WRITTEN BY HAFIZ SINADA
The experience of following the transformation of the image to a moving image has been a moving one. It changed the way we consume art, connect with it and react to it. Most of all, it transformed the way we apply ourselves to art. We moved from the rank of choosing whether to engage with it, to becoming captivated by it.
The part about action films in Last week’s lecture kept me thinking about the term “Chaos Cinema” and how some critics see the phenomena as a decline to the art of filmmaking. The action film itself is not a new genre. It’s been around since the beginning of filmmaking. Some argue that the silent film Train Robbery was the first action film. Since then, we’ve come a long way through different ages to what is called now Chaos Cinema.
When we hear the word explosion, we know what it means, yet you may have not experienced an explosion in your life. Embodying the word is what cinema does using all those tools it has at its disposal to give you a taste of it. That varies from a filmmaker to another. The director knows that the camera is the eye of the spectator, so he takes the script and turn the written scene to a visual one in the best way that could capture our imagination.
The main question here is; is it possible to apply the methods used in classic Hollywood cinema to visually develop a script written to make a new and different effect? In other words, is it possible to develop the heroic performance to depict reality without subjecting it to the chaos cinema methods?
Control, command, domination, influence are powerful aims that cannot be achieved by lesser effective means to captivate the spectators of the action film. What some think is a decline, some see it as progression. Meanwhile, the popularity of Chaos Cinema in growing. How moving is that.