Pages 8 (2008 words)
Daniel Frampton’s philosophy regarding film is, in essence, that films should not be reduced to its parts. This is because all of the elements of the film make the whole, and the whole of the film is what is important.
Because of this, according to Frampton, a film theorist shouldn’t break a film into pieces – the director was good or bad, or the acting was good or bad, the cinematography was good or bad, etc. If a film theorist breaks the film into its parts, then the film theorist is missing the point – the essence of the film is the thinking of the film. A good film connects with the audience on a primal level, not an aesthetic one. As such, films which provide a new form of reality that substantially different from our own – like a cartoon or other type of animated film, or even a digital film – takes the audience out of the realm of examining the film intuitively, and makes the audience examine the movie more rationally and aesthetically. The exception to this is the digital film that does not recreate reality, but, rather, provides a fresh perspective on the current reality. These films still succeed in getting the audience to engage on a subliminal level, argues Frampton, because these films provide elements which are familiar, yet providing a new twist on reality. Therefore, cinema, to Frampton, is a cousin to reality. This is because it is not far removed from reality. The audience sees the film and is transported into the world of that movie, with all the attendant dreams, nightmares, thoughts and beliefs of the characters. Dicing a film into its parts takes the film out of this reality, and reminds the audience that they are, in fact, watching a movie. If one takes the movie and talks about the great acting and directing, then it is a reminder that the movie isn’t real. At the same time, according to Frampton, movies that have no elements of being real are not successful in engaging the audience on this level. ...