FILM
Cinema is a strange art, probably the strangest ever developed by man. Although conceived in the 19th Century, cinema as art is unique to the Twentieth—the only art developed within contemporary times. Cinema is one of the few exclusively technological arts: i.e., cinema could not exist without tools and machines (I can think of only two other exclusively technological art forms—painting and culpture).
The CREEM Archive presents the magazine as originally created. Digital text has been scanned from its original print format and may contain formatting quirks and inconsistencies.
FILM
James L. Jones
Cinema is a strange art, probably the strangest ever developed by man. Although conceived in the 19th Century, cinema as art is unique to the Twentieth—the only art developed within contemporary times. Cinema is one of the few exclusively technological arts: i.e., cinema could not exist without tools and machines (I can think of only two other exclusively technological art forms—painting and culpture). And lastly; cinema art is a combination of numerous other arts: the art of the director, the art of the editor, the art of the cinematographer, the art of the writer, the art of the actor, etc.
like the term “literature,” “cinema” may be broken down into categorical labels to describe various kinds of cinema. In literature, there is the poem, the fictional narrative, and the non-fictional essay. In cinema, there is the film, the movie, and the documentary. Although most critics ^can distinguish a documentary, I find few critics (indeed, only two—Judith Christ and ' Susan .Stark) who - can distinguish between a film and a movie. It’s disappointing to me to find critics dismissing, say, “2001” as a “boring movie” and hailing “Bonnie and Clyde” as a “great film.”'
By this time, I hope you’re asking yourself “What’s the difference between a movie and a film?” To be honest, the difference is hard to define. To engage in analogy, a film is like a painting and a movie is like a novel. Like a painting, a film endeavors to relate an experience (which should be the purpose of 1 any piece of art) through visual images, whereas a movie, like a novel, is dependent on verbalization to relate the experience.
The two categories are not mutually excliisive-it is possible to have a film that appears to be a movie (“2001”) just as it is possible to have a movie that relies on filmic values (“Bullitt”). Hitchcock is a master at blending the two forms. It is generally hard to tell where a Hitchcock film ends and and Hitchcock movie begins.
I can .remember seeing only five films in the last two years (no wonder: a film is much more difficult to make than is a movie): “2001,” “Persona,” “Hour of the Wolf,” and two surprisers, “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly” arid “Grand Prix.” I: don’t have space enough here to explain my categorizing the last two as films—those who have seen them should try to remember the visual emphasis in them.
All this is just background information so that you, as reader, will know on what grounds I, as critic, base my criticisms of current cinematic offerings. I won’t condemn a film because it isn’t a movie, and vice Versa ( and I realize that such judgement whether, a piece of cinema is a film or movie—is purely subjective on my. part, but what criticism isn’t
subjective?). I’ll praise that which is good and blast that which is bad or pretentious, whether film or movie. And 111 tell you right now, despite what some of the highbrow, critics think, all “films” aren’t ipso facto good and all “movies” aren’t necessarily bad. Each piece, will be judged on its own merits.
Oq this basis, I. offer these first reviews:
