Film Theory
Week One: Theory, The Cave, and Cinema
Quote from Plato “Then, undoubtedly, such captives would consider the truth to be nothing but the shadows of the carved objects.” (Plato)
Quote from Münsterberg “But what a different perspective is opened if we think of the unlimited means with which the film may express feeling and sentiment through means of its own.” (Münsterberg, 15)
Something new that I can explain is that theory is something that is really hard to define. This is because of the nature of what it is, it’s meant to question everything while explaining everything else. Some main questions I have from this first week are, is there such thing as over analyzing art? Does art stop being art at any point of creation, does intention have anything to do with it?
Week 2:
Quote from Horkheimer and Adorno “The whole world is passed through the filter of the culture industry” (Horkheimer and Adorno, 99).
Quote from Kracauer “ Sensational film hits and life usually correspond to each other because the Little Miss Typists model themselves after the examples they see on the screen. It may be, however, that the most hypocritical instances are stolen from life” (Kracauer, 292).
Something new I have learned from the readings is that there seems to be a method of thinking where film seems to be something used to control or oppress. I’ve never thought about it like that before, but it makes sense. Film is celebrated and used thoroughly within society to influence and change minds, it definitely could be used as a tool for control. Which is essentially propaganda, but what the readings highlighted was something far more subtle.
A question I have though that rises from the previously mentioned concept is, is art inherently manipulative? Which also leads me to the question, is art a selfish venture, or not? It seems the authors from both readings seem to believe so.
A connection to a film I wanted to highlight was how these readings connect to old WWII training videos. There is this guy on YouTube who revives old film from those old training movies and puts it online. There is something to say in the way the authors dislike how film is used and how these trainings seem to advocate a war positive message.
Week 3
Quote from Gunning “A few observations will indicate the way that early cinema was not dominated by the narrative impulse that later asserted its sway over the medium” (Gunning, 381).
Quote from Crafton “The distinction between narrative and slapstick has been properly preceived, but incorrectly interpreted” (Crafton, 356).
Both readings left me feeling a bit confused because of their interpretation’s of narrative. A question I have for both of these readings is, “Couldn’t narrative be interpreted from anything being presented through the format of film?” Some narratives might be more simple or meaning not lying on the surface, but couldn’t an interpretation be taken, thus making it a narrative?
I learned that the term “slap” with slapstick might have origin in the physical essence of humor. The example used was the pie in the face, that action being the slap.
A connection I made with a film and the readings is from The Truman Show. This movie uses narrative in a meta way, the same way I think the readings are theorizing with narrative and how layered it can be. Especially through the lens of genre.
Week 4
Quote from Eisenstein
“The only possibility of maintaining taste in art is to impress on artists and the public the importance of irregularity. Irregularity is the basis of all art” (Eisenstein, 51)
Quote from Vertov
” The weakness of the human eye is manifest. We affirm the kino- eye, discovering within the chaos of movement the result of the kino- eye’s own movement; we affirm the kino-eye with its own dimensions of time and space, growing in strength and potential to the point of self-affirmation” (Vertov, 16)
The Vertov reading really throws me off. From his writing he seems to be in criticism and protest about modern (for his time) cinema. Seemingly calling out the studio system, and specifically the studio system in Russia. That’s how I interpreted it at least. While also proposing the “Kino-eye” as a sort of third eye for the viewer. Physically being represented as the camera used to make films, but metaphorically being attached to the viewer. I have two questions for this reading, “Is the King-eye a bad thing? Is the King-eye a sort of manipulation for the viewer, is the worlds created from it too real for the viewer?”
A random something that caught my attention from the Eisenstein reading is how he writes the form of film as a body. His vocabulary used seems to imply that film is a living sentient being that works organically like that of a body. It honestly makes sense in a really theoretical and metaphorical way, especially coming from the perspective of the artist making film.
This might be a long shot, but I think a connection can be made to both of these readings from Scott Derickson’s horror film, Sinister (coggle wouldn’t let me italicize it). I come to this conclusion because of the nature of the antagonistic entity within the film, being connected to the camera and film Ethan Hawk’s character watches. This entity uses media and attention to gain power over it’s victims. One could argue this entity is a negative representation of the Kino-eye. Of course, this is a far reach, but I think I could make an argument for it.
