I wouldn't say that films required less of an input of imaginationand books, or cause people's imagination to become fallow. I'd say that they both allow the person making the film or book to instill certain emotions or to provoke thought or discussion in a given direction.
A filmmaker or an actor can convey messages using subtle imagery and acting that is near impossible in a book. In the same way, a writer is far more free to craft sentences and to describe whatever he wants than a filmmaker, who is limited to what is visible on a screen and what can be produced in front of a camera.
I think the big difference between films and books is what the makers of each can get away with. It is possible to make a film lazily, without much concern for it's artistic value (with lots of car chases, explosions and gunfights), and for it to still be fairly enjoyable to watch and reasonably successful. A badly written book, however, is near worthless. Despite this, I'd say that the best examples of eahc medium require concentration and imagination to extract full enjoyment from, and both are very worthwhile pursuits.
Oh, and @Tito:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jean Paul Satre
Imagination is not an empirical or superadded power of consciousness, it is the whole of consciousness as it realizes its freedom.
|