Hi Mike!
Youīve got an interesting project!
I donīt know much about Schrader and Perniola, but since I am from the Philosophy camp I want to say something about the notorious term "transcndental". If you want to reinterpret the term "transcendental" I think you should work a bit on Immanuel Kant, because thatīs where this stuff comes from.
In the "Critique of Pure Reason" what the conditions of the possibility of experience are. In other words: he asks what necessary conditions there are for having experience at all. Itīs a bit like the question of what things you need in order to make a film.
If you interpret the term this way youīre asking either a) for the necessary conditions that make up cinema (fundamental elements of cinema) or b) for a cinema that expresses these transcendental conditions of experience of human beings. I think the latter is more interesting and more in your line of interest.
You want to apply the term "transcendental style" to the question of Perniola. What Perniola asks for, as you quote him, is a cinema (or a film) "that would comprehend and co-ordinate writing, vision, listening, event and spatiality". In other words, he asks for a film that combines the different modes human beings have for expressing themselves: writing (or better: written and spoken language; for millenia the first-order way of thinkers to express thoughts) and vision (photographs, moving pictures, painting = visual arts; a way of expressing thoughts that still is underrated). And where do human beings express themselves? Sure, in time and space (take a look at the transcendental aesthetics in the "Critique"). This is why Perniola cites "Event and Spatiality". Events take place in time, at a certain moment and they take place somewhere (in space).
Therfore what you have to do is develop criteria for what is to be considered as transcendental style. Itīs not about film being realistic or expressionistic, itīs about film expressing the different, fundamental and therefore transcendental, ways human beings can express themselves.
The spiritual/ religious interpretation you want to refute is, I think, based on a misuse of the term "transcendental". Kant wanted to disstinguish his term "transcendental" from the term "transcendent". Transcendent is what transcends your experience, the abilities of your mind/ reason, while "transcendental" refers to the things that constitute reason and also defines its bounds. if youīre philosophizing in a transcendent way (and not in a transcendental way :-) ) you are speculating. You could base your critique of the spiritual/ religious use of the term on the argument that it is being misused.
You should make more clear what exactly you want to do. At the end of your posting aou are talking about the interpretation of films by spectators. I think with this you enter a new domain of research.
In the paragraphs before I thought you were talking about how films should be made in order to satisfy certain requirements (the requirements of transcendental style). Now youīre talking about the interpretation of films. Sure the film and its interpretation have something to do with each other, but for your diss I think you should separate the two.
"Waking Life" (Linklater, 2001) and "Hero" are also very interesting philosophical ( and transcendental :-) ) films.
I hope my remarks have been of some help and that I donīt have written too much junk here. I wish you good luck with your project. I think you will do fine :-)
Philipp Schmerheim
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:58:48 +0000
> From: Mike Ashcroft <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Request for help - Transcendental Style in Cinema
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am an undergraduate student, and have just finished my second year at the
> University of Central Lancashire. I am in the process of preparing my third
> year dissertation, and wondered whether anybody could offer me some
> assistance.
>
> My essay has the working title - 'Re-interpreting Transcendental Cinema'.
>
> Here are my initial thoughts on the subject:
>
> In 'The Myth of Total Cinema', Bazin states that the purpose of the
> invention of cinema was to provide an accurate mirror of reality, and this
> has not yet been achieved. Therefore, we have not yet reached the 'birth' of
> cinema.
>
> In 'Art and its shadow: Towards a Philosophical Cinema', Mario Perniola
> states that, "The question of the relation between cinema and philosophy
> underlies the entire history of the cinema." He asks the question, "Can
> cinema create a total philosophical work that would comprehend and
> co-ordinate writing, vision, listening, event and spatiality?" He suggests
> this hasn't been achieved yet.
>
> I would like to state that Transcendental Style has the potential to do just
> that, therefore 'bypassing' the 'birth' of cinema - ultimate realism.
> Transcendental Style can offer more than perfect realism. I intend to
> discuss Paul Schrader's seminal work on the subject, and consider a less
> spiritual/religious interpretation of the term 'Transcendental'. I hope to
> approach it from the more everyday definition - "not based on experience,
> intuitively accepted, innate in the mind". In real terms, looking at
> 'ambiguous' films whose depth of meaning are far greater than their content.
> People can read into the film as they please, as their culture suits them.
> It can be relevant to everybody.
>
> I'd like to suggest that this platform could produce an answer to Perniola's
> question. I would go on to analyse several films with this outcome in mind.
>
> Perhaps start with analyses by the method of Schrader, followed by analyses
> informed by Perniola of:
>
> Stalker (Andrey Tarkovsky, 1979)
>
> Au Hasard Balthazar (Robert Bresson, 1966)
>
> And finish with contemporary situation - have we reached Perniola's 'total
> philosophical work'? Use analyses of:
>
> Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter... and Spring (Kim di-Kuk, 2003)
>
> Japon (Carlos Reygadas, 2001)
>
> Uzak (Nuri Bilge Ceylan, 2003)
>
> If anyone has any suggestions at all, I would be most grateful.
>
> Thank you for your time,
>
> Mike Ashcroft
____________________________________________________
Aufnehmen, abschicken, nah sein - So einfach ist
WEB.DE Video-Mail: http://freemail.web.de/?mc=021200
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|
