Tuesday, January 12, 2010

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.