Introduction
As soon as movies were identified as a separate, unique form of art, a number of theories, capacities, and laws were introduced to identify the components of moviemaking. Society entered an era of medium essentialism, the purpose of which was to study the essence of film as an art form through its medium. Despite the fact that the film medium is defined as a critical element of cinema history and film theory, Noël Carroll is one of the scholars who choose a position to criticize the significance of the film medium and focuses on the necessity to discard it as a concept when analyzing art, including cinema, literature, theater, painting, or sculpture. In this paper, the main argument offered by Carroll in “Forget the Medium!” will be summarized. First, it is necessary to clarify why the assessment of film works should not depend on the medium concept. Second, the mistakes made by the supporters of the general theory of medium uniqueness have to be identified. This report shows why I agree with the author and proves that it is wrong to consider film as a unique physical medium.
Summary of the Reading
In the book under analysis, the author aims at giving arguments to forget the medium and explain why art, in general, and cinema, in particular, have to be discussed from another perspective. Despite the fact that there are no specific sections, this chapter is properly structured, with several ideas being logically developed. In the beginning, Carroll defines the film and connects it with the notion of the medium, saying about “the possibility of a discrete aesthetic system” (1). Then, attention is paid to the conditions under which film theory was developed in the early twentieth century and improved through the decades. The next step in Carroll’s discussion includes an understanding of the film medium’s uniqueness and the preparation of the reader to question the appropriateness of this concept in film theory. Finally, there are many examples taken from literature, painting, sculpture, and cinema to prove that all art forms possess not singular but multiple media (Carroll 5). People create art to meet their purposes, and sometimes, it is normal to use the same methods, which, in its turn, challenges the theory of uniqueness.
Several strong conclusions are made in this reading to strengthen people’s understanding of moviemaking. In his intention to answer the question about what films are made of, Carroll faces a number of challenges. On the one hand, it is useless to reject the fact that all works of art are made of something. On the other hand, it is hard to accept the truth about medium uniqueness because cinema could contain the elements of other art forms like literature or sculpture. Besides, Carroll writes that fingers turn out to be probably the most frequent implements that show up in the production of any artwork (6). Therefore, it is wrong to identify cinema, sculpture, or literature through the prism of one single medium. Instead of proving the mistakes or failures made by other researchers and theorists, the goal of this essay is to introduce a new characteristic of cinema that is a moving image.
Definition of the Medium
Talking about the correctness or the ambiguity of the medium concept, one should understand what it means in film theory or the analysis of other forms of arts. In this work, Carroll makes several strong attempts to define the medium. Being a major focus of film theory, the film medium remains a unique peculiarity of an art form with its own laws and restrictions for creation (Carroll 2). The purpose of the medium is to distinguish one art form from another. However, at the same time, the medium should be the only requirement that is necessary for the establishment of a certain status for a movie. As a result, the medium is defined as a concept that “dictates what will function best – in terms of style and/or content” (Carroll 3). Although this term is of a unique nature, it has to correspond with laws and be explained in terms of violations of the offered standards.
Sometimes, it is difficult for the reader to understand the essence of the medium, using definitions and explanations given by experts. Therefore, Carroll tries to facilitate this process and provides a number of examples of how the medium should be interpreted within the frames of different forms and genres. For example, painting is an art form that consists of such elements as canvas, acryl, tempera, and oils. In sculpture, people pay attention to stones, clay, wood, or gold as the material. However, in both these areas, people become the main doers of action and use similar instruments like brushes, knives, and pails. In films, it is possible to observe the elements of painting, sculpture, and other art forms. Carroll investigates the field of moviemaking and identifies such features as video, computer imagery, and photography (9). Camera work has to be also mentioned, but all these issues can be present everywhere. Therefore, it is not reasonable to believe that the medium determines movies as the only appropriate uniqueness.
Reasons for Discarding the Medium Concept
The chosen reading attracts attention from the very beginning because the author invokes the necessity to forget the medium, one of the basics of film theory, in order to improve film studies. When the definition of the medium was developed, Carroll gives several examples of how the medium influences different areas of art and, at the same time, provokes new questions and causes misunderstandings. The author wants to know if it is necessary for film critics and researchers to use the idea of the medium. Filmmakers create works out of something that has already been used somewhere or defined as the medium of another artform. For example, photography is a separate form of art with its compounds and characteristic features. However, there is also a movie La Jetée where the director uses photos to tell a story. In this case, the elements of photography are applied to the movie, and the medium is hard to define for both works.
Taking into consideration the above-mentioned example, many similar works should be mentioned. Some movies use music background and sound to develop a captivating story. Still, music is also art with the tone as its medium. At the same time, any movie could have a tone or the way people feel about the offered work. One of the best explanations of the role of music (sound) can be observed in Hitchcock’s movie, The Blackmail, where the viewer is able to see the same story with and without sound (a silent version).
The General Theory of Medium Uniqueness
One of the main statements developed by Carroll is that film theory should not begin with the question about what are the components of a movie. Many supporters of the theory of medium uniqueness believe that it has to be a basis for people to develop their thoughts about a movie. However, Carroll underlines that the same approach was applied to other forms of art several centuries ago (literature or music), and the uniqueness of the medium is hard to prove. Such authors as Balázs, Münsterberg, or Furstenau investigate films, relying on the already existing theories (realism or modernism), psychological experiences, and emotions. They do not identify new ways of moviemaking but analyze the offered material.
The analysis of art is an opportunity for people to demonstrate their knowledge and approaches to understanding the ideas shared by directors and other people involved in the creation of the movie. Carroll is concerned that the general theory of medium uniqueness is false from its beginning (3). Film art undergoes changes regularly, and it is difficult for people to identify the causes of failures and successes following the same framework. Therefore, as well as new conditions are used to create movies, the medium has to be re-evaluated and improved, questioning the very idea of the theory.
The Significance of Carroll’s Opinion
The filmmaking industry is characterized by a number of supporters and opponents of their theories, approaches, and philosophical interpretations. Therefore, some people cannot accept the position offered by Carroll about the necessity to forget the concept of medium. There is also a group of thinkers who believe in Carroll and try to integrate the movement of the image (not the medium) in their analysis. I am one of those who agree with Carroll and find it necessary to question the theory of medium uniqueness.
After reading the chapter, I have developed several explanations of why I find Carroll convincing and correct in his judgments. First of all, the history of cinema is complex, with many changes, improvements, and considerations being offered at different periods of time. It is impossible to create one unique medium for this form of art and use it for analysis. The same attitude can be developed in regard to music, literature, or dance. Secondly, I want to add that, although being recognized as a separate category, painting, sculpture, cinema, and all other art forms can be divided into subgroups. Each type of work has its own distinctive feature, which makes art one of the most provocative and inspiring elements of human life.
Conclusion
In general, the analysis of film is a difficult task even for the most professional critics and theorists. It is not enough to use a theory, develop an opinion, and demonstrate how the movie fits or breaks the standards. Carroll makes one of the most unexpected contributions, questioning the worth of the general theory of medium uniqueness. In this reading, the author shows why it is necessary to discard the concept of medium to introduce a thorough analysis of art, and especially cinema. Despite their desire to promote stability and comfort, people cannot avoid changes. One of such changes occurred in the 21st century when Carroll wanted to know what movies are made of and created a new doctrine of the movement.
Work Cited
Carroll, Noël. Engaging the Moving Image. Yale University Press, 2003.