Quote:
Originally Posted by neverending
Film is viewed as a primarily visual medium and in general filmmakers try to frame debates in the events and images of the films themselves, instead of people standing around talking to each other. Or, even more often, a film will present a thesis and allow the debate to take place within the viewer's head, or afterwards between viewers.
|
That's very true, Lee. As a matter of fact, that was the first rule I was given in my video/film/tv classes: "don't say it, show it". Good films are actually successful in allowing the viewer to virtually experience important, and even complex, experiences/issues visually.
In Art Studio, my art teacher told us we'd be learning the fundemental techniques, and "rules", of media and composition. And that we're encouraged to break any of the rules if it works.
As you say, film is viewed primarily as a visual medium; and we accept it evolved to having piano accompaniment, and text dialogue, and eventually complete surround sound audio of ambience, speaking and music.
Today there are many fine dialogue driven films, such as When Harry Met Sally, On Golden Pond, etc. Some films have a component of people sitting down discussing things. Whatever accomplishes the entertainment/concept goal is what works.
All that aside, when I was asking if any films contemplate/discuss/etc the concept of revenge, I never meant literally talking about (although that does happen in film), I just meant actual contemplation of revenge, as opposed to films that merely used revenge as a setting to terrorise/kill people.