Earlier I had written an essay about the difference between time-images and movement-images. To reiterate - a time-image was one that starred the quality of a movie that was time. The shot was a long one, and when it really was cooking we were brought to remember that movies use time.
A movement-image was one that makes one forget time. That it stars how things that certainly do not move so dynamically as the image of them may seem - can seem like they moved. So if we looked at a train and yelled holy shit it is going to come out of that frame and run me over that was an image of starred movement.
Deprogrammed Entertainments
Another post had described how it was an entertainment that such images were in a practice of being starred. The word to recollect as I am writing this is the invisible cut.
Something that was suggested by that look at film history was hollywood style.
A blockbuster was an accident - the story goes that a director accidentally directed a movie that every sort of person could enjoy at the same time. Peak TV - a term coined for saying don’t think too hard about how much TV is not good enough. A blockbuster is a term similarly capitalized. A distinction however is that the blockbuster was not realized or coined as a thought until the accident known as JAWS.
The term has for an abiding concept that there are entertainment blocks. We could think of how television is programmed. A television network would not want to have two shows that are exactly the same airing on the same day. The block that was busted was one where film production companies programmed a negative competition for entertainments. Legally the massive entities that make movies were not allowed to vertically integrate.
However on the example of an entertainment block the programmed was toward declining a horizontal integration. Very simply an entertainment industry is the production of films, their distribution and their exhibition. A block then was I should think film distributors cooperating with film exhibitors, that is, movie theaters. A programmed entertainment block was just one where different genres of movies played at the same time. The wonderful accident of the busted block was that nobody went to see any other kind of movie except that one movie JAWS.
Horror has an adjacent genre called the Thriller. Oddly, it just seems to describe a kind of horror movie that lacks something I should recall from the essay I wrote about a possible other genre: Extreme. Movies that do not star a dreadful thing also fantastical. Personally I don’t quite see it - that a thriller is just a horror movie that is a crime movie doesn’t quite make sense.
My question is - was a thriller just some horror movie missing a core component dread?
Punch Lights
JAWS - maybe you’ve heard this before - isn’t scary. What you’ve definitely heard about it before is that people who saw it were so scared of it they stopped going to the beach. Steven Speilberg’s filmography is discussed in terms of blockbusterdom. Almost as if there is an insulated category of director from what other people qualify as the serious ones. As has been addressed. An entertainment is a quality - a qualified one - for thinking about all the big ideas.
I should say why I don’t say the name of the game is horribleness is because of the selectability of the term horror has a kind of abject nothingness declarative. Not quite fear not quite I’m scared though saying if it were scary - pretty good qualifying question. Dread was a word that distinguishes itself from the vagaries of what is a fear, and that a scare describes an extremity of terror.
Dread takes place in a corporeality. Movies ain’t quite real, movies is definitely confusable for they is giving me a real feeling, reality also: deeply confusing. Dread was the word for I’m over here in a movie that is a big fucking picture on the wall over there and there was emotions and I’m having many. Not just many but that it was a recirculation. The abject nothingness declared by horribleness is often the gratuitousness of movies that are not scary enough to be the good ones. Often the supposed corporeality understood of the horrible-y horror movie is that sure, you’re over there in the audience, the movie is over here on a screen, you have baggage, and the movie is a baggage, and so they circle a drain.
Stephen Spielbergs film are great examples of Thrillers that are good ones. As has been demonstrated in a previous essay certain movies coordinating the genre thriller that is, like, the HANNIBAL series, are definitely horror movies. One thing presupposed about entertainments is that they make audiences dumb. If it is stupid to recognize qualities, dangers, things in life that should be there and things in life that should not be there then it is a world of despair.
JAWS is a delightful movie. A delightful movie that made it so nobody could even look at one of the fulfilled states of matter, the greatest one across the entire planet earth without being scared. What that movie doesn’t do is just be a horror movie by the beach. It also does not mythologize that there is a creature of the deep. Though its sequences are certainly ordered through on a shocking truth. That there be creatures of the deeps.
Previously an invisible cut was able to be demonstrated within an abiding film technique: matching eyelines such that there are not jump cuts expressed. That is a pretty barebones way of saying it. The starred minutes of an invisible cut are, I should say, quite inside of the Speilberg style.
Against A World Of Despair
For no good reason - here are a number of thrills: survival tactics.
Strike
On
Parlay
Hoist
Team
Breach
Stunt
More on this story as it develops.
The name of the game is More.
No comments:
Post a Comment