|
The History Boys - one for Glaconman
Andy;
It's not really a criticism of the film itself; that would be ridiculous given the amount of dross that's turned out.
My point is with the decision to turn a successful play into a film with a cinematic release. What motivates producers and distributors to do this?
Is it because they think it will translate into a great peice of cinema? Is it for commercial reasons? Or is it because cinematic releases are the only way to gain critical kudos via awards.
I suspect the last 2.
When you say "What difference would it have made if I'd seen it on the TV than at the cinema?" you just prove my point.
What makes cinema special is the size of the image, the encompassing nature of the sound and the shared experience.
Shouldn't a film be produced to take advantage of this?
I saw Sunshine the other week. With it's huge cosmic landscape it needed to be watched at the cinema.
Did you watch The Warrior? A film set in the deserts and mountains of India. There were about 4 lines of dialogue in this film, but it was captivating because it relied on visual language.
What about more drama/character based films? This Is England perhaps? Well, I guess this film deals with iconic images of youth culture and social landscapes that gain impact on the big screen. And because the drama is both comic and provocative you want to see it in the presense of others and then go for a pint and talk about it. And then there's the soundtrack.
Blurring the distincts and calling it all 'filmic art' is one way of looking at it; but then I think you blunt your critical senses by doing so.
Great theatre is like a waking dream and I'm sure Mr Griffiths et al inspired their audiences to enter that state. I'd even invite them into my living room via a dvd. But is it great cinema?
You're unlikely to agree with this as I'm just aping what Kermode has already said in a recent article.
|
