If we reduce a film to its textual narrative, to what it ‘says’ about its
subject matter, obviously we are deprived of some more poetic, pre-
linguistic, or dreamlike elements. The many disciplines that are used to
inform film theory/philosophy are useful insofar as they expand
possibilities rather than demand one in particular. I am reminded of a
quote from author JG Ballard: ‘Language exists less to record the actual
than to liberate the imagination.’ For a novelist, this is one thing, and
a daunting task at that. But when a filmmaker has infinite worlds he can
put before the lens, I think rules of grammar and syntax (as the
privileged creators of meaning/s) cede before the flow of images. In my
mind Decasia stands out as a non-narrative film that has meanings both
within film theory (the film about films) and film philosophy (the film
about mortality). And all this is done without uttering a single word.
I think reading film as a language is especially useful when decoding
formulaic movies, but I see no reason to elaborate the verbal algorithms
that explain why 999 out of 1000 movies have little to say aside from
selling themselves. The dialogue of a film, the story it is or isn’t
telling, is one text for linguistic approaches to analyze in accordance
with narrative structure, ideology critique, the lines between the lines,
etc. And while the imagery can be analyzed linguistically (as in ‘this’
setting was used to evoke ‘that’ feeling and this is why) I must take the
easy recourse an old cliché offers: a picture is worth a thousand words.
And sometimes I’d just rather enjoy/loathe the picture.
*
*
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.
**
|