, but for the sake of art and enjoyment, we temporarily accept that the impossible is possible.

Black Swan

mzungu wrote: »

but for the sake of art and enjoyment, we temporarily accept that the impossible is possible.

Or the improbable is probable. An element of doubt adds to the illusion.

Fathom

mzungu wrote: »

By categorising cinema as content, it reduces it to the same level as cat videos and the like.

Thought provoking metaphor.