Film as an Original Art Form by Hans Richter

Hans Richter states questions to what one considers film as an original art form. So he used Pudovkin’s quote, “What is a work of art before it comes in front of the camera, such as acting, staging, or the novel is not a work of art on the screen.” I would say that Pudovkin means that a film is not a part of a work of art, only theater or novels are. I just think any films even Hollywood films (entertainment films) can express art in a way the same as theater and novels.

D.W. Griffith was one of the people who actually showed what a film was like. It seemed to me that his films were almost art because he used different angles. Also, he used interesting close-ups shots and crosscutting parts that matched to other people’s reactions. That was enjoyable even in a silent film.

Also, I thought Frank Capra was one of the people who would show interesting things. I watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington the first time like last week and I loved it. Even though it was an entertainment film, I thought the movie showed art too because of different angles, different crosscutting, and reactions of different people. Even showed politics and history. But that's just me. :)

As I was reading through pages of 16-17, Hans Richter has been questioning 'whether film is essentially theatrical, literary, or fine arts with the doubt in the minds of film historians and film critics to what they think of film as an original art form.' I believe a film can be all of the above. But then I read the part about the film in two styles: documentary and experimental. They are described as original art forms. I guess I would say that they are because to me they are more like independent. The artists can make them freely and they can do what they want them to do. After all, film entertainment and film art can be the same.