From: Kristin M Cashore <kcashore>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 11:06:26 -0400 (EDT)

I am usually a reader, rather than a writer, on this listserv, but am compelled to put my two cents in here. Certainly a book depends on the reader as a partner in the creative process, clicks into our memories and senses, becomes real, etc. But the same is absolutely true for a thoughtful and artful film. Yes, a movie belongs to its director, producers, camera operators, actors, editors, musical composers, etc., but in the same way a book belongs to its writer, its editors, its illustrator, its designers. To suggest that a film is less capable of psychological insight, interesting details, beautiful language, side details, etc. seems decidedly unfair. A masterly film combines music, language, photography, movement, sound and silence, color, acting, you name it-- and creates something different, but just as right and true, as a masterly book.

This seems an obvious point, but I felt compelled to express it.

I think that one of the difficulties here is that because there are so many components to a film, it's easier for a film to fail; something as simple as the wrong music or bad photography can destroy the tone. Also, while publishing is often a money-driven industry, film is exponentially more so, which tends to guarantee lower quality fare making it's way to the theaters. The vast majority of films, and especially children's films, I find to be mediocre at best. But this doesn't mean that the excellent films aren't as meaningful as excellent books.

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Christine Hann wrote:
Received on Mon 04 Aug 2003 10:06:26 AM CDT