Some key differences between film and other mediums we have discussed in class (such as photography and graphic narratives) include providing different roles for the audience member, constant movement and “mise-en-scène”. Film, unlike photography and graphic narratives, asks that the audience sit back and view the artistic product. It does not require picking up a book and flipping pages for example. Movies are also in constant motion, sort of like a sped up graphic narrative which lacks “gutters” that provide short gaps in time. When watching a movie, time is manipulated by light, dialogue and camera play. Lastly, while both photography and graphic narratives reflect aspects of “miss-en-scène”, it is more typically thought of as a cinematographic characteristic. The placement of objects/subjects (set-pieces, characters in action, lighting, etc.) crafts a desired and anticipated image on the part of the movie director. Such desired images can be achieved in staged photography but because the frame lacks movement, photographic miss-en-scene is less affective at telling a story. Similarly, while the elements within the panels of graphic narratives are consciously chosen, because they are hand drawn they are not as successful.
From the Corrigan and Kawin pieces I learned a lot about perspective and what to pay attention to upon viewing a film. I learned that things that appear in succession are significant and that the angle a certain shot is taken can manipulate how characters are physically and metaphysically represented. Lastly and most interestingly, i learned that movies can lack narratives. ‘Nonnarritives’ as they are called “do not tell stories” (Corrigan 41). This was the most fascinating because I originally thought films were all about story telling, now I see that the message and purpose of the movie might be more important.