Film theorists are not misguided by their own madness, and more
importantly, nor is the theory they are "inventing". Why am I saying
this -- of course film theory has to be an invention of some kind, it is
not only a relatively new mode of thinking film, it is in itself a
relatively new mode of thought. (Especially to think that film studies
has only been taught in institutions in Australia since the 70s, in
comparison to say philosophy, which is over 2000 years or the study of
Fine Arts or Literature).

Films can be understood on very many levels, technically; historically,
as part of a national cinema, culturally and politically; or
narratively; and also theorectically, through concepts that is yielded
by its cinematic form or medium, or through its images and the way they
are presented (through technical devices, as well as depending on our
individual makeup and knowledge or understanding of images -- say in
their manipulation of our perception of time, for example). It is
important thus, to have undergraduates who are studying film to be
exposed to all these different levels of understanding film  -- so that,
hopefully, their overall view of film is rich, multi-layered, passionate
and not merely formalistic.

Although I hold Roger Egbert's film criticisms in high esteem (usually),
I balked at the way he dismissed film theories involvement and more so,
their potential and vital contributions to our understanding of film.
This leaves me more shocked then Weddle's personal views -- for they are
coloured by his memory of his love of film when he was an undergraduate,
and also, by his lack of knowledge of film theory since that time -- and
why should he have followed its developments? But to openly criticise an
area in which he has no expertise, is rather like having someone read
the latest Neuroscience exam paper and rant and rave about why it is
necessary to have all these specific terms in relation to the brain, why
not merely call it the left top half of the brain or the bit of the
brain that sits on top the spine?

Film theory is a scholarly study of film. It seems that it is perfectly
normal to have a scholarly study on say Renaissance paintings, and yet,
film, as a mass entertainment, and a medium that has penetrated our
every day, is not 'fit' for scholarly activity of this sort.

But we can't forget that film and its larger embodiment, cinema, is
already a composite industry as well as discipline. The very terms that
are used by the technical side are borrowed from architecture,  and
other forms of a modernist cityscape. Just think of words like 'pan',
'tracking shot' or 'dolly'. So, it is in that same vein that film theory
should borrow from other disciplines like philosophy, where the study of
images already has a 'history'. And from words that are developed from
other cultures, I mean, no one bats an eyelid when they are talking
about a 'noir' film, or say that a David Lynch film is "so surreal!", so
why all the fuss over a word like 'mise-en-scene'?

And why attack Constance Penley? or indeed was it an attack? she'd
written the Introduction to a book called "Speaking About Godard" a few
year back. This book, I feel, is innovative and refreshing and offers
pretty significant insights to Godard's films. And I remember how her
words in the introduction haunted me as much, if not more, than the
chapters of the book (which is constructed in the manner of a dialogue
and an almost scene by scene analysis on a number of films -- like
Heidegger's "On the Way to Language", but much less ambiguous and
without the conceit -- between filmmaker Harun Farocki and theorist Kaja
Silverman). In the intro, Penley said that this book tried to capture
the essence of film as moving images, by talking about it, rather than
reducing it to still images, which is what happens if the theory becomes
too prescriptive.

I think this element is perhaps the most important one -- the
methodology of teaching film theory. How to keep the film alive, so that
it is the film that works to open up your ideas, rather than the other
way round. The latter, more often than not, reduces the film to mere
footnotes of someone's grand theory. (Perhaps that is what happened to
feminist film theory in the 70's, when everything was seen through a
psycho-analytical frame).

Just to end on personal anecdotes. I have benefited enormously in the
past couple of years, having tutored 2nd and 3rd year undergraduate
students in film theory. The semester just gone, there was a group of
about 120 to 150 students -- I'd say 95% of them were film buffs. They
were passionate about films. This was a core course for our Film Studies
major. The course was called "From Silent to Sound Cinema" and covers
the birth of cinema to Chaplin, Keaton and Griffith, to Eisenstein to
German Expressionism and ends with a return to Hollywood with "Sunset
Boulevard".

Instead of tute groups, where you'd have to do the readings each week
and then a presentation on them, (which can be quite dry). We'd devised
these workshops called Image Movement Workshops. We'd show a segment or
two of the film they had seen that week after the lecture, ( the segment
is about 2 to 5 minutes long and up to 2 to 3 times) and provide them
with a series of questions or prompts, then the assigned group will
discuss this for 10 minutes and do an oral presentation, starting with a
description of the scene. We stress that this description is not one
about narrative, but about the images -- the shot eg one shot,
long-take, close-ups etc, its composition, what kind of editing was
deployed, the gestures of the characters, their positions, the
mise-en-scene, the texture or colour of film, and sound if any etc etc.
They move swiftly onto an analysis of it, using their own intuitions and
being as creative as possible and then they have to introduce concepts
from either the reading or the lecture and I always open up the
discussion further to relations you can draw from more contemporary
works. what is so surprising is how much the students loved it. In fact,
sometimes all of them would start talking at once -- which, almost never
happens, at least not to the tute groups I've been in when I was an
undergraduate student.

And yes, certain aspects of film theory, as with any discipline that you
are serious about, requires intense reading and quiet thought and
reflection. But it is up to the institutions still, to at least point
students in the right direction, to Metz and Baudry, or Benjamin and
Kristeva or Deleuze and Bergson or  Gerbauer and Wulf or Bataille or
Virilio and Baudrillard; and, of course many others. To do this would be
to provide the students with a chance of picking up these interesting
pieces of writing and to read them -- should they be seized momentaryily
by an irrational fit of passion.

Janice


--
Janice Tong
Cinema Studies
Department of Art History and Theory
University of Sydney
Sydney  NSW  2006
Australia

Tel: 61 2 9351 7324
Fx:  61 2 9351 7323