Beauty vs. Aesthetics

 

     I have found the discussion in class concerning the idea of beauty/truth and aesthetic to be rather interesting, but I think I shall place myself on the side of those who are having trouble with the films that do not look pleasing (even if the stories are at least decent). Here is my main reason for doing this: I think that a filmmaker should never become so enamoured with the current state of the story as to forget aesthetic, and vice versa. I have seen both cases, and can testify that, while the films aren't necessarily what I would call "really bad", I think that they would be better if told in a different way, or with a different art style. Case in point, the film concerning the two sisters, in my opinion, would have been better if it had been done in live action. Now, I understand that the director was an animator. However, I still think that the film would have been more aesthetically appealing in live action, and might have made the characters more "human", if you will, in terms of their reactions and such. Would the sight of the disfigured sister have been more jarring, sure. But that is the point. She becomes that much more pitiable. Let me say, before I go on, that I am in NO WAY endorsing the idea that art style should carry a movie. However, a great movie that looks boring, is still an incomplete movie, just like a movie with great aesthetics but a seriously lacking story.

     Now, to finish, I will address the issue of the other side of this coin. There are more than a few directors who hide incompetent stories behind stunning visuals (Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland or James Cameron's Avatar, anyone). However, I do not think that we should say that presenting a bad story in a beautiful way is necessarily that much different than presenting a beautiful story in a very mundane way. Now, I will say that I understand that not all movies require a Tim Burton level of attention to inventiveness (Forrest Gump likely would not have been as good of a movie in Tim's hands). However, audiences will appreciate both types of moviemaking, because both types are so rare. Don't believe me? Count the number of visually stunning films you have ever seen, along with those who truly hold a great story from beginning to end. Then, divide that by the number of movies you have seen, and presto, you get my point. Being visually creative shows the audience that, although you may have slacked or had trouble in the story department, you still cared enough about your art to show them something beautiful. After all, is not awakening the childlike sense of wonder and imagination in your audience through the pictures they see a form of truth/beauty. I rest my case.