Duhamel calls the movie “a pastime for helots, a diversion for uneducated, wretched, worn-out creatures who are consumed by their worries a spectacle which requires no concentration and presupposes no intelligence which kindles no light in the heart and awakens no hope other than the ridiculous one of someday becoming a ‘star’ in Los Angeles.” How does Duhamel not see the intrinsic field of film as an artform whether he approves or not? From the inception of a film project to the "kind of participation which the movie elicits from the masses", film involves creativity, writing, production, interpretation, acting, editing, art in staging, background, special effects, costuming and musical scores. If a project is not accepted by the masses, is it not still an attempt at creativity? Is it wrong to entertain? Is it wrong to vie for public support in the form of renumeration and approval at the box office? When money is created for future projects and the continuation of the process fullfills
itself, is that so bad?
The first and third questions here are quite strong! Be sure and share these with the class in future discussions. Important to recognize in Duhamel's comments the context within which he stated these ideas. Think about considering his critique in relation to the plethora of Hollywood blockbuster, entertainment/distractions that are churned out each year? Film has of course evolved and grown both in terms of quality and reach over the past century yet Duhamel's comments might still resonate at least when considering what the "masses" of movie goers attend - not to mention television!
ReplyDeletejoseph