Week 5
Quote from Jean-Louis Baudry
“The Cinematographic apparatus is unique in that it offers the subject perceptions “of a reality” who’s status seems similar to that of representations experienced as perception” (Baudry, 704).
Quote from Noel Carroll
”But however seductive to some literary sensibilities “The Apparatus may be, contemporary belles letters does not afford the means to defend casual claims about the processes underlying cinema” (Carroll, 723).
Something new I can explain is how Carroll’s analysis of Baudry is based in a more literal perspective of viewing film. Which breaks the complexity of Baudry’s analysis of The Apparatus. Carroll explains that his theory is held too much in the realm of theory and there isn’t enough evidence to support what he is saying to even consider his thoughts. While this seems to be the realistic case, Baudry raises some fundamentally interesting points into the ritual of participating in a movie experience.
One Concept that clicked for me was Baudry explaining how watching a film brings us into a dream state. Brought on by the subconscious, which also plays into a possible reasoning for the creation of film. To my understanding Baudry believes that film was created to fill in some psychological need within the subconscious. Which started as primitive cave painting and evolved to what we know as visual media now.
A movie that connects to Baudry in my opinion is Halloween 3: Season of the Witch. This is because the film goes over how there is a supernatrual connection to the TV set. A more spiritual perspective holds that there is a certain power items like the TV’s in our houses have over us. I don’t know if I subscribe to that, but I find it interesting to think about. This connects to the idea of the apparatus because that concept puts the viewing experience as something more complex than just a mere experience. It holds a psychological impact.
Week 6:
Quote from Mulvey “The cinema satisfies a primordial wish for pleasurable looking, but it also goes further, developing scopophilia in its narcissistic aspect” (Mulvey, 435).
Something new I can explain is that this theory offers the idea that when we are viewing or making film there seems to be a sub-conscious perspective of Women. This perspective is presented under a masculine lens. Which makes female characters or concepts objectified by a masculine presence.
I think something that clicked for me from this reading is how these theories connect. For instance, from last week we learned about the apparatus and how that relationship effects audiences. The weeks prior to that we’ve been discussing the hidden meanings of different films, and how that plays into societies mental state. I think Mulvey’s article follows this just in a specific manner to how women are portrayed and subconsciously followed within film. Which from her analysis seems to be a negative concept.
I have a hard time thinking of a specific film that highlights this, because under the lens of the theory one could make the argument this comes into play for most if not all films.
Maybe an example specifically from the quote I chose above could be the newish “clean” trend of cinematography. Where the cinematography focuses on the idea of wanting to see something pleasurable that follows an aesthetic. From the show Euphoria and how it depicts sex and drugs. To the movie Uncut Gems due to it’s depiction of women, the expensive items and money, gambling, and the opal the movie is centered around. The running idea here is these shows and movies are shot beautifully and with the clearest and cleanest picture possible, but the themes they discuss give insight into the gross underbelly of humanity. Specifically with their depictions of drugs and sex, and the abuse of both concepts.
Week 7
Quote from Linda Williams “The catagories of fetishism, voyerism, sadism, and masochism frequently invoked to describe the pleasures of film spectatorship are by definition perversions” (6).
Something random that caught my attention is how Williams uses her 7 year old son to help her point. It is interesting as we never think about children and their perspective into film. Especially with the topic Williams brings up into the perversion of film.
A question I have for Williams is, how would she react with her analysis to a film like James Wan’s Saw? Thematically, Saw is about torturing people to make them appreciate life more than they do. It also seems that males are mainly the target and get it the worst. What part or fantasy is being fulfilled with that franchise?
My connection follows the last question I just asked. I wanted to use the movie Saw, because I think within Williams analysis there is a lot that could be unpacked. Especially throwing this theory into modern interpretation.
This film demonstrates the literal use of montage but it also conveys montage theory, in converting emotion and making people follow an id3eology. Like the little shopgirls. Or even the apparatus, and how that connects to the subsconscious of the viewer.
