Notes and Reaction to "Art, Entertainment, Entropy"

General Reaction:
The author's overall argument that traditional cinema is incapable of expanding the understanding of the human experience, or has inability to contribute to the evolution of humankind, because of its root in classical dramaturgy, is argued through a tunnel-visioned perspective. Cinema has been said by some to be the greatest art, in that it has the ability to incorporate the most treasured aspects of all artistic disciplines. What the author is arguing is that entertainment films, or commercially oriented films do not have the ability to future the artistic 'energy' that fuels our expansion as a global community. There are certainly films that stem from the commercial or studio sector that I would say this is true. However, to label the entirety of traditional narrative cinema as predictable, and therefore ineffective in its attempts to change our understanding, is simply wrong.

Passages with My Notes (Written in Bold):

Plot, story, and what commonly is known as "drama" are the devices that enable the commercial entertainer to manipulate his audience. The very act of this manipulation, gratifying conditioned needs, is what the films actually are about. (Not true. There is an inherent human desire to relate story. To pass on lessons or knowledge through example. An explicit story heightens the message or makes the knowledge relatable).

The viewer purchases it with his ticket and is understandably annoyed if the film asks him to manipulate himself, to engage in the creative process along with the artist. (Not an absolute truth. This is a generalization of who the author perceives to be the audience of commercial entertainment.)…The viewer of commercial entertainment cinema does not want to work; he wants to be an object, to be acted upon, to be manipulated. (These are broad generalizations, with a limited and simplistic perspective.)

The Author brings up Hitchcock and Psycho, and, as Hitchcock admits, that the film was a manipulation of the audiences' expected reaction, through the perfection of the story telling. However, the author does not bring up Hitchcock's other films, such as Vertigo, which plunges the depths of the human psyche more effectively than some of the most recognizable works of art. It aims to make the audience confront their own fear or phobia or weakness. Is it not possible anymore to create a work in the tradition of the classical dramatists, and not call it art? Should the plays of Shakespeare not be called art?

Out of the nearly 7 Billion of People on Earth, many do not have the capacity or the frame of reference to pull the "energy" from works of art that this author claims must be non-familiar in order to be effective. I would argue the a more traditional or familiar work that has the ability to speak to many, and challenge just a small part of their understanding of the human condition is more effective (or contributes more energy) than a work that is interpretable, and therefore thought changing, to a few.

Drama, by definition, means conflict, which in turn means suspense. Suspense is requisite on the expectation of known alternatives. One cannot expect the unknown. Therefore expectation, suspense, and drama are all redundant probable qualities and thus are noninformative. (This author places the importance and the value on the content of the work, especially the evolution of the story's plot. He is not putting value on the audience's experience relating to the story's characters and trying to understand their though process.)

The viewer is forced to create along with the film, to interpret for himself what he is experiencing. (Does the audience of a classically focused main stream drama not interpret the motivation of the characters?) If the information (either concept or design) reveals some previously unrecognized aspect of the viewer's relation to the circumambient universe— or provides language with which to conceptualize old realities more effectively— the viewer recreates that discovery along with the artist, thus feeding back into the environment the existence of more creative potential, which may in turn be used by the artist for messages of still greater eloquence and perception.
(First of all, how does the viewer recreate that discovery along with the artist? How is the experienced shared? And, how does that energy feedback into the artist? This is unfounded, poorly interpreted, weakly argued, new age sounding nonsense. Second, it is too simple, and false, to make a blanket statement about traditional narrative cinema's inability to force new thought and understanding. Simply look at the works of Fillini, which were in worldwide distribution at the date of this publication. The works of this filmmaker were deeply rooted in the traditions of the classical dramatists, yet his films illuminated vastly new perspective on aspects of the human condition, emotion, and experience.)