Chapters 3 & 4
Chp 3
How does cinema reinforce the dominant ideology? What are the most important theoretical tools for analyzing cinema’s ideological function?
Dominant ideology is based on society’s standards and morals. This means that dominant ideology can change over time. Back then, it stayed similar for many years because the same group of people pushed standards for society. We can see some change today as we know better, but it can take a long time for society to fully change. Still, cinema can reinforce dominant ideology by making films that keep that standard alive. For example, feminist movements were popular in the 1970’s. People started to look at media and how women were seen, but things like the James Bond films were still made. In Film Theory: The Basics by Kevin McDonald, he says, “It is necessary to recognize that these are different dimensions, but that they are also fundamentally intertwined” (p. 107).
The book states that experimentation with film theories are needed to analyze film. An important theoretical tool that is necessary includes “[analyzing] the contradictions that help to sustain dominant ideology and its specific practices” (p. 105). This means that we have to think about things like framing in films, narrative, how the viewer is guided, etc. French theory has also been a big help in analyzing film. This goes back to experimentation. It is important to take things from French theory and mold it a bit.
Why do so many theorists stress the importance of developing a counter-cinema? What are some examples of counter-cinema and how does it engage viewers differently?
Many theorists say counter-cinema is important because it “... would serve to expand Screen’s critique of the dominant ideology” (p.108). It helps to reject typical film look and standard. Since dominant ideology in film is a way to tie society’s standards to media, counter-cinema tries to analyze that and criticize it. Criticizing it isn’t a bad thing, it helps us see a different view. This is why many theorists think it’s important.
Some examples from the book include filmmakers like Eisenstein and Vertov, where their models of film helped sort of create counter-cinema. Another example the book talks about is Newsreel, which was a leader in agit-pop style films. They used this for political activism. When it comes to films, Andy Warhol’s Lonesome Cowboys (1968) went against gender stereotypes. This can make people think differently about things we think are for either sex, meaning stereotypes and roles. When I was reading about it, it made me uncomfortable because there were a lot of heavy themes like sexual assault, but I think that’s why people make films like this.
Why do theorists draw attention to how specific groups are represented on film? How do viewers relate to these representations? How do some viewers challenge these images?
Theorists draw attention to how specific groups are represented in film because it helps to analyze society as a whole and helps to give more ideas for debating and questioning. For example, McDonald states, “Feminist film theory drew upon psychoanalysis to demonstrate how patriarchal ideology structures visual representations of sexual difference and gender norms” (p. 113). He also explains how these films were important because despite everything, women’s issues were still put behind other ones, even in groups that were supposed to help them. This made women want to make films like this to explain the issue and helped other women feel represented.
I can understand why people want to see other people like them on screen. My sister was so excited to see so many female superhero films and shows coming out recently. My sister and other girls and women can put themselves in the superhero’s shoes. It also helps that a lot of newer films try not to use too many stereotypes anymore. Ms. Marvel is a newer TV show from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It is based on a Pakistani-American teen name Kamala and she is Muslim. This means many different women and girls from both different and similar cultures have someone to look up to, which is great.
Sometimes, though, films aren’t always showing good representation. I have talked about this before, but Black Widow is a good example. In later films, she becomes more of a strong superhero who happens to be a woman, but in Iron Man 2 and even The Avengers, she is seen as more of a sexual cool woman that can beat people up. There is a big difference there and how we see her and a lot of women and girls were not happy with the portrayal at first, which makes sense. Even Scarlett Johansen came out to say something about it. I think this shows how challenging representation can be for the better. Here is a link for Scarlett’s thoughts on it: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/jun/17/scarlett-johansson-criticises-hypersexualisation-black-widow-iron-man-2
Why did Laura Mulvey’s essay, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” have such an immense impact? What were some of the specific debates that followed it?
One reason the essay had such an impact was because of the tone, as mentioned by McDonald. He says, “Mulvey is blunt and uncompromising in stating her method and her primary thesis” (p. 114). Being blunt about why she is writing her essay is important. I think it makes it easy for people to understand that way and why she’s writing the essay. For example, she writes, “It is said that analyzing pleasure, or beauty, destroys it. That is the intention of this article” (Feminist Film Theory, p. 60). It means that she isn’t putting fluff around it and wants to get to the point. This also helped feminist film theory show the other film theorists that it is just as important as other critiques.
This essay brought up a good point for theorists; “women are relegated to a subservient position within most narrative cinema” (Film Theory: The Basics, p. 114). Besides the debate about women being below men in society, it also brought up what the name of the article says: visual pleasure. This means that women are seen as below men in film, too, but they are there for the male gaze. This goes back to what I talked about before, like Black Widow in the first films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This also means that for films especially with things like male gaze, men can put themselves sort of in the shoes of the film. So that means that the film might look pleasing due to how women are shown, but it also means that men can almost pretend to be in the film for their own pleasure. This is said to be to-be-looked-at-ness. My sister also told me about the Bechdel test, which I think is interesting. I think that is relevant because it ties into the idea that a lot of women in films are for the male gaze, so it’s an interesting way to see if a film “passes” the test. This doesn’t fully mean that women won’t be there for pleasure, but I think it adds to the idea, too.
There are several brief references in this chapter to issues related to sound and voice. If film is an audio-visual medium, why is sound so often overlooked? How does sound relate to the theoretical issues that developed during this period?
