thestig, benjamin

Where is the art in film?

Walter Benjamin compares, in detail, the difference between a stage actor and a movie star; a live performance vs. a feature film: “The artistic performance of a stage actor is definitely presented to the public by the actor in person; that of the screen actor, however, is presented by a camera, with a twofold consequence” (25). This captured my interest because I’m a filmmaker, and am constantly thinking about how lucky I am to have all of the fine editing equipment of this age, which allows me – and other filmmakers alike – to make the final cut to the various scenes we film. On stage, the actor makes the play; on film, the film makes the actor. Just the other day I filmed what came out to be a bunch of 30-second shorts, where I stitched together several takes of the same scene to fulfill the entire 30 seconds. I was able to piece together mistakes to make a clean, smooth flowing short. In creating art, motion picture has the advantage in postproduction, in that the editor can work hard to manipulate a certain response from the audience. Is this an advantage? Is this where we fail to recognize the power of motion picture? Benjamin’s response to this makes me think about the drawbacks to motion picture: “The film actor lacks the opportunity of the stage actor to adjust to the audience during his performance… this permits the audience to take the position of a critic, without experiencing any personal contact with the actor” (25). In essence, the stage actor is able to evoke, through his/her own talents, the message that the audience wants to get – as the audience will be able to critique and get a response directly, whereas the motion picture actor goes through stages and other means of communication (i.e. camera angles, special effects) to evoke a feeling that the director wants the audience to have. How does a filmmaker get the motion picture actor to represent him/herself directly without the critique getting off topic?