I think it is a mistake to identify a movie according to its language, as if movies were literature.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Film is not literature - the image on screen is the information you get.
People have to identify with their own stories, with their own lives, so a movie belongs to a country and to a culture. Sometimes we can share, but it's very rare.
Books and movies are different art forms with different rules. And because of that, they never translate exactly.
Film is pop art. It's not whether it's auteur cinema or not; that's a false distinction. Cinema is cinema.
I don't believe there is something called 'film' and something called 'theater,' and that words belong in the theater. Some rather bad films have few words in them; some good films have a lot of words in them.
These films however, have ambiguity built into them, because it's too easy in film to make a strident work of propaganda or advertising, which are really the same thing anyway, meaning the message is unmistakable.
The problem with the screenplay is that it's not literature, and it's not a film. It's a very weird, technical kind of blueprint that will be absolutely transformed into something else that is not that, you know? Honestly, a screenplay is no literature.
The language of film is further and further away from the language of theater and is closer to music. It's abstract but still narrative.
To me, cinema is cinema. Cinema is one big tree with many branches. The same as literature. In literature, you don't just say, 'Oh, I bought some literature.' No, you say, 'I bought a novel' by so-and-so, or a book of essays by so-and-so.
Every film has an origin. It is made under certain circumstances, and that is a very important point that should be kept in mind during a review.
No opposing quotes found.