another form of literature

[simona]

Do you think that good films can be literature?

[emily655321]

Well, literature is defined as the written word. So, no.

Did you mean to ask whether films can be considered art?

[simona]

Well, literature is defined as the written word. So, no.

Did you mean to ask whether films can be considered art?

Film is definitely an art, and I think that it has some common characteristics with literature. To make a film you need words too, only that those words are not written, are spoken,are shown. Literature creates in our mind another world, the film director creates too another world, which, if we like it, we can take it and develop it.
I think film may be the art that involves all the other six arts.

[The Unnamable]

Well, literature is defined as the written word. So, no.
Ever heard of oral Literature? What about a drama script? Is Hamlet Literature if I read it but not if I watch it performed? You can read a film script if you wish. What about radio plays? Is Branagh’s film of Hamlet a film, Literature, both or neither?

simona, if you mean ‘should films be assigned the same status as Literature?’, I would say yes. From John Ford to Krzysztof Kieslowski, there are many films that deserve to be recognised as having the same characteristics we ascribe to Literature.

[Bastet]

Don't forget that every film is based on a written script, and that a script for a film is the FIRST thing that's made. So, like The Unnamable said, maybe we should try to consider it in the light of a drama script that's interpreted.

[emily655321]

That is certainly an interesting perspective that I hadn't thought of before.

I suppose I think of the question from the perspective of a visual artist. When I think of film, I think mainly of lighting and cinematography. The parts that I recall most are the visual, and when remembering a certain line I first have to remember the composition of the shot, then which actor was speaking, then I almost have to lip-read what they were saying to remember it. Whereas, if my boyfriend—a screenwriter—were to answer the question, he might do so first with the script in mind.

I agree with you, Simona, that film could be seen as an amalgam of various forms of art. (Although the only "six arts" I'm familiar with are the Six Arts of Confucius—ritual, music, archery, charioteering, calligraphy, and arithmetic—and I don't see many big charioteering scenes in movies these days. Unless you want to count car chases, but I digress. :p) But as far as visual art, theater, literature, choreography, and music, *counts on fingers—that's five* yes, I agree film certainly incorporates literature.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it literature in itself, though. It takes eggs to make a cake, but you wouldn't call a cake an egg.

[blp]

Buñuel said that to make a good film you needed three things, 'A good script, a good script and a good script' - a lesson the neophyte filmmakers at open fora like Exploding Cinema and OMSK I used to attend here in London badly needed to learn. The script matters and the script is literature. After that, you can still screw it up in a dozen ways, from mise en scéne to peformance, on which note, I too find myself thinking of Branagh's Hamlet. **shudders** Unnamaable (or anyone else for that matter), have you seen Tony Richardson's Hamlet shot at the Roundhouse in the (I think) seventies? It's killer.

[PeterL]

Screen plays are literature, but movies are a different medium

[Mark F.]

No, screenplays aren't literature, they are not a "finished product", they're only a tool destined to be read by producers, directors, actors...Fiction films and literature share one main thing in common, story telling. Keep in mind that some films don't have screenplays and many dialogues are improvised by the actors.

Screenplays are also written in a very specific way, everything must be visual, you can't make digressions or talk about what's going on inside a character's mind because it won't be seen on the screen.

Plays weren't always written down, but over the last hundred years I think the way of writing plays has changed very much. When you read "The Crucible" and you come across some paragraphs in the middle of an act where Miller explains what he's trying create you realise that some plays are meant to be read as much as to be seen.

[Geoffrey]

Just recently I have been reading black snow by Mikhail Bulgakov and it is a 'theatrical novel' but I'm not really sure exactly what that means... its written just as a normal novel but it is rather... theatrical. Could someone fill me in?

[SheykAbdullah]

I would say yes, using the argument the Unnamed said, and as to the script being in some way unfinished, I am not sure. That would be like saying a play by Shakespeare is unfinished.

