everything is…

everything is…

make up blogs

Christie and formalism

Although intially slightly confused about this article, I found Corrigan's notes on neo-fromalism to clarify the idea quite well. The way Christie wrote made me feel a though he was conquering some sort of huge, esoteric concept that was simply too complicated for me to grasp. In reality, after reading Corrigan's work, my understanding of the concept is quite simple. It can best be defined by Corrigan's statement that formalism is “concerned with matters of structure and style in a movie, or with how these features discussed such as narrative style and mise en scene are organized in particular ways in a movie”. In other words, how film form affects film meaning.

Christie gives a good historical basis for the concept, but if I had not have the prerequisite knowledge of avant-garde art history, the background probably wouldn't have made sense to me. A good background of the information lies in Marjorie Perloff's book The Futurist Moment which describes the transformation of poetics and prose through the work of Exra Pound and Marinetti. Marinetti attempted to change language as a whole by using words based upon how they sound rather than what they mean (as demonstrated by his “Zaang Tang Tuumb”, a work mostly of nonsensical words). This idea of poetry versus prose and the meaning of language went through many stages, through the surrealists whose entire movement focused on an unconscious “automatic” writing where free idea would flow, much like dreams.

The concept of such automatic writing (and surrealism as a whole, especially montage) was the idea of viewing art as a process rather than an object. Formalism worked to accomplish this by attempting to find the meaningful within the seemingly arbitrary. From my understanding of the article, it seems as though neo-formalism was a movement of transferring this concept of formalism from a literary standpoint to one that worked in the realm of film.

Eisenstien

Eisenstein's writing on montage was very complicated to me, so I relied on my extensive knowledge of the history of montage through art (usually in the realm of painting or writing, as opposed to film). Cubists invented the concept of montage, breaking the organic nature of art through this, yet unlike later artists, cubists used montage to be avant-garde, as there was no true meaning behind the objects presented. Surrealists adapted montage, advancing it in the way I feel it is represented though film. The art of montage relies upon stripping the object of its actual meaning and assigning it a completely new meaning within its new context. I feel eisenstein expresses this the best through is saying, “from the collision of two given factors arises a concept”.

Rushdie notes

I was both surprised and amused by Rushdie's recount of The Wizard of Oz, specifically his comment that its, “driving force is the inadequacy of adults, even of good adults, and how the weakness of grown-ups forces children to take control of their own destinies, and so, ironically, grow up themselves." Interestingly enough, Dorothy was supposed to be depicted as a young child, not the sixteen year old she resembles. As I rewatched the film, which I initially dismissed as a children's film, Rushdie helped me uncover new implicit and symptomatic meanings. Having not seen the film since childhood, I now question if children's love for the film stems from their relation to the character of Dorothy as a child who both chooses her own destiny, yet still returns to the comfort of her family (something children watching the film can only dream of).

Man with a Movie Camera

Having had minimal experience with avant-garde film, I have been lucky enough to have at least a little experience on its theory and history, allowing the first viewing of this film to be more tolerable. What I found to be most interesting about the book was its narrative of the “cleansing of the bourgeois”, a concept made clear within the film upon first viewing, if you were looking for it. Seeing as though Vertov was a member of the Russian Avant Garde, and had undoubtable followed method of futurism, this simple idea makes the film more understandable and tolerable. Marinetti's futurist manifesto revolves around the idea of cleansing society of its filth. All that was old was useless, war was even viewed as a sense of hygeine. Interestingly enough, Marinetti went as far to say that when he had reached thirty, he should (essentially) be disregarded, as he would not be “avant-garde” enough in his works, and must be replaced with new authors, ideas, and theories. (He, of course, never stop publishing through his old age). This idea of futurism was focused on machinery and constant movement, as reflected within the constant movement in the film and the romanticization of the machine. I must say, my favorite tidbit was in regards to the consistent changing score throughout history, as I feel that futurism seemed to hold fast to Vertov's vision in this film. Marinetti would be proud (at least slightly!)

Schrader and notes on film noir

My tides class, freshman year, was on the genre of film noir, so this is my second time around reading this article. Schrader does an incredible job of defining exactly why I hate film noir. It is dark, wet, filled with shadows, femme fatales, hopeless past, melodramatic narrators. . . the whole thing makes me restless. Regardless, Scrader gives the most clear definition I have read to date, drawing out exactly what makes a film “noir” and using concrete examples such as Double Indemnity to bring these examples to light. Although while watching Double Indemnity the noir qualities of it are undeniable, even before reading the article. The film is dark in every which way – a feel ing truly emblematic of a noir film.

Wollen

Wollen's reading on auteur theory became useful in looking back upon films such as The Big Sleep, The Royal Tenenbaums, and Hitchcock films. Having seen many Hitchcock and Anderson films, Wollen's article drew out the idea of motif in film and how it relates to the idea of auteur theory. Although the article was a bit dense, I was able to find value in the idea of how these different codes work together in order to create one coherent whole.

Bellour

I have always been a bit of a cynic of intense literary or film analysis, feeling as though many critics assign more importance to certain aspects of an art form than was intended. While I recognize that this is always a possibility, I had difficulty even getting through the Bellour reading. I felt his analysis of these short twelve shots was overstated and too dense to even handle. While I recognize the importance of lighting, framing, etc and feel these are valid things to study and analyze, Bellour just took it too far for me to handle.

Response to the Laura Mulvey book

I've seen Citizen Kane a few times, and each time it never fails to compel me, especially the shots taken of Welles at extreme low angles within the newspaper office. It is extraordinary to me that this film, after half a century, is regarded as one of the greatest films ever made. Thus I was interested in reading Laura Mulvey's interpretation of the metaphors present within the film. One thing that she acknowledges is the absence of a typical Hollywood female lead. Although it is obvious that the film is centered around Kane, it never occurred to me that the film is constructed to avoid the accommodation of a glamorous tone. This construction also creates confusion surrounding the characterization of Kane. It is difficult to determine whether he is good or bad, as the circumstances of his childhood, can be credited to his personality disorder, yet the construction of the narrative also (through the interpretations of many) fluctuates and distorts balance. Ultimately, I do not believe the film can be defined nor placed within the boundaries of a metaphor or two. Rather, the nature of the film itself requires multiple viewings and interpretations, similar to the way one mans life cannot be summed up in a sentence. It is the unique construction of the film and the lack of the glamor effect which forces the viewer to consciously ponder the material and reach their own conclusions as to its meaning.

WIlder Interview

The interview with Billy Wilder was very entertaining and interesting. He was incredibly frank and honest when discussing behind the scenes aspects of films he had made. He seems like a character from this interview and like he has a very big personality—as I’m sure most talented directors do. A lot of what he says in the interview reminds me of the documentary short we watched in class which talked about Hitchcock and his tactics in terms of film production. Both Wilder and Hitchcock seemed to have very personal relationships with the actors who participated in their films, whether positive or negative and sometimes even both at the same time.

Auteur Theory

Wollen’s article about the Auteur theory was interesting in the way that it addressed how different European directors have been recognized and analyzed differently in accordance to their work in either Europe or the U.S. I really wasn’t aware of this phenomenon at all and was surprised when I read this. I also liked the idea that the director is not the sole author of a film. The Auteur theory seemingly opens of possibilities in terms of aspects of production.

Make up Blogs

Christie Formalism and Neoformalism

When I first read this Christie reading and when we first talked about the history of formalism and neoformalism in class, I was pretty confused. It was hard for me to think about these ideas in relation to Russian cinema. It was only after watching various movies and realizing that we always attain meaning through formal elements of film that I began to realize that this concept was simpler and more accessible than I had previously thought. One of the most important lines in Christie’s essay is that “Formalism, they believe, unlike some structuralist and psychoanalytic methodologies, crucially implies an active spectator…(Christie 62).” Christie further illustrates this point about the active spectator by talking about schemata that organizes our perceptions. These ideas allow us as viewers to watch films and simultaneously look for the elements that influence and guide our understanding. Once we find these elements in one film, it becomes easier to do the same thing with other films.

Einstein

In Einstein’s “The Cinematographic Principle and the Ideogram,” he talks about hieroglyphics as a way to introduce the reader to the idea of montage and how combining certain shots or images creates a new meaning. Einstein says that when we combine two hieroglyphs we read the combination not as their sum but as their product. He claims that “by the combination of two depictables is achieved that representation of something that is undepictable.” He says that this is montage and this is what we do in film. When we apply the film Potemkin to this same idea, we can clearly see that the juxtaposition does create a new concept of meaning, sometimes so instinctively and so seamlessly that we do not even realize that our brain is in fact drawing these connections. This reading was interesting because of the highly scientific and objective basis that Einstein assigns to a seemingly simple idea. He goes on to explain why we understand what we understand when we see what we see on film.

Schrader and Film Noir

Schrader’s work on film Noir starts by giving a brief historical background of the genre. He says that darkness and cynicism had become a major part of American films during the war but that by 1949 movies had become incredibly dark portraying American life in a negative way and in a way that they never had in the past. His article from 1972 discusses the interest in Film Noir at the time because of this renewal of themes of darkness in American films. Schrader cites four catalysts responsible for this genre’s creation and popularity. First, Schrader talks about war and post-war disillusionment, post war realism—which related to disillusionment in that now audiences wanted a more honest look at American life, The German influence, responsible for the “chiaroscuro” or shades of contrast in film noir, and the hard-boiled tradition—a way of thinking and acting that did not sugar coat or romanticize. In looking at Double Indemnity, we can clearly see evidence of Schrader’s point that film noir id not about conflict resolution but a certain mood. In Double Indemnity, we do not get the happy ending or the conflict resolved, but instead are left with a dark and brooding feeling and an almost complete lack of resolution. This film which is stylistically and substantially film noir, presents a cynical view of American life seemingly making the point that there is no way out of misery beside inevitable death.

Psychoanalysis

This excerpt talks about the ways in which psychoanalytic film theory from is expanded upon and changed used in different ways than it was in the past and applied to different, more specific fields. The article discusses the use of Freud’s castration theory and fetishism as it is applied to race relations and colonization. The article also discusses queer writings and theory and the way that psychoanalytic theory is used for “against the grain readings.” Although psychoanalytic film theory of the 1970’s focused somewhat exclusively on the gaze and in Mulvey’s work, on the gaze that men enact upon women, these theories have been rearranged and reconstructed in order to apply to more distinct and selective categories and areas of academic study.

Citizen Kane is such an astonishing portrait of a man. What is so interesting about this portrait is that our protagonist, the main character, who is described as larger than life in the reading, is almost villified. His behavior is reprehensible throughout the film, especially his behavior toward his wives. It is interesting how the author points out that there is no glamorous female in the film, she mentions that this may be because the cinematographer was not a "glamour" shooter. Still, by making the wives seem almost plain it makes Kane seem even still larger. No one can subvert him, no one can make him love... he is an untouchable figure.