Filmmakers use the concept of visual literacy to explain the historical, cultural, and technical aspects of the film language. Comprehending this aspect in film production is crucial because it facilitates the intricate design of cinematic stories. People who notice the features often appreciate the auteurs who are gurus of the widely acceptable universal tongue in art. Filmmakers continue to advance the language as they weave together separate storylines by cross-cutting through the scenes in different times and places. Other actions such as continuity editing and shot sizes involve camera movement, the use of color, close-up, and parallel editing. The aspects speak the language of filmmaking that elicits excitement in the audience, promoting favorable ratings in the movie industry.
The techniques have become standard after long-term developments in the industry. The old way of making films, which involves filming multiple long takes in a wide shot, continues to evolve into visual narratives that are much more complex (Mulvey 16). Montage changes this old approach as it represents video editing that can happen years, days, and hours out of the character’s storyline (Eisenstein 3). In most cases, the frame of a picture shot gives a different life and language, especially when its composition speaks to audiences in various ways. For this reason, the ability to speak the language of film is a skillset required by filmmakers depending on the critical nature of the information intended for the target audience (Mulvey 14). Every aspect of the screen, including the shadows, lighting, angles, composition, colors, and blocking, influences the excitement in the audience.
Indeed, cinemas use features such as scenes and dramatic sequences that deviate from the approach taken in developing written language. On the contrary, letters, words, paragraphs, and sentences matter because the language gives the video an organizational structure that solidifies the impact of the narrative for broader appeal. If pictures are worth a thousand words, videos are worth even more because they are moving pictures. The building block of the language of cinema is a shot, which represents a series of uninterrupted still image frames. Even so, shots are synonymous with words since they communicate much more information than single letters. Nonetheless, shots tell either a piece of tiny information or the entire story depending on the prevailing mise-en-scène elements: camera movement and angle, lighting, sound, and shot durations. Importantly, the actions of actors in the shot depict a physical performance with emotions that add to the dialogue promoted by filmmakers while developing the language of cinema.
Films and photographs are inspirational because they set the tone through interconnected elements of art. For instance, while visiting an art gallery to view a picture, waiting in line is commonplace for exhibits that are well-known. If the artist whose project is under exhibition is not famous, the work might garner an audience in the long term. Conversely, movies and films operate in a subtle manner because they lead in the creation and following of art. Films are capable to take a piece of art and tell the story behind it. The aspect is different from photography that only involves the creation of pictures based on the fact that movies encompass storylines taking pictures further to another level. Sometimes impressive photographs are only consumed aesthetically as opposed to politically, making the audience miss the intended message (Barthes 36). The process fails to serve the social mission of art which entails fostering accurate intellectual concepts to represent the dynamic clash of opposing passions (Eisenstein 2). On the other hand, a well-produced movie entertains, educates, and inspires viewers in different ways. For instance, a scene in a film can encourage compassion and humanity by depicting the values that are favorable to sustain peaceful growth and development. Equally, human beings remember the importance of love and the need to fight for it through romantic films.
Nonetheless, the setting of both movies and photographs preserve certain cultural aspects that would otherwise disappear in the absence of such artistic documentation. It means that artwork involving the creation of movies and images forms an integral part of human existence. In most cases, the attitudes, concerns, strengths, and flaws that define how people coexist in society emerge through the lenses of a camera to stimulate scopophilic feelings (Mulvey 833). Daily interactions within a community setting are not sufficient to increase the visibility of such aspects. On the contrary, photographs and films challenge prevalent ideologies and beliefs to the point where a society resorts to embrace change. The advent of technology simplifies the process further as features such as audiovisual translations allow people to understand the different cultures in the world regardless of their location. The process encourages unity since cultural awareness is the foundation of tolerance that facilitates interpersonal interactions between members from varying cultural backgrounds. Films and pictures have proven to be powerful tools for shaping ideologies, especially when the right content reaches the target audience.
Filmmaking and photography are evidently impactful because they create content that shapes the perspective of people within a society. Films are more impactful because they include storylines that further elaborate on the themes influencing interaction in society. At the same time, photographs showcase the cultural aspects of individuals with regard to the setting. Importantly, the positive impacts of both artistic approaches prevail only when the right content is chosen for the right audience.
Barthes, Roland. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photograph. Vintage Books, 1981.
Eisenstein, Sergei. “A Dialectic Approach to Film Form.” Film Form: Essays in Film Theory, 1949, pp. 1-16.
Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings. Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen, New York, 1999.