- Perez, “In the Study of Film, Theory Must Work Hand in Hand With Criticism” (2pp)
- Bordwell, “The Viewer’s Activity” (17pp)
1) Sum up one key idea of each reading.
2) Describe each author’s method of analysis. (See below for details)
3) Every reading provides a critical tool we’ll try out on the film under discussion. So, suggest one scene from this week’s film for us to look at as a group. Explain how and why ONE (1) of these readings might be helpful or interesting to use when analyzing that scene. What questions do you think it might help answer, or what discoveries did it help you make as you watched and read? Note: you may choose a scene discussed by the author, if you can also explain what’s especially interesting about the author’s approach to that scene.
Question 2, on method, will take some thought. Consider the following as you develop your answer, but you do not need to address every one of these questions in your response.
- What aspects of the film experience is this author interested in, and why? Some examples might include: style (if so, what aspects of it?), the filmmaker’s personal biography or politics, the film’s social or historical context, intertextuality (a film’s connection with other films and images), character psychology, casting and the star system, viewers’ identification with characters, viewers’ physical experiences or psychological processes, viewers’ social background and/or identity, viewing context (films in theaters vs. dvds at home), and others.
- What kind of examples does this author use to support his or her argument? What counts as “evidence” for this author?
- What schools of thought or scholarly practice inform this author’s approach? (e.g., literary studies? psychology? filmmaking experience? history? autobiography? art history? Surrealist distraction?) The answer may not always be stated in the reading itself; in those cases, ask yourself, what other kind of writing does this sound like? What other types of writers might be interested in the same issues or examples this person uses? This also may require a quick “Google” search, to find out what this writer’s background is.
11 comments:
In the article, “In the Study of Film, Theory Must Work Hand in Hand With Criticism,” Gilberto Perez begins his article with a blast of criticism for the anti-aesthetic film theorists of the academy who seek to discredit rather than appreciate movies as art. According to Perez, “experts” from the world of film academics in the 1970’s and beyond either ignored or disparaged the work that should have provided the foundation of their understanding of film – the writings of the film critics and filmmakers that came before.
Perez describes an immature and snobbish defensiveness in film academia, and argues that this approach has resulted in an academic tradition that inappropriately and inadequately critiques the art of cinema. According to Perez, “…the study of film was established in the academy on the basis of a theory bent on debunking the art of film.” In his title and throughout, Perez argues that theory and criticism, from amateurs and academics, must collaborate to create a more intelligible and enlightening understanding of filmic art.
Perez’s ideas and methods of analysis are profoundly influenced by his own experience as a film lover and a member of academia. He talks at length of his early years learning about films from critics, journalists, and filmmakers themselves. This grounding in the love of film and a non-academic yet profoundly in-depth criticism and theory from Bazin to Infante to Kael is what attracted Perez to the study of film.
After an abortive academic start in physics, he entered the academy as a student of film and found himself confronted with an entirely different perspective on his beloved subject. This article and his philosophy on the subject are obviously built from his life experience of trying to meld the best of these two worlds.
Perez clearly loves movies and believes in the intellectual rigor of the academy, perspectives that lead him to believe that neither the classical or academic film theorists – scholars or journalists -- can afford to go it alone in the study, analysis, and illumination of film.
Perez uses the examples of specific academics, like Carroll and Bordwell, and film critics, like Bazin and Rosenbaum, to support his argument that each tradition has its strengths and weaknesses. His method is to praise the work of each individual, and then point out blind spots or areas of weakness. In this way, he seeks to bolster his argument that a wider birds-eye view of film history, theory and criticism is preferable to the within-the-box compartmentalization that developed from the academy of the 1970’s.
These ideas and this article are very much the product of a man who is a film lover, a film critic and a film scholar. His article, though written for the “Chronicle of Higher Education,” speaks to the layman as well as the academic professional. One can imagine that Dr. Perez has spent his career doing exactly what he does in this article – marshal the resources of disparate traditions to bridge divisions and find more comprehensive and productive avenues for the study of film.
A fundamental tenet of David Bordwell’s chapter on “The Viewer’s Activity,” in his book “Narration in the Fiction Film,” is that the movie spectator, “…acts according to the protocols of story comprehension which this and following chapters will spell out.” Bordwell argues that there are basic perceptual and cognitive aspects of film viewing that are distinct from a more psychoanalytic perspective on film viewing. The Wikipedia entry on Bordwell makes that even more evident by stating that, “Bordwell is considered the founder of cognitive film theory, and approach that relies on cognitive psychology as a basis for understanding film’s effects. It was established as an alternative to the psychoanalytical/interpretive approach that dominated film studies in the 1970’s and 80’s.”
Perez treats Bordwell with particular respect for his skill and credits him and others with moving away from the anti-aesthetic milieu of the ‘70’s. Perez calls Bordwell a “formalist” who utilizes the rigor of academics to build on the theories of great critics like Bazin. To Perez, Bordwell and his cognitive approach provide a brand of formality that is necessary to great film understanding and analysis.
Bordwell is obviously greatly influenced by constructivist psychological theory – that “perceiving and thinking are active, goal-oriented processes.” In this chapter, Bordwell goes into great depth about cognitive film theory and how the viewer draws inferences and engages as an active participant in the complex dance of a film and its meaning -- in contrast to the more passive psychoanalytical approach posited by earlier scholars.
Bordwell dissects films and scenes in very formal detail, describing signposts that result in viewer’s drawing conclusions and actively constructing their own version of events. Hitchcock’s “Rear Window” is a prototypical Bordwell example of how a film engages the viewer in an active role of creating meaning, solving mysteries or going astray. Mise en scene, dialogue, music, and action lead the viewer down a path of inference that is more powerful that direct narration or explanation. The many hinted uncertainties in John Ford’s “The Searchers,” seems in many ways a quintessential example of this reality.
Two situations that immediately come to mind from “The Searchers,” relate to Ethan’s relationships with Martha and Martin.
First, we catch repeated glimpses between Ethan and Martha that lead us to infer that they are or were once in love. Nobody ever says that or comments on it, but we see it in how they look at each other and in scenes such as the one where Martha quietly fondles Ethan’s coat. We can also infer who Ethan really cares about when he returns to the burning homestead screaming Martha’s name, and when he collapses in the doorway after glimpsing her massacred body. We can also see his passion in the seven-year search for her killers.
The unspoken back-story between Ethan and Martin is even more obscure, and yet also full of meaning. Ethan’s hostility for Martin is almost like that of a father who sees something in a child that he detests in himself. He obviously cares a great deal more about the boy than he is initially willing to admit to himself. What really happened when Ethan found Martin? What was Ethan’s relationship to Martin and his murdered family? The raw emotion leads the viewer to infer something more and infuses a richness to the relationship that wouldn’t exist without signposts or if explained outright. The relationship remains a mystery, but we wonder about it as viewers and our active role in this endeavor changes our experience of the film.
I would suggest a review of the scene where Martha gets Ethan's coat and says goodbye while the Reverend stands by and pretends not to notice what's going on. Obvious, perhaps, but this sequence is intensely emotional and full of pathos nevertheless. As David Lynch argues that dreams and the subconscious are powerful forces in film, John Ford demonstrates that the subtle mysteries of human relationships have a similar power. The great filmmakers don't explain everything, but they engage the viewer in a search for understanding that plays a role in the creation of great art.
Both Perez and Bordwell are encouraging an analysis of film that draws on multiple and disparate influences -- from cognitive psychology to the French New Wave -- to come up with answers and insights about the artistic medium of film. The many hints and unanswered questions in John Ford's "The Searchers," are an ideal representation of the importance of this approach. We could never fully appreciate a film like "The Searchers" without an understanding of Welles and Hitchcock and Bazin and silent films and westerns and the film theory of the academy. Thinking about these issues and this film can bring us a measure of enlightenment, and a greater appreciation for the technique and artistry of a man like John Ford.
Great filmmakers like Ford are doing things and creating art on a level they probably thought would never be noticed or fully appreciated. Academics and critics like Perez and Bordwell help us see behind the curtain and inspire future artists to build on the profound and subtle contributions of the many greats in the first century of cinematic history.
Casual viewing pales by comparison.
http://rongstadfilmstructures.blogspot.com
Christina Freiberg for 320 Blog, September 12th, 2007
Gilberto Perez, in In the Study of Film, Theory Must Work Hand in Hand with Criticism,” discusses how theory, especially ideology, is reflected onto film. Throughout the article, he discusses the history of film studies, its foundations and constant amendments to theories and criticisms. Whether it is aesthetic or anti-aesthetic experience, the academic pursuit of film often seeks to break away from capitalistic perfection and explore a theory to find what is wrong with the film (a 1970s notion of film analysis). For example, Perez cites William Rotham, a scholar from the University of Miami. It is quick to note that every person cited in the article is a film scholar/theorist, teaching at a collegiate level (with the exception of Renior and Bazin). Rotham suggests that our own ruling ideology makes the viewer understand a movie or sequence. What is inflicted on the viewer, through society’s definition of normal, creates most theories describing a film within the context of its culture. When applying a theory with criticism, a way to comprehend a film through the circumstances seen, many film scholars believe it helps one to appreciate a movie. Since the article notes the historical rises of film studies in the late 20th century, most theorist criticized historical functions within the film industry, often trying to find the most interesting factors within the art form itself.
In the Brodwell’s chapter The Viewer’s Activity (a chapter from Narration in the Fiction Film), he indulges much further in the viewer’s act of seeing. To cite one key approach of the chapter, he discusses the Constructivist theory of aesthetics. In the theory, he list three things the viewer is expected to accomplish in order to understand and interpret a movie: perceptual capacity-to see and comprehend the flicker images, prior knowledge-by using schemata to make assumptions, heighten expectations and (dis)confirm hypotheses made about the plot, and finally material and structure of the film-which contains the information to encourage the execution of the story construction activity. A film theorist from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Bordwell cites examples in how a person, if paying attention to the film, can use the images, some moving in a linear fashion, to construct a story. If something happens in the plot, whether suspense is added or a romance becomes apparent, the viewer can take the prior experience or images to construct the conclusion. By applying psychological developments within the viewer, he concludes how one would react or process a movie through the construction of a narrative.
In relation to The Searchers, one scene, when Ethan and Marty return to the Jorgeson house after a five year search for Debbie, exemplifies Bordwell’s Constructivist Theory of Aesthetics approach. By this time, they had seen Debbie, a squaw to the Chief of the Commanches, Scar. Disillusioned and defeated, Ethan has given up, returning with Marty back to a stabler lifestyle. Upon their arrival, they stumble upon the wedding ceremony of Laurie Jorgeson. When Marty sees Laurie in a wedding dress, he becomes a little perplexed. He thought that she had her unconditional love without having to utter, “I love you.” A typical male though process in matters of love. Meanwhile, Laurie, only hearing from him once, wanted the reassurance of the love and the “I love you’s” A typical female thought process in matters of love. As they reconcile and reaffirm their love, Charlie (Laurie’s fiancée), enters, declaring a fight for Laurie’s hand. The fight is civil and relatively fair. The wedding party moves outside, first to disapprove of men’s behavior, but when Charlie states it is for private issues, then the fight is encouraged. Now, the key interest of the scene is Laurie’s reaction. At first she pleads to her father and Ethan to stop the fight, which gets her no where because Ethan remarks back, “Why? You started it.” After the camera stays on Laurie’s father and Ethan to watch their reaction, it pans back to Laurie’s face, this time, she watches on eagerly and excited, and even hoping that Marty will win the fight. Her face, as she watches on from the stairs, harkens back to an early scene, when Martha sees Ethan for the first time since the Great War. Both women, confined to the house, are so mesmerized by the men they love: both drifters, unruly pariahs to the Texas society.
The scene provokes the Constructivist theory of aesthetics as Brodwell suggest. First, the viewer takes the cues of the perceptual vision, assembling the story in a chronological order to make sense of the movie. If the viewer follows closely, relying on prior knowledge, Laurie acts like Martha. When the viewer is introduced to Martha, she is eager and elated when Ethan arrives home, while standing outside the home. Her nonverbal cues, such as a loving gaze or kind gestures to make sure he is comfortable, suggest that, at one point, they were lovers, only to be separated by war and her impatience to marry and settle down (ironically she moved on to his brother).
Laurie happens to follow the same path: she has fallen in love with Marty, a nomad and outsider like Ethan. The only distinction between Laurie and Martha is Laurie patience’s to wait for Marty. When the fight occurs, she has that same intense look of affection that Martha had in the first minutes of the film. Automatically, the viewer mind’s starts to wander: did Martha love Ethan more than Aaron, only marrying the latter because he was more domestic than the traveling Ethan? Laurie seems to be exactly the same. It seems something is in the Texas water if the woman are attracted to the rebellious, free-spirited men instead of the homesteaders. Laurie is only different from Martha because she eventually rejects the Charlie, deciding to marry Marty, waiting for him when he finally comes in the last scene, while Ethan is left alone to ride away.
Gilberto Perez’s central point in his essay “In the Study of Film, Theory Must Work Hand In Hand With Criticism” is to dissolve the ostensible binary registers of an art form’s history and one’s critical analysis of that medium. As Perez submits: “Why trouble ourselves with the history if an art if we do not value the art itself […] we need critics to understand how those circumstances bear on our experiences of the art, the meaning a work carries from the tradition and situation of its making” (6). From a methodological standpoint, Perez puts forth brief and tenuous examples of both film theory and criticism, surmising that to assay a film is not to necessarily demonstrate it or its viewer’s ideological weaknesses. In contrast, Perez looks to catalogue film criticism and its exponents within a scholarly framework insofar that such criticism goes beyond what one “likes” or “dislikes” with regard to aesthetic representation.
Akin to the ideas of Perez regarding film criticism but superior in research and analysis is David Borwell’s chapter on viewer activity in Narration and Film Form. In “The Viewer’s Activity,” Bordwell invokes his own Constructivist theory of psychological activity to evidence the perceptual processes of the viewer during film narrative. Most striking is Bordwell’s take on Reid Hastie’s “Central-tendency” or prototype schemata, which details human identification and classification in accordance with some hypothesized normalcy in their own worlds. Bordwell suggests that: “Generally, the spectator comes to [a] film already tuned, prepared to focus energies toward story construction and to apply sets of schemata derived from context and prior experience […] In narrative comprehension, prototype schemata seem most relevant for identifying individual agents, actions, goals, and locales. Understanding Bonnie and Clyde involves applying prototypes of “lovers,” “bank robbery,” small town,” and “Depression era” (34). If, however, a narrative prototype does not match, or more thorny, if it contradicts one’s mundane prototype then application of Bordwell’s theory of a cinematic “Central-tendency” becomes most fascinating when unpacking aesthetic or narrative elements within a film--cross-cultural reception of an atrocity-based film representation would be my first thoughts.
Subsequently, I would like to look at the final sequence of John Ford’s film The Searchers when Ethan returns with his rescued niece and suggest that in class tomarrow we reexamine some of the claims made earlier regarding Ethan’s latent or manifest desires to replace his brother as the patriarch of the household. In one way, Ethan and Martha’s respective affects towards each other suggest sexual tension and quite possibly an immature romance between the two of them. Moreover, the editing within the first twenty minutes of the film does lend weight to one’s perception that Ethan and Martha share unfinished emotional business. However, the final sequence of Ethan approaching the house and delivering his niece back to her family speaks to a emotional finalization within his own mind that rejects the supposition made in class last week. Operating as a visual antonym to the film opening shot of the camera tracking behind Martha into the open space of the vast Texas milieu, the camera watches and subsequently retreats from Ethan as he relegates himself to the periphery of the cabin and his brother’s family. Indeed, Ethan is more than welcomed to enter the home and partake in the family’s reunion, but he does not and one wonders why? If the film’s narration is in part Ethan’s journey to retake what in theory are his wife and his family, then why does his mission end outside the cabin? To be sure, Ethan’s journey was partly one of self discovery and perhaps his decision to turn and leave is as much about why he came “home” in the first place: he can now find it within himself to forgive and move on from the perdition he was once succumbing to psychologically.
In the first reading, Gilberto Perez, a Cuban film theorist and professor at Sarah Lawrence College talks about approaching film theory. Perez explains that there are many aspects of film that deserve many complex criticisms, theory and consideration. As one reads more and more theory and criticism about film, one may not come to agree with them all as new perspectives arise and begin to conflict. Perez says that he has “various quarrels with Bazin’s criticism and serious differences with his theory, but he seems to me exemplary in the way his theory and his criticism work together.” By comparing and contrasting different view points and examples, citing mostly other film theorists, he is able to explain that considering many theories can only broaden our understanding of how film can be interpreted and understood. I also found it fascinating that he felt that criticism on one specific movie still provides something theoretical about all films in general.
In the second reading, David Bordwell writes about a spectator’s internal engagement with film known as constructivist theory. Bordwell explains that watching film is an active process and not a passive one. Sure some people tend to unwind to a movie at times but their mind is constantly at work even if they are only paying attention to the simplest levels. Bordwell breaks it down into different parts, perceptual capacity, prior knowledge with schemata and experience, and the material and structure of the film itself, all of which, when working together make a film truly sing to a spectator. Both the spectator and the film have to meet halfway in the middle and when this happens, true appreciation and enjoyment occur. The point is that when more consideration is invested within these areas of observation and cognition, the more full or thorough the viewing.
Toward the end of John Ford’s The Searchers, several levels of viewing can be obtained. With the most immediate and basic experiences one might simply recall the plot’s ending, forget the situational visuals but still walk away with a feeling of closure to wild western adventure. Along these lines one might say Ethan returns Debbie home to her family and they thank him and seem appreciative, once a problem, now solved; over and satisfied. However, taking into account more levels allows us to broaden our perspective on the very same material: Ethan is able to partially resolve his anger and prejudice in regard to his niece Debbie, a racist feeling he expressed clearly to Martin early on in the film. Considering the way in which the family returns to the house without him, he hardly seems content at the film's end though. Doing further inspection of the material in relation to historical schemata and generally known themes reflected in other works or films, his character serves as a central paradox of the West itself: the searcher explores and prepares the West for civilization, but has no desire to settle in it. Pure trailblazer. His violent ways are in fact the antitheses of a civilized culture. While the Texas community finds a catharsis by the end of The Searchers, Ethan must move on, traveling to an unknown destiny.
Gilberto Perez stated in In the Study of Film, Theory Must Work Hand in Hand With Criticism that “Criticism is the eye that perceives, the mind that apprehends, the sensibility that takes in the actual work of art.” The real premise that Perez wants people to understand is that Film is an art form. He goes into detail about how very popular and established academias have tried to explain and theorize a way to discredit the art form. The film experience should be not one of purely aesthetic form or purely non-aesthetic form, but should encompass the entirety of the medium itself. Film offers more than just a story with a beginning and an end, it can be an experiment on one of the many inputs film takes to create itself. Perez came from an instructional position of film, teaching film at Princeton. While teaching film, and while learning it, you realize how many parts make up the whole experience of the film. Perez made note that all the academic world had to say about film was how it was not an art form. “The study of film was established in the academy on the basis of a theory bent on debunking the art of film” This idea, Perez meets with a hard line answer informing current academia on how to understand film theory “We need theory to organize our observations and make sense of our experience…theory needs the test of experience” Before anyone can begin to judge or critique something, experience in that subject is needed. Once the experience of making film and understanding the skill needed to create a film is learned, then you can really make an educated critique towards any art form. The film experience is thoughtfully enjoyed more when you have other knowledge to go along with the film. Taking a film just on face value may leave you wanting more, or even confused as to what the original intent of the film was.
David Bordwell talked at length about the impact that the viewer has on his or her understanding/enjoyment of the film experience. He excellently compared the psychological processes each one of us goes through when we watch a film. The Viewer brings just as much information to the film as does the film itself. He began talking about Constructive Psychology and relating it to how a person views a film. The viewer has presupposed “assumptions which they use to construct a coherent everyday world” as tools to use when watching a movie. He notes that the ability for films and narratives to work in cinema is because the audience infers things about the subject on screen. Bordwells method of analysis is simply to allow your brain to function properly during the film, and acknowledge the vast amount of psychological processes that are going on inside your brain. Second the analysis should be to dissect each inference we have made during the film and discover why we made certain connections and how we just allowed the story line to take our thought processes a certain way. Bordwell explains there are several times in a film when the audience is left with an unresolved part of the story and automatically the brain goes to work on thinking of possible resolutions. The schemata, as he called it, are the viewers knowledge they bring with them to problem solve and understand the story line. As a filmmaker you should learn to understand the way your brain works while watching films and make sure that your story line is able to be followed; or possibly it is your intent to confuse the viewer and give them no answers until the resolution. Also making a cognitively stimulating film would be a good thing and people will want to watch your film over and over again.
Bordwell takes examples from Rear Window, by Alfred Hitchcock, to show how Jeff moves logically from one clue, or revelation to the next and after the process of hypothesizing and eliminating false leads, he comes to the conclusion Thorwald murdered his wife. Taking a step back from Bordwells reading makes you realize how much work a person actually goes through to understand and comprehend a film.
Going through the reading of David Bordwell I would like to watch the scene when Ethan and Marty have just visited Scar’s camp and have found Debbie, but they leave a little ways and don’t quick get her our of the camp. What I would like to see is what I am thinking about when watching this scene, what inferences are coming up and what hypotheses are being eliminated when we finally find Debbie.
One main point I got from Perez's article was that when film critics first started writing about film, they weren't even film experts. They all had different sorts of expertise. "amateur means lover, and by and large the professionals were not lovers of film" They were creating film theorys when they really didn't appreciate what they were viewing, and in the end created theories about what is wrong with film.
One point from Bordwell's article is that watching a film is an active experience for a viewer. By just watching a film the viewer is perceptually and cognitivly involved in the film. If there are missing plot points and things left out in the story, the viewer's mind will go right work to figure them out. Even as the viewer is watching a film the mind goes to work to try and think of whats going to happen next.
The scene I would really like to view again would be the final scene. Thinking of the process and activities my mind is going through while watching a film this scene pops out to me. It's not answered why Ethan doesn't go into the house, but I am able to figure out why he does it and make the connections of the final shot to shots earlier in the film.
In his article ‘In the Study of Film, Theory Must Work Hand in Hand with Criticism’, Gilberto Perez begins by making the argument that unless theory and criticism are together when writing about film, the argument being made will not be as coherent as when used in unison. He largely refers to the work of Andre Bazin, noting that in his work he followed a similar style of bringing theory and criticism together to make an argument. Perez writes that although he does not always agree with Bazin’s theories and criticisms, he can respect what is written due to it working together. In this article, Perez mentions film titles such as La Regle du Jeu (Jean Renoir, 1939) and Vampyr (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1932), in reference to what has previously been written about them by other film academics, as appose to looking at them in detail himself. In this article it would appear that Perez is interested in the history of film, in particular the theory and criticism. He criticises the 1970’s for lacking in film criticism saying that there was a focus on theory, but “not a theory of film, but a theory of what is wrong with film.”
In the opening of David Bordwell’s article ‘The Viewer’s Activity’ he is clearly making an argument against many film scholars, his opinion being that the viewer is never passive. Bordwell’s work is very much based on the psychological aspect of film study; he is often considered the founder of cognitive film theory. He focuses on the idea of the spectator having to actually think about what is on screen, instead of just seeing the visual and letting it flow through. Bordwell talks about the research of psychologists that went into the comprehension of stories and how viewers perceive them. Many of the points Bordwell makes are purely psychology based and he then connects it with film, therefore making the argument that there is a definite link between psychology and the study and/or theory of film.
The scene in John Ford’s The Searchers which I would like review is the opening sequence in which we see John Wayne’s character Ethan returning home. I think this sequence is a good example to relate to Bordwell’s writing that the “spectator thinks”. During this non-dialogue sequence the viewer takes in a lot of visual information and must consider all options before deciding on what one believes to be true.
Post a Comment