Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Film-Spectator Relationships, : - Coggle Diagram

- - - - A REVOLUTION KINO EYE
        
        "The eye submits to the will of the camera and is directed by it to those success points of the action that, most succinctly and vividly, bring the film phrase to the height or depth of resolution" (16)
        "From one person I take the hands, the strongest and most dexterous; from another I take the legs, the swiftest and most shapely; from a third, the most beautiful and expressive head - a through montage I create a new, perfect man" (17)
        
        A random thing that caught my attendant was this author's framing of the relationship between film, reality and attention. These quotes make an interesting link between film and reality. In these quotes the author seems to be advocating for the cameras ability to see a world that the eye can's and to, in a sense, create a perfect lessens for the viewer to see through. Though in a sense I think all art does this as art can never exactly replicate reality nor would we really want it to, the way this author puts it takes on a very dangerous tone. It makes me question who decides in this process what is the definition of perfection and what the eye should be drawn to. I think this idea of film is where this author and Einstein differ. Eisestein advocates for differences and tensions and flaws as it is the connections made between these pieces that create emotion and logic. However, this author seems to be using the same ideas to create "perfection", but what is perfection really and why do we value it so much? I also thought it was interesting that this author's framing of film's ability to direct attention mirrored Munsterberg's own claims, though the two had very different ends in mind.
        
        A montage that exemplifies this idea is the fight scene in Avenger's End Game. In this scene there is a montage of all the heroes coming together to fight Thanos, coming together in heroic glory to save the world. In this scene, when read through the lease discussed above, the producers are creating an image of the perfect hero through combining shots of all the heroes in their universe. Avengers End Game Battle
  - - - IDEOLOGY
        def: system of ideas and beliefs especially if the basis for economic or polical theory and practice
        
        more powerful when less visible
        
        links to mass media in that often mass culture reproduces and reinforces the dominant ideology
- - - - MULVEY
        
        "Sections III A and B have set out a tension between a mode of representation of woman in film and conventions surrounding the diegesis. Each is associated with a look: that of the spectator in direct scopophilic contact with the male form displayed for his enjoyment (connoting male fantasy) and that of the spectator fascinated with the image of his like set in an illusion of natural space, and through him gaining control and possession of the woman within the diegesis" (438)
        
        First, in this whole reading I learned much more about apparatus theory, strangely enough. I have read Mulvey before and thus was familiar with her theories on the male gaze. Rereading this theory immediately after having learned apparatus theory helped me understand apparatus theory and Mulvey's ideas much more. From this quote specifically, I learned abut he relationship between women and narrative, and how they are in a sense used a spectacle purely for male scopafilic pleasure.
        Second, I have a lot of questions about what Mulvey describes in the introduction as female unconscious. She writes that "We are still separated by a great gap from important issues for the female unconscious which are scarily relevant to the phalocentric theory". I am interested in what she means by the female unconscious and how she thinks this would look in film. I also am wondering about how, in this quote, she describes the spectator as being assumed male. If this is the case, what happens to women from a theory standpoint when they view women in film through the male gaze?
        
        There are countless examples of the female serving as a male fantasy, from James Bond to many film noir to Pretty Woman. One good example of this the movie Charlie's Angels, I thought this was an interesting example because I have heard some people describe this as a feminist movie, when in reality is it designed to adhere to the male gaze. In this film, the women are in control of Charlie, and are portrayed as beautiful and dangerous objects of visual pleasure. Charlie's Angels
        
        SULLIVANS TRAVELS
        Sullivan's Travels serves as a good example of Mulvey's discussion of the male gaze and what it means for a woman in film to be viewed scopaphilically. This film employs fetishistic scopaphilia as the female character doesn't necessarily add anything to the plot but serves as a beautiful spectacle that the assumed heterosexual viewers can see with pleasure. This film also appeals to the hetersexual views narcissism as they are called to identify with Sullivan as a figure of agency who gets the money and the girl in the end.
        
        Both speak to the role of the female body in film. Mulvey speaks more to the female body's typical portrayal in relation to an assumed heterosexual male spectator. Williams builds upon this and complexities it, exploring how in contemporary films excess in both male and female bodies is used to work through societies changing ideas around gender. I am interested to see if Mulvey's theory on the female body in film informed Williams understanding as Williams' argument seems to be an expansion of what Mulvey was saying while also opening a way for the female body to speak to social conceptions of gender.
        
        SCOPAFILIA
        
        pleasure of looking, specifically at women as different and as an object, includes sexual stimiulation
        
        Voyeruistic Scopafilia
        
        views through investigating and punishing women as a way of dealing with the fear of castratoin that occurs through looking
        
        Fetishistic scopafilia
        
        deals with castration anxiety through maximizing the beauty and sexual appeal of the female in the image; almost so beautiful painful to look at
        
        MARYLIN MONROE in Seven Year Itch
- - - - TATI'S PLAYTIME
        Though the gag is much more subtle in Tati's Playtime than other films who operate on the principle of gag and slapstick comedy, this film is an example of the way a film operates when it is motivated by spectacle rather than narrative. In this film there is not much narrative, rather the viewers is drawn in by the sublets gags and spectacles that amuse the viewers.
        
        TELEOLOGICAL ARGUEMENT AND RELATOIN TO PIE/GAG + CINEMA OF ATTRACTIONS:
        teleological argument def:
        
        first understand idea of telos (predetermined point)
        
        teleological argument in film is that film has been moving towards the point (telos) of being the most advanced storytelling medium
        
        GUNNING ARGUES AGAINST THIS ARGUEEMNT! He claims that there is value in the spectacle and non-narrative aspects of early film and points to how they are still in operation in modern films, argues that the reason we like film is not totally because of the narrative but because of the spectacle.
        This relates to many of the other theories we have discussed, including Muvley's theories on the male gaze and the female body as a spectacle and our disused of body genres and how they operate on the idea of "excess" being a sort of spectacle as it creates bodily reaction in the viewer.
      - CINEMA OF ATTRACTIONS
        
        the idea that film should not be narrative but should be a series of "spectacles" designed to entertain the viewer, or if is it narrative the reason we like the film is not the narrative but the spectacles disbursed in the narrative
        
        aesthetic astonishment - aesthetic practice that leads to the "spectacle" and stemming from man's interest in the unnatural; a modern day example would be our interest in watching jurassic park, not necessarily because of the fantastic narrative but to see how they make the dinosaurs
        
        narrative absorption - the idea that viewers are so absorbed in the story on screen rather than the spectacle; forget that watching a film and become entirely engrossed in narrative
  - - - EISTEIN FILM FORM
        
        "The differentiation in montage-pieces lies in their lack of existence as single units. Each piece can evoke no more than a certain association" (60)
        "Emotional effect beings only with the reconstruction of the event in montage fragments, each of which will summon a certain association" (60)
        
        This reading blew my mind to be totally honest, and there are still a few parts that I don't totally grasp. That being said, I can much better identify and explain the function of the montage and why it works. I also now am aware of how the montage, though not strictly part of the narrative is critical to the aesthetic and communicative properties of the film. This is a sense connects to the theories of the gag and why it is valuable to film even though it is not part of the narrative. Both the montage and the gag add to the film without necessarily being critical to the narrative. I also am able to understand the idea of how the montage could be used not just to create an emotional reaction but almost an intellectual argument, thus making film into a space of intellectualized thought rather than just entertainment or mass culture indoctrination under the mask of entertainment. I am also better able to explain the link between tension and difference in all art forms, and not just film, as Einstein put it wonderfully.
        Regarding questions I now have, I was very confused what Einstein's point about rhythm was. I read over this section and am still at a loss.
        
        An example of this is the montage scene from the movie Whiplash. The montage in this film shows Andrew practicing obsessively in order to perform on the drums for his professor. The montage elements create the emotions of stress, anxiety, and obsession, giving the reader a window in Andrew's own experience. The montage also engenders admiration in the audience for Andrew's efforts. Whiplash Montage
        
        STRIKE
        As discussed in class, sStrike is a textbook example of soviet montage theory and the attempt to bring the viewers to a conclusion through the use of montage and editing. Upon watching Born In Flames, I though it was interesting to compare how the two used similar ends to create different effects, especially given that these movies were created in such vastly different cultural and temporal contexts.
        
