Film and Television Aesthetics

Author: Wang Shide
Publisher:
Publish Date: 1999-09-03
Features: The aesthetic characteristics of film art differ even more distinctly from those of music. Music can only express the author's emotions and move the audience's feelings through the melody and rhythm of sound, but it cannot, like film art, provide moving images that appear simultaneously with sound, allowing viewers to see the vivid actions, expressions, and behaviors of people, things, and events, reflecting complex human relationships and causal links. Of course, music also has its own strengths. It can strongly move the emotions of people through the melody of sound, making them lose themselves in a state of ecstasy, as if drinking mellow wine. This is an area where film art falls short of music. Perhaps someone might argue this point: since film art also includes music, it can encompass the advantages and strengths of music. However, in reality, music in film lacks independent aesthetic significance. It can only be a part of the overall score of the visual and auditory composition of film art. It is subordinate to the overall design of the film to enhance the atmosphere and convey the mood. It cannot exist independently of the overall design. If it seeks independence, breaking away from the overall needs of the film to complete itself, then it becomes a part that "steals the show" in the film, something that should be cut off. Even a famous piece by Beethoven can be inserted into a film, but it must serve the needs of the film, be placed in the right place, and must be broken and fragmented according to the overall needs of the plot. If it is insisted on being played in its entirety, the film may lose its own structural integrity. Moreover, the sound of music in a film is always in synchronization or asynchronous relation with the moving images, always serving to enhance the atmosphere, express the mood, depict the emotions, actions, relationships, and plot developments of the film. Its significance is always reflected in its combination with these elements.
The difference between film art and dance lies mainly in this: film art combines sound and images to create moving scenes, allowing it to express complex aspects of life and human affairs. Dance, on the other hand, can only express emotions and reflect life through the rhythmic and melodious beauty of human movement. Dance generally cannot speak, which greatly limits its ability to express complex emotions and reflect complex human affairs. Of course, dance also has advantages that film cannot replace. It can express emotions so freely and thoroughly through the human body, captivating the audience, something that film cannot match. Beautiful dance scenes can be interwoven into a film, but they must also be subordinate to the overall aesthetic design of the film and cannot exist independently.
Film art differs from sculpture and stage plays in that it combines sound and images to create moving scenes. Unlike sculpture, which is static and can be admired from different angles for a long time, the sculptures in film are only a part subordinate to the overall film. Stage plays can bring emphasized characters to the center of the stage, focus the attention of all onscreen characters on them, or suddenly introduce a sound in the midst of silence to attract the audience's attention to a certain object or the words and actions of characters. However, this still lacks the powerful aesthetic stimulation, appeal, and of film's close-ups, zooming in and out, or freeze frames. The main strength of stage plays over screen plays lies in the fact that they are performed live on stage by actors in front of an audience, allowing for real-time interaction and a sense of intimacy that film will never be able to achieve. Film can enhance