Apparatus Theory - The Projector, the screen, the audience
Connects to Videodrome, and how the TV becomes a living being and connects the mind. This image of the gun coming out of the screen reveals a danger of this.
click to edit
Montage - A series of cuts to make up the narrative side of a film. This also works with making meaning out of the images on screen, whether its deeper or surface level.
Montage Theory - when the meanings of the film and how images are cut together form a level of deeper feeling. This connects to an earlier concept in the deeper meanings of film from earlier this semester.
Little Shopgirls…
This concept explains the deeper attitudes and meanings audiences can form from the films they watch. The little shopgirls are the audience.
Allegory of the cave: Pluto’s allegory of the cave, explainaing the conceptions of reality in humanity.
This connects to apparatus theory, because the allegory works as a sort of apparatus. Where the audience is being projected the images and made to believe reality. Boudry believe this to have been a prediction of movies happening later down the line.
Slapstick Comedy - using a simple formula of comedy for an easy reaction.
Week 8
“ Every black woman I spoke with who was/is an ardent moviegoer, a lover of the Hollywood film, testified that to experience fully the pleasure of that cinema they had to close down critique, analysis; they had to forget racism” (120, Hooks).
Something I learned is that under the perspective of film as an apparatus, Hooks argues that the apparatus as an object of power was used against African American people, during the height of old Hollywood. And maybe even far after.
A question I have is, is the apparatus still being used under this same intention in the modern day, and we just don’t realize it? Is Hollywood’s newfound obsession with being progressive an example of this? I ask this question because it seems that Hollywood’s intentions don’t seem pure or honest in wanting to be progressive in their content.
An example I wanted to point out in this is something already mentioned from class, but I think it fits even more perfectly within this perspective. The scene from Jordan Peele’s Get Out where he sinks. I think that scene says a lot that Hooks was trying to convey.
Week 10:
“That auture criticism is at least partly beside the point is clear from figures such as John Carpenter (Halloween, The Fog) - interviews that would seem to suggest that, like the purveyors of folklore, the makers of film operate on instinct and formula than conscious understanding” (Clover, 5).
While reading this article, I realized there is a lot I want to challenge. Which is why I chose the quote I chose. I think a major glaring issue with a lot of these readings and perspectives lies in how they choose to interpret the artists (filmmakers) motives. Their inherent thoughts and conclusions about the specific subjects they come to aren’t wrong, all of these concepts come down to opinion and interpretation, opinions in their nature aren’t inherently wrong. Where the issue lies is in how there seems to be a belief that these filmmakers and artists are intentionally going about making they decisions they do out of ignorance or random thought. Or interpreting their motives to present their theory as if it had any grounding with the artists the day they were on set. Which might be true in a few cases, but doesn't apply across the board.
I would love to know if Carol J Clover has ever made a film before. I would love to know if Clover has ever been trying to make a work of art while being faced down by studio interference and low budgets. Have they ever blocked a shot? Have they ever held a camera for the purpose of shooting a narrative piece? Have they ever even been on a set? Of course, one doesn’t need to hold a brush to enjoy or critique paintings, but don’t claim that the genre and artist you’re analyzing is “low art” because it follows a formula. A completely original concept doesn’t exist, and this is something learned and accepted across the industry. Little shopgirls presents this idea, even if they fall into the same problem of faulty artist interpretation. All film follows a formula, some more obvious than others, slashers DO follow a typical formula. I can argue though, some slashers change the formula or use it for a deeper thematic meaning. Take Wes Craven’s Scream for example, many of the ideas within the film follow what Clover is speaking of. Although presenting the movie as a satirical love letter to the slasher genre.
The Town That Dreader Sundown was one of the first notable examples of the slasher as we know it today. It inspired Carpenter in the creation of Halloween a few years later. Inspiration is working off of instinct, yes, but to make the claim that there isn’t a conscious understanding is ridiculous. Do a lot of the same ideas arise between both films, yes, is this formula, yes. Yet, there is something that differentiates both, and that is Michael Meyers. Meyers is a complex character that delves deep into the human mind and psyche, even if it isn’t inherently there to be spoon fed to audiences this idea is true.
