문학과 영화의 상호매체적 관점에서 본 영화의 확장성과 한계성 고찰

Abstract

Nowadays, film has changed our way of perception of the reality and the world. Film substitutes for the traditional realms of humanities, such as Literature, History, and Philosophy and even exceed the ability of the realms. The new media, film reflects the human life, and criticizes the society of the same age, and brings about the reform of the reality. Furthermore, it presents an image of the future through the presentation of the past. Therefore there are no modern arts that influences more than film. People in the modern society, especially the young people feel no more attraction for the print media. Whatever we accept or not, we have to recognize these phenomena. Film which deprives the role of literature, is ironically based on literature. Sergei Eisenstein who is famous for the technique of montage said that he learned his film techniques by the novelist James Joyce, who is a representative man of the literary world of the 20th Century. The American film director David Wark Griffith responded to the question where he got the idea of using camera technique that he learned it from the greatest novelist of 19th Century, Charles Dickens. The Hungarian author and film theorist Béla Baláz also emphasized the native reliance of film on literary. But we can see now the reversal phenomenon between film and literary. Novelists make the contents of films into their literary works. The contents that were described by films, are written by novelists. The typical example is the ciné-roman that is originally planned to produce a film. The Jurrasic Park of the American novelist Michael Crichton was also originally written for film. Modern films provide the storytelling techniques such as montage, flashback, slow motion, fade-in, fade-out, and dissolve for literature. Here, we can think of the concept of the intermediality. The media literature has accepted the heterogeneous elements of the another media, which is film. We can see plainly that film and literature have influenced each other from past to the present. However film shows much more influences than literature on the public in terms of the role and the mass appeal. Is there then no limit of so-called ‘trans-film’ that wields absolute power in the modern society? Is there impossibility of film that plays the role of human studies better than human studies itself? Can every expression of the literary be materialized in film? The idea of abstraction, established thought, and the convoluted logic expressed without difficulty in literature can not be easily shown in film. The more important problem and limit of film lie on the natural circumstance of film. Film is the only art media which is born in the background of the industrial society and the capital. For film, economic interests take priority over the esthetic point of view. In this situation social criticism, and artistic, and experimental films could be excluded. Also, the chances of fim to show the social responsibility and the critical consciousness would decline. It brings out a result that artist surrenders to the esthetics of product. The strength of film, which once a popular appeal, is now a weak point, and film degenerates into a captive of the mass appeal. The limitation of film is based on this commercial characteristics. Government and the authorities must provide an institutional strategy in order to overcome the limitation of film. It is the way for the awareness of a reality and the expansion of the mutual communication in the society. It is also a method to make an authentic ‘trans-film’.