As I announced last week, my intention is to propose a mega-giga riassuntone three years of my thesis (available for download HERE ) and explain that the role had Blog of "The Eye Digger" in my company.
The main premise is that you have put a great attention to the relationship of the viewer with the show and, in turn, thereby linking these two elements, namely: the look.
Wanting to be very little academic and almost provocative, I want to say that there are no film "beautiful" and film "bad." The decision can be made on a film has a very large component of subjectivity (therefore involves the sphere of our lives) and, if not to toy during an evening with friends, you should not express an opinion on the claims apodictic a work of art, whether film or other.
The film must not be looked to be judged in its aesthetic form (I like / I do not like) with claims to universality, the viewer has to work in pairs both eyes that are provided to have a complete view of ' object of this gaze.
eye viewer considers the scope of aesthetics, of subjectivity and allows me, as well as the discretion to hear the film at a more intense, emotionally. This is a key component in the cinema, especially contemporary ones, which requires strong enjoyment by the audience and seeks to provide in every way. Through the eye of the viewer (or common eye) we are able to spend a pleasant evening with a comedy or a horror film with an equally pleasant to enjoy content in different ways (always different) from our eyes. eye digging, however, is a rational component that has no right to trial. Not concerned with the pleasure of a movie, but extrapolates the basic components and deals at outside enjoyment. This is the eye of the philosopher to the movies, who manages to set aside their own personal pleasure to take a positive and a "bad movie" if this has a great historical force.
The operation started with this blog was, in my experience, fundamental. Without the numerous analysis addressed on this web space I could not have bones to make me a path so intricate and, above all, I could not convince myself of the validity of this theory. Every movie has something to say, if not at the level of film history, perhaps at a sociological. If not a sociological level, perhaps at a psychological level, and so on. Since each film is possible to extrapolate something to build their cultural building and discover new things about the world and its inhabitants. If we stop at the aesthetic categories and enjoyment, all this loss of meaning and purpose would be to their filmic vision masturbation and total staff (as well as, in my opinion, will end the history of commercial cinema).
The enjoyment is undoubtedly a good thing. Indeed, it is the highest peak of the positivity, both physically and psychologically, and is probably the modern translation of the word "happiness".
But enjoyment is not enough. The philosopher is not enough to be happy because even in misery there is much to discover e molto da indagare, forse molto più di quanto si creda.
Giudicare un film è una parte del lavoro, chi giudica senza senza scavare sarà sempre orbo di un occhio.
0 comments:
Post a Comment