Monday, September 14, 2009

Ian Christie Reading...

I agree with Caroline's posting! I felt that though Ian Christie was giving explanation to his findings, without actually having evidence in front of me to go by it made the points he was trying to get across that much harder for me to understand. Having the "B&T" as a secondary source also helped my understanding about Neo-Formalism as it has "aged" and matured. “B&T” do a much better job of looking into the schema of involving the poetics of cinema. The point I felt Christie hit on best was when he said; "formalism, they believe...crucially implies an active spectator, and to supply this important subject..." and the goes into referencing Bordwells "constructivist theory". I thought that he was absolutely right when he mentioned that linking one's perception and cognition were essential to the understanding of Neo-Formalism. Speaking about Formalism, I thought it was interesting that Christie talked about Eikhenbaums “attempt to answer the question of: what links film phrases?” One of the main differences I took in the difference in Formalism v. Neo-Formalism, was formalism suggest that the viewer is prompted to supply “links” through internal speech by gaining knowledge out of what is implied. Overall I took a pretty good understanding from Christie’s reading, but would love to hear what everyone else thought.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.