CONFUSION about what MOVIES really are. . .
The word 'movies' is a vernacular reference which popped up pretty early in the history of filmmaking. Before movies moved they were still photographs.
But those still photographs began moving, didn't they?
Yes, they did!
Movies MOVED long before they began to SPEAK.
When they began talking, they became "TALKIES."
Ah the brilliance!
I don't really know what they are today other than a bafflement to many critics who seem to feel they alone know the secret.
But, they don't.
Read on . . .
Movies are a VISUAL medium which exists in time. Just like music.
(I want you to put a Post-it note on that sentence, will you?) You'll find out soon enough why.
What does NOT exist in time is the written word. A slow reader can read S-L-O-W-L-Y. A fastreadercanreadveryquickly!
Is that important? Yes.
Before Radio, music recordings, and movies people READ books.
Now pause. . .
Who controls how fast you read and how quickly you understand? YOU DO!
However, when radio came along and acted out stories which people had read, the pace quickened. (How do you get a whole book into a half hour radio show?)
Movies came along and the tempo quickened apace. (i.e. quickly)
When music was added to the soundtrack of movies a continuum of storytelling entered the consciousness of human beings for THE VERY FIRST TIME.
So what?
So this. . .
Movies are a visual medium which are misunderstood by critics and audiences and filmmakers quite often.
Those frustrated with film don't know why--but they think they know--something is often 'just not right' with what they experience when they sit in the audience.
Critics often ASSume the flaw is in the storytelling, the plotting, the editing, the THIS-ing and the THAT-ing. (Fill in your own best theory.)
No. No. And NO.
The perfect film is VISUAL. Remove the sound and you can understand everything perfectly just from what you SEE onscreen. Words, exposition, explanations, plot summaries by characters VIOLATE the visual nature of movies. (It doesn't MOVE, you see.)
Silent films inserted dialog cards with conversation and transitional information on a separate stretch of film in between the visuals. It was clumsy and ham-handed for a reason. It was not visually interesting!
The best early TALKIES were singers and dancers, chases, pratfalls, as well as any active motion which could be introduced. The motion and the sound were synchronized to prevent SLOWING DOWN the scenes.
That didn't last long. Filmmakers with a strong sense of culture wished to inject literature and classicism into movies. European composers were brought in to inject classic ROMANTIC orchestral scores. (Or a facsimile.)
European actors, directors, etc. lent an air of 'importance' to what was essentially an American invention gone off the rails.
Critics for movies aped the classical music highbrow critics by fault-finding and making arch commentary which belittled the whole enterprise of movie-making.
Studios began making IMPORTANT films every once and awhile to keep the critics at bay. NOVELS were turned into movies. It was hoped that great and popular novels made great and popular films.
------Meh.----
The films which were MOSTLY VISUAL worked the magic.
The films which relied on talking heads and long speechifying. . . not so much.
(Non-visual.)
Along came Orson Welles and used many visual tricks to solve his central mystery ("Who is Rosebud?")
If you only listen to the AUDIO of CITZEN KANE you'll discover it to be a radio program which virtually plays itself out.) However, the striking visuals were the double-whammy.
Has movie-making learned the lesson of Orson Welles' CITIZEN KANE?
Sometimes and by accident.
You see, there are really two streams of audiences for motion pictures.
The intellectual and the popular.
Intellectuals want a solid story well-told, with perfect continuity and cleverly plotted.
Popular movie lovers want EXCITING VISUALS with a story.
What are the most popular films of all time as far as money earned?
Are they talkfests with pictures or are they visual feasts with dialog?
I'm going to attach a list from MOJO of the 100 top-grossing films of all time.
Go through the list and separate the MOSTLY VISUAL from the MOSTLY STORY films.
I think you'll realize my point.
Which is?
DON'T LET INTELLECTUAL CRITICS review Popular Films!
Would you listen to a country music critic's review of a Rolling Stones album?
Oh--excuse me--there is no such thing.
Country music fans simply relax and enjoy the music!
Popular film lovers just relax and enjoy VISUAL movies.
The FANBOYS are the (excuse my use of the word) INTELLECTUAL hoople-heads who destroy movies for the rest of us by nitpicking the plot, construction, continuity, etc. instead of simply relaxing and enjoying THE VISUALS!
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/
(n scanning the list, I'd place THE DA VINCI CODE in the mostly prattle department. It's success was driven by a runaway best-selling nonsense book. Next, THE SIXTH SENSE was mostly plot-driven with a dynamite twist ending (like an O Henry story.) LIF OF PI was a stunningly visual rendition of a wonderful novel. It is the Citizen Kane of the group.)