FILM ART AND FILMMAKING

or35060_ch01.qxd 7/19/06 8:10 AM Page 3
films that aimed only to be entertaining opened up new possibilities for film editing.
As for the matter of value, it’s clear that popular traditions can foster art of high
quality. Just as Shakespeare and Dickens wrote for a broad audience, much of the
greatest twentieth-century music, including jazz and the blues, was rooted in popular
traditions. Cinema is an art because it offers filmmakers ways to design experiences
for viewers, and those experiences can be valuable regardless of their
pedigree. Films for audiences both small and large belong to that very inclusive art
we call cinema.
Sometimes, too, people treat film art as opposed to film as a business. This split
is related to the issue of entertainment, since entertainment generally is sold to a
mass audience. Again, however, in most modern societies, no art floats free of economic
ties. Novels good, bad, or indifferent are published because publishers expect
to sell them. Painters hope that collectors and museums will acquire their
work. True, some artworks are subsidized through taxes or private donations, but
that process too involves the artist in a financial transaction. Films are no different.
Some movies are made in the hope that consumers will pay to see them. Others are
funded by patronage (an investor or organization wants to see the film made) or
public monies (France, for instance, generously subsidizes film projects). Even if
you decide to make your own digital movie, you face the problem of paying for it—
and you may hope to earn a little extra for all your time and effort.
The crucial point is that considerations of money don’t necessarily make the
artist any less creative or the project any less worthwhile. Money can corrupt any
line of business (consider politics), but it doesn’t have to. In Renaissance Italy,
painters were commissioned by the Catholic church to illustrate events from the
Bible. Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci worked for hire, but it would be hard
to argue that it hurt their artistry.
Here we won’t assume that film art precludes entertainment. We won’t take the
opposite position either—claiming that only Hollywood mass-market movies are
worth our attention. Similarly we don’t think that film art rises above commercial
demands, but we also won’t assume that money rules everything. Any art form offers
a vast range of creative possibilities. Our basic assumption is that as an art, film
offers experiences that viewers find worthwhile—diverting, provocative, puzzling,
or rapturous. But how do films do that?
Film Artistry in Shadow of a Doubt
Uncle Charlie has come to visit his sister’s family in Santa Rosa, California. Charlie
is a man of the world, flashing money around freely. His sister Emmy adores him
and has even named her daughter Charlie in his honor. But as Uncle Charlie lingers
in town, Little Charlie begins to believe that he’s a serial killer who preys on rich
widows. She can’t prove it—the film’s title is Shadow of a Doubt—but she now
sees his menacing side.
One night at dinner, Uncle Charlie praises small-town living. Women keep
busy in towns like Santa Rosa, he says, not like the rich, spoiled women one finds
in cities. He slowly slips into a venomous monologue.
And what do the wives do, these useless women? You see them in the hotels, the best
hotels, every day by the thousands. Drinking the money, eating the money, losing the
money at bridge, playing all day and all night. Smelling of money. Proud of their jewelry
but nothing else. Horrible...fat,faded, greedy women.
Reacting to this, Little Charlie blurts out, “But they’re alive! They’re human
beings!” Uncle Charlie replies, “Are they? Are they, Charlie? Are they human or are
they fat, wheezing animals? And what happens to animals when they get too fat and
too old?” As if realizing he’s gone too far, Uncle Charlie smiles and switches back
to his ingratiating manner.
Film Artistry in Shadow of a Doubt 3
“There are two kinds of directors: those
who have the public in mind when
they conceive and make their films,
and those who don’t consider the
public at all. For the former, cinema is
an art of spectacle; for the latter, it is
an individual adventure. There is
nothing intrinsically better about one
or the other; it’s simply a matter of
different approaches.”
— François Truffaut, director, Jules and Jim