[Pu the Owl]

Originally Posted by Redpyramidhead

I certainly don't see the problem with applying one's knowledge from making music videos to film in order to try something new and different.

Because certain effects result in cheap and distasteful moviemaking. It can work when applied to promoting a product, like a music video that is made to promote music or the image of a band/singer, but it doesn't work when the film is the product itself and it has to speak for itself without pointing at something ideally, and actually, behind it. It's somewhat like saying an ad can be good, but a book written using the same language of ads is crap and ureadable. They're different products, music videos and films, with different purposes. Experimenting most of the times results in bad storytelling, if you're not a genius or a person able to use an experimental language limiting its influence to the form. The medium is the message, said McLuhan. In case of music videos it is. In fact the medium, the language, deforms the content, and the result is mostly about exteriority. Content is very marginal in music videos. In case of movies the medium, the language, should be functional to the message, not the opposite. If the language fagocitates everything else, the movie ceases to be a movie. Spike Jonze denies any content in order to make the language predominant. In a music video making language predominant is a perfect way to attract people, because as a matter of fact the video exists in the first place to sell something to the public. Not recognizing this difference is what I call ineptitude, speaking of art. But of course I'm not saying you have to agree.