One reason sound is overlooked is because it ties into the idea of symbolic castration. An example the book uses is about Singin’ in the Rain on page 121, stating, “In contrast, the fictional studio’s female star, Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen), suffers from a series of humiliations due to the fact that her voice does not match her otherwise glamorous outward appearance.” Some people might argue that because film is its own art, sound is often overlooked. It might not be seen as important to tell the story. This happens especially to background characters, or characters there just “to be there.” This happens a lot to women, people of color, and LGBT people, too.
One example of sound being related to theoretical issues is from page 131, where Trinh T. Minh-Ha states, “The notion of giving voice is so charged because you have to be in such a position that you can ‘give voice’ to other people.” This ties into not only male gaze perspective, but postcolonial theory. She also mentions that this is very father orientated, which means society still ties it into a male role (giving a voice to someone).
Chp 4
Why were film scholars wary of the influence that French Theory and Screen theory had held over the discipline? Why were subsequent debates about this sometimes contentious?
Film scholars were wary of the influence that French Theory and Screen theory had because some felt that tenets of the theories could be too vague; French Theory had ideas that were general and abstract. Also, many like Noel Carroll felt that it wasn’t really analyzing anything and more so elitist. He felt it was more speculation than anything. In Address to the Heathen, Carroll writes that film theory is, “... thoroughly confused and unconvincingly argued” (125). Another reason many were wary was because neither side of the political spectrum could fully identify into the theory. A reason debates were sometimes polarized was because of this political spectrum; both sides felt there was something wrong with the theories. Some people felt it didn’t tolerate other peoples’ viewpoints, while others thought that it didn’t dive deeper into political aspects. It was deemed too much of a theory, basically, and not a practice. The debate about the theories being too vague also caused some issues because those that supported it felt it wasn’t going to gain much by arguing about it. Those against it, like Carroll, still claimed it was too loose in thought and more of an illusion. However, I agree with our class book: “For one, the idea that theory had obtained such an exalted status is likely an exaggeration” (Film Theory: the Basics, p.158).
Why did early cinema emerge as an important topic for film studies? How did the study of early cinema intersect with both historical poetics and media archeology?
Early cinema is an important topic for film studies because we see film differently now compared to what it was in the past. For example, McDonald points out that Noel Burch and his concepts of Institutional Mode of Representation (IMR) and Primitive Mode of Representation (PMR) are important to film studies because they give a way to see their differences and how they are both important, basically; IMR is more narrative based, as PMR is more for entertainment itself (p. 162 - 163). Without PMR, we wouldn’t have IMR. McDonald also states, “... his purpose is not to dwell on its supposed deficiencies but, rather, to champion its differences and its standing as a bastion of otherness” (p. 163). Overall, it shows that there can be multiple forms of cinema, it seems. Since historical poetics is meant to analyze text and media archaeology is meant to somewhat understand new media by looking at the past, it makes sense why the three would easily mix.
How do cognitive film theorists conceptualize the spectator? How is this approach different from other, earlier assumptions about spectatorship?
Cognitive film theorists believe that the spectator is one of the main figures “in” film. McDonald states, “In early chapters of Narration, Bordwell lays out his case for recasting the film viewer as a fundamentally active figure, one whose cognitive engagement is integral to understanding how classical Hollywood cinema operates” (p. 169). What he means by this is that viewers are engaged with the process of understanding film. It is different than other theories because instead of focusing only on what a film is saying directly or indirectly, it focuses on how someone might view it. Basically, how someone might interpret the film and maybe how to show that to the audience. I think this view is important because it gives people their own perspectives, just like any other media we have.
Identify and discuss three different philosophical figures introduced into film studies during the Post Theory period. What do they add? How are they different from one another?
Vivian Sobchack is an important figure introduced. In film, she is seen as one of the first people to make phenomenology popular. To explain better, the book defines phenomenology as, “the study of consciousness as a lived, embodied experience” (p. 243). Though this was originally a philosophical area of study, it was branched out by people like Sobchack. It seems like the goal is not only making it that out of body experience, but something that the viewer and the person making the film can connect with, even though they are not connected. Gilles Deleuze is another important figure. When psychoanalysis was extremely popular, Deleuze wasn’t favored so much due to his criticisms. However, his writings gave people a lot to think about. This wasn’t his idea alone, but he helped bring it up to attention. Being someone really into art, Deleuze saw cinema as something important: “Cinema, accordingly, cannot be reduced to the mechanical reproduction of whatever lies before the camera. It, instead, is invented only with the emergence of techniques like framing, editing, and the mobile camera” (p. 181). He was able to really compare time in film to time in a philosophical space. The last person I want to talk about is Ludwig Wittgenstein. He focused on the philosophy of language. Though his philosophy could be hard to fit in with film theory, many people have tried to explain his thinking in terms of film theory. A quote from Richard Allen and Malcom Turvey’s book Wittgenstein, Theory, and the Arts, states, “theory itself is in most cases a logically inappropriate form of explanation for humanistic subject matter.” Though people may not agree with his take, it brings up a good point that film is able to take critique from multiple different paths and is really intermixed with other art forms and theories. Yes, some of these ideas may sound similar enough, but I think all of them have really different thoughts on cinema itself. The overall theme seems to be how they view cinema as a live media, almost. What I mean is how the viewer can be involved directly and indirectly in film.
Does film theory have a future? Why or why not?
Fascinating takes, Robbie! Well done! I especially appreciate your point about Mulvey's tone because she is definitely not " putting fluff around it and wants to get to the point"!!
ReplyDelete