Julie G’s post made me think, too, of how Benjamin would view the latest advancements in computer graphic technology in film, such as recent films completely animated by computer. No longer do the “cartoon” versions of film rely on artists sketching multiple copies and versions of characters to imitate (reproduce?) human features, expressions, movements, etc. Now, entire feature-length films are created without the need for a pencil-to-paper artist (think Shrek, Shark Tale, and all of the dozens of other similarly constructed movies in the last five years or so). Going from people on stage to people in films created enough of a difference in “art”ness. I wonder what his take would be on the original animated films – I picture Disney’s original Sleeping Beauty or Snow White – (imitations of people in films) as a form of art (they were, after all, paintings on cells) and then what his take would be on the new technological move to digital graphics (computer-generated versions of imitations of people in films). I assume he would maintain his film-is-not-(as much)-art stance; however, would he now find films starring people more art-like than animated films? And what about the original animated film versus the digitally produced animation of today? Going even further, what about the animated films that have been digitally enhanced from their original versions (copies/reproductions of imitations of people – one’s head could really get spinning here!)?
The part of Benjamin’s article that I find most interesting in regards to his film/acting discussion is the part that discusses the actor’s part/participation in the film experience. Benjamin quotes Pirandello about the void an actor feels with his “performance”: “ ‘The film actor . . . feels as if in exile – exiled not only from the stage but also from himself . . . his body loses its corporeality, it evaporates, it is deprived of reality, life, voice, and the noises caused by his moving about, in order to be changed into a mute image, flickering an instant on the screen, then vanishing into silence’” (229). I found this description to be (ironically) quite artistic and poetic. The idea that removing the actor from the true, genuine atmosphere of a stage performance (with reactions and interpersonal connections) causes the actor to lose a part of himself (and thus, a part of his art/artfulness) is intriguing. I am sure a great debate exists between film and stage actors over which is the truer form of the profession; though, really, we frequently see film/TV actors dipping their toes into stage acting, and similarly, probably most film actors got their start on the stage of their high school auditorium. I found Benjamin’s discussion of writer/author also interesting (especially in light of the internet age – everyone is now capable of being a published and read author by simply posting a blog!), though I felt that he did not develop that idea nearly as thoroughly as he did his film analysis and would have been interested in reading more along that line.
(PS: Sorry if this posts in two different sizes or fonts – I can’t seem to fix it!)