I’m pleased to announce there’s been several new additions to the Bang2write Household this week… No, not cats or human babies – I’ve learned my lesson on those – but a Tamagotchi called Susan. My son is the proud father and despite a bad start (poor Susan had diarrhoea – sp?? – on sunday and was ROBBED on Monday!), she has already made Alf a proud grandfather by giving birth to baby Keith yesterday. Mother and baby are doing well and Keith is already at secondary school. They grow up so quick nowadays.
The lovely MA David emailed me on Friday: I call him this since he’s asked me about courses a number of times now, though I don’t think I’ve read for him… He’s also not David Bishop or indeed any other David I know, including Him Indoors because his grammar and spelling are too good! Also, he doesn’t ramble about bushcraft, fishing or crisps, his fave pursuits, so I can be pretty sure it’s not my spouse. Would be a bit weird for him to email me when he could just ask me. Mind you, the husband IS a bit weird, so MA David, if you’re not him, let us know more about you!
But I digress. MA David is applying for a course and one of his questions on the application form is this:
What makes a film cinematic in your opinion?
This is an interesting question, because to me it immediately throws up a multitude of others over what the word “cinematic” actually means: can a low-budget film be “cinematic”? Or does “cinematic” inevitably mean high budgets, big arenas, CGI, big loacations, scenery and costumes? Is a “cinematic” film one with less dialogue and more action: does genre play a part in the decision (ie. an action/adventure is more “cinematic” than a drama)? Does the term “cinematic” link to the idea of story = ie. if it makes a big franchise, then is it more “cinematic” than a single, stand-alone film?
What are your thoughts on the matter? Over to you…