First of all, I was almost floored by what she said about cinema being the new art form that is a composite of the old ones (in that it consists of dramatization, text/dialogue, music, and visual imagery).  I thought, “Yea, of course!” But it almost seems like too grand a claim to be justifiable.  Is it possible that cinema includes all these features, but does so only minimally, so that instead of having the potential for becoming a great, all-inclusive new artistic medium, cinema might actually be guilty of taking, and in some way cheapening, the defining features of the traditional media?

Text, for instance, in cinema becomes mostly just dialogue (with the rare monologue, or the narrative “over voice").  But isn’t there something in the experience of the written art forms that demands a printed text?  The movie portrays everything directly to the senses of sight and hearing, whereas the written word portrays nothing to the senses, but relies upon the reader’s imagination to conjure all that the words evoke.  That--the provocation of the audience’s imagination--seems to be what the movie medium leaves out, and if that’s the case, it’s a pretty huge omission. 

I’m not sure of any of this, but like I said, just fearing that it might be the case.  If anyone can set me straight--disabuse me of my skepticism--I’d be grateful.  I would really like to believe that cinema has the potential to be a vehicle for our artistic Renaissance, but...it could be wishful thinking.

Jessica

BTW - EDB is known and well liked at Marquette, and some catalogues have strategically “appeared” around the Theology Dept since we came back from our holiday trip home…