        BORN IN FLAMES
        Though we talked about this move in the context of apparatus theory, I think it also functions in terms of some of the principals of society montage theory and the discussion about whether film should be more narrative or employ some alternative plot structure. As seen in the quote connected to this one, Eisenstein and Soveity Montage theory poses films should be designed to create thought in viwers. According to this theory, this is done through the way in which films are edited. Rather than editing to keep the viewer unaware that they are watching a film, films should be edited in such a way that keeps readers conscious they are watching a film and creates some sort of intellectual activation in the reader. This can be seen in many aspects of Born in Flames since, though there is a loose narrative, the viewers is constantly aware they are watching a film and are called to think about the various aspects of the film, such as which approach to activism they should adhere to. An example of this is the montage sequence I have included in which vastly different women are portrayed as doing a range of things before cutting to an image of all women protesting together, leading to the conclusion that though we as women are all different and experience our womanhood differently, we are linked by the experience of being female.
        
        Both these films apply montage to make a point even though they come from vastly different cultural and temporal contexts. It would be interesting to look at other films who strive to use film as a way of creating ideas and generating activity in the spectator and see where they use similar and different strategies. I also wonder if Mulvey's ideas on feminist film were at all informed by the Societ use of film
        
        KULESOV EFFECT
        
        is the reason that montage theory works
        
        posits that two images put next to each other will produce thought and certain associations I the viewer
        
        relates to montage theory as explains how people are made to think with montage
        
        for instance, an image of a man and then an image of a dead woman could mean sadness to the viewer
  - - - Link Title
      - PINK FLAMINGOS CRITICISM BY BRECKON -
        
        "As an analogy for the spectatorial experience of Pink Flamingos, ‘shock therapy’ elucidate the film’s potential to effect change at the level of the individual spectator. Far form experiencing the pain of the other as it if were his own – the traditional empathetic spectatorial response sought by most social redemptive cinema – Stevenson’s response indicates instead the impossibly of experiencing relation to character” (518)
        
        My question is how do we reconcile Hanich’s piece with Breckon’s piece when the Breckon’s piece seems to claim that the disgust utilized in this movie operates to negative any experience of empathy as seen in the above quote while Hanich's seems to claim that with disgust a level of empathy, or at least sympathy, is almost required in their section titled “Character Engagement: Disgust-Empathy and Disgust-Sympathy” (22).
        Also, maybe it is the humanist in me as I very much value community and social connection and all the things Pink Flamingos and the version of queer theory it is associated with seem to represent, but my question is what is the function or reasoning behind creating such a film? I can logically read the explanation, but I honestly still don’t understand.
        
        HANICH
        
        “Typically, scenes of cinematic disgust are not just disgusting – they are often something else as well” (27)
        “Apart from the question of affective co-occurrence yields other categorical insights. Firstly, one could raise the issue of pleasure/displeasure (or valence, as psychologist call it) of the emotions involved. Either both emotions are negative and thus located on the displeasure end of the valence axis (like disgust and horror or shock); or the second emotion is positive and hence we deal with two emotions of different valence (such as disgust and amusement or A-emotion admiration)” (29)
        
        I am much better at understanding disgust as an emotion and the ways in which it functions in film. I had never considered how complex the experience of and creation of disgust in film was and found this reading very eye opening. I was particularly interested on the discourse surrounding the mixing of disgust with other emotions, both positive and negative, and would love to learn more about how disgust mixed with different motions can either create or destroy empathy.
        
        For instance, the attached scene from Legends of the Fall includes both empathy and disgust for me. As a viewer, I was both empathetic towards the Brad Pitt character for his grief and guilt and anger over the death of his brother, as well as able to feel sympathy for the major C-PTSD he was likely experiencing based on his actions throughout the rest of the film. However, I was also disgusted by his murder and scalping of the German soldiers. Revenge for Sam Scene