Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Film and it’s Spectator - Coggle Diagram

- - - - A couple years ago Martin Scorsese said something along the lines that Marvel movies were more like them park attractions rather than film. I think he was probably insulting the films storytelling, but I think it shows how the view of film has changed over the years. Film now is seen to only to be a way to tell story, not explore what films can be or could do.
- - - - Connection: Though not film, videogames have certainly experimented and utilized the techniques described both by Leyda and Vertov.
- - - - What new question do you have? Although Carrol points out a lot of flaws in Baudry’s logic, is there still some truth to his arguments?
        What random something caught your eye? Throughout Baudry’s argument, he will often undercut himself by pointing out the differences in what he is supposed to be making synonymous as evidenced by the quote before.
        
        Baudry makes a strong argument as to why/how Plato "invented" cinema.
        
        Expanding on what I was talking about with videogames, they are often either played in 1st person or close over the shoulder 3rd person, allowing the player to see through the eyes of the character, possibly leading to greater empathy. "Videodrome" also makes many connections to videogames, including a crude representation of what might become VR and the prediction of screen names
      - “But VR promised to replace the real world. Sensory immersion set the stage for the implied or actual transformation of the human world into the machine world” Bogost
        
        “Immersive media, especially in the form of non fiction VR documenteries are increasingly used to inform and influence public debate” Schlembach, Clewer
        
        The Bogost articles, like a lot of public opinion, seems to be alarmist and weary of the future of VR. He makes parralles to many dystopian science fiction works, but for me, they don’t hold up in many way. So I find myself more interested and more in agreement with scholarly article, which relies more on impiracle date. Not that I don’t think that VR can certainly have negative consequences, but I think the most important thing at this stage is that more research is done.
    - - …point of view of the male protagonist draw the spectators deeply into his position, making them share his uneasy gaze. (Mulvey 439)
        
        What was one concept that finally clicked for you? How women are specifically objectified, not by the practice of objectification of the body, but the lack of having a desire that is reflected on the screen in the same way it is for men.
        What new question do you have? I wonder how this has changed over the years. One thing I think of is that, despite the realization of strong female protagonists, there is often still the sexualization that is attached to these characters.
        
        For fantasies are not, as it is sometimes thought, wish-fulfilling linear narratives of mastery and control leading to closure and the attainment of desire. They are marked, rather, by the prolongation of desire, and by the lack of fixed position with respect to the objects and events fantasized. (Williams 10)
        
        ...the more useful lesson might be to see what this new fluidity and oscillation permits in the construction of feminine viewing pleasures once thought not to exist at all. (Williams 9)
        
        What new thing have you learned? The representation of emotions in cinema, even "obscene" emotions, can offer men and women the opportunity for gender exploration through processes of identification. For example, men identifying with the "final girl" when transitioning from passive to active. What random something caught your attention? I just found it interesting that something that is often criticized as sexist is instead argued to be a system that let's women access voyeurism in the same way that men do
        
        1 more item...
  - - - What new thing have you learned? Cinema can "move" us in many ways, not just the one's described by Williams. What new thing can you explain? We "see" cinema through more than our eyes, our experiences informing the sensations in our body as we view the screen.