AS, Benjamin

“The film responds to the shriveling of the aura with an artificial build-up of the “personality” outside the studio.” – Benjamin

Got that one right boyo. Audiences flock to the latest blockbuster not because of the experience, but because it is starring Johnny Depp (off screen anti-star) or Lindsay Lohan (off screen redheaded sex kitten) or Tom Cruise (off screen super freak). Varying publications are dedicated soley to the exploits, real or imagined, of the richer, the skinnier, the prettier. The stories are mostly the same, so are the images. . Starlets are hard to distinguish from one another. One blonde emaciated image after another, all wearing ridiculous leggings and buckled under the weight of enormous handbags, stream before our eyes screaming for attention. We’re supposed to be so interested in what these actors do in real life that we’ll gladly flock in mass to the movie theater to see them pretend to be someone else. Okay. Why? Because it’s art, at least it can be.

What I find really interesting about film is that it can reflect, represent, or reproduce (in a new medium) other works of art, and in doing so, create a new work of art (or crap, whichever). Film has found a new muse in graphic art, itself a relative of panel art. Sin City used the art panels of its graphic novel source material as scenic storyboards. Frame for frame, the art composition is close to exact replication. Not only did the camera remove the artist from the art, but so did the fact that the actors acted against green screen. Art, imitation, flattery, or rip-off – you decide. I watched it last night and sat there thinking, "This is beautiful." And it was. Bold black, stark white, with dashes of primary colors to accentuate the blantantly false actions depicted. Talk about an "intimate fusion of visual and emotional enjoyment." (29)