the artistic medium that affects me the most is commonly called a 'movie'. i watch movies 'on dvd' via various dvd-type 'players', movies downloaded via torrent websites in high and low reproduction quality. movies via movie theaters, some in 3-d. movies via the internet, sub-via netflix, hulu, youtube, pornhub, etc. i think that movies are products. i think that how i experience a product informs my emotional and volitional perception of the abstract life-narrative that i experience. movies seem like products that prevent boredom, provoke moods and thought processes and provide a prestige-based hierarchy and social ‘web’ constructed by-and-for people fascinated with and interested in making movies, to validate their association and contemplation of movies as products and sustain their lives in the context of 'product-development' as a profession
the terms 'cinema', 'film', 'video', and 'picture' are used to define products derivative of the concept 'movie', which has become the most-widely used term, in my experience, to describe this product-base. 'cinema' seems to denote the highest level of prestige, however, the 'newness' of the medium prevents a literature-style hierarchy of prestige in current movie criticism networks. in some cases specific movies that are densely derivative of previous movie, literary, musical and theatrical history, despite the medium's relative youth, produce (in me) a sense of precision in execution that the product seems to have an indelible prestige, eliciting a mood or thought process i associate with 'classic literature' or 'classical music'
i feel hyper-aware that certain movies are affecting in this manner because of a perceived hierarchy of 'quality', predefined by notions of potential canonical longevity, which are based on the preservation, translation and reproduction of previous works of literature and music that are considered 'telling examples of the human condition and zeitgeist in their respective eras'. these works have thus set an abstract 'standard' to which temporally transcendent media must adhere to. because movies require multiple 'players' or hardware used to interpret the audio-visual data as a consumable product, the medium seems more temporary than its predecessors
by making a product that exists in a variety of media and is securely stored with all of the hardware needed to experience the product, one might increase chances of indefinite longevity. 'ancient' literature and musical instruments which have, despite their age been capable of continued lingual and tonal extrapolation seem 'enduring', though their means of interpretation have changed consistently since their inception (papyrus vs. 'eco-friendly' paper, early lutes vs. electric guitar), but the existence of physical evidence and explanation of how the media functions has provided a 'framework' for how to produce approximations of said works for further consumption/product development. it seems that any assertion that a product made in the present day will maintain future standards of longevity with any certainty is negligible, because at any given time innumerable works are produced with varying levels of quality/senses of 'zeitgeist'. consequently, the act of consciously, definitively usurping the majority's concept of 'a great movie' (or any other product) is in every sense 'impossible'
movies that seem to lack concern about longevity and are just densely labored over products made by perceptive humans seem affecting because they are like 'oral histories' to me, subtly changing how future movies are produced; what humans want to experience; how humans memetically understand narratives. 'blockbusters' seem less affecting because of the extreme, revenue-based natures of their production and the fact that the crew's access to massive resources can, like a corporately-funded construction crew building a house for poor land-owners in order to garner 'mad sympathy hits' for the corporation, efficiently manipulate viewers' basic sense of empathy and elicit extreme emotions, abstractly branding the experience with that corporation, without triggering thought processes that challenge the audiences' perspective of subjective experiences or how humans successfully utilize volition despite socio-political-corporate constructs
if a film challenges perspective in a complex, subtly emotional way, the product seems more enduring because its honesty affects perceptive audiences so deeply that the influence 'snowballs', infiltrates the zeitgeist and eventually warps how 'blockbusters' are produced, even without movie historians knowing where the influence came from. this can happen with 'blockbusters' too but usually only if they are a zeitgeist-channeled re-telling of a story that grew 'naturally' to gigantic levels of fame because of its honesty, subtlety and the hard work of its creators. if elements of the story or production are lacking or 'forced' to create a spectacle, the story seems weird
i like movies about humans, animals, brands, ideas, personified 'beings', mythological entities, phenomena and historical events that are from a perspective-challenging (as opposed to a perspective 'normalizing' -- i.e. propaganda, 'sympathepics', performance art) production approach, and that i feel concretize some aspect of my life narrative that felt very abstract, subjective or emotion-based, because i think life is more enjoyable when humans share unfamiliar perspectives on familiar experiences and methods of thinking
- ► 2012 (10)
- ▼ October 2011 (6)