Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)

Content

  • 28-02-2021 4:09pm
    #1
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,290 Mod ✭✭✭✭ 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"?


Comments

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,099 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Black Swan


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


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Regional Midlands Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators, Regional North Mods, Regional West Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Regional North East Moderators, Regional North West Moderators, Regional South Moderators Posts: 8,364 CMod ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,290 Mod ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,099 CMod ✭✭✭✭ 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.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Regional Midlands Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators, Regional North Mods, Regional West Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Regional North East Moderators, Regional North West Moderators, Regional South Moderators Posts: 8,364 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Fathom


    mzungu wrote: »
    By categorising cinema as content, it reduces it to the same level as cat videos and the like.
    Thought provoking metaphor.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement