Kaitlen Lee Journal Notes: week one

Kaitlin Lee
Andrew Notes week 1

This introduction functions just as an introduction should. It explains that filmmakers and viewers can gain a greater appreciation through film studies. It also defines film theory as a rational, broad undertaking that relates cinema to the world as a whole, differentiating it from film criticism, which is more subjective and focuses on single films or directors.
The basic components of film theory are also outlined. Film theory focuses on questions concerning the raw materials, methods, forms and purpose of film. Questions in film theory are organized from detailed to broad-based, and the author, Andrew, note that film question theories are often interdependent and can be transposed to fit different perspectives.
One thing I found interesting about this chapter was Andrew’s assertion that American film studies tends to be skewed towards auteur study. Looking back at the film class I took last semester (125), I can definitely see the way that Americans study film focusing on “worthy” films by auteur directors, and I honestly thought that was what film studies as a whole was. I wonder if film studies in other countries, particularly those with radically different cultures than America, is more like film theory, focused on the big picture of cinema and how films relate on a global scale.
This chapter provides a broad overview of film theory’s early history. I didn’t realize how simultaneous film and critical writings about the new medium were created. Andrew references the essayists whose first theories were like birth announcements for film, which reminds me of the Munsterburg readings, in which he repeatedly asserts that film is an art form and fends off criticisms.
I knew that France and Germany produced extremely influential films in the art form’s infancy, but I was not aware of Russia’s importance. I didn’t know they had a state film school in 1920, which seems pretty remarkable. As far as questions go, I don’t understand why formative film theory declined as sound came to prominence. I would think that it would start off a new string of formative debates.
Realist film theory is discussed in this chapter, as well as its difference between realist and formative film theory. Realist films tend to focus on reality and showing the world the way it is. However, the idea that realist films were used as advertisements, for political purposes, and to create a “cinema with a conscience truth”, makes it seem like they are tools of bias, not reality. I’m not sure how realist filmmakers balance political leanings with an allegiance to reality, as Andrew says about Bazin and Kracauer. I also question what a film with an “allegiance to reality” even looks like. Does it depict people doing everyday tasks from an objective, perspective with documentary-style camera action? Or can realist films be more subjective?

Munsterburg was a neo-Kantian philosopher and his opinions and knowledge of philosophy really affected his theory of film. I was surprised to learn that he only watched movies for ten months before writing Photoplay, and that he didn’t think much of the addition of sound to film, since it didn’t stimulate the mind in a differently than film without sound.
He considered the different functional levels of the brain, how motion is the most basic level of mental comprehension. His idea of the relationship between the mind and film was unlike anything I had ever considered. When I watch a great movie, an “aesthetic object”, I do feel like the experience, on some level, transcends self-interest. However, I still am kind of unclear on the difference between the phenomenal and noumenal aspects of film. I think that the phenomenal world, since it is described as having to do with science, relates more to reality. The noumenal aspects of film seem to do with form and function, but I don’t really know exactly how they relate to phenomenal aspects.