Nöel Carroll notes that early philosophers did not view film as an art, but a mere recording device for the true art of acting. The way a vinyl record is not art, but the music recorded on it, likewise with film, a series of moving photographs is not art but the performance it displays. It wasn’t until noticing film’s specific technical devices that have allowed people to argue for film as an art form. Cuts and splices, dissolves, superimposition, and close-ups are a few examples that give film its artistic intention. They’re what distinguish film, from the haunting that is theatre. And unlike theatre, these devices take away from actors.
Terrence Malick, the subject at hand, leaves to literature what belongs to literature and leaves to theatre what belongs to theatre, and makes explicit what is unique about film: He conveys ideas with careful consideration in his cinematic language. This can be seen by how he manipulates film techniques, takes importance away from actors and the script, and how he utilizes lyrical narration to enhance the pictures. Good writing and good acting are art forms in their own right, but as far as film’s place in art they’re the cherry on top. Nevertheless, so it goes with the flock and some critics, the normality of movie-going has taken shape in acting and storytelling, without which a film has no legs to walk.
