Skip to main content

AESTHETIC DISTANCE




I love films. I have always loved films. In high school during the very early seventies, I was able to take a film arts course along with English courses, media and communications. I loved it.

Film is art. The famous MGM logo with the lion’s roar that prefaces so many famous movies incorporates the Latin, “ARS GRATIA ARTIS” which means “art for art’s sake,” and was designed in 1916 by Howard Dietz.

The saying is credited to the 19th century French philosopher, Victor Cousin and was written as “l’art pour l’art.”

One of the basic lessons I learned in film arts was the concept of aesthetic distance. 

This concept originally applied to literature refers to the gap between the readers, or as in the case of film, the viewer’s conscious reality and the fictional reality constructed by an author of a book or the director of the film. 

Of course, in film there are so many more variables to be considered, actor’s craft, lighting, cinematography, music et cetera.

A close aesthetic distance is when the viewer is not so much watching the movie as he or she is experiencing the movie. The movie for its duration pulls the viewer into the experience becoming the viewer’s temporary reality, taking the place of the viewer’s rational and conscious everyday reality. This is what filmmakers are trying to accomplish.


This is the main concept by which I am guided when watching even the worst film, for if the film fails to shrink my aesthetic distance then it fails as a film and therefore as noteworthy art, in my opinion. 

What causes me to lose my aesthetic distance, to increase the distance between my objective perception of rational reality and that of the fictional reality the filmmakers want me to experience, can be part of the film medium itself. Failure of the many talents that go into the production of the film, poor acting, bad lighting, amateur camera work, can cause widening of my aesthetic distance. 

 I select films I think will keep my aesthetic distance close. My formula is based on plot, acting, and director. 

I choose a plot that intrigues me based upon the mood I’m in at the time. I am happy with most genres and have enjoyed, thrillers, westerns, suspense, film noir, comedy (even romantic comedy), drama and of course, action/adventures. 

However, I do not enjoy musicals. In fact, I abhor most musicals with very few exceptions. The reason is aesthetic distance; a musical fails to bring me close to the fictional reality presented on the screen. 

A prime example of what I am talking about is the movie "West Side Story". I can’t willingly suspend my disbelief when two rival gangs in New York City during the fifties break into song and dance instead of fight to solve their dispute. The genre just does not work for me.

"Dreamgirls" is one example, however, of a musical succeeding in pulling me in to a close aesthetic distance. That is because the music is integral to the plot allowing me to experience a close aesthetic distance. 

Breaking the fourth wall, for me is similar to my dislike of musicals in that when the main character interrupts the narrative of the story to speak to me, the viewer directly, it violates my aesthetic distance. 

"The Princess Bride" is one example of a movie I enjoyed even though it breaks the fourth wall. I think because I am caught up in the character of the grandfather, Peter Falk, reading to his sick grandson it does not narrow my aesthetic distance.

I choose actors and directors based on their past work. I will take a chance on an actor or director I don't know if the plot is sufficiently intriguing to me.

External stimuli ruin my full enjoyment of a film by violating my aesthetic distance. 

Talking during a movie irritates me, though I sometimes will whisper about a salient point in the movie. I hate myself for doing this as it is breaking of my cardinal rule.

A companion that asks if the actor on screen was the same actor in another movie or compliments the talent of the actor during a scene is a cardinal sin. Such commentary ruins the experience as it absolutely destroys the effort to narrow aesthetic distance.

I don't understand viewers who are unaware of the concept of aesthetic distance for they are cheating themselves of the whole experience and defeating the purpose of the filmmaker.

Films are designed right from the first showing of the company logo all the way to the very end after the credits have stopped rolling to capture you and encourage your willing suspension of disbelief, to narrow your aesthetic distance, to become in affect your alternate reality for the duration of the film.

I love films. I have always loved films. 



 








Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

RETHINKING MY POLITICS PART 1

All my life I have been a far left supporter. Now, I feel let down, disappointed by those whom I had thought shared at least some of my basic tenets and so, I must re-evaluate my position. But in order to do that, I must write down what I think each side stands for, what I stand for, and then decide a course of action. Conservatism is a political ideology that to me appears stilted and not up to the task of making the necessary choices in an open society in the 21st century. Mired in maintaining traditional perspectives and preserving religious beliefs and cultural customs, conservatism remains hobbled in its response to the changing world we live in, a world that runs exponentially faster than it did in the last century due to technological progress in computers, communications and the digital age. The conservative tenet of the rugged individual free to chart his own course is a myth. The US army settled the west first and then pioneers came to claim the land the government had p...
Post a Comment
Read more

Life's Uncertainty Principle

There was a particular moment, a span of about ten seconds, in my life when I chose a course of action that changed everything and with very dramatic effect. It is hard for me to talk about this without telling you the details but I am going to try. It started in 1982, I had worked hard to earn a position within my job. During my course of duty, a situation developed and I had the obligation to choose, literally, to stay where I was or go. I know, " should I stay or should I go now." I could have stayed . I should have stayed . But I didn't, I went . Ten seconds of my life, that's what it took to change my life's path in every way. I am not talking about military service and fighting a war, where one looks back thinking had I gone right and not left, I wouldn't have been shot. No, nothing that noble. I wasn't shot, blown up, or physically injured in any way. But the situation turned sour and the result from that decision of mine played out in the cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

EXISTENTIAL FEAR

Everyone is afraid of something. What is it that you are afraid of? Not spiders, or heights or water. I don’t mean things like that [although I do fear heights and water]. Think more deeply. What is it that truly and fundamentally terrifies you? For me, I fear being a coward. To be faced with a challenge in life and not measure up, that’s what terrifies me. I fear that I might fail to protect my wife, though even at my age and state of decrepitness, my thirty-eight years of martial arts training might stand me in good stead, for a short time, at least. I figure about ninety seconds. But my cowardice could manifest as me being immobilized by self-pity over some crisis or other when I should wish to remain strong for my family, a rock of strength for them. Simple, daily life can be more arduous than we care to credit. The mundane can drive a man around the bend or even to his end. A man must deal with the frustration of earning a living, not getting that promotion, not making e...
Post a Comment
Read more