I even agree that formula can even be a bad thing. Like in modern Hollywood we are plagued by formula and it hinders the art form. This is a fine line though in trying to not follow or following a formula, which even if you aren’t trying you’re following a formula in some way.
Like I mentioned before, I think certain aspects to Clover’s analysis are valid and interesting. Such as their thoughts on gender and how the slasher genre depicts women in a negative way. Or how the Final Girl offers aspects of masculinity that are harmful. Same for authors of the other readings and their conclusions, no problem there. I think though, maybe their conclusions and interpretations would be a little more grounded in reality and honest if they were able to be apart of a film set and really understand how and more importantly WHY these films they are commenting on get made. Of course, thats just my thoughts and perspectives, maybe I’m completely wrong. Just a useless opinion.
Week 11
I chose this quote from Vivian Sobchack “Again, I want to emphasize that I am not speaking metaphorically of touching and being touched at and by the movies but “in some sense” quite literally of our capacity to feel the world we see and hear on screen and of the cinemas capacity to “touch” and “move” us offscreen.
I wanted to connect this theory and concept to something I learned just yesterday. A concept called frisson, where music or any other piece of media such as film has the ability to cause a physical reaction. Such as goosebumps or a knot in your throat. We don’t know for sure, but its thought that about only half the population or less has this phenomenon. I just thought this theory was interesting to line up with that because of the nature of being touched by film and the emotional implications it can offer. In this case, it brings a physical property to it.
I can also see how this might connect to apparatus theory and how film can exist through certain methods outside of the film itself. Similar to an apparatus concept.
A movie I wanted to connect it to is not necessarily a single movie, but I think 3D movies identify how the indsutry wants to get closer and closer to “touching” viewers.
Week 12
Quote from Hanich
“In other words, does the filmmaker put us in a position of knowing (roughly) as much as the character; or is there a strong surplus of knowledge on our part that forces us to evaluate the scene differently than the unknowing figure?” (2011, Hanich).
Quote from Breckon
“ Pink Flamingos reconfigures the value of the experience of disgust by privileging the fascination and lure of the abject that threatens to undo identity over the fear and loathing that arises from the need to consolidate identity and affirm the subject's sense of coherence.” (Breckon)
I think these articles propose an interesting dynamic of filmmmaker intention and the use of disgust. The question that commonly gets asked is, “why would the add something like that?” In reference to something obscene, horrific, or disgusting. It’s interesting to identify the “why” of these choices. I think from the perspective of the creator, it gets boiled down to a number of different possibilities but these might be most commonly thought of. 1. These choices are used as spectacle, whether thats from the filmmmaker or the studio trying to sell the film. 2. There’s some deeper significance as both Hanich and Breckon mention. 3. There choice follows the character development, it’s not that its a plot point, its trying to make this character real. 4. A decision is made to favor the world building. Like in Texas Chainsaw, the set design or art department want to do an amazing job, so they go above and beyond in making the house a disgusting environment for the protagonist to survive in. That choice might have been subtle in the original vision, but each department makes it so all those elements grow and come together creatively for the sake of the world building.
A movie that makes me question the intentions or the “why” of the disgust is Damien Leone’s Terrifier 1. Specifically theres a scene that contains (in my opinion) the most gruesome kill in horror film history. So after reading the articles I kept remembering that scene, and it made me wonder more on “why”.
Week 14:
Quotes from Bogost
“It turns out we already virtualized reality without the headset and gloves.”
“CEO’s in tech know that billions of people still live much of their life beyond computer screens.”
Quote from Schlemback and Clewer
“Other than an emotional reaction, the idea is that what is produced stands outside of the ideological altogether.”
I think that throughout time there has always been a negative reaction to technology that inevitably changes the world. VR is no exception. While it has its negatives, there’s many positives to match. Either way, it’s never been about whether the new technology is good or bad, if it takes off there’s not really anything we can do to stop it. Unless consumers don’t buy into it, which has largely been true for VR since its conception. Even with most recent advancements its still yet to be something like the TV or game console, which is in most households.