Filmmaking is definitely not a one sided affair where only the director-crew-cast alone speak the ‘film’. In fact, the other end -Audience- plays the most significant role. Hence identifying them as an intelligent companion from the time a concept is conceived in mind is vital for realizing a meaningful movie. Audience are not fools anymore to accept anything and everything being spoon fed by filmmaker.
All of us had seen brilliantly done 2D and 3D animation films. That can be considered as the technical representatio
n of 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional spaces. But what is a real 3 dimensional film considering filmmaking as an art form and a medium of communication? A film in which the director identifies his audience intelligent enough to imagine all that he has not visualized in his film can be considered as a 3 D film. Here the audience becomes a part of his film. They go back home with n number of questions in mind imagining their own solutions. The difference is that director is not feeding his intellectual partners with a solution. His film is more or less like an abstract art or an open book where he leaves the viewer with an opportunity to imagine a world beyond his film.
n of 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional spaces. But what is a real 3 dimensional film considering filmmaking as an art form and a medium of communication? A film in which the director identifies his audience intelligent enough to imagine all that he has not visualized in his film can be considered as a 3 D film. Here the audience becomes a part of his film. They go back home with n number of questions in mind imagining their own solutions. The difference is that director is not feeding his intellectual partners with a solution. His film is more or less like an abstract art or an open book where he leaves the viewer with an opportunity to imagine a world beyond his film. Recently I saw two outstanding films by a famous Malayalam film director. Both were unique in its theme and treatment and were well appreciated by the audience. They are undoubtedly the masterpiece of the Director. But at two places I could feel the film over-com
municating with the audience. After a lot of emotional fight and fury between two lead characters the first film ends with the climax of their children playing together. With this the film already communicated the message. But for our disappoint director added a textual quote in the end saying “Thus they came close as the vision of future”, which faded the film to a 2D space leaving us nothing more to imagine or dream.
municating with the audience. After a lot of emotional fight and fury between two lead characters the first film ends with the climax of their children playing together. With this the film already communicated the message. But for our disappoint director added a textual quote in the end saying “Thus they came close as the vision of future”, which faded the film to a 2D space leaving us nothing more to imagine or dream. The theme of the second film was on an unexpected reunion of two childhood friends. The director successfully used lots of symbols of visual language that communicated the conflict in the hearts of leading pair. But as he used a few dialogues in the background as the thoughts of one of those characters the imagination of the viewer got blocked. This leaves us a question to answer - Do filmmakers still think that the audience is not yet matured to visualize a world beyond what is conveyed to them by the director.
At this point I would like to narrate the climax of the film “Children of the Heaven”, by Irani director Majid Majidi.
The film is about two children- Ali and his sister Zahra. In the starting we see Ali losing Zahra’s shoes by mistake and the siblings decide to keep the predicament a secret from their parents knowing that there is no money to buy a replacement pair. In the climax Ali enters a footrace in hopes of receiving the third prize of a new pair of sneakers. He accidentally places first and wins another prize instead. The film ends with Ali coming back home with a gloomy face and bleeding feet. In the pain he slowly keeps the wounded feet in a tub of water. The director added a quick shot of their father's bicycle at the end of the movie shows what appears to be the pink shoes Zahra had been focusing on earlier, implying she got the shoes after all. The shoes are definitely tied to his bicycle and it is clear he has just bought these shoes for his children. Mean while the fishes in the water tub touches the feet of Ali as if they are kissing him. By not showing the father reaching home and happily distributing the shoes to children and by keeping the shot really poetical and vague with the close-up of Ali’s feet and the fishes, the director successfully leaves the audience in immense pleasure of imagining all those they wanted to visualize. Don’t you think this is an ideal way of communication?
Two hours of laugher and thrill and two minutes of talk about it hardly does anything to the IQ of a viewer. Like any other art form the prime objective of film is arguably entertainment, provided it is not bonded by the sleek wall of brainless entertainment. But this entertainment medium touches a higher lever when it gives the audience something to carry back home to dream and debate. As we all know only dream take you to a vision. By giving audience a situation and a reason for dreaming, director identifies himself as a responsible social being.
1 comment:
dude! ur tagged1 how to my blog n pick it up! btw, was tat a typo error in ur post title or wz it intentional?
Post a Comment