Our discussion today in class aroused some interesting thoughts. Identity and soul of a film were the ones that stood out to me. I was most inspired by the comment of people changing their image (clothes) as they grew. But anyway, can works of art have souls? People say they put their heart and soul’s into something they work really hard on, so why not film?
The first question I asked myself: is film alive? My answer is yes in an obvious metaphorical sense. Film doesn’t physically breathe, think, or have a pulse. It is, however, “born” from ideas of countless sources. The root source is a human mind. A film cannot spontaneously appear. Hundreds of people work on it to get the best possible outcome. It’s almost like they are “raising” (yes there will be more horrible comparisons) it. This is where the film starts to become a film. It’s no longer a bowl of mush; it takes a form. People are putting their thoughts, experiences, and sometimes actual bodies in the film. Who is to say that film is not alive? Alive in the sense that people are influenced by them to the point where they begin to live their lives around them. When girls start looking for John Cusack’s characters in every guy, there is some life force there that inspires. Film has inspired people to attempt assassinations for Christ’s sake! And to finish my comparison of film to a person’s life, one could say that when the film is released in the theaters, it’s out of the writer/director/producer’s hands. He/She just sits back and wonders if their “baby” will succeed in life. That attachment could relate to their ego but it also has that offspring quality.
So what about film having an identity? The topic of us changing ourselves (specifically image) does not really apply to a film. Once a film is officially released, it doesn’t change. There are those rare occassions where someone (example: George Lucas) will add some additional footage and graphics to make their film better. This is similar to a parent not willing to let go and let their child be what they are. It saddens me everytime I see films out that have an extended director’s cut or additional endings. It’s all a novelty to get people to buy the DVD. Chances are if you have to do that then your film sucked to begin with. But I digress. The substance in the film does not change. We hear the same sounds and see the same Grace Kelly from Rear Window now that they heard and saw when it was first released. What changes is how the audience sees it. That’s the identity of a film: what we personally give it. A film is secure with how it looks. Bambi won’t decide that her mother should live and Kevin Spacey would clarify that he is Kayser Soze (or would he?). Throughout time, the identity of a film will change as our culture changes. A perfect example is Birth of a Nation. It was a great film at the time it came out and was shown in the White House. Now it’s almost a sin to watch it because it is so racist and offensive.
Ultimately the life span of a film is determined by its ability to affect others. We’ve seen the recurring loner in the past films we have watched. There is life in that character. Every guy wants to be him. This is just the smallest of examples. There is rarely a film out now that is completely original in everything it does. There is some inspiration from at least another film’s components. Don’t tell me film has no life, no soul. If it doesn’t, then I don’t.