|
Re: icons, franky schaeffer, comic books, etc.
|
Karl
|
Apr 01, 2004 23:57 PST
|
I have cited McCloud's theories when explaining to people why it doesn't
really matter that films like _My Big Fat Greek Wedding_ don't really give
us any reason to buy into the relationship between the main character and
her fiance -- the point of the film is not the romance, but the woman's
relationship with her culture; thus, all the detail must be in *that*
relationship, while the *romantic* relationship must have as little detail
as possible, so that we can all project ourselves into her situation. I
think something like this also explains why Mel Gibson's _The Passion of
the Christ_ has been as successful as it is -- his flashback structure and
his frequent use of point-of-view shots encourage the audience to think
they are experiencing the thoughts and memories of Christ himself, yet
Gibson doesn't actually put a whole lot of detail into the film to tell us
what *he* thinks Christ is thinking at any given point; the "iconic"
approach allows each of us to make of these images what we will.
*****Very profound.......it makes much sense
So I do think it is perfectly valid to say that art may do a better job of
communicating the "sacred" when it is not so "realistic" -- but at the
same time, I think the very abstraction inherent in such art allows each
person experiencing the art to bring their own understanding of the
"sacred" to that experience, which leaves room open for interpretation.
All relationships involve multiple points of view, after all, so I could
see thinking of our relationship with the "sacred" along the lines.
I'm just thinking out loud here -- does this make any sense to anyone?
***In a strange way, yes. I dont buy into it to the degree you do perhaps,
but it has a good thesis......
Karl
|
|
 |
|