There was a very famous film noir piece called The Third Man that was shown in '49. It, and many other films, was written by one of the most famous authors of the thirties, Graham Greene. As a matter of fact, and this also addresses the idea of a script being 'unfinished', Greene originally wrote a novella of the story, but unlike many pieces of literature turned scripts the novella was never intended to be published. It was written specifically so that a script could be genereated. Greene said his reasoning for this was that he could never just sit down and write a script without a piece to work from. He said that the challenge to produce real dialogue from scratch was just too difficult without a background, so in this case the novella itself was unfinished, and the finished product IS the script.

As for Miller and modern playwrights putting intropspection into characters in his script, which is something I have done with plays and one acts I have written, the idea is not for the independant reader to understand the character, but for the ACTOR to get direction as to the character's motivations, just in case the playwright may have left something ambiguous.

[Mark F.]

Interesting points but I still feel that while some plays are meant to be read, screenplays aren't. Many more people read plays than screenplays, and most of the screenplays you can actually buy are either reviewed versions or novelisations.

What makes great films great isn't usually the script. While a good script can make a movie look good despite bad directing, only good directing can make a truly great film. If a film depends more on its literary strengths than its visual ones, it should have been a novel instead.

[simona]

Could someone define literature?

[emily655321]

literature

n 1: creative writing of recognized artistic value 2: the humanistic study of a body of literature; "he took a course in Russian lit" [syn: lit] 3: published writings in a particular style on a particular subject; "the technical literature"; "one aspect of Waterloo has not yet been treated in the literature" 4: the profession or art of a writer; "her place in literature is secure"

Emily's summary of the above: writing; something written (esp. creative writing).

[beer good]

Could someone define literature?
Well, some people have tried... http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15348

[blp]

Why did you ask this, simona? In a way, I wonder if the question matters; if a film is good, it's good. Who cares if it's literature or not? But I also like it because I'm a writer interested in film and I think the textual element of film is constantly, subtly denigrated. To give an example off the top of my head, you often hear that tough guy US actors like Lee Marvin or Steve McQueen leave out huge chunks of the scripted dialogue and let their physical reactions (or lack of them) do the work. Mark F talks about the visual element and of course it's true that script notes reading 'leans on the piano smoking while Sam plays "As Time Goes By"' or 'All main characters, wearing identical black suits and ties, walk the length of the diner car park' won't have quite the power of the moving images that results from them. But except in the case of rather abstruse art films like the work of Paradjanov or Kenneth Anger, the idea that films are largely series of striking images is a myth. Numerous great films strive to be efficient visually rather than perpetually striking and when directors over-egg the visuals, the results are often damned as being too much like pop videos. I'd say that both Casablanca and Reservoir Dogs are fairly downbeat visually, bar a few key shots, but both have brilliantly constructed scripts full of beautifully judged, often memorable dialogue. The question was whether film could be literature, not, whether all of it is.

[simona]

Why did you ask this, simona? In a way, I wonder if the question matters; if a film is good, it's good. Who cares if it's literature or not?
The question was whether film could be literature, not, whether all of it is.

I can't explain why I've asked this, all I know is that film has something in common with literature, and this is not the script( not necessarly). You can make a film in your mind while reading. You can see the characters, the costumes, all the images. Tou can hear the music. I know that a real film involves much more than this, but everything startes in someone's mind.
I don't know if someone really understands what I want to say, but I don't care. It is hard for me to express what I think in Romanian language, and in English it's almost impossible.
Any way, you are right:"if a film is good, it's good".

[blp]

Right on cue, from today's Guardian:

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1754139,00.html

I particularly like the thing about the visual element being a given rather than something to which the director perpetually needs to draw attention.

I like what you say, simona, problems expressing yourself or not. In a funny sort of way, it might be the reverse of what I'm saying (though not a contradiction). Where I'm arguing that a big part of film is written, you seem to be saying that a big part of a piece of writing may be a sense of materiality and, perhaps, of space - something with which I'd agree.

[PeterL]

No, screenplays aren't literature, they are not a "finished product", they're only a tool destined to be read by producers, directors, actors...Fiction films and literature share one main thing in common, story telling. Keep in mind that some films don't have screenplays and many dialogues are improvised by the actors.

Screenplays are also written in a very specific way, everything must be visual, you can't make digressions or talk about what's going on inside a character's mind because it won't be seen on the screen.

