Benjamin's discussion about cinematography and its relevance to the audience sticks out most to me. He makes a good point mentioning how in a movie, you cannot (or are not meant to) see the lighting and other equipment used to film. While this is expected in a movie, it also takes away from the realism and piece as whole and makes it more superficial. Watching something in theater, the presence of stage equipments adds an extra awareness of what is happening.
I thought it was interesting how Benjamin mentioned that film is like a better version of looking at yourself in the mirror; how it's transportable and a way to show yourself to the masses. He also compares a magician to a surgeon, a painter to a cinematographer. I understand the comparison between surgeon and cinematographer, as both delve into their subject, however I don't see how painting doesn't do the same. While the artist cannot physically go into the painting, the medium used still has a tactile quality and has the ability to interact and touch the artist, therefore giving a "real" quality to it as well. But I guess I see what he's saying if you're going to get really technical...
No comments:
Post a Comment