Vishnevetsky
has a great article about film criticism and film books in the Chicago Tribune,
in which, among other superb observations, he says,
When the physical is no longer
considered practical, physical characteristics become qualities. A film book
ceases to be merely a vehicle for text and becomes a sensory experience, a
particular way to engage with ideas and observations, as controlled and
specific as the Internet is shapeless.
It’s
a compelling, and I think, very legitimate idea. As rich a resource as the
internet is for reading about film, it has its pitfalls. The most obvious is
that while it gives talented writers an outlet to express their views, it
offers even more mediocre writers an option to clog the web with lousy, dull
content. But perhaps more important than that is the act of reading these online pieces on cinema and the psychological
effect it has on the reader.
First
of all, the sheer amount of good
writing that has been done on film for the internet is overwhelming. Anyone
with a fairly busy schedule, and who doesn’t forget that the most important
cinephilic act is still just watching as many good movies as possible, can only
give worthy attention to a few writers/sites/blogs. And yet because there are
so many worthwhile sites and writers to be found, it’s still hard not to pay
too many of them a visit—only to be frustrated by all the good writing that
cannot be consumed. In short, online film reading can be a little chaotic.
It
also can be fairly flavorless in that there are lots of people who write
according to the very knowledge that many of their readers only have a short
amount of time to visit their site. This results in shorter pieces that can be
read in just a few minutes (something this blog is unquestionably guilty of). It’s nice and convenient, but the brevity of such
writing also results not only in potentially shallower writing, but in the
blurring together of what the reader is consuming. If one were to go online,
visit ten film blogs, and read one short article from each, those articles
would start to become interchangeable and would have no place in the mind’s repository
for consumed writing. Internet reading is, as Vishnevetsky said, shapeless.
On
the other hand, reading a longer article often proves to be more fulfilling.
The writer has the time to fully consider his subject and produce deeper, more
insightful arguments or opinions. Also, for those who embrace a well-spun
sentence of phrase, the prose on longer piece tends to be better for the very
simple reason that good writing often takes good time.
Thus,
spending time with just one of these longer pieces (which includes thinking
about not just what it’s saying but how it’s working) instead of quickly
surveying the ten shorter ones logically seems as though it would have a
lasting impact because the reader would be forced to absorb it and would then remember it.
The
natural extension of this is the act of reading actual film books that
Vishnevetsky describes. Simply put, the psychological stamp a good film book
will have on the mind versus online reading is equivalent to a newspaper with
thick black ink versus a poorly printed edition with faded words and pictures.
It’s something exact, it’s one thing, and it demands the kind of acute focus
that frankly the internet does not. One can read a blog post without really reading it and move on without a thought
because they know that, one: there is always another article waiting, and
two: we somehow are aware that regardless of how we read it, it will not last
(this is just in general, as there are certainly plenty of short little pieces
that are brilliant and do last).
Reading
a book, though, is a completely different beast. The book demands time,
attention, and even proper atmosphere (we’re generally indifferent to where we
are doing our online reading, whereas the setting when we read an actual text
is vital to the experience). No one will read a good film book casually because
the very idea of picking up a book suggests that the reader is willing to give
it their full attention. Otherwise we wouldn’t read film books, but stick to
the web and the fast-food mentality that goes along with it.
The
very nature of a two or three hundred page text also pays emotional dividends
in that it provides closure. Consuming online film writing is such a random act
that has no beginning or no end, and thus while always abundant is never fully
satisfying. But having one piece of writing to focus on that has a distinct and
opening and closing point provides one with a feeling of fulfillment. Closure
shouldn’t be relied on all the time, but sometimes it really does matter.
Vishnevetsky
is right. It is not practical to read film books anymore when the internet has
so much to offer. And yet to engage with a real film text is to learn how to
think about the content we’re consuming and to experience a form of reading
that is truly unique. The internet is said to have endless variety, and yet it
is still, again, shapeless. The book gives us something to hold on to.
No comments:
Post a Comment