Andrew Responses for 1/19

Lindsey Coven

January 19, 2010

Andrew Responses

A. Preface

I learned about which theorists Andrew chose to write about and why. He discussed the two histories of film theory: Aristaro’s Storia delle teoriche del film and Agel’s Esthetique du cinema. He also introduces the difference between formative and realist theory and when each theory came into existence.

B. Introduction

The introduction discussed the definition of film theory, including the subject, method, categories of questions by film theorists, and propositions about the subject. I learned that when contrasted to film criticism, film theory makes or verifies positions about a film in both practical and theoretical terms. I found it interesting that this field of study is one in which we study because we as students want to learn about how the film process works. When I first studied film in high school my appreciation for film actually decreased because rather than evaluate the film, I wanted to just experience it. However, after being a film major at Vanderbilt, I have come to appreciate film theory much more. I still have the experience of watching the film, and although my new knowledge does not substitute for the experience itself, the knowledge does give me more access to movies. I see films in new and more intense ways because I am looking for new aspects within the field. I learned that film theory is more general than particular and that Cinema combines all films as a system with subsystem genres, or the cinematic capability for both the filmmaker and the audience. I enjoy asking a question about one film and being able to then relate that question into a larger context of films. Film theory also allows me to relate movies to other aspects of my life. Next I learned about the method of film theory, which involves comparing and contrasting ideas and categorizing theorists’ questions into the sections of raw material (the medium), methods and techniques (the creative process and the technology and economy of the production), forms and shapes (genre and audience expectation), and purpose or value (relationship to other aspects of life and the goal of the cinema to us, what the film means to mankind). I also found the transposition and interdependence of questions to be very interesting in terms of the relationships between filmmaker, spectator, sound and image, and spatial and temporal reality. I often extrapolate my questions and ideas about a film in order to generalize.

C. The Formative Tradition

These theorists were strongly against realist films and wished to give film a place with the other arts, like music, poetry and painting. I liked the line, “Cinema is photography, to be sure, but photography which has been raised to a rhythmic unity and which in turn has the power to raise and uplift our dreams,” (12). I would like to learn more about the surprising decline of this theory as sound films began to exist.

D. Realist Film Theory

The realist, or photographic, theory deals with more documentary and political type films. These theorists argue that, “the dominant fictional cinema exists like a drug, created by sorcery (the magic of the formative methods of editing, lab processes, and, above all, fabulous script), destined to lull a paying public to sleep.” Realists do not wish to compete with entertainment films, but instead wish to be the exact opposite, with reality about life. The theory also involves both aesthetics and ethics of social concern. Theorists believe that film exists to make us view the world as it is, enabling us to see our proper place in it.

E. Hugo Munsterberg

I learned about this famous theorist’s Photoplay narrative medium and how Munsterberg was first a psychologist and than film theorist. Hugo studied technology and how the public used it to enhance their viewing experiences. Andrew sums up, “It is society’s craving for information, education, and entertainment that allows cinema to exist at all,” (15). He cared more about how the audience valued a film than how a filmmaker did. He considered the mind, perception and attention very important as a raw material. I found his hierarchy of the mind’s notions and his phi-phenomenon very captivating. Technology is used to work as our minds function. I now understand that camera angles and lenses are used to simulate the eye and to incorporate our emotions. I also learned about the two sections of his book, the phenomenal and the noumenal realms. I found it interesting that he argued for the experience of viewing a film as a terminal value. He believed film was just as much of an art form as any others. “…we are content to perceive it for itself…” Lastly, I found it interesting that Andrew compared film’s potential to that of a dream world.

*Discussion points: (in more detail)

-What is the basic material of film?

-What process turns the material into something significant?

-What forms make this possible?

-What value does the entire process have in our lives?

-Why did Munsterberg refuse to allow sound, color, documentary or spontaneity in film theory?