Plays weren't always written down, but over the last hundred years I think the way of writing plays has changed very much. When you read "The Crucible" and you come across some paragraphs in the middle of an act where Miller explains what he's trying create you realise that some plays are meant to be read as much as to be seen.

OK, some screenplays and most plays are literature, regardless of that, film is a different medium from the written word.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

To me, one of the biggest differences between a book and a film is that the film has gone that much further down the road of presenting a finished article to the audience. No book fills in every detail - the reader's mind does that - the book provides merely as much as the author feels is necessary in order to get his point across. Similarly with film - but in this case there is a visual element which provides extra layers of detail. Still though, there is scope (in the best films - I'm not referring to Home Alone or Meet the Parents here) for the watcher to add to the experience.

I am glad that blp brought up Casablanca, because it is one of my all time favourite films. But what exactly does Rick refer to when he says, "We'll always have Paris."? Did they 'get it on' there or didn't they? There is much that is implied and left to the imagination. Similarly, what actually happens in Rick's apartment between him and Ilsa? She is certainly making a direct offer of sex in return for the visas - does Rick accept her offer? or does his conscience overrule his libido? This (to the ultimate credit of the film) is never made clear.

To me, this kind of ambiguity is equal to the "Was Hamlet mad or just pretending?" dichotomy in Shakespeare.

So my answer is that film can equal 'literature' (whatever that is) in greatness. Sadly, just as in books, it rarely achieves it.

[Pensive]

The difference between books and films to me is: You have to picture or imagine events by yourself in books but in movies, they are already pictured. For example, you read Wuthering Heights, You see Catherine Earnshaw as obstinate and etc, but you need to picture her, even if explanation of her character is given, you need to create an atmosphere but in films, they are already infront of you. (Hehe, probably, my explanation of difference between films and books looks silly, but thats that I have understood)

Well, the original topic that we are talking about is that can "good films" be considered as a form of literature?

To answer this, first of all I will say that not every good novel is literature. Look at the "worst books you have ever read" thread. So, good is dropped and then remained, Can films be a form of literature?

I don't agree with it. Film is an art but not literature. It's script can be considered as literature but not the performed play.

I looked at the dictionary, LITERATURE is defined as written works in there. So according to my Oxford dictionary and my own sense, "films" whether good or bad can't be literature.

[Mark F.]

Numerous great films strive to be efficient visually rather than perpetually striking and when directors over-egg the visuals, the results are often damned as being too much like pop videos. I'd say that both Casablanca and Reservoir Dogs are fairly downbeat visually, bar a few key shots, but both have brilliantly constructed scripts full of beautifully judged, often memorable dialogue. The question was whether film could be literature, not, whether all of it is.

Construction isn't literary, it's part of story telling, paintings, sculptures, films, plays all require different types of structuring. An example of a narrative structure better adapted to film than to novels is the flashback, likewise, narrative inticacies are easier to exploit in writing than through pure visual narration.

Dialogue isn't what sets film apart from the other arts, and only became one of the main aspects in the 1930's. Check out "The Last Laugh", a film with nearly no "worded" parts at all. No dialogue and hardly any indications. The film is a masterpiece and that's due to its striking visuals and to the story, but once again stories aren't literature. That's just one of many examples, there are others pertaining to the post-silent era such as some of Chaplin's films ("Modern Times").

On your last remark I agree with you, in a way. All arts converge, have things in common and singularities which make each one interesting. I think Welles said that cinema had more to do with music than any other art.

[blp]

Construction isn't literary, it's part of story telling, paintings, sculptures, films, plays all require different types of structuring. An example of a narrative structure better adapted to film than to novels is the flashback, likewise, narrative inticacies are easier to exploit in writing than through pure visual narration.

Dialogue isn't what sets film apart from the other arts, and only became one of the main aspects in the 1930's. Check out "The Last Laugh", a film with nearly no "worded" parts at all. No dialogue and hardly any indications. The film is a masterpiece and that's due to its striking visuals and to the story, but once again stories aren't literature. That's just one of many examples, there are others pertaining to the post-silent era such as some of Chaplin's films ("Modern Times").

On your last remark I agree with you, in a way. All arts converge, have things in common and singularities which make each one interesting. I think Welles said that cinema had more to do with music than any other art.

And Andre Bazin said it was essentially a spatial medium. If you read that Guardian article I posted, which I highly recommend, it makes the point excellently that film is the medium that incorporates all the others. YOu could say it has no essence.

Of course you can point to films that have no dialogue and are great, but that doesn't go any way to addressing the question of whether film could be literature. The things I was talking about were literary elements that were in a lot of films.

I think you're on rather thin ice trying to insist in your Greenbergian way that film somehow has a duty to its supposedly essential characteristics. Again, to refer to that Guardian piece, there are plenty of examples of filmed plays making great films, as well as films that could have been plays but never were (again, I think Reservoir Dogs is a good example). As novels being less suited to novels than films, I dunno - novels aren't bad at flashbacks. You could have picked a better example - jump cuts, say, or those funny moments when the screen goes all wobbly and a fantasy sequence starts. But all you're saying with this is that film is a different medium from the novel and, sorry, but I think most of us may have realised that. If you think literature is just words on paper, you might as well drop the subject right now. But, as Unnamable pointed out by referring to oral literature, it has not been ever thus.

[blp]

I looked at the dictionary, LITERATURE is defined as written works in there. So according to my Oxford dictionary and my own sense, "films" whether good or bad can't be literature.

But films are written, Pensive. Many many of them are written.

[Mark F.]

As much as I agree with you that all literature isn't written, I also think that all written things aren't literature. I think of a scenario as more of a blueprint to the film, a second draft of a novel. At the risk of repeating myself, I'm not saying that there isn't an element of literature in film, of course there is, there are many, the first that comes to mind is dialogue. But the title of the thread is "another form of literature" which I don't think film is, a form of literature could be the novel, the short story and the essay. For me anyway.

[Mark F.]

Concerning the article you posted, and the discussion about the "visual" aspect of cinema, I don't know Rivette very well but I have seen parts of "Paris Nous Appartient" and I can assure you that I clearly remember that at least one of the scenes I saw uses parallel editing, which is highly cinematic. I guess you could achieve more or less the same thing through writing but it wouldn't be as powerful.

When I said that cinema should use its visual aspect I didn't mean that it should use the glamorous, shiny mtv image that is now the norm. I meant that the story should be told primarily through what we see, Kubrick, Bergman, Kurosawa's films are all told visually even though they contain dialogue and other literary elements.

[blp]

When I said that cinema should use its visual aspect I didn't mean that it should use the glamorous, shiny mtv image that is now the norm. I meant that the story should be told primarily through what we see, Kubrick, Bergman, Kurosawa's films are all told visually even though they contain dialogue and other literary elements.

So that means they're better than Rohmer, Godard, Cassavetes, Eustache, Marker or Buñuel, for all of whom textual elements play a much bigger role and who often play down the visual? I happen to prefer all of these directors to the ones you listed, but I'd never say that writing, or anything else should be privileged in film.

Would you say that comics can be literature?

[Mark F.]

I'm not saying that one director is better than an other, but to answer your first question I like Chris Marker, don't like Godard and Bunuel and haven't seen any films by the others that I remember (except an interview of Renoir and Langlois on the Lumière films by Rohmer).

Comics aren't a form of literature but do incorporate elements just like film. They also incorporate drawing, but I wouldn't consider comic books a form of painting like cubism for example. They're an independent form of art. I'm afraid I don't associate literature and narration the way you seem to, to me they're really two different things. But I see where you're coming from and agree that cinema and literature share many things in common, but I think it's wrong to say that cinema is a form of literature because it would be limiting what cinema is.

[blp]

don't like Godard and Bunuel

:eek:!!!!!!! This conversation is over.

Well, alright, it probably is actually, though not because I take that much offense. But I might suggest you look again.

[Mark F.]

I don't like Godard because he's a pretrencious guy. He has interesting things to say as a film critic (though he's not saying them anymore) but Pierrot le Fou and A Bout de Souffle are very over-rated. I'm not saying they're bad films, just not the masterpieces they're made out to be. I don't know Bunuel very well but the few things I've seen didn't seem that great. I haven't gotten around to watching his early colaborations with Dali though, and would like to check them out.

If you feel offended by people who don't think like you do and only have conversations with people who share your tastes, you're probably enjoying a life full of one way discussions that make you feel very enlightened. I suppose I should envy you, instead I'll just suggest you rethink the way you listen to what people have to say.

No offense meant by the way. Just my own stupid way of pointing out that I was enjoying talking with you while I still thought that this discussion was constructive and you weren't trying to impose your own opinion. If it makes you feel happy I'll just say that I finally completely agree with you on this one mate.

[PeterL]

After having gone without seeing movies for quite a while, I have watched several recently. I found that movies are a very different experience from reading. In addition, the cognitive processes involved in reading and watching movies are different. I won't go into all of the details, but reading requires a person to ork harder to process the material. Movies feed preprocessed images at the viewer. Reading is active, while viewing is passive.

[Mark F.]

Not all viewing is passive. Actually, people have become so used to watching tv and films that they don't even realise that they're working out relations between shots while watching a movie. At the beginning of the century it wasn't so easy because people weren't used to editing, which is why films were only made in one shot for the first couple of years. Some films demand the viewer's participation, like some of Johan Van Der Keuken's movies for example. I'm not so sure all reading is that active either. Lets say that reading a Dan Brown novel doesn't require the same efforts as reading poetry. But yeah, both artforms are conceived and experienced in different ways.

[PeterL]

Not all viewing is passive. Actually, people have become so used to watching tv and films that they don't even realise that they're working out relations between shots while watching a movie. At the beginning of the century it wasn't so easy because people weren't used to editing, which is why films were only made in one shot for the first couple of years. Some films demand the viewer's participation, like some of Johan Van Der Keuken's movies for example.

Perhaps watching movies is something that people have to learn how to do. If so, I haven't learned yet. I perceive them as images that are preformed in the way that the director, etc. want the viewer to receive the images.



I'm not so sure all reading is that active either. Lets say that reading a Dan Brown novel doesn't require the same efforts as reading poetry. But yeah, both artforms are conceived and experienced in different ways.

I haven't read anything by Dan Brown, so I don't know how easy he is to read. But even Dan Brown requires that the reader associate other works with his books. Just think of the associations that J. K. Rowling requires her readers to make.

[Mark F.]

Agreed. I'm not saying a Dan Brown reader is passive, just that both the viewer and the reader can be actif, how actif depends more on what they're reading or watching than on the form itself.

Concerning your first point I suppose you're right because it's easier to be passif when watching a film than when reading a novel.

[RobinHood3000]

Personally, I feel that scripts and screenplays are definitely literature. I have one in the works right now, so I may be biased, but scripts require as intensive a drafting and editing process as do prose and poetry, and often convey themes and ideas of equal depth (and often not, as the case is with prose and poetry).

Comic books are a somewhat more complex matter. The final product, to me, equates to literature because it is the embodiment in words and pictures of complex thought on paper. As far as I'm concerned, it's a heavily illustrated book. In fact, the execution of a graphic novel is often more challenging as a medium than a novel (as an example), due primarily to its terse nature.

The comic book SCRIPT (yes, they have them), however, is hard to peg as literature, largely because scripts can be so varied. More often than not, comic book scripts contain words directly addressed to the pencil/ink/color guys, and thus is a conglomeration of descriptions and memos. Yet at the same time, the descriptions contained therein are the product of a comprehensive thought process on the part of the author with the end in mind of choosing the images best suited to conveying a narrative. At this point, I'm happy to leave it somewhere in the middle ground.

[PeterL]

Concerning your first point I suppose you're right because it's easier to be passif when watching a film than when reading a novel.

Most films are designed ao that watchers can be passive receivers.

[ennison]

Bulgakov did a great deal of work for the theatre. A stage version of his fantastic novel 'The White Guard' was Stalin's favourite for quite some time and that fact helped to preserve Bulgakov during the Great Terror of atheist communism.

