A Changing Art

I was really interested in a New York Times' article about the Digital culture changing film--literally. It got me wondering about art mediums and if it's fair to be up in arms over how a certain craft is done--or which form makes it legitimate--when art has forever thrived on different mediums. After all, when you meet an artist the first thing you ask is "Oh, what medium do you work with?" They can say anything from oils to watercolor to ballpoint pen and you wouldn't question their status as an artist, just their skill. Even photographers have their different cameras and subjects; musicians have their various instruments. But film, which forever has relied on film and reels and all that jazz, is now getting a digital face lift and people don't quite know how to react.

But can we really question the validity of filmmakers just because they no longer work with film? It would be like saying listening to the Beatles on your iPod isn't the same as listening to a record which isn't the same as being there. Of course, I'd be the first to agree that Ke$ha or Lady Gaga don't have the vocal skills of pretty much ANYONE past or present; the digital age has allowed for pop music to be basically computer generated (let's face it, now it's about performance, not talent). But does the medium change the art? Yes. Is it worth getting up in arms about? I don't know.

The highbrow crowd seems quick to love anything that sticks to the "classic" form. If a film is done on film, suddenly it's a favorite. Just look at past Academy Award winners: it's a hipsters lovefest, celebrating the indie/artsy/fartsy classic types. And that's great. But there's something to be said about what the digital world has allowed films to do.

Some films hit the mark. But that's true past and present. After all, the original King Kong is kind of laughable now (though a great piece of cinematic history) while the new one is as well (I mean, they cast Jack Black. Strike one). Meanwhile, a film like Audrey Hepburn's Wait Until Dark can still get more scares than a high-CGI Chernobyl Diaries, and the creatures in I Am Legend are kinda silly looking compared to even some of the aliens in Star Wars. So what has digital film done but allow for more options? I mean, LOTR is vibrant with computer-generated worlds. There's a certain cleanness involved in a digital form, sort of a richness where colors can be treated and changed to change a mood instead of just the high black and white contrast the old classics had to play with.

Disturbia, 2007

Rear Window, 1954

But that example brings up its own issues: the digital world has changed storytelling. And, yet, maybe the real crime is the fact that the stories are changing to fit this modern crowd. Now, it is about the shock and awe, not the craftsmanship. Take Hitchcock for example--he cared about telling a story and using, even designing, different ways to make his films rock people's socks off. But, today, a film isn't complete without some huge explosion or epic sweeping CGI-infested panoramic shot to show off the effects--the money, the talent, the "blockbuster" status. I mean, Avatar took a decade to make because the director was waiting for and creating the necessary digital effects. And this is what we got:

Nice.

So the medium is effecting the art. For better, for worse, it's happening. Not only does it look different, but perhaps the emphasis on story is shifting to effects. So...good or bad? Can we really complain about something we would complain about without? I know people who are vehemently opposed to watching black and white films; I know people who wait for the summer blockbuster because everything else is boring--not loud enough, not explosive enough, not Michael Bay enough. It's a mad, mad world. And it's a digital one at that. So is there any point in complaining that movie reels are done with? I doubt it. Films have changed, the medium has changed. But so have we. And maybe that's where the blame should lie--for whatever qualms one might have with modern-day cinema. Good or bad, I can't help but feel it's on us.

After all, we're the ones who brought Ke$ha to fame regardless of talent. And we're the reason Avatar is one of the highest grossing films in history. Right up there with, uh, Twilight. So thanks for that one, humanity. Now this is what we have to look forward to: