Comparing Cinema and Film with Painting, Literature and Other Arts
In James Monaco’s book How to Read a Film, he compares film and cinema with other types of arts such as photography, painting, literature, theater, and music. Monaco makes the argument that film has combined the works of the older arts and is able to create certain images or impressions due to its technology in which the older arts struggle to measure up. While painting and photography are able to capture one moment in time that can captivate a viewer’s attention, film is a reproduction of many images throughout several scenes in the film. Painting had tried to keep up with motion picture of cinema through Cubism, but as cinema developed newer and better technology, photography and painting were never truly able to capture the concept of motion in the same way film has succeeded. As Monaco states, “In a sense, movies simply fulfill the destiny of painting (44).” Movies have been able to make scenes or images come alive and appeal to the viewer through motion and connecting with real situations and feelings in a way in which painting cannot.
Monaco also goes on to compare film to the world of literature and the novel. He states that while novels are told through the perspective of authors and films through directors, a film’s image can generate views and opinions different than the original intent of the film director. Novels on the other hand are generally shaped by the words, details, and plot that the author has chosen for the novel or work of literature. In addition, Monaco states, “It would be an absurd task for a novelist to try to describe a scene is as much detail as it is conveyed in cinema” (45). Monaco posits the idea that film and cinema stand above and beyond the traditional representational art forms because of its ability to shape the different arts in various way. For example, painting was shaped by film in that it immersed itself more toward the design of the painting and novels focused more on its unique language.
Theater is the one traditional art form that Monaco compares most closely with film. Film and theatre share many common attributes like the ability to express emotion and make the viewer react to what they are seeing. However, where theatre is only able to use a couple or only a few different sets for different scenes, film is able to rapidly go from one scene or location to another. In addition, film can capture a scene or action in real life and bring it to the projector for an audience to view. Theater can only recreate a scene that has already occurred. The final traditional art form that Monaco discusses is music. Monaco states that music’s advantage over the other arts is that it has the ability to control time. However, as the technology of cinema has progressed, music has become an essential part of film. Music started out in the silent film by being played with a screen of dialogue on it such as in “Birth of a Nation.” This was used to indicate a rise in the action, suspense, or to portray a certain character as good or bad. As cinema got more advanced, music was integrated into film as the director saw fit. The concepts of melody, harmony, and rhythm are able to be successfully expressed in today’s films. Music throughout a cinematic production is now very common as it is used for sound effects, background music, speech, etc.
Film critic Manny Farber, on the other hand, treats film like any other art. He categorizes film into termite art and white elephant art. Farber desired and preferred termite art over white elephant art because of termite art’s ability to create a moment in time without glamorizing it (Farber 02). Farber enjoyed looking at film for its simplicity and without dramatizing it. Farber preferred termite art for its ability to allow the viewer to interpret the scene or picture for itself without leaving a certain message; leaving it up to the viewer what he or she wants to take away from the film. He has particular distaste for films he categorizes as “white elephant art.” Farber describes these types of films as ones in which they are impersonal and try to be masterpieces that break away from common films.
As a critic he treats film as just another art form because it can be categorized into termite art and white elephant art. Film can be like any other art such as a novel, newspaper column, or painting in that it too has the ability to be simple enough to capture the reader or viewer’s attention to be wrapped up in the moment. In addition, elephant art in films and other arts is common because they can both loose sight of the original intent of the art work. They become fixated on too much detail and as Farber calls it, “clogging weight-density-structure polish amalgam associated with self-aggrandizing masterwork” (Farber 02).
Both film writers and critics James Monaco and Manny Farber write about film and cinema in its relation to the other representational arts. However they each look at film differently. Monaco treats film as a unique art head and shoulders above the traditional representational art forms of the past. By comparing film to the other arts he demonstrates the wide range of possibilities and abilities that film has and how great an impact it can have on a viewer. On the other side of the spectrum, Farber treats film as just another piece of artwork which can be separated into the distinction of white elephant art or termite art. Through this class distinction he is able to separate a truly great film as one of simplistic style and personal from one that tries to be a masterpiece but fails in the process.