[Arguendo]

"Most films" are not designed for the viewer to be passive. Most entertainment films, sure, but they're not the majority of films made - just the majority of films watched.

Anyway. At my uni, the department of literature also taught film theory and gaming theory. Narratologically speaking, films and games can be viewed as literature, but to take nothing but narratology into consideration gets a bit too narrowed down for my taste.

I did, however, take a computer gaming theory course while writing my BA thesis on electronic literature, and marvelled at learning how alike the narrative can be in all three genres.

[masterlibrarian]

Hi
I think that is a substantial difference beetwin films, theatre or games and literature, 'cause the first three are works that consist in a script directly translated into images and sound.
Reading a book is a personal act that transform the words into images and sounds using the imagination of the reader.
A shakespeare drama is literature, but become something different (theatre) when is performed by actors. So I don't think that films or theatre can be defined as literature, they are a different art.

[Empty_Highways]

"Most films" are not designed for the viewer to be passive. Most entertainment films, sure, but they're not the majority of films made - just the majority of films watched.

Anyway. At my uni, the department of literature also taught film theory and gaming theory. Narratologically speaking, films and games can be viewed as literature, but to take nothing but narratology into consideration gets a bit too narrowed down for my taste.

I did, however, take a computer gaming theory course while writing my BA thesis on electronic literature, and marvelled at learning how alike the narrative can be in all three genres.

I am currently writing a paper on the subject of games as literature. I tend to fall on the narratological side of the fence; I tend to disagree with a lot of the theories proposed by ludologists. Anyhow, I was wondering if you would mind reading it when I finish? An honest opinion from someone with knowledge of the subject would be appreciated.

[Empty_Highways]

"Most films" are not designed for the viewer to be passive. Most entertainment films, sure, but they're not the majority of films made - just the majority of films watched.

Anyway. At my uni, the department of literature also taught film theory and gaming theory. Narratologically speaking, films and games can be viewed as literature, but to take nothing but narratology into consideration gets a bit too narrowed down for my taste.

I did, however, take a computer gaming theory course while writing my BA thesis on electronic literature, and marvelled at learning how alike the narrative can be in all three genres.

PS

You're right in the heart of it, aren't you?

[Arguendo]

I am currently writing a paper on the subject of games as literature. I tend to fall on the narratological side of the fence; I tend to disagree with a lot of the theories proposed by ludologists. Anyhow, I was wondering if you would mind reading it when I finish? An honest opinion from someone with knowledge of the subject would be appreciated.
I'd love to! Plus, I get an excuse to brush up on the theory. Mmmm, gaming and narratology theory.


PS

You're right in the heart of it, aren't you?
In the heart of what? You lost me there, I'm afraid.

[Empty_Highways]

I'd love to! Plus, I get an excuse to brush up on the theory. Mmmm, gaming and narratology theory.


In the heart of what? You lost me there, I'm afraid.

Sorry about that, my brain is a bit twisted up from work and such. I meant that game studies are a relatively new field, and a lot of the real work that's being done right now is taking place in Norway.

I live in North Dakota, and a professor was just telling me how they rejected an application because the person did their thesis on game studies. Unfortunately, people aren't too open to the idea yet here. Surprise, surprise, right?

[Arguendo]

Sorry about that, my brain is a bit twisted up from work and such. I meant that game studies are a relatively new field, and a lot of the real work that's being done right now is taking place in Norway.

I live in North Dakota, and a professor was just telling me how they rejected an application because the person did their thesis on game studies. Unfortunately, people aren't too open to the idea yet here. Surprise, surprise, right?
Ah. Espen Aarseth has done a lot to open academic eyes, and Jørgen Kirksæther adds an enormous amount of enthusiasm and a fair few interesting ideas, so... Kirksæther gave a lecture when I did my wee bit of game studies, and he's brilliant. I haven't really paid much attention to the field the last couple of years, but it is hugely interesting

Goodness. Out of touch with trends in media studies, are we? I can imagine the uproar the first time a research fellow in spe submitted a film studies project.

[Jolly McJollyso]

Do you think that good films can be literature?
No, but film theory is based on literary theory, so I